Silverstein on contract situation

[texaspackerbacker]

Raji strikes me as a guy who absolutely has the ability and talent to be an elite, top NT in the NFL, but feels like he is already good enough and isn't willing to put forth the extra work and effort that it would require to reach that level.

I freely admit this is based on my own opinion and speculation -- nothing that I've heard.

When I look at Raji, I don't see toughness. I see a guy with a big gut getting by on finesse. I don't think he is worth what it will take to re-sign or extend him. In short, Raji sure ain't Reggie, not even close.

 

[adambr2]

So Flacco has signed for 6 years/$120.6M. What's the market on Rodgers then? 7 years/$141M?

Probably best to do it now rather than wait. The price isn't going down from here.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So Flacco has signed for 6 years/$120.6M. What's the market on Rodgers then? 7 years/$141M?

Probably best to do it now rather than wait. The price isn't going down from here.

What matters most is the signing bonus and the guarantee...we await details.

 

[FrankRizzo]

So Flacco has signed for 6 years/$120.6M. What's the market on Rodgers then? 7 years/$141M?

Probably best to do it now rather than wait. The price isn't going down from here.

8 years, $150 million, ($60 million guaranteed).

 

[adambr2]

What matters most is the signing bonus and the guarantee...we await details.

True but status-wise, and hierarchy-wise, I think it matters to them what the per-year average is. It's no coincidence that Flacco received $20.1M per year average when the previous high was $20m. So I think the benchmark Rodgers will be looking for is at least $20.2M.

 

[adambr2]

8 years, $150 million, ($60 million guaranteed).

Guarantee looks about right, but the per year average on that is "only" $18.75M. I don't think Rodgers' will accept less than Flacco's per year average on an extension.

 

[ExpatPacker]

Guarantee looks about right, but the per year average on that is "only" $18.75M. I don't think Rodgers' will accept less than Flacco's per year average on an extension.

I hope Rodgers does, because quite frankly 20 million $ per year for a QB even of Rodgers' caliber means the Packers will lose some important players to FA, and I hope Rodgers realizes that. Flacco's contract is way over the top. He's worth about 16-18 mill IMO, with 18 mill being a bit of a stretch.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

I hope Rodgers does, because quite frankly 20 million $ per year for a QB even of Rodgers' caliber means the Packers will lose some important players to FA, and I hope Rodgers realizes that. Flacco's contract is way over the top. He's worth about 16-18 mill IMO, with 18 mill being a bit of a stretch.

Rodgers is worth considerably more than Flacco or anybody else. Pay the man what he wants - and hope he likes Green Bay enough to not get too outlandish about it. What you say is true, and I hope Rodgers sees it that way too. But the bottom line is, HE IS THE ONE PLAYER WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE.

 

[HardRightEdge]

8 years, $150 million, ($60 million guaranteed).

I seriously doubt the guarantee will go above $50 mil.

 

[ivo610]

Rodgers on his contract in the fall of 2011

“It’s not something I think about. We were so blessed to be able to have that contract done in 2008. We knew at the time that was more money than I ever could have imagined signing for, and it was a no brainer for me. But we knew if I performed the way I felt I was capable of performing, that by league standards that by the time I got into my third or fourth or fifth season, that I’d be underpaid by league standards.

“But I don’t look at it that way. I look at it as I’m fortunate to make the kind of money I make and be in the situation I’m in and be with the Packers’ organization. I want to retire as a Packer. They know that, the fans know that, my teammates know that, and this is where I want to be. I’m not worried about (a new contract). We’re still a few years away from me completing this deal, and whenever it comes time to make a new deal, I’m looking forward to maybe signing my last deal, playing it out, and retiring.”

 

[ivo610]

I hope TT looks Rodgers in the face and sincerely tells him, "any money you leave on the table will be put towards assisting this team building a winner."

Rodgers wants a certain player on the team or an upgrade at a position? Then leave $ on the table to be able to do that. He signs for $15 mil a year and I will be in 7th heaven.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

I hope TT looks Rodgers in the face and sincerely tells him, "any money you leave on the table will be put towards assisting this team building a winner."

