Paying Wilson May Hurt Seahawks Super Bowl Chances-Nemhauser

Brian Hemhauser piggy backs off the work of Jason Fitzgerald for the purpose of adding Russell Wilson into the the High Salary Quarterbacks discussion. Nice work by both authors.

Paying Wilson May Hurt Seahawks Super Bowl Chances -- by Brian Nemhauser 6/28/15 >>> [urltargetblank]http://www.hawkblogger.com/2015/06/paying-wilson-may-hurt-seahawks-super.html[/urltargetblank]

Super Bowl Titles and High Salary Quarterbacks -- by Jason Fitzgerald 1/20/15 >>> [urltargetblank]http://overthecap.com/super-bowl-titles-high-salary-quarterbacks/[/urltargetblank]

I expect those numbers to change. Which QB from the class of 2013 and beyond will win a ring on their rookie deal? I don't see it.

There are also overwhelming stats that Super Bowl winners are 1st round or even #1 overall picks. RW bucked those odds already.

Good piece as usual by Brian Nemhauser. He lays out the reality of the situation in a very clear way.

In the salary cap era, no team has successfully won a Super Bowl while spending more than 13.1% of their cap on a single player. That makes logical sense, even if that one player is the absolute best player in the league. If you pay Wilson $25 million per year, then he is monopolizing 15.6% of the cap. That is more than 232% of what the average Super Bowl winning team has paid their starting QB (6.7%).

Wilson is rumored to be demanding as much as $30 million per year in new money, which would be as much as 18% of the cap dedicated to one player. The team should be seeking to keep Wilson's APY below 14% of the cap, that is if they want to continue having a fair probability of winning Super Bowls.

The good news is that Wilson and the team have mutual interests from which to find common ground.

(1) The team should seek to make Wilson the highest paid player in the game. Doing so would reward Wilson for his extraordinary play and legitimize him as one of the game's premier players. It would also bolster the organization's reputation for fairly compensating its players, as it did last year with Thomas and Sherman. The sticking point will be keeping this new money to as close to $22 million per year as possible in order to allow them to continue fielding a Super Bowl-caliber team.

(2) Both parties have a mutual interest in getting Wilson a large signing bonus this year. The largest signing bonus in history is $37 million. We should try to find a way to pay Wilson as close to that amount of money as possible, immediately giving Wilson a substantial sum of money while adding just $7.4 million to the cap this season. This would make Wilson one of the most highly paid athletes in the world in 2015. It would also leave the Seahawks with just enough cap space to give Wagner his own substantial signing bonus.

(3) They should seek to get this deal done ASAP. The longer this draws out, the more distractions and negative attention this will bring to both the Seahawks and Wilson. The Seahawks will be attacked as "cheap" for their inability to pay Wilson a contract he deserves, which should be between $20-24 million per year. Wilson is currently set to make around 15% of what he should be making this year. The problem is Wilson is rumored to be exploiting the situation by demanding more money than will allow the team to be competitive in the future. If he is monopolizing more than 15% of the cap, then the facts indicate that it will be difficult for the team to continue winning Super Bowls. The longer this draws on, the more Wilson will be portrayed as selfish for turning down money that would make him the highest paid player in the game, only in the pursuit of more. His stellar reputation as a team-first player might then be in jeopardy.

Assuming the two sides cannot agree on a deal, for whatever reason, these facts demonstrate that the team's next best alternative would be to exercise the non-exclusive franchise tag. That amount would keep Wilson's salary at around 13% of next year's cap. Wilson would be allowed to negotiate terms with other teams, which we could either match or exchange for two First Round draft picks.

If the team fails to broker a long-term extension with Wilson, that would be the ultimate litmus test of whether Wilson truly wants to continue to compete for championships as a Seahawk for life or whether he would prefer to sign the equivalent of a "poison pill" style deal with another team that he knows the Seahawks would be incapable of matching. I say the equivalent because, of course, actual "poison pill" provisions are no longer permitted. Any team that agrees to an extravagant salary for Wilson -- in excess of 15% of the cap -- would be essentially dooming itself to mediocrity. Not only would that leave them unlikely to surround Wilson with enough talent to win a Super Bowl, it would also cost them two First Round picks. Also any team willing to do this would probably already have to be in a pretty desperate and miserable state. This would be the nightmare situation for both parties.

^^^^^
Nice write up!

Whatever he says, I do the exact opposite.

