Smith has ballpark figures for a new deal (Jason Peters' new deal)

[LatinMind]

Jason Peters was signed by the eagles at an avg of 10 mil per season.

Thats a good thing because it wont break the Cowboys

 

[Nova]

Smith and Peters were both on the same level last year but Peters is 32 with a recent Achilles injury and Smith just turned 23. On top of that, he's going into his 4th year in the league, meaning he's experienced, but still young enough to have about 6-8 years of prime years with peak play.

Smith is probably going to cost considerably more.

 

[casmith07]

Extend him for 7 years, $70M.

 

[dbonham]

Extend him for 7 years, $70M.

Will be over 100 mil

 

[theSHOW]

Extend him for 7 years, $70M.

wishful thinking. Try 13 mil at 6 years ($78 m). And Smith will want to have his last contract at an age of 29-30

 

[casmith07]

wishful thinking. Try 13 mil at 6 years ($78 m). And Smith will want to have his last contract at an age of 29-30

I'm okay with that. He's a left tackle. They don't grow on trees. Especially with the body of a Greek god.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

With his age, durability, and GM he will break the record for a lineman

 

[dmq]

Have you added a Jerry tax to these numbers yet?

 

[AbeBeta]

Smith is not taking a deal for more than 5 years. At his age you do not take a deal that puts you in FA again when you are 30. Also, whatever we do is going to be as an extension to his present contract so those 5 years would be 2015-2019. He'll be 29 at the end of it.

5 years 70 mill -- a thick bonus and a high guaranteed salaries in 2015 and 2016 with some voidable (i.e., fake) years tacked on to the end after we convert salary to bonus in 2016

 

[casmith07]

Smith is not taking a deal for more than 5 years. At his age you do not take a deal that puts you in FA again when you are 30. Also, whatever we do is going to be as an extension to his present contract so those 5 years would be 2015-2019. He'll be 29 at the end of it.

5 years 70 mill -- a thick bonus and a high guaranteed salaries in 2015 and 2016 with some voidable (i.e., fake) years tacked on to the end after we convert salary to bonus in 2016

We should just let him go now before he breaks the bank.

 

[Hoofbite]

Smith is not taking a deal for more than 5 years. At his age you do not take a deal that puts you in FA again when you are 30. Also, whatever we do is going to be as an extension to his present contract so those 5 years would be 2015-2019. He'll be 29 at the end of it.

5 years 70 mill -- a thick bonus and a high guaranteed salaries in 2015 and 2016 with some voidable (i.e., fake) years tacked on to the end after we convert salary to bonus in 2016

So years 6,7,8,9 would be "fake"?

You just let a 29 year old RT go?

I don't think it would b wise to write "fake" , "tack on" years into his contract. He's young enough to where you want him around and those "fake" years need to be real.

 

[WoodysGirl]

 

[AbeBeta]

So years 6,7,8,9 would be "fake"?

You just let a 29 year old RT go?

I don't think it would b wise to write "fake" , "tack on" years into his contract. He's young enough to where you want him around and those "fake" years need to be real.

You don't understand contracts.

It is common practice to tack years on to a deal to spread out the cap hit. Those years are usually voidable and therefore "fake."

Let me spell it out - you can only spread bonus over 5 years. If you sign a guy to a 5 year deal with the 2nd year designed as a planned restructure you will almost always be tacking on a voidable year at the end to allow you a full five years to spread the cap hit coming from converting salary to bonus.

 

[AbeBeta]

So years 6,7,8,9 would be "fake"?

I don't think it would b wise to write "fake" , "tack on" years into his contract. He's young enough to where you want him around and those "fake" years need to be real.

On to destroying your 2nd point.

No player at Smith's age is going to lock up for a deal that puts him back in free agency at 33 as your 6-9 years would suggest.

 

[Hoofbite]

You don't understand contracts.

It is common practice to tack years on to a deal to spread out the cap hit. Those years are usually voidable and therefore "fake."

Let me spell it out - you can only spread bonus over 5 years. If you sign a guy to a 5 year deal with the 2nd year designed as a planned restructure you will almost always be tacking on a voidable year at the end to allow you a full five years to spread the cap hit coming from converting salary to bonus.

No. I get it. You sign a guy for 5 years and use smoke and mirrors but still only get 5 years of play out of him.

Smith likely has much more than that.

That's why it would be stupid to write "fake" years in any fashion.

 

[Nation]

You don't understand contracts.

It is common practice to tack years on to a deal to spread out the cap hit. Those years are usually voidable and therefore "fake."

Let me spell it out - you can only spread bonus over 5 years. If you sign a guy to a 5 year deal with the 2nd year designed as a planned restructure you will almost always be tacking on a voidable year at the end to allow you a full five years to spread the cap hit coming from converting salary to bonus.

You wouldn't do this with a guy if there is a chance of signing him to a 3rd contract, because the voidable years create an astronomical franchise cap figure as was the case for why the Cowboys couldn't tag Romo if the wanted to.

 

[Hoofbite]

On to destroying your 2nd point.

No player at Smith's age is going to lock up for a deal that puts him back in free agency at 33 as your 6-9 years would suggest.

I'm on the phone so I've tried to be brief.

I never said sign 6-9 year contract. I was assuming those would register to you as the "fake" years from restructuring during years 2-5.

And that's my point. Any years added through restructuring should not be "fake" because Tyron is young enough to play them in his prime.

 

[AbeBeta]

No. I get it. You sign a guy for 5 years and use smoke and mirrors but still only get 5 years of play out of him.

Smith likely has much more than that.

That's why it would be stupid to write "fake" years in any fashion.

You are not understanding what I wrote.

1. Year two you tack on an additional voidable year to spread out bonus - you potentially do that year 3 as well.

2. A 23 year old is never going to sign an extension that takes him past 30 for his next trip to UFA -- that would be a colossally stupid move in terms of future $.

 

[AbeBeta]

You wouldn't do this with a guy if there is a chance of signing him to a 3rd contract, because the voidable years create an astronomical franchise cap figure as was the case for why the Cowboys couldn't tag Romo if the wanted to.

Romo had an astronomical franchise cap figure because QBs have astronomical franchise cap figures.

 

[AbeBeta]

I'm on the phone so I've tried to be brief.

I never said sign 6-9 year contract. I was assuming those would register to you as the "fake" years from restructuring during years 2-5.

And that's my point. Any years added through restructuring should not be "fake" because Tyron is young enough to play them in his prime.

And Tyron and his agent are smart enough to insist on voidable years.