Rodgers wants a certain player on the team or an upgrade at a position? Then leave $ on the table to be able to do that. He signs for $15 mil a year and I will be in 7th heaven.

Amen to both of your posts, ivo. Rodgers should be treated like the best player in the NFL, which he absolutely is. That doesn't necessarily mean beating the over-top-contracts some teams foolishly pay, but it does mean paying him every dollar he wants, hoping and praying he is levelheaded enough to see like you said in your post.

 

[TJV]

I heard Wilde talk about Flacco’s deal and its impact on Rodgers’ deal this afternoon. He said Brees got $40M guaranteed so he was surprised it looks like Flacco got about $52M guaranteed. But then he also made a point that I’m sure has been made here before. It’s not just the guaranteed money that matters and the entire contract almost never matters because players very seldom see the money in the last year or two of mega deals. The player is either on his way to another team or the team restructures the deal for cap savings. So IMO it makes sense to look at 3 or at most 4 years of a deal when comparing them because the player is really only assured of collecting his salary (and guaranteed money of course) until it makes sense for the team to take on the salary cap hit for waiving him. (Unless he suffers a career altering or ending injury.)

Wilde said the first three years of Brees’ 5-year $100M deal will pay him about $60.5M while Flacco’s deal pays him a little more than $61M for the first three years. So if Rodgers wants to give the Packers a break, he will “settle” for $1 more than Flacco’s deal during the first three years. And the Packers can “puff up” Rodgers deal by adding a 7th year (if the league allows) and an outrageous salary in the last year that both parties know he’ll never receive. Those hoping Rodgers accepts substantially less than Flacco or Brees will likely be disappointed.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

I heard Wilde talk about Flacco’s deal and its impact on Rodgers’ deal this afternoon. He said Brees got $40M guaranteed so he was surprised it looks like Flacco got about $52M guaranteed. But then he also made a point that I’m sure has been made here before. It’s not just the guaranteed money that matters and the entire contract almost never matters because players very seldom see the money in the last year or two of mega deals. The player is either on his way to another team or the team restructures the deal for cap savings. So IMO it makes sense to look at 3 or at most 4 years of a deal when comparing them because the player is really only assured of collecting his salary (and guaranteed money of course) until it makes sense for the team to take on the salary cap hit for waiving him. (Unless he suffers a career altering or ending injury.)

Wilde said the first three years of Brees’ 5-year $100M deal will pay him about $60.5M while Flacco’s deal pays him a little more than $61M for the first three years. So if Rodgers wants to give the Packers a break, he will “settle” for $1 more than Flacco’s deal during the first three years. And the Packers can “puff up” Rodgers deal by adding a 7th year (if the league allows) and an outrageous salary in the last year that both parties know he’ll never receive. Those hoping Rodgers accepts substantially less than Flacco or Brees will likely be disappointed.

Am I overlooking something? If a guy is young enough - like Brees, Flacco, or Rodgers, why wouldn't the last year or two of a mega-contract be relevant? I can't imagine Aaron Rodgers "on the way to another team" or "a prime candidate for restructuring" in 5 or 6 years. Barring injury or something really weird, he should still be at the top of his game then.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Am I overlooking something? If a guy is young enough - like Brees, Flacco, or Rodgers, why wouldn't the last year or two of a mega-contract be relevant? I can't imagine Aaron Rodgers "on the way to another team" or "a prime candidate for restructuring" in 5 or 6 years. Barring injury or something really weird, he should still be at the top of his game then.

In 2016, the cap hit on this deal by one estimate is about $29 mil; in 2017 it will be $31 mil. If that's correct, this contract is designed to be renegotiated before then.

As far as the reported $52 mil guarantee, we'll see if more details are forthcoming. I'm seeing reports of bonuses starting year 2 tied to avoiding injury...that's not consistent with that guarantee figure.

