"Clayton claims he's "baffled" by Wilson contract talks"

[KiwiHawk]

I think what's being missed in this discussion is that Wilson's agent has a history of wanting his players to hit the open market in order to obtain "market value" for his player.

We can toss around figures like "an elite QB makes 25 million", but consider how many teams in the NFL have crap QBs. Now factor in a college industry turning out option QBs who don't throw particularly well. Where are these QB-starved teams going to get an accurate passer for their Pro passing offense?

That's the open market that Wilson's agent wants to expose his client to, because he's betting some poor team will open up the chequebook wider than 25 million simply because they don't have other options.

In a league where teams trade Bradford for Foles and both teams think they upgraded, what's a Wilson worth?

Wilson is in position to potentially earn stupid money. As in cap-destroying stupid money, as in we'd be stupid to match it.

This gets back to the argument about is it worth it to the Seahawks to break their #1 defense in order to field a potentially potent offense? Pete Carroll thus far has indicated no - not in words, but in his approach to the team establishing defense and running game as priorities.

There are lots of reasons that works. Putting your emphasis, and hence your money, on defense and rushing in a league that values offense and passing, you save a ton of money on the offensive skill positions that you can use to upgrade or maintain other parts of the team. If you save 20 million on your QB, that's an average of 400,000 you can spend for every other player on the team. By going against the NFL grain, we can get better quality players at every other position.

I would not be surprised in the least if the Seahawks let Wilson go when some idiotic team offers Wilson stupid money which, in the current market, seems likely.

 

[Polaris]

KiwiHawk,

I agree almost entirely with your above post, but IMHO it illustrates again how badly served Wilson is being served by his agent IMO. Why? It's an approach that works in baseball because in baseball there is almost nothing a team can do to keep a player from hitting true free agency if that player (and his agent) wants it.

This isn't baseball, however, it's the NFL, and in the NFL there are a LOT of very strong structural blocks that completely PREVENT the sort of market that Rodgers wants to materialize. Even New Orleans was able to keep Brees in the end for a lot less than Brees wanted...and that was about as close as it ever got. I simply think that both Wilson and the 'hawks are being ill served by an agent that wants to 'revolutionize' how player contracts are done in the NFL.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

The insurance policy sort of makes the whole "risk of injury" argument a nonstarter. Shaun Alexander had a $20M policy during his franchise year. I imagine Russell's would be more. So, what is he losing if he gets hurt? It would not be some astronomical sum in relative terms. Even if he signed a deal now, he would lose a big chunk of it if his career ended next year in injury. What he loses is what the premium costs, which is anyone's guess.

Do you consider $40 million astronomical?

How did you arrive at that number? Wilson's policy will be for a huge sum and may not cost as much as people think. Tony Romo bought a $30M policy back in 2007 for $150K. This covered both permanent disability and loss of value, so he didn't even need to end his career to collect. That was back in 2007 when injury guarantees were much lower. Wilson could easily double that on his current policy. Source: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... l-get-paid.

I think what people should understand is that the "Injury Guaranty" is paid for by insurance regardless of whether or not its due under a contract. If Russell signs an extension, the Seahawks pay for the premium. In the event he gets hurt, the Seahawks make the claim and will in no event have to pay him $60M out-of-pocket. If Russell doesn't sign the extension, he just pays for the premium himself.

40 large is what the guaranteed part of Wilson's new contract will more-or-less be--that's what he'll get no matter what. Any $ that is not guaranteed is not real money.

 

[Anthony!]

You're assuming Popeye (as I think Wilson's agent is) that the Seahawks will have to use the exclusive franchise tag. If you look at the projected cap spaces of QB-needy teams, you'll find that the Seahawks can almost certainly match any offer any of these other clubs would make....and Wilson would be forced to play for Seattle anyhow. Also the non-exclusive tag is IIRC the top TEN not the top FIVE and that makes a big difference.