The problem with this type of analysis is that there's an empty cell; teams that COULD have paid their excellent QB at the market rate but opted not to.

What's their Super Bowl rate? We have no idea, because nobody actually does that, making the whole analysis kind of an exercise in futility.

If someone can show me an example of a team letting their would-be highly paid QB walk and then turning around and going to the Super Bowl I'm all ears, but without that, we have no idea what the optimal thing to do in this situation is.

In that type of scenario, I think you go for the parsimonious explanation, which is that everybody isn't irrational. It's the most reasonable assumption and from that we would conclude something like this:

Having to pay your QB a ton of money decreases your probability of getting to the Super Bowl, but less so than not having a QB who is worth a ton of money.

Using Super Bowl wins is cherry picking stats. The only meaningful stat is playoff appearances. And as I already have shown in another thread, paying elite money for elite QB's guarantees a steady string of playoff appearances.

So both men's articles are crap, really.

Popeyejones":1oprg91i said:

The problem with this type of analysis is that there's an empty cell; teams that COULD have paid their excellent QB at the market rate but opted not to.

What's their Super Bowl rate? We have no idea, because nobody actually does that, making the whole analysis kind of an exercise in futility.

If someone can show me an example of a team letting their would-be highly paid QB walk and then turning around and going to the Super Bowl I'm all ears, but without that, we have no idea what the optimal thing to do in this situation is.

Click to expand...

"At the market rate" is the operative phrase. Almost every QB that I can recall has taken their team's cap situation into account when agreeing to an extension. That is because almost every QB is at least a somewhat rational actor who recognizes that their team's cap flexibility directly impacts their own ability to win.

Wilson, so far, has expressed no interest in giving his team cap flexibility, though maybe he is hiding that interest in the pursuit of leverage. In fact, Wilson has equated this negotiation to North Carolina State's decision to force him to transfer his senior year. When in reality, all evidence points to the fact that this is nothing like situation, as the Seahawks have put a "market value" offer on the table that would make him one of the three highest paid players in the game.

Wilson has chosen not to accept that offer, at least so far, yet has unfairly equated it to forcing him out. He's a 26 year old who has had a lot of good fortune in this early part of his playing career . . . transferring to a loaded Wisconsin program and then getting drafted by a team that boasted one of the best defenses and some of the best coaching in the league.

As for the example you are looking for, how about the Packers? They won a Super Bowl two years after trading Favre. The Rams traded Trent Green for a First Round pick, making undrafted Kurt Warner their starting QB; they won a Super Bowl that same year. Maybe there is a better example, but it is rare because usually both the franchise QB and the team have a mutual interest in paying the QB a fair market deal that also allows for cap flexibility.

The Seahawks are in a unique situation...other teams have won a superbowl with a young QB, but they were able to pay that QB because the rest of their team wasn't full of young stars, and the NFL is relatively new to the QB mega contract.

Look at the QBs salaries when they won the superbowl, and you'll see a pattern:

Brady - took a paycut to field a better team

Wilson - rookie contract

Flacco - rookie contract

E. Manning - not yet mega deal

Rodgers - first contract I think? Not yet mega deal

Brees - not yet mega deal

Berger - not yet mega deal

E. Manning - not yet mega deal

P. Manning

Berger - not yet mega deal


Relative to the cap during that year, I believe Peyton Manning in the 2006 season was utilizing the highest % of his team's cap to win a superbowl - and there's two things about that: 1. Manning is arguably the best QB of this generation, maybe ever, and 2. He was playing against Rex Grossman


And even still, the "mega deals" weren't around then. Most of the established QBs on this list made around $10 million per year. So it's simple....if the Hawks want to keep winning but never win another superbowl, pay Wilson. If they want to take a step back and then ultimately win another one, do the ballsy thing and franchise then trade him after this season.

Ramfan128":ouhcs5j0 said:

The Seahawks are in a unique situation...other teams have won a superbowl with a young QB, but they were able to pay that QB because the rest of their team wasn't full of young stars, and the NFL is relatively new to the QB mega contract.

