4 year contracts

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?
 

Bobblehead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
4,220
Reaction score
815
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?


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.
 

hawknation2015

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, Washington
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.

I think you're right. The players likely prefer to enter their 3rd contract year before age 30. And with escalating salaries, a shorter contract is better than a lengthier one.
 

HawkFan72

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
16,570
Reaction score
1
Location
Bay Area, CA
I agree that it probably has to do with them wanting to get another good contract. If you sign a 7 year deal, everyone knows that in the NFL the money in the last few years is not really guaranteed so they are unlikely to see it anyway. The Hawks are just not giving out those extra fluff years and giving their guys a chance to get some guaranteed money again without having to be cut to do so.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,975
Reaction score
0
It usually has to do with making the contract easy to get out of quicker. Most of JS's deals are almost painless to get out of after two seasons. This is done for two reasons, to be fiscally responsible in the event that a player needs to be cut (no massive dead money numbers) and also to give the FO leverage with players in the later years of their deals.
 

hawknation2015

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, Washington
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.

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

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,092
Reaction score
0
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.


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?
 

hawknation2015

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
5,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, Washington
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?

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my Tyron Smith example.
 
Top