Tyler Lockett gets Extension

[drrew]

Your post is totally clueless. WR salaries HAVE NOT doubled in 4 years! :roll:

Also Baldwin recently signed for just about $1M per year more than that for a more recent comparison and Baldwin got 12M guaranteed and Lockett just got $20M!

Are you not paying attention to some of the deals being signed?

Donte Moncrief got $9.5m
Sammy Watkins who had less than 40 receptions on one of the more explosive NFL offenses a season ago is getting $16m.

The WR market has changed drastically since Golden left for Detroit. Tate is a FA after this year, and is probably looking for something in the $13m range at age 31.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I like that they signed him, but to pay him considerably more than they offered Tate is both ridiculous and frankly a bit surprising. :?: :?: :?:

Maybe they realized that Tate was a mistake? Or maybe Tate didn't want to stay at any price.

And Tate happened a couple of years ago. The market changes.

Not the case. Tate would have stayed for around $6-7M per year. Pete even commented that it was disappointing he never got their best offer for some weird reason? Lockett making near double that is not inflation.

Tate's average salary with the Lions is only 6.2M, so your math doesn't make sense.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/detroit-lio ... tate-6568/

Golden even commented after he signed with the Lions that he wanted to stay in Seattle, and that he would have taken a little less...........but that our offer wasn't even in the same ballpark as the Lions.

Remember, we had a ton of dudes on the defense to sign after the SB, and Russell's contract looming.......so Golden was the one big player on offense we chose not to extend at the time.

Love Golden, and I think he would have had a brilliant career staying here. But we chose to keep Doug and spend 70% of our cap space on the defense.

 

[rjdriver]

I love this because it means Pete and John think Tyler's 100% off his injury.

Agreed. I think this shows more than anything that Pete and Co. have been impressed with his speed and explosiveness enough to feel like this should be sooner than later. They are shelling out this money for the pre injury performance and we should all be excited whether or not you feel we overpaid or not.

I like it.

 

[Seymour]

Just admit you're wrong and move on, Seymour. Salaries and labor markets don't operate in a vacuum.

Won't happen. They overpaid....period.

 

[hawknation2018]

Dude, that was years ago. The salary cap has increased substantially since that time, and so have player salaries.

Comparing a WR salary today to a WR salary from 2014 is clueless.

Your post is totally clueless. WR salaries HAVE NOT doubled in 3 years! :roll:

Also Baldwin recently signed for just about $1M per year more than that for a more recent comparison.

The Top 20 WRs all average over $11 million per year. Odell Beckham recently reset the market with an average annual salary of $18 million.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/ca ... -receiver/

No one compares new contracts to contracts from 2014. That is an apples to oranges discussion that has NOTHING to do with this deal.

Give it up! Lockett is not a top 20 receiver. :177692:

And he does not deserve $20M guaranteed when Baldwin just got $12M. :roll:

He is now within $1m per year of Baldwin.

Baldwin did not "just get" his contract; that was two years ago. As has been shown to you. WR salaries are rising exponentially year over year. At least, that is a slightly better argument (still bad) than comparing it to a 2014 contract.

Are you living in the space time continuum?

:lol:

 

[ivotuk]

I like that they signed him, but to pay him considerably more than they offered Tate is both ridiculous and frankly a bit surprising. :?: :?: :?:

Maybe they realized that Tate was a mistake? Or maybe Tate didn't want to stay at any price.

And Tate happened a couple of years ago. The market changes.

Not the case. Tate would have stayed for around $6-7M per year. Pete even commented that it was disappointing he never got their best offer for some weird reason? Lockett making near double that is not inflation.

It was 7 million. And 10 million is not "near double" that.

Tate got mad after the first offer, ran to Detroit and signed the first thing that they offered (7 million). He was on 710 "venting" about it, but that's all on him. He was upset because of what Percy Harvin got paid. Can't blame him, but you don't make business decisions based on emotions.

 

[vin.couve12]

Hate to say it, but this doesn't bode well for Baldwin when his contract is up.

Not sure that this has yet been earned, but they do need to procure for the future and apparently the FO thinks gis future looks much brighter.

 

[pmedic920]

I like that they signed him, but to pay him considerably more than they offered Tate is both ridiculous and frankly a bit surprising. :?: :?: :?:

Yea about that.....

I kinda remember some “side” issues that just may have effected GT’s offers.


Glad to hear TL will be around for a bit.