Look at the QBs salaries when they won the superbowl, and you'll see a pattern:

Brady - took a paycut to field a better team

Wilson - rookie contract

Flacco - rookie contract

E. Manning - not yet mega deal

Rodgers - first contract I think? Not yet mega deal

Brees - not yet mega deal

Berger - not yet mega deal

E. Manning - not yet mega deal

P. Manning

Berger - not yet mega deal


Relative to the cap during that year, I believe Peyton Manning in the 2006 season was utilizing the highest % of his team's cap to win a superbowl - and there's two things about that: 1. Manning is arguably the best QB of this generation, maybe ever, and 2. He was playing against Rex Grossman


And even still, the "mega deals" weren't around then. Most of the established QBs on this list made around $10 million per year. So it's simple....if the Hawks want to keep winning but never win another superbowl, pay Wilson. If they want to take a step back and then ultimately win another one, do the ballsy thing and franchise then trade him after this season.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you love that? A nightmare scenario for both the Seahawks (losing their franchise QB) and Wilson (getting traded to a bad team). I think a long-term extension finally gets worked out once Wilson comes to his senses. Wilson will be the highest paid player in the NFL, but will give the Seahawks enough cap flexibility to continue terrorizing the NFC West and winning Super Bowls. That is my prediction!

As mentioned in the article, highest cap percentage by a Super Bowl winning QB was Steve Young (13.1%). That happened a year after the 49ers finally traded Montana.

hawknation2015":1a6vrqy2 said:

Popeyejones":1a6vrqy2 said:

The problem with this type of analysis is that there's an empty cell; teams that COULD have paid their excellent QB at the market rate but opted not to.

What's their Super Bowl rate? We have no idea, because nobody actually does that, making the whole analysis kind of an exercise in futility.

If someone can show me an example of a team letting their would-be highly paid QB walk and then turning around and going to the Super Bowl I'm all ears, but without that, we have no idea what the optimal thing to do in this situation is.

Click to expand...

"At the market rate" is the operative phrase. Almost every QB that I can recall has taken their team's cap situation into account when agreeing to an extension. That is because almost every QB is at least a somewhat rational actor who recognizes that their team's cap flexibility directly impacts their own ability to win.

Wilson, so far, has expressed no interest in giving his team cap flexibility, though maybe he is hiding that interest in the pursuit of leverage. In fact, Wilson has equated this negotiation to North Carolina State's decision to force him to transfer his senior year. When in reality, all evidence points to the fact that this is nothing like situation, as the Seahawks have put a "market value" offer on the table that would make him one of the three highest paid players in the game.

Wilson has chosen not to accept that offer, at least so far, yet has unfairly equated it to forcing him out. He's a 26 year old who has had a lot of good fortune in this early part of his playing career . . . transferring to a loaded Wisconsin program and then getting drafted by a team that boasted one of the best defenses and some of the best coaching in the league.

As for the example you are looking for, how about the Packers? They won a Super Bowl two years after trading Favre. Maybe there is a better example, but it is rare because usually both the franchise QB and the team have a mutual interest in paying the QB a fair market deal that also allows for cap flexibility.

Click to expand...

How do we know Wilson hasn't offered a cap friendly stance. Wilson's initial request was to tear up his rookie contract in 2015 so it could be adjusted for his excellent production. When you figure RG3 has made $18 million more on the rookie scale and stands to make $16 million on his 5th year option you clearly see Wilson is being SCREWED! One would think that Wilson wouldn't shoot for the moon unless he felt insulted right?

Why the won't Seahawks adjust his 2015? Do Seahawks by their selection of a vastly underrated Wilson in the 3rd round DESERVE to have him play for peanuts again? Or is it that the NFL Owners and their CEO don't want the rookie scale changed? Is Wilson screwing over the Seahawks or merely forcing the issue which is that the rookie scale is INEQUITABLE. It is truly unfair that Russell is making 18 million less than RG3 and an extension equal to Newton's still puts him atleast $15 million behind what he should have been making as a starting qb of his caliber. Remember that Seahawks are still requiring he play 2015 at 1.5 million upon signing the extension so any upfront money draws from future money.

When Paul Allen decided to not give in on the 2015 salary it gave Wilson every right to play hardball thus the tweet RECIPROCITY.

Russ Willstrong":2nxad5bp said:

How do we know Wilson hasn't offered a cap friendly stance. Wilson's initial request was to tear up his rookie contract in 2015 so it could be adjusted for his excellent production. When you figure RG3 has made $18 million more on the rookie scale and stands to make $16 million on his 5th year option you clearly see Wilson is being SCREWED!

