per espn Clowney lowering price to 17-18M

[AgentDib]

I agree that the urgency isn't as high as fans think. The two mistakes here would be either offering Clowney too much money for a long-term deal or failing to sign him to a cheaper deal that added value. However, the Seahawks and Clowney both appear to have a high but fair price in mind for his services right now. As a result, we'll have roughly the same overall talent whether we sign him or other players at similarly fair prices.

The main benefit of getting him on a long-term deal is being able to work cap shenanigans to have a better 2020 team at the expense of future years, and I've never been a big fan of that.

Moreover, pass rush was very far from our main problem in the Packers playoff game due to the way the Packers schemed it. Rodgers got the ball immediately or bailed from the pocket, in many cases before even a top pass rush unit would have been able to get to the QB. Everybody is fixated on the sack number, but better coverage would have made a huge difference. They are working on that with the trade for Quinton Dunbar already and I expect us to add a couple of DBs in the draft.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I agree that the urgency isn't as high as fans think. The two mistakes here would be either offering Clowney too much money for a long-term deal or failing to sign him to a cheaper deal that added value. However, the Seahawks and Clowney both appear to have a high but fair price in mind for his services right now. As a result, we'll have roughly the same overall talent whether we sign him or other players at similarly fair prices.

The main benefit of getting him on a long-term deal is being able to work cap shenanigans to have a better 2020 team at the expense of future years, and I've never been a big fan of that.

Moreover, pass rush was very far from our main problem in the Packers playoff game due to the way the Packers schemed it. Rodgers got the ball immediately or bailed from the pocket, in many cases before even a top pass rush unit would have been able to get to the QB. Everybody is fixated on the sack number, but better coverage would have made a huge difference. They are working on that with the trade for Quinton Dunbar already and I expect us to add a couple of DBs in the draft.

Yep......and for as much as we want Clowney, if we're TRULY being objective and impartial, he does have serious injury questions, one as recent as a major core injury that might not even be healed yet, AND his stats show that he's not worth what he's asking.

So like I said, I'm fine with waiting on him. Don't get me wrong, I think Clowney's a game wrecker, but how many games does he wreck a year, and what's the risk giving him 15+ sack a year DE money when he 1. Doesn't get 15+ sacks a year and 2. has a high probability of missing significant playing time?

 

[niveky]

The main benefit of getting him on a long-term deal is being able to work cap shenanigans to have a better 2020 team at the expense of future years, and I've never been a big fan of that.

From everything i have seen and heard, Schnieder(sp) does a good job typically of front loading the contracts so they don't have so much of the inflated contracts in the future years, so I wouldn't think that would be an issue.

 

[Jville]

I really .... really enjoy watching Jadeveon Clowney play ball. He's special. He is a play wrecker that transcends any one assignment or label. And, the team is in really good hands with the man that brought Jadeveon to Seattle .... John Schneider.

But, there is a price point above which the team is better off replacing a star in the aggregate. ( Kind of sounds like a line from movie "Money Ball" don't it.) Thus the pivot to an aggregate of 2 or 3 rotating role players brought in to replace a departing star.

It's a proven alternative. An aggregate rotation in 2013 certainly paid huge dividends. In any case, whatever route John and Pete decide to go ........ "I'M IN" ...... I'M ALL IN".

 

[AgentDib]

From everything i have seen and heard, Schnieder(sp) does a good job typically of front loading the contracts so they don't have so much of the inflated contracts in the future years, so I wouldn't think that would be an issue.

He hasn't done it as much as many, but look at Britt's contract for an example. The back loading helped out in 2018 but was expensive in 2019 and now arguably too much to keep him on the roster in 2020. We've also pulled money forward in 2017 from both Russ and ADB's contracts for a short term benefit that hurt our cap in later years.

I can think of three arguments in favor of slightly back loading contracts.

First, things today are worth more than things tomorrow. Maybe a pandemic will wipe out everybody in 10 years and people planning for the long-term will look silly. The future is uncertain and we discount it slightly as a result (~5% per year or so). This is why you can get a return on any money you lend and pay extra for any money you borrow.

Second, the cap tends to increase every year and so the relative amount that each contract hits the cap decreases. A back loaded contract could be the same cap % every year and so in those terms have constant value. This is analogous to deficit spending in the US where the increase in GDP overall reduces the problem - provided the cap is still increasing by a lot every year.

Lastly, in any individual season our luck can swing up and down when it comes to free agents, injuries and the draft. The front office can slightly smooth out this roller coaster by borrowing from the future in years where stuff isn't going our way. This is analogous to the Keynesian argument for adjusting interest rates/adding stimulus to prevent large economic shocks. Arguably this is what we were attempting in 2017 when we added Brown to compensate for all of the OL injuries.

My problem with all of this is that organizations tend to lean way too hard into the first point due to strictly artificial limits. For example, if Carroll knows that he will only be coaching for three more years then anything he does that looks out for the team in year 4 is purely a benevolent sacrifice on his part. We're in a better situation with a stable front office than teams with guys on the hot seat, but the discount rate the Seahawks use is probably still much higher (20%?) than long-term fans would use. I plan on keeping my season tickets as long as possible and how good the team is in 2025 is only a little less important than how good it is this season. To the Seahawks FO on the other hand, it is probably about 68% less important.

 

[olyfan63]

The front office can slightly smooth out this roller coaster by borrowing from the future in years where stuff isn't going our way. This is analogous to the Keynesian argument for adjusting interest rates/adding stimulus to prevent large economic shocks. Arguably this is what we were attempting in 2017 when we added Brown to compensate for all of the OL injuries.

...the discount rate the Seahawks use is probably still much higher (20%?) than long-term fans would use. I plan on keeping my season tickets as long as possible and how good the team is in 2025 is only a little less important than how good it is this season. To the Seahawks FO on the other hand, it is probably about 68% less important.

Oh man, Keynesian financial arguments in a Clowney signing thread, and futures contracts pricing notes on 2025 Seahawks season tickets!

OK, based on your calculations, when do the Hawks sign Clowney, and for how much? (I truly believe we sign him.)
Factoring in that only Seattle has full medical info right now... To other teams... In your model... How much does that lower Clowney's value? 20%? 5%?

That was a serious question. I figure your model is going to be as good or far better than any mediot's guess, and probably more entertaining.