According to one breakdown, the first 3 years of the deal + a bonus in year 4 (roster?) total $52.5 mil. If so, that's probably not all guaranteed, but you could figure that's the practical value of the deal...3 years / $52.5 mil. Again, more clarification is needed.

If Flaco fails to climb to elite status or fails to make a SB return, he won't touch elite money again after 2015.

This all begs the question...if SF had managed to get 5 yards in 3 plays, in which Flaco had no involvement, what would this contract look like? Less like extortion, one would suppose.

 

[TJV]

Here’s what Brees’ contract was reported to be: $37 million signing bonus and $3 million first-year base salary in 2012, $9.75 million in 2013, $10.75 million in 2014, $18.75 million in 2015 and $19.75 million in 2016. That’s $7.4M per season cap hit from the signing bonus plus the annual salaries. Say for example the Saints want to save some money on the cap in 2015 because they want to reduce the $26M cap hit for that season. They owe him $38.5M for the last two years of the deal so if they extend his deal in 2015 by two years and pay him a $30M signing bonus in 2015 and a $1M salary, their cap hit goes from $26M to just under $16M for 2015. And Brees makes sure the revised contract pays him more than the $38.5M he was going to make in those two years. The problem with doing this is it increases the cap hit going forward.

Remember how many times Favre re-did his deal after signing the 10-year $100M contract in 2001? Each time he received more money in signing bonus to reduce the cap hit.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here’s what Brees’ contract was reported to be: $37 million signing bonus and $3 million first-year base salary in 2012, $9.75 million in 2013, $10.75 million in 2014, $18.75 million in 2015 and $19.75 million in 2016. That’s $7.4M per season cap hit from the signing bonus plus the annual salaries. Say for example the Saints want to save some money on the cap in 2015 because they want to reduce the $26M cap hit for that season. They owe him $38.5M for the last two years of the deal so if they extend his deal in 2015 by two years and pay him a $30M signing bonus in 2015 and a $1M salary, their cap hit goes from $26M to just under $16M for 2015. And Brees makes sure the revised contract pays him more than the $38.5M he was going to make in those two years. The problem with doing this is it increases the cap hit going forward.

Remember how many times Favre re-did his deal after signing the 10-year $100M contract in 2001? Each time he received more money in signing bonus to reduce the cap hit.

In your example, it's important to note that the remaining dead cap money for 2015/2016 years does not go away in a renegotiation...$15 mil in dead cap has to be carried forward into the renegotiated 4 year deal.

Two points:

It's gotten to where elite players make at least half their money over their careers in signing bonuses via serial re-negotiations.

Some owners are banking on a big bump in salary cap come 2015 when the new TV contract monies start coming in. This new CBA gave the players a bigger chunk of the TV money...about 60%...than they'd seen in the past.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

All I can say is that Rodgers and probably Brees and maybe Flacco will still be good enough and in demand enough toward the end of those type contracts that the restructuring would be more of a "pretty please help us out" thing than a "take it or leave it" thing.

 

[TJV]

... the restructuring would be more of a "pretty please help us out" thing than a "take it or leave it" thing.

Two points: First restructuring allows the team to acquire and/or retain other players improving the player’s chances of winning a championship and second, restructuring helps the player out financially. It pays him money he would have received in the future in the present and turns non-guaranteed money into guaranteed money.

It’s similar to if you were in a job with shaky job security and the boss came to you in March and said he wanted to pay you your year-end bonus now. You would be helping out the company by accepting money in the company’s fiscal year ending in March, but you certainly aren’t making a sacrifice. Making analogies from pro sports compensation to “real” life is tough so this one isn’t great but I think it conveys the basic idea.

In my Brees example above do you think the Saints would have to say ‘pretty please’ if they approach Brees’ agent with a deal to replace two years of salary at $38.5M with $40M+ in guarantees? ‘Please can we pay you more money and guarantee it?’ And how do you think Brees’ agent would react?

 

[texaspackerbacker]

Two points: First restructuring allows the team to acquire and/or retain other players improving the player’s chances of winning a championship and second, restructuring helps the player out financially. It pays him money he would have received in the future in the present and turns non-guaranteed money into guaranteed money.

It’s similar to if you were in a job with shaky job security and the boss came to you in March and said he wanted to pay you your year-end bonus now. You would be helping out the company by accepting money in the company’s fiscal year ending in March, but you certainly aren’t making a sacrifice. Making analogies from pro sports compensation to “real” life is tough so this one isn’t great but I think it conveys the basic idea.

In my Brees example above do you think the Saints would have to say ‘pretty please’ if they approach Brees’ agent with a deal to replace two years of salary at $38.5M with $40M+ in guarantees? ‘Please can we pay you more money and guarantee it?’ And how do you think Brees’ agent would react?

Yes but ....... then those last two years ARE relevant because they are the basis for the advantageous or "pretty please" restructuring. What if, for example, Brees was a few years older, slightly diminished skills but still decent/adequate? or to take a similar example, the current Finley situation? Then you have the situation you mentioned - the last year or two is not likely to get paid anyway. But with a still in his prime superstar - Rodgers, probably Brees, maybe Flacco - after a 5 or 6 year contract, then one way or the other, that big money of the last couple years gets paid to them because it's unthinkable to lose them at that point.

 

[jetfixer]

When I look at Raji, I don't see toughness. I see a guy with a big gut getting by on finesse. I don't think he is worth what it will take to re-sign or extend him. In short, Raji sure ain't Reggie, not even close.

Hi guys, first time poster.
I like Raji, but he hasn't proved to me to be a big buck guy. I'm not crazy about to huge unathletic guys we have on a whole.

 

[TJV]

… then those last two years ARE relevant because they are the basis for the advantageous or "pretty please" restructuring. … But with a still in his prime superstar - Rodgers, probably Brees, maybe Flacco - after a 5 or 6 year contract, then one way or the other, that big money of the last couple years gets paid to them because it's unthinkable to lose them at that point.

Again, it’s not a “pretty please” restructuring – not sure what about that you still don’t understand. Also the last couple years of these mega deals don’t matter when comparing contracts because those deals won’t be in effect then anyway. My example of Brees was just that, an example. Players don’t always get the full value of the balance of their deals. Yesterday Wilde made the point that Favre was a rare example of a player actually receiving the majority of a mega deal. Wilde says Favre actually received more than $95M of that $100M, 10-year contract he signed with Green Bay, counting his compensation from the Jets and Vikings. But he signed a new deal with the Vikings.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The excruciating details of Flaco's deal, including the complex option structure:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/A-comprehensive-look-at-Joe-Flaccos-contract.html

"Extremely high cap numbers in the later years of such a lucrative deal are unavoidable with the signing and option bonus structure. Flacco should be secure for the first three years of his contract regardless of how he performs. The Ravens would have $29.4 million of dead money in 2015 if they released him instead of paying the $7 million option bonus or non-exercise fee. He could be vulnerable during the remaining contract years because his dead money in each of these years is less than his cap number."

 

[texaspackerbacker]

Again, it’s not a “pretty please” restructuring – not sure what about that you still don’t understand. Also the last couple years of these mega deals don’t matter when comparing contracts because those deals won’t be in effect then anyway. My example of Brees was just that, an example. Players don’t always get the full value of the balance of their deals. Yesterday Wilde made the point that Favre was a rare example of a player actually receiving the majority of a mega deal. Wilde says Favre actually received more than $95M of that $100M, 10-year contract he signed with Green Bay, counting his compensation from the Jets and Vikings. But he signed a new deal with the Vikings.

I don't think we are disagreeing on the facts, just what to call it. I would suggest that whenever a "still in his prime" player gets a contract that doesn't take him past his prime, he will indeed get that big back end of the deal - barring injury or unforeseen drop-off. Your premise of the last year or two not meaning much applies to older fading players or those who turn out for one reason or another to be disappointments. Rodgers, probably Brees and Flacco, IMO are young and good enough that if there is any restructuring at the end, it will incorporate the huge money - same as what you cited about Favre.