Why the won't Seahawks adjust his 2015? Do Seahawks by their selection of a vastly underrated Wilson in the 3rd round DESERVE to have him play for peanuts again? Or is it that the NFL Owners and their CO don't want the rookie scale changed? Is Wilson screwing over the Seahawks or merely forcing the issue which is that the rookie scale is INEQUITABLE. It is truly unfair that Russell is making 18 million less than RG3 and an extension equal to Newton's still puts him atleast $15 million behind what he should have been making as a starting qb of his caliber. Remember that Seahawks are still requiring he play 2015 at 1.5 million upon signing the extension so any upfront money draws from future money.

When Paul Allen decided to not give in on the 2015 salary it gave Wilson every right to play hardball thus the tweet RECIPROCITY.

Click to expand...

Including the current season in the APY is NOT the norm in the NFL and is certainly not cap friendly. That's just a way to massively inflate his demands, turning a $22 million APY into an untenable $27+ million APY in new money. If Wilson gets rich this year, it will come in the form of a massive signing bonus . . . like every other QB who signs his first extension.

hawknation2015":1vepimha said:

Russ Willstrong":1vepimha said:

How do we know Wilson hasn't offered a cap friendly stance. Wilson's initial request was to tear up his rookie contract in 2015 so it could be adjusted for his excellent production. When you figure RG3 has made $18 million more on the rookie scale and stands to make $16 million on his 5th year option you clearly see Wilson is being SCREWED!

Why the won't Seahawks adjust his 2015? Do Seahawks by their selection of a vastly underrated Wilson in the 3rd round DESERVE to have him play for peanuts again? Or is it that the NFL Owners and their CO don't want the rookie scale changed? Is Wilson screwing over the Seahawks or merely forcing the issue which is that the rookie scale is INEQUITABLE. It is truly unfair that Russell is making 18 million less than RG3 and an extension equal to Newton's still puts him atleast $15 million behind what he should have been making as a starting qb of his caliber. Remember that Seahawks are still requiring he play 2015 at 1.5 million upon signing the extension so any upfront money draws from future money.

When Paul Allen decided to not give in on the 2015 salary it gave Wilson every right to play hardball thus the tweet RECIPROCITY.

Click to expand...

Including the current season in the APY is NOT the norm in the NFL and is certainly not cap friendly. That's just a way to massively inflate his demands, turning a $22 million APY into an untenable $27+ million APY in new money. If Wilson gets rich this year, it will come in the form of a massive signing bonus . . . like every other QB who signs his first extension.

Click to expand...

A massive signing bonus draws from future money so it still doesn't catch him up to guys like Luck or even Newton.

At the heart of this dispute has always been the unfair rookie scale.

Russ Willstrong":31d11egi said:

hawknation2015":31d11egi said:

Russ Willstrong":31d11egi said:

How do we know Wilson hasn't offered a cap friendly stance. Wilson's initial request was to tear up his rookie contract in 2015 so it could be adjusted for his excellent production. When you figure RG3 has made $18 million more on the rookie scale and stands to make $16 million on his 5th year option you clearly see Wilson is being SCREWED!

Why the won't Seahawks adjust his 2015? Do Seahawks by their selection of a vastly underrated Wilson in the 3rd round DESERVE to have him play for peanuts again? Or is it that the NFL Owners and their CO don't want the rookie scale changed? Is Wilson screwing over the Seahawks or merely forcing the issue which is that the rookie scale is INEQUITABLE. It is truly unfair that Russell is making 18 million less than RG3 and an extension equal to Newton's still puts him atleast $15 million behind what he should have been making as a starting qb of his caliber. Remember that Seahawks are still requiring he play 2015 at 1.5 million upon signing the extension so any upfront money draws from future money.

When Paul Allen decided to not give in on the 2015 salary it gave Wilson every right to play hardball thus the tweet RECIPROCITY.

Click to expand...

Including the current season in the APY is NOT the norm in the NFL and is certainly not cap friendly. That's just a way to massively inflate his demands, turning a $22 million APY into an untenable $27+ million APY in new money. If Wilson gets rich this year, it will come in the form of a massive signing bonus . . . like every other QB who signs his first extension.

Click to expand...

A massive signing bonus draws from future money so it still doesn't catch him up to guys like Luck or even Newton.

Click to expand...