 

[ivotuk]

Odell Beckham just got 18 million per year, and you're upset that Lockett got "near half" that?" He's a threat to score every time he touches the ball. I'll bet he makes at least 3/4 as many touchdowns as ODB. Which would mean he's worth $13.5 million per year.

 

[NorthDallas40oz]

This is purely a guess, but my guess is that a large chunk of the guaranteed money in this deal is Lockett's base salary this season and next. I can't imagine that it would be structured in a way so as to create a lot of dead money if the Hawks wanted to cut ties for some reason after 2019 or 2020. That being said, barring injury, Lockett's age and prior production should allow him to play up to (or above) the AAV of all four seasons for which he's now under team control. There's nothing about these #'s that seem out of whack to me on the surface.

 

[Seymour]

I like that they signed him, but to pay him considerably more than they offered Tate is both ridiculous and frankly a bit surprising. :?: :?: :?:

Maybe they realized that Tate was a mistake? Or maybe Tate didn't want to stay at any price.

And Tate happened a couple of years ago. The market changes.

Not the case. Tate would have stayed for around $6-7M per year. Pete even commented that it was disappointing he never got their best offer for some weird reason? Lockett making near double that is not inflation.

It was 7 million. And 10 million is not "near double" that.

Tate got mad after the first offer, ran to Detroit and signed the first thing that they offered (7 million). He was on 710 "venting" about it, but that's all on him. He was upset because of what Percy Harvin got paid. Can't blame him, but you don't make business decisions based on emotions.

Splitting hairs here. Tate said he would have stayed for less so lets use 6 and that is NEAR double at over 10. How about we move on to Baldwin for more recent comparison of the point I'm making??

 

[hawknation2018]

The top WR salaries have actually doubled since 2014.

And the award for least likely to admit he's wrong goes to . . .

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is purely a guess, but my guess is that a large chunk of the guaranteed money in this deal is Lockett's base salary this season and next. I can't imagine that it would be structured in a way so as to create a lot of dead money if the Hawks wanted to cut ties for some reason after 2019 or 2020. That being said, barring injury, Lockett's age and prior production should allow him to play up to (or above) the AAV of all four seasons for which he's now under team control. There's nothing about these #'s that seem out of whack to me on the surface.

This is usually the way it works, frontloaded.

Players have been onto never seeing the money on backloaded contracts for a while now.

 

[Seymour]

I like that they signed him, but to pay him considerably more than they offered Tate is both ridiculous and frankly a bit surprising. :?: :?: :?:

Yea about that.....

I kinda remember some “side” issues that just may have effected GT’s offers.


Glad to hear TL will be around for a bit.

That actually is the best point yet, and I actually agree with that sediment. Baldwin is still a better and more recent comparison though.

 

[Seymour]

The top WR salaries have actually doubled since 2014.

And the award for least likely to admit he's wrong goes to . . .

You!

And exactly why you make no comment that he is now near Baldwin's pay grade and that deal is 1 year old. :3-1:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Sounds like they are working on an extension for Clark as well.

 

[xStickybudz]

Sounds like they are working on an extension for Clark as well.

I sure as hell hope so

 

[JGfromtheNW]

The top WR salaries have actually doubled since 2014.

And the award for least likely to admit he's wrong goes to . . .

You!

And exactly why you make no comment that he is now near Baldwin's pay grade and that deal is 1 year old. :3-1:

In what world is June of 2016 one year ago?

Oh look, wrong again. It's already been pointed out that it wasn't a year ago too. Try to keep up.

Edit: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, are you thinking about the restructure that the Hawks and Baldwin agreed to last year that shifted some money around?

 

[fenderbender123]

This is how the market and thus many employers operate...

You get hired at a company for $20 an hour. 3 years later you're making $24 an hour, but they are signing up new employees for $27 an hour.

 

[Seymour]

The top WR salaries have actually doubled since 2014.

And the award for least likely to admit he's wrong goes to . . .

You!

And exactly why you make no comment that he is now near Baldwin's pay grade and that deal is 1 year old. :3-1:

In what world is June of 2016 one year ago?

Oh look, wrong again. It's already been pointed out that it wasn't a year ago too. Try to keep up.

Good god. :roll: The first new year of that extension was 2017 (last year) Yes it was a 4 year extension SIGNED in 2016 (a year before FA) so technically I am wrong. Better? Is he worth 20M guaranteed when Baldwin got $12M? Is he worth near the same $$ as Baldwin?