No, I think that Wilson is being poorly served by his agent on this. The NFL simply doesn't work like baseball, and it's often *not* to the advantage of the client to make it to free-agency, and this is such a case. Clayton has outlined the numbers on this exceptionally well.

I disagree his agent is serving him right, if they use the non exclusive tag some team will offer him what he wants and then the Hawks will match and yes he stays here but the FO looks bad because they could have avoided all of this from the beginning, then the risk the offer he gets Is more than the FO wants to pay and there for will not match. Clayton outlined the numbers based on what he thinks will happen and was offered but he does not really know.

You sure about that? I am not being quip. Remember that making Wilson an offer under these conditions would cost TWO first round draft picks. That's a king's ransom. Now for some teams that really need a QB, it might be worth it, but that's going to cut down on the potential suiters right there drastically. Then you have to consider how much cap space the Seahawks are likely to have (as opposed to what other teams are likely to have). What GM likes to negotiate a deal for another team? [Not too many I think.] That being so, the fact Seattle can match will restrict the pool even further (those with tight caps need not apply). Finally in light of all this, how many GMs would rather go through all this rather than going for a drafted QB.

Basically even in this worst case scenario (which I still doubt will really happen), I can't imagine too many teams willing to even talk to Russel let alone give him an offer that they know the 'hawks will simply match. It's just not worth it (from their PoV). Now if we were talking transition tag, that'd be different, but nobody is fool enough to use *that* tag (and Seattle least of all I think).

How many draft picks has a team like say Cleveland wasted trying to find a great QB like Wilson? There is your answer, yes its worth it.

 

[Anthony!]

I will say it again lots of assumptions by everyone, problem is none knows but the FO, Wilson and WIlsons agent and none of them are talking.

 

[dumbrabbit]

You're assuming Popeye (as I think Wilson's agent is) that the Seahawks will have to use the exclusive franchise tag. If you look at the projected cap spaces of QB-needy teams, you'll find that the Seahawks can almost certainly match any offer any of these other clubs would make....and Wilson would be forced to play for Seattle anyhow. Also the non-exclusive tag is IIRC the top TEN not the top FIVE and that makes a big difference.

No, I think that Wilson is being poorly served by his agent on this. The NFL simply doesn't work like baseball, and it's often *not* to the advantage of the client to make it to free-agency, and this is such a case. Clayton has outlined the numbers on this exceptionally well.

I disagree his agent is serving him right, if they use the non exclusive tag some team will offer him what he wants and then the Hawks will match and yes he stays here but the FO looks bad because they could have avoided all of this from the beginning, then the risk the offer he gets Is more than the FO wants to pay and there for will not match. Clayton outlined the numbers based on what he thinks will happen and was offered but he does not really know.

You sure about that? I am not being quip. Remember that making Wilson an offer under these conditions would cost TWO first round draft picks. That's a king's ransom. Now for some teams that really need a QB, it might be worth it, but that's going to cut down on the potential suiters right there drastically. Then you have to consider how much cap space the Seahawks are likely to have (as opposed to what other teams are likely to have). What GM likes to negotiate a deal for another team? [Not too many I think.] That being so, the fact Seattle can match will restrict the pool even further (those with tight caps need not apply). Finally in light of all this, how many GMs would rather go through all this rather than going for a drafted QB.

Basically even in this worst case scenario (which I still doubt will really happen), I can't imagine too many teams willing to even talk to Russel let alone give him an offer that they know the 'hawks will simply match. It's just not worth it (from their PoV). Now if we were talking transition tag, that'd be different, but nobody is fool enough to use *that* tag (and Seattle least of all I think).

How many draft picks has a team like say Cleveland wasted trying to find a great QB like Wilson? There is your answer, yes its worth it.

That's the entire reason he is worth it paying $20M a year for...?