There is no way to realistically go back in time to compensate Russell for the fact that he was 3rd Round pick. We don't have a time machine, and we're not going to destroy the team by offering him $27-30 million per year in new money to compensate for the fact that he was a 3rd Round draft pick. That kind of demand is absurd, goes against the NFL norm, and would not allow Russell -- or the team -- to continue competing for Super Bowls.

Nobody said go offer him 27 million per year right?

Bottom line was Wilson's camp wanted 2015 on the table for who knows maybe a $10 million raise? You'd think they might be realistic about a 20 million per year contract extension after that. We definitely could afford that type of money but sadly it seems both sides elected to play hardball now.

Russ Willstrong":2mlbogb7 said:

Nobody said go offer him 27 million per year right?

Bottom line was Wilson's camp wanted 2015 on the table for who knows maybe a $10 million raise? You'd think they might be realistic about a 20 million per year contract extension after that. We definitely could afford that type of money but sadly it seems both sides elected to play hardball now.

Click to expand...

First of all, we don't have $10 million in cap space this season just lying around, so that won't work. The rumor now is that Wilson wants around $30 million per year in new money. In your hypothetical: $10 million more this year, in addition to $22 million over the next four years, would be the equivalent of $24.5 million APY in new money. I think that would still be excessively high and a real detriment to our ability to win Super Bowls.

The whole idea of breaking from the accepted norm in the NFL and compensating Wilson for being a 3rd Round pick is a nonstarter. Ultimately, it's simply a tactic to artificially inflate his demands beyond the point that is acceptable.

So you're saying JS can't fit a $10 million raise this year given we had the cap space available? Now you're taking rumors of $30 million per year as legit?
There is a reason Wilson and Rodgers (a lawyer) are playing hardball. There is also reason Seahawks wouldn't contemplate offering a raise for 2015 --NFL Owners and commissioner Goddell.

hawknation2015":jtvnlle4 said:

Ramfan128":jtvnlle4 said:

The Seahawks are in a unique situation...other teams have won a superbowl with a young QB, but they were able to pay that QB because the rest of their team wasn't full of young stars, and the NFL is relatively new to the QB mega contract.

Look at the QBs salaries when they won the superbowl, and you'll see a pattern:

Brady - took a paycut to field a better team

Wilson - rookie contract

Flacco - rookie contract

E. Manning - not yet mega deal

Rodgers - first contract I think? Not yet mega deal

Brees - not yet mega deal

Berger - not yet mega deal

E. Manning - not yet mega deal

P. Manning

Berger - not yet mega deal


Relative to the cap during that year, I believe Peyton Manning in the 2006 season was utilizing the highest % of his team's cap to win a superbowl - and there's two things about that: 1. Manning is arguably the best QB of this generation, maybe ever, and 2. He was playing against Rex Grossman


And even still, the "mega deals" weren't around then. Most of the established QBs on this list made around $10 million per year. So it's simple....if the Hawks want to keep winning but never win another superbowl, pay Wilson. If they want to take a step back and then ultimately win another one, do the ballsy thing and franchise then trade him after this season.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you love that? A nightmare scenario for both the Seahawks (losing their franchise QB) and Wilson (getting traded to a bad team). I think a long-term extension finally gets worked out once Wilson comes to his senses. Wilson will be the highest paid player in the NFL, but will give the Seahawks enough cap flexibility to continue terrorizing the NFC West and winning Super Bowls. That is my prediction!

As mentioned in the article, highest cap percentage by a Super Bowl winning QB was Steve Young (13.1%). That happened a year after the 49ers finally traded Montana.

Click to expand...

I want Wilson to be a Seahawk forever. My actual nightmare scenario would be the Hawks trading him for 4 1st round picks and getting another young QB.

Russ Willstrong":1z2a0xv3 said:

So you're saying JS can't fit a $10 million raise this year given we had the cap space available? Now you're taking rumors of $30 million per year as legit?
There is a reason Wilson and Rodgers (a lawyer) are playing hardball. There is also reason Seahawks wouldn't contemplate offering a raise for 2015 --NFL Owners and commissioner Goddell.

Click to expand...

We don't have $10 million in cap space lying around as it is (few teams do), add to that the potential future needs that could arise this season due to injuries and the need to extend Wagner's contract as well. We do have room, however, to give Wilson the largest signing bonus in NFL history and to give Wagner his own signing bonus this year.

This has NOTHING to do with what "NFL Owners and commissioner Goddell" would think. As Schneider has said, it has everything to do with allowing us to remain a viable Super Bowl contender in the future.