1 Year FA philosophy - risky?

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
OK I get the advantage with 1 year contracts

1) You can get a guy that wants to prove something so you get him in a "contract year" and he plays great

2) If they aren't good you can "dump" them and not have a big negative impact

and yes if they are good we can get comp picks

However what I am not seeing discussed at all is the big negative

1) If they succeed you will pay more next year for their services than you would have for next year right now.....

2) If they succeed - you are left with a hole because you can't afford to keep them or a hole because you just spent a ton of money

3) Consistency - if you keep signing guys to a 1 year contract you keep changing out a bunch of players and you lack consistency and won't have as tight of a locker room


Free Agency


So this was a good year in regards to not having many existing player contracts expiring on our team

Next year..... not so much. We have 37!!!!! players that will be in one sort of Free Agency (16 of those are UFA)

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/ ... -seahawks/

So while we will have lots of cap room next year we will either have to load up on Free Agent signings next year (EXPENSIVE) or build a team with a bunch of rookies......

So in "my perfect world" - we have one or two FA guys signed to 1 year contracts, but we would have had a couple more signed to three year contracts. We really only ended up with Thorpe being a 2 year contract

I get that the FA market dictates a lot of this, but we better hit it out of the park this draft or this team will be on thin ice next year.......

Thoughts?
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
My thought is, they have set the team up for that knock it outta the park draft.

This draft is deep in our need positions, so this draft is set up perfectly for us.

The downside is no 4th rounder or 5th (due to PC's bungling of practices), and a trade with NE.

We have 3 3rd rounders which JS may try and recover picks we don't have.

This league is a "get it now" league and smart GM's like JS know how to spread the wealth or lack thereof.
 

Ozzy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
9,289
Reaction score
3,816
I can see where it could work against them but overall I think its pretty smart. Lacy is a prime example. They're putting him in a position where he has to succeed at a relatively low cost.
 

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,155
Reaction score
1,764
I suspect this league wide trend to 1 year, prove it, type deals is an attempt to max out opportunities for teams to acquire comp. picks rather than anything else. The advantges you note are certainly there, but the risk of losing the player if they play well during their 'contract year' are also high. I really think this may become a new way of doing business with backup players reducing the team's financial exposure to them until they prove themselves to the team.
 

el capitan

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
658
Reaction score
0
I personally like the idea of loading up on these 1 year prove it deals.

If any of these guys has a great season, that benefits the Hawks. If they then leave and sign for big money elsewhere that too benefits the Hawks. I'm struggling to see the negatives TBH.
 

DJrmb

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
2,168
Reaction score
501
I don't see how signing guys to 1 year deals and risking losing them because they play well is any more risky than signing guys to long term contracts and screwing up your salary cap for multiple years.

Also they've proven they can make it work in the past with Bennett and Avril. Both of them played well on their prove it deals and they were both retained long term.

Plus if someone performs well on a 1 year deal and gets a big contract you get a comp pick (which are even more valuable now because they are trade-able). I think that's actually part of John and Pete's strategy with these 1 year deals. Stack up on picks and use them to draft, yes, but also to trade for other players.
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
I'm not sure a 1 year prove it deal will give us the information we need to sign these guys to longer contracts or not? Look at the Kearse and Lane signings. We had them 3 plus years and still made bad signings in their cases.
 

Tical21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
82
It's risky because if any of these guys do well, they're probably gone. To me, this signifies that the front office sees this as a crucial year. They're leaving themselves a ton of room to make major changes next offseason if they feel changes are needed. They're trying to buy themselves time to improve through the draft, but sooner or later, they're going to have to hit on some draft picks or blow the whole thing up and start over.
 

Siouxhawk

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,776
Reaction score
0
And if they do hit it out of the park, we would get a month head start on negotiating a longer term deal. And there's always the franchise tag.
 

Ozzy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
9,289
Reaction score
3,816
Sort of where I'm at. Big picture I think it makes sense and even helps us to avoid the big Cary Williams, Percy type stuff and to sign the guys we know can play.
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
I think this will be the new model for FA. Instead of the dumb mega contracts for upper 20's players now handed out like halloween candy.

If a player does good (and the SHOULD, because of incentives) then it can be evaluated as to whether they should be retained. Smart business decisions IMO.
 

nanomoz

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
7,467
Reaction score
1,361
Location
UT
Don't ignore the compensatory pick part of this formula.
 
OP
OP
M

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
el capitan":kr83py69 said:
I personally like the idea of loading up on these 1 year prove it deals.