 

[Polaris]

You're assuming Popeye (as I think Wilson's agent is) that the Seahawks will have to use the exclusive franchise tag. If you look at the projected cap spaces of QB-needy teams, you'll find that the Seahawks can almost certainly match any offer any of these other clubs would make....and Wilson would be forced to play for Seattle anyhow. Also the non-exclusive tag is IIRC the top TEN not the top FIVE and that makes a big difference.

No, I think that Wilson is being poorly served by his agent on this. The NFL simply doesn't work like baseball, and it's often *not* to the advantage of the client to make it to free-agency, and this is such a case. Clayton has outlined the numbers on this exceptionally well.

I disagree his agent is serving him right, if they use the non exclusive tag some team will offer him what he wants and then the Hawks will match and yes he stays here but the FO looks bad because they could have avoided all of this from the beginning, then the risk the offer he gets Is more than the FO wants to pay and there for will not match. Clayton outlined the numbers based on what he thinks will happen and was offered but he does not really know.

You sure about that? I am not being quip. Remember that making Wilson an offer under these conditions would cost TWO first round draft picks. That's a king's ransom. Now for some teams that really need a QB, it might be worth it, but that's going to cut down on the potential suiters right there drastically. Then you have to consider how much cap space the Seahawks are likely to have (as opposed to what other teams are likely to have). What GM likes to negotiate a deal for another team? [Not too many I think.] That being so, the fact Seattle can match will restrict the pool even further (those with tight caps need not apply). Finally in light of all this, how many GMs would rather go through all this rather than going for a drafted QB.

Basically even in this worst case scenario (which I still doubt will really happen), I can't imagine too many teams willing to even talk to Russel let alone give him an offer that they know the 'hawks will simply match. It's just not worth it (from their PoV). Now if we were talking transition tag, that'd be different, but nobody is fool enough to use *that* tag (and Seattle least of all I think).

How many draft picks has a team like say Cleveland wasted trying to find a great QB like Wilson? There is your answer, yes its worth it.

You're sure about that? There is a reason why Cleveland has been well.....Cleveland for a long time now. Now only that but you're assuming the Browns would have both the first round picks AND cap space to insure that not only would WIlson and his agent accept but that the Seahawks can't match.....and the old 'poison pill' shenanigans of old are illegal now (new CBA). I point out that the last true franchise QB that his true free agency was Peyton Manning, and teams with a lot of cap space weren't in the running (and it wasn't like they had to spend precious picks like the would have to with Wilson in this scenario).

 

[Ad Hawk]

How many draft picks has a team like say Cleveland wasted trying to find a great QB like Wilson? There is your answer, yes its worth it.

Key word right there. Glad you get the point, Anthony!

 

[Popeyejones]

KiwiHawk,

I agree almost entirely with your above post, but IMHO it illustrates again how badly served Wilson is being served by his agent IMO. Why? It's an approach that works in baseball because in baseball there is almost nothing a team can do to keep a player from hitting true free agency if that player (and his agent) wants it.

This isn't baseball, however, it's the NFL, and in the NFL there are a LOT of very strong structural blocks that completely PREVENT the sort of market that Rodgers wants to materialize. Even New Orleans was able to keep Brees in the end for a lot less than Brees wanted...and that was about as close as it ever got. I simply think that both Wilson and the 'hawks are being ill served by an agent that wants to 'revolutionize' how player contracts are done in the NFL.

Structural blocks absolutely, but structural blocks which end up being the equivalent of a two year, 55 million dollar extension, which is waaay more than Wilson would get over those two years even on the open market.

Put more simply, the way those structural blocks are structured in the game Rodgers is playing they actually work in his favor.

The Hawks won't "pay" Wilson 23 APY over a long deal but are going to pay 25 million out of pocket NEXT year and get zero long term security in the process? Uhhh, why?

 

[Polaris]

KiwiHawk,

I agree almost entirely with your above post, but IMHO it illustrates again how badly served Wilson is being served by his agent IMO. Why? It's an approach that works in baseball because in baseball there is almost nothing a team can do to keep a player from hitting true free agency if that player (and his agent) wants it.

