Giblien
New member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 757
- Reaction score
- 0
We have given a lot of 4 year deals to key players. Any theories as to why 4 and not say 6 or 7 like so many other players around the league seem to get?
Giblien":2gz0o0xd said:We have given a lot of 4 year deals to key players. Any theories as to why 4 and not say 6 or 7 like so many other players around the league seem to get?
Bobblehead":13rg8dtp said:Giblien":13rg8dtp said:We have given a lot of 4 year deals to key players. Any theories as to why 4 and not say 6 or 7 like so many other players around the league seem to get?
I'm certainly not an expert at this, but my theory is that we have a lot of young players, who want shorter contracts so that in the end of 4 years they are in their prime and can then negotiate for a longer contracts that will terminate with their careers.
It is probably why you now see so many college player leaving for the NFL eariler. For example a college player getting out at 22, will have a better chance at getting a better contract at age 25 then a player who maybe 27 and only has 3 years left in his prime.
just my theory.
kearly":hrr7ygu9 said:Signing bonus is sunk cost either way, but a responsible GM tries to keep his team from big dead money numbers years off in the future.
hawknation2015":327uvhro said:kearly":327uvhro said:Signing bonus is sunk cost either way, but a responsible GM tries to keep his team from big dead money numbers years off in the future.
In that way, it can be a benefit to everyone if it avoids the potential for dead money or the need to renegotiate settled contracts. It is probably worth it in the long run, even if it means having to negotiate extensions with marquee players in their prime.
The tradeoff is that you will never get a great deal on a marquee player five years down the road, i.e. Tyron Smith signing an eight year extension that will pay him below market value in the future.
CurryStopstheRuns":3p9p8yok said:hawknation2015":3p9p8yok said:kearly":3p9p8yok said:Signing bonus is sunk cost either way, but a responsible GM tries to keep his team from big dead money numbers years off in the future.
In that way, it can be a benefit to everyone if it avoids the potential for dead money or the need to renegotiate settled contracts. It is probably worth it in the long run, even if it means having to negotiate extensions with marquee players in their prime.
The tradeoff is that you will never get a great deal on a marquee player five years down the road, i.e. Tyron Smith signing an eight year extension that will pay him below market value in the future.
That would be true if teams used those "bargain years" as just that instead of back loading the contracts to make them look like mega deals that are terminally after four years. I think JS just cuts out those cap killing bullshit years so the team is not stuck in a Fitzgerald situation where it requires cutting the player or renegotiating because 23+ million a year is not a bargain.
And, why do you insist on replying to a poster that told you flat out that you are now on their ignore list?