If any of these guys has a great season, that benefits the Hawks. If they then leave and sign for big money elsewhere that too benefits the Hawks. I'm struggling to see the negatives TBH.

The negatives are that the option is to have 2nd and 3rd years into the Contract and now you don't

So right now you could probably have gotten Lacey at another $3M - $5M for a second year with dead money being in the $2M-$3M area

If he works out you won't be close to those numbers. So you missed the opportunity to have him at an affordable cost for year 2 and 3 that is the negative.

I TOTALLY get the upside that you aren't stuck with dead money, but one should recognize that a team that signs several FAs will hit on some and fail on others. You shed the ones that didn't work out and eat a little bit of dead money but on the ones you nailed you have them for 2-4 years.

We now will not have any of the upside and can potentially still have the downside that they don't work out
 

penihawk

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
537
Reaction score
0
The guys getting 1 yr deals are getting them for a reason. These are the guys that will fill roster holes year after year. I'm fine with most of the 1 yr deals and players we may want to retain could be extended before the start of FA next year. Hitting the draft will be the key to future success.
 
OP
OP
M

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
Largent80":2gkc01d2 said:
I think this will be the new model for FA. Instead of the dumb mega contracts for upper 20's players now handed out like halloween candy.

If a player does good (and the SHOULD, because of incentives) then it can be evaluated as to whether they should be retained. Smart business decisions IMO.

But you just spent the money to make them prove that they should be retained and in the end you may not be able to retain them

As I stated - I get the upsides but I see downsides and I think the right formula is a mix of short and longer term contracts. I think the FO agrees as they tried to sign Lang to more than one year so this is probably also related to simply not getting the guys they want for the right length of time
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
mikeak" one should recognize that a team that signs several FAs will hit on some and fail on others.[/quote said:
The same can be said about drafted players. There are no guarantees, so for a team to roll with one year, all it does is give that player incentive to perform. And in the "what have you done for us lately" category, that is all that matters.
 

DJrmb

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
2,168
Reaction score
501
mikeak":1qmefi5c said:
el capitan":1qmefi5c said:
I personally like the idea of loading up on these 1 year prove it deals.

If any of these guys has a great season, that benefits the Hawks. If they then leave and sign for big money elsewhere that too benefits the Hawks. I'm struggling to see the negatives TBH.

The negatives are that the option is to have 2nd and 3rd years into the Contract and now you don't

So right now you could probably have gotten Lacey at another $3M - $5M for a second year with dead money being in the $2M-$3M area

If he works out you won't be close to those numbers. So you missed the opportunity to have him at an affordable cost for year 2 and 3 that is the negative.

I TOTALLY get the upside that you aren't stuck with dead money, but one should recognize that a team that signs several FAs will hit on some and fail on others. You shed the ones that didn't work out and eat a little bit of dead money but on the ones you nailed you have them for 2-4 years.

We now will not have any of the upside and can potentially still have the downside that they don't work out

You also have to consider the person (and their Agent) on the other side of the deal. No way would Lacy sign a multi year deal for low money like that at the age of 27. He's hoping to have a big year and get his last big contract. You couldn't have signed him for 3m-5m over multiple years.
 

Mojambo

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,655
Reaction score
0
I think the most important factor is that it allows the team to evaluate culture/scheme fit before committing big money.

Not every guy works in this program. One year deals allow them to figure out which ones do.
 
OP
OP
M

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
penihawk":6prps5de said:
The guys getting 1 yr deals are getting them for a reason. These are the guys that will fill roster holes year after year. I'm fine with most of the 1 yr deals and players we may want to retain could be extended before the start of FA next year. Hitting the draft will be the key to future success.

Historically that has been correct but this year saw a huge number of 1 year deals. Look at the below link that lists lots of good to great players signing 1 year deals.

The one year deal has the risk for the player that they get injured. I think by next year we will see more of a swing back and see a lot of 2-3 year deals with less guaranteed except for injury

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/3/22/1 ... t-contract
 

ringless

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2014
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
nanomoz":1fppd8yq said:
Don't ignore the compensatory pick part of this formula.

That's going to be diluted as well. Apparently 85%+ of contracts handed out this FA period have been a record number of 1 year deals. So the signings are going to be diluted by 31 other teams with the same mindset. Which means a lot more players eligible for the 32 comp picks. So really it comes down to, who has the best performances, goes on to get larger contracts, and signs the least UFA's next season.
 
Top