This isn't baseball, however, it's the NFL, and in the NFL there are a LOT of very strong structural blocks that completely PREVENT the sort of market that Rodgers wants to materialize. Even New Orleans was able to keep Brees in the end for a lot less than Brees wanted...and that was about as close as it ever got. I simply think that both Wilson and the 'hawks are being ill served by an agent that wants to 'revolutionize' how player contracts are done in the NFL.

Structural blocks absolutely, but structural blocks which end up being the equivalent of a two year, 55 million dollar extension, which is waaay more than Wilson would get over those two years even on the open market.

Put more simply, the way those structural blocks are structured in the game Rodgers is playing they actually work in his favor.

The Hawks won't "pay" Wilson 23 APY over a long deal but are going to pay 25 million out of pocket NEXT year and get zero long term security in the process? Uhhh, why?

Try about 10million less than that, with no guarantees and no up front money.....AND his next contract negotiation is pushed back a year per tag. There's a *reason* players hate the franchise tag.

Edit: The 'hawks won't pay anywhere chose to 23 APY by franchising Wilson twice. You are assuming the 'hawks will have to use the exclusive tag, but that's simply not true. Go look back at what happened to Brees. The Saints didn't and Brees wound up having to take far less than he wanted.

 

[EntiatHawk]

I always find it interesting how we speculate on what is going on. I really do not think anyone really knows. Just because a guy was a baseball agent does not mean he is not smart enough to handle a NFL contract. There are many who do both as well as other sports and I would assume that if they are smart they have done their research on NFL contracts.

Just yesterday Wilson stated that he thought he would have a deal before camp. Then PC stated there is no timeframe. So who really knows.

Maybe Rogers is the best agent ever, maybe he's a schmuck and totally does not get football or maybe he is in between 8)

 

[Popeyejones]

Try about 10 million less than that, with no guarantees and no up front money.....AND his next contract negotiation is pushed back a year per tag. There's a *reason* players hate the franchise tag.

As I already explained upthread, it's not 10 million less than that because the top 10 APY QBs are all bunched between 4 million dollars of each other.

You're also assuming they'd use the unrestricted tag, which doesn't make any sense from the Hawks' side unless they're 1) after the draft picks or 2) sincerely believe they've already offered Wilson more than anyone else would. If they're after the draft picks so be it, but if they sincerely believe #2, they're dumb for offering him that much to begin with (and as I've said repeatedly, I don't think John Schneider is dumb).

Edit: The 'hawks won't pay anywhere chose to 23 APY by franchising Wilson twice.

They unequivocally will be paying Wilson more than 23 APY over two years if they franchise him twice. They're projected to be paying him over 23 APY in the FIRST YEAR of franchising him. If he signed a contract the meat of that APY would be backloaded. The only scenario in which he is actually making over 20 million next year/counting over 20 million against the cap next year is if he is franchised. It's why I keep saying that franchising him twice is the equivalent of giving him a two year, 55 million dollar extension.

You can say there's a reason that players hate the franchise tag -- and I get that -- but it only clarifies that you might not have a full grasp on the game that Rodgers and Wilson are playing. If you want to disagree with it that's fine, but you've at least got to understand that from Rodgers' perspective the franchise tag works in his favor.

You are assuming the 'hawks will have to use the exclusive tag, but that's simply not true. Go look back at what happened to Brees. The Saints didn't and Brees wound up having to take far less than he wanted.

Uh, dude, the Saints did use the exclusive tag. What are you talking about? In March of 2012 the Saints put the exclusive tag on Brees.

Then in Jully of 2012, what happened was that exclusive tag went into arbitration because Brees had already received the exclusive tag in San Diego, and Brees argued (and won) saying that as it was his second time tagged (the quibble was if the tag language still held if it was across two different teams, and it does) so he was due a 44% increase of the exclusive rights franchise tag for 2013 if it went that far. .

