PDA

View Full Version : Over Paying Free Agency horrible this year


TheGunShow
03