ivotuk":1j9rk0bm said:
The thing that upsets me is a 1st round pick is extra valuable because of the 5th year option. They are going to get Bridgewater a 5th year on the cheap.
It's not really 'on the cheap'. That price tag for the 5th year is generally quite expensive. In the case of Irvin -- less so. But if used on Carpenter last year, we'd have been paying him about 2m more than what he got.
The 5th year option is typically a very expensive guaranteed option. With an inflexible cap value. Seattle would and has avoided that prospect by extending players and having more flexibility by spreading the cost over multiple years as well as managing dead money up front.
However, I do think I've changed my stance on this one. The case of Chandler Jones has moved me. Belichick exercised the 5th year option and then traded him away. And I would expect that if Seattle had done the same, they could have come away with a 2016 3rd round pick pretty easily. Resigning decent 5th year players with the intent to trade for a draft pick in the same year is much more preferable than letting them go and getting a comp pick a year from now.
Unless that 1st round pick was garbage (in which case you don't exercise the option) -- then taking the chance of cap inflexibility is ok if you're doing so in an attempt to rent a player to another team for a draft pick. That's better business.
Irvin is going to return something akin to a 135th overall pick one year down the road. When even if we traded him for basically a song -- we could have gotten something in the 110 to 120th this year.
I believe Belichick is the best in the business. The absolute best at plowing existing players under for draft picks. There is a lot to learn from him. In particular:
1. All multi year deals needs to have a 'team option' in the last year.
2. All 1st round picks of any worth should have their 5th year options extended.
Seattle makes contracts similar to the Pats. We front load the guarantees, and have a final year that is generally never going to get paid. Or in some cases -- the base is really low.
But then look at the results. We end up with good players who end up holding out because they are 'underpaid'. Bennett, Avril and Chancellor are all examples of this kind of contract. The end result is the team sometimes doesn't gets the value of that lower base final year. Whether the player holds out. Or complains loudly. Or it becomes an issue in the locker room. Or they just don't bring forth the effort. There are any number of costs to that kind of contract that could arise.
Changing that 'not going to happen' year into a team option means when you decline the option -- you aren't cutting the player. You get a comp pick for a guy who you'd have expected to cut anyway.
It's incredibly smart. I would make every contract that way if I could manage it. Elway just did the same thing with Okung. They'll undoubtedly get a much better comp pick for Okung after this year when they decline his remaining 4 option years than we did by just letting him hit the market.