Your argument that the Saints didn't use the tag is simply wrong. They ended up being forced to rescind because of the particularities of Brees' time on another team, but they absolutely intended to use it and did use it until the arbitration ruling.

Likewise, as for Brees getting less than he wanted, he ended up getting an APY 10% higher than the most expensive QB contract in the NFL. C'mon dude.

 

[Popeyejones]

I think what's being missed in this discussion is that Wilson's agent has a history of wanting his players to hit the open market in order to obtain "market value" for his player.

Yep. Exactly. The only difference between doing this in MLB or the NFL is that the NFL has a franchise tag.

If the franchise tag was based on top 5 APY for THAT YEAR Rodger's strategy wouldn't transport over that well to the NFL, but because the APY is based on APY over total deals (and because APY in the NFL is always wildly inflated with fake back-end money), in a bizarre way, for the game Rodgers is playing, the NFL tag wrinkle actually works in his favor, even though it's designed to work against players and agents who have a long tradition of not playing this game the way Rodgers did in MLB, and now seemingly is doing in the NFL.

 

[Popeyejones]

How many draft picks has a team like say Cleveland wasted trying to find a great QB like Wilson? There is your answer, yes its worth it.

Key word right there. Glad you get the point, Anthony!

Absolutely agreed.

Remember too that in dollar negotiations, while those two picks might bring down the Browns' offer (those picks have to go into their cost calculations), at the SAME TIME they also have to bring down what the Hawks are willing to spend on Wilson, as NOT GETTING those two picks is part of the opportunity cost of matching the Browns' offer.

The only scenario in which those picks don't end up cancelling out (as cost on one side and opportunity cost on the other) is if the Hawks are just in it for the picks to begin with.

So, if the Hawks aren't just in it for the picks, we can go back to a simple question: who is more desparate for a QB of Wilson's ability, the Browns or the Hawks? This precisely why no GM in his right mind wants other teams to be competing to negotiate his contracts for him.

 

[Polaris]

I have NEVER seen a team in the NFL be willing to burn two first round picks for anyone (no not even the Browns). I see no reason why the Hawks (especially if they keep a sizeable cap room...which they will) have any reason to be uncomfortable or nervous about using the non-restricted tag....and I wouldn't be either.

You are ASSUMING (as is Rodgers) that the 'hawks will use the exclusive tag and use it both years. Maybe they do, but maybe they don't and I think you are assuming far too much as is Wilson's agent.

 

[Polaris]

[SNIP]

Your argument that the Saints didn't use the tag is simply wrong. They ended up being forced to rescind because of the particularities of Brees' time on another team, but they absolutely intended to use it and did use it until the arbitration ruling.

Likewise, as for Brees getting less than he wanted, he ended up getting an APY 10% higher than the most expensive QB contract in the NFL. C'mon dude.

I never said the Saints didn't (at least try) to use the tag, I said they didn't (and they didn't) and the Saints got Brees for a lot less than Brees wanted. What I said was that Brees got a lot less than he wanted WHICH IS CLEARLY TRUE. C'mon dude. Go back and reread the reports yourself. The fact he got an APY 10% higher is irrelevant to what I said. Wilson is shooting for a MUCH higher boost than that, especially if he wants a baseball style guaranteed contract which ain't gonna happen.

 

[onanygivensunday]

You're also assuming they'd use the unrestricted tag, which doesn't make any sense from the Hawks' side unless they're 1) after the draft picks or 2) sincerely believe they've already offered Wilson more than anyone else would. If they're after the draft picks so be it, but if they sincerely believe #2, they're dumb for offering him that much to begin with (and as I've said repeatedly, I don't think John Schneider is dumb).

It DOES make sense for Seattle to use the non-exclusive tag on Wilson (if it comes to that).

Using your numbering system,

1) they are not after the draft picks... no way, no how. The plan is to retain Wilson any way possible. He's their nugget and he's going nowhere else.

2) your premise here is they offered Wilson more than anybody else would, which may not be the case. Let's assume that Clayton is spot-on with his assigned value of a reasonable contract for Wilson at 4 years/$87M... and let's say after Seattle puts the non-exclusive tag on Wilson another team (or more) steps up to the plate and puts together an offer sheet for 4 years/$91M (or somewhere in between... or for slightly more).

What would Seattle do???... they'd match the offer and lock up Wilson.

There's nothing dumb with that strategy.

Seattle believes it knows what Wilson's fair market value is. I am assuming that is what they are currently offering him. To date, Wilson does not agree... so why not put the non-exclusive tag on him in 2016 (if it comes to that) and let his fair market value be determined by the actual market?

 

[Popeyejones]

Just to put it in here, I think a lingering question for some folks is WHY most agents in the NFL and MLB don't hold out for better deals. Or, why is Rodgers different?

The answer is because there's a principal-agent problem in the negotiation of sports contracts.

I think the best example of what happens isn't with sports agents, but with real estate agents, which was summarized in Wired (below) as well as the first Freakonomics book:

The best way to observe information asymmetry at work is to measure how an expert treats you versus how he performs the same service for himself. Real estate provides the perfect opportunity, since housing sales are a matter of public record, and real estate agents often do sell their own homes. Recent data covering the sale of nearly 100,000 houses in suburban Chicago show that more than 3,000 of those houses were owned by agents.

Before plunging into the data, a question: What is the agent's incentive when selling her own home? Simple: to make the best deal possible. Presumably, this is also her incentive when selling your home; after all, her commission is based on the sale price. And so your incentive and the agent's incentive would seem to be nicely aligned. But commissions aren't as simple as they seem. First of all, a 6 percent commission is typically split between the seller's agent and the buyer's. Each agent then kicks back half of her take to her agency. Which means that only 1.5 percent of the purchase price goes directly into your agent's pocket.

So on the sale of your $300,000 house, her personal take of the $18,000 commission is $4,500. Still not bad, you say. But what if the house was worth more than $300,000? What if, with a little more effort and patience, she could have sold it for $310,000? After the commission, that puts an additional $9,400 in your pocket. Yet the agent's additional share - her personal 1.5 percent - is a mere $150. So maybe your incentives aren't aligned after all. Is the agent willing to put out all that extra time and energy for just $150?

There's one way to find out: measure the difference between the sales data for houses that belong to real estate agents themselves and the houses they sold on behalf of clients. Using the information from those 100,000 Chicago homes, and controlling for any number of variables - location, age and quality of the house, aesthetics, and so on - it turns out an agent keeps her own home on the market an average of 10 days longer and sells it for an extra 3-plus percent, or $10,000 on a $300,000 house. When she sells her own house, an agent holds out for the best offer; when she sells yours, she pushes you to take the first decent offer that comes along. Like a stockbroker churning commissions, she wants to make deals and make them fast. Why not? Her share of a better offer - $150 - is too puny an incentive to encourage her to do otherwise. So her job is to convince you that a $300,000 offer is in fact very good, even generous, and one that only a fool would refuse.

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/ ... state.html


Long story short, the comparison is that almost all sports agents act like they're selling someone else's house, and Rodgers is different because in MLB (and seemingly now in the NFL) he's actually bargaining in his clients' best interests, and is acting like he's selling his own house.

 

[Polaris]

Just to put it in here, I think a lingering question for some folks is WHY most agents in the NFL and MLB don't hold out for better deals. Or, why is Rodgers different?

The answer is because there's a principal-agent problem in the negotiation of sports contracts.

