|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on May 9, 2012 22:27:24 GMT
Going by other offers where we pay for what the player is, I am paying for a backup QB that might no see the field through the entire contract length. It would be silly to give him money that Top performers get at other positions when he gets 0
I am inclinded to say 900k as a good offer
|
|
|
|
Post by Bengals GM (Darryl) on May 9, 2012 23:57:48 GMT
But he isn't a starter, he is a backup with limited experience. Very few backups in the league are paid $1m I think most of those who aren't few are those who go from team to team...or if you will, teams that take advantage of the back-up market from year to year for the most part...teams on the other hand that understand the importance of having a quality back-up pay at least near double that amount. Some differences that may occur is that real teams will sign these players from 1-2 years at a time. Attempting to lock-up a back-up QB for 4 years should reflect your willingness in salary to keep him. Of course your taking a chance by locking him up that long, but that comes with the game... As much as a starter? Not at all - but let's not diminish the importance of this position. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 0:01:26 GMT
As Bengals said, if you are willing to lock him up for 4 years you see more potential in him than 800k. Either pay him for the long term deal or lower the length of the contract IMO. With that 4 year offer you are syaing you think he will be getting a good amount of play time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on May 10, 2012 15:29:16 GMT
Ok, well $1,000,000 for 4yrs works for me, He will only see the field if injury occurs and that is what his role is. I am only wanting to keep him incase the Pats rest Brady for a game that is important ;D
He is a backup and could even be #3 in NE come season start but I cant take the risk of Brady being rested when we play the SB. In relation to his real salary this is quite a lot
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 15:34:48 GMT
If that is all you are worried about than make it a 1yr lower salary. If you want 4 years 1 mil probably won't fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on May 10, 2012 15:42:43 GMT
$1m wont fly for a backup?
That is crazy
I am worried about the SB this yr yes, but I am also happy to see how FA pans out for him, hence the long contract. But if he lands back in NE then I am paying a largish sum for a backup or #3 QB
All the TAB should be voting on is him being a backup, not the fact he could be in a better position next year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 15:49:05 GMT
I'm assuming an offer of $1M @ 4 form the above statements. Here's my decision calculus.
I looked at the QBs signed before August of last year (when we are still foggy on who will get what position in the depth chart). Here's what I found from the back-ups:
Dan Orlovsky: 2 @ $665,000 = 2.665
Jon Kitna: 1 yr @ $1.3M = 2.3 pts
Tyler Thigpen: 4 yrs @ $540,000 = 4.54 PTS
Rex Grossman: 3 @ 775,000 = 3.775 pts
Vince Young: 4 yrs @ 3M - 7 pts
Marc Bulger: 2 @ 1.1 = 3.1 pts
Billy Volek: 1 year at $.8M = 1.8
Matt Moore: 4 years @ $1,500,000 = 5.5 points
Matt Leinart: 4 yrs @ 1M - 5 pts
Tarvaris Jackson: 4 yrs @ 1.1m - 5.1 pts
Chris Redman: 1 year at $765,000 = 1.765
Sage Rosenfels: 1 year at $765,000 = 1.765
Of these, I discard Redman, Rosenfels, Kitna, Bulger, and Volek who were signed as short stop-gaps. I also throw out Vince Young because he was a FA at the time and there was a chance that he was going to land a starting job.
I think the best comparables are guys who were back-ups with upside if they got into a game and potential down the road:
Tyler Thigpen: 4 yrs @ $540,000 = 4.54 PTS
Rex Grossman: 3 @ 775,000 = 3.775 pts
Matt Moore: 4 years @ $1,500,000 = 5.5 points
Matt Leinart: 4 yrs @ 1M - 5 pts
Tarvaris Jackson: 4 yrs @ 1.1m - 5.1 pts
The median here is Leinart at 4 @ $1, so I think it's a fair offer, so I
Approve (1-0)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 15:56:45 GMT
If that is the final offer than I expected a deal between vy's and moore's, backups that have a good chance of starting down the road. IMO length of contract is not something that should be counted as a contracts "worth" in RFA. To lock up a young player for 4 years at 1 mil he better be a low ceiling guy or play a position where points are hard to come by. So I don't see this as a 5 pt contract but a 1 pt contract.
Veto (1-1)
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on May 10, 2012 16:03:31 GMT
From what I have gathered in different offers, 'down the road' (Future) shouldnt be considered in these deals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 16:15:22 GMT
From what I have gathered in different offers, 'down the road' (Future) shouldnt be considered in these deals. It seems some TAB members take it into account more than others, but I am not sure how you gathered that if you are referring to my veto as I feel I have been fairly consistent in what I expect to see offered. |
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on May 10, 2012 16:17:51 GMT
I'm sure it was said in one or 2 votes that future is not taken into account or I wouldnt have argued about him only being a backup. If that is the case as well my offer may have been a bit higher
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 17:15:15 GMT
I'm sure it was said in one or 2 votes that future is not taken into account or I wouldnt have argued about him only being a backup. If that is the case as well my offer may have been a bit higher It is absolutely insane to me to not take future into account when someone is offered a 4 year deal. How many backup players are in the same role 4 years as they are now? We are trying to have this league be as close to possible to the way the NFL is run and you don't see guys running around signing long term deals at vet minimums. When a player is locked up long term they are compensated. I know I (and some other TAB members) have said in multiple posts in multiple threads that they were projecting what that players role would be if not now than in the next year or two when making our votes. Not sure how you were under the impression that only past production is what we voted on. If the contract gets vetoed chalk it up as a learning experience, if not than it seems you got a good player at a bargain basement rate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 17:29:24 GMT
All the TAB should be voting on is him being a backup, not the fact he could be in a better position next year Just read this and it is 100% wrong. Sorry. TAB is here to maintain competitive balance in the league and if a player is about to get a starting gig or expected to breakout in some other way TAB's duty is to make sure the team is paying the player a competitive wage. Like it or not we are not here to just read over last years stats and assign a value, otherwise we could make it a lot simpler by just doing that, but the contracts would be way out of balance if we did that. |
|
|
|
Post by Patriots GM (Daniel) on May 10, 2012 18:08:10 GMT
I was looking at Woodyard one where 2 TAB members said that future shouldn't be taken into account. Take a look but when one is an admin I thought that they might be a bit more consistent. May have misjudged it and it bring taken on an offer to offer basis. Bit disappointing though if it is
I think it was Colts and Bengals who said that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 18:16:35 GMT
As I said, different TAB seem to treat it differently, but if it was from there then you noticed that i vetoed the Woodyard contract as well.
|
|