I think the best example of what happens isn't with sports agents, but with real estate agents, which was summarized in Wired (below) as well as the first Freakonomics book:

The best way to observe information asymmetry at work is to measure how an expert treats you versus how he performs the same service for himself. Real estate provides the perfect opportunity, since housing sales are a matter of public record, and real estate agents often do sell their own homes. Recent data covering the sale of nearly 100,000 houses in suburban Chicago show that more than 3,000 of those houses were owned by agents.

Before plunging into the data, a question: What is the agent's incentive when selling her own home? Simple: to make the best deal possible. Presumably, this is also her incentive when selling your home; after all, her commission is based on the sale price. And so your incentive and the agent's incentive would seem to be nicely aligned. But commissions aren't as simple as they seem. First of all, a 6 percent commission is typically split between the seller's agent and the buyer's. Each agent then kicks back half of her take to her agency. Which means that only 1.5 percent of the purchase price goes directly into your agent's pocket.

So on the sale of your $300,000 house, her personal take of the $18,000 commission is $4,500. Still not bad, you say. But what if the house was worth more than $300,000? What if, with a little more effort and patience, she could have sold it for $310,000? After the commission, that puts an additional $9,400 in your pocket. Yet the agent's additional share - her personal 1.5 percent - is a mere $150. So maybe your incentives aren't aligned after all. Is the agent willing to put out all that extra time and energy for just $150?

There's one way to find out: measure the difference between the sales data for houses that belong to real estate agents themselves and the houses they sold on behalf of clients. Using the information from those 100,000 Chicago homes, and controlling for any number of variables - location, age and quality of the house, aesthetics, and so on - it turns out an agent keeps her own home on the market an average of 10 days longer and sells it for an extra 3-plus percent, or $10,000 on a $300,000 house. When she sells her own house, an agent holds out for the best offer; when she sells yours, she pushes you to take the first decent offer that comes along. Like a stockbroker churning commissions, she wants to make deals and make them fast. Why not? Her share of a better offer - $150 - is too puny an incentive to encourage her to do otherwise. So her job is to convince you that a $300,000 offer is in fact very good, even generous, and one that only a fool would refuse.

http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/ ... state.html


Long story short, the comparison is that almost all sports agents act like they're selling someone else's house, and Rodgers is different because in MLB (and seemingly now in the NFL) he's actually bargaining in his clients' best interests, and is acting like he's selling his own house.

And so Rodgers is the first NFL agent ever to act this way since Free Agency and he can do some mojo that no other agent is willing to do?

Not buying it.

 

[Popeyejones]

I have NEVER seen a team in the NFL be willing to burn two first round picks for anyone (no not even the Browns).

Uh, it happens in the draft all the time.

It doesn't happen with the transition tag because NOBODY uses the transition tag for a player that's actually worth two first round picks. If there's a chance of other teams actually entering the bidding, because teams aren't dumb, they use the franchise tag instead.

I see no reason why the Hawks (especially if they keep a sizeable cap room...which they will) have any reason to be uncomfortable or nervous about using the non-restricted tag....and I wouldn't be either.

Which is fine, but we simply disagree. That you can't understand why a team would spend a few million extra bucks in one season rather than opening up their negotiations to a competitive market across 31 teams enter the tournament in the first place with the goal of pushing the Seahawks past their breaking point, I really don't know what to tell you. Again, unless you secretly want the picks why in the world would you do this?

You are ASSUMING (as is Rodgers) that the 'hawks will use the exclusive tag and use it both years. Maybe they do, but maybe they don't and I think you are assuming far too much as is Wilson's agent.

Not true. I'm certainly not assuming that, and I sincerely doubt Rodgers is assuming that too. Quite frankly I think Rodgers would be ecstatic if the Hawks were secretly in it for the picks, because he'd get his player into a competitive market/bidding war a year earlier than if they used the franchise tag. To be honest I think Rodgers would be fine with it either way. The only thing that would be out of character for him (at least from what he has done in MLB) would be to sign an extension before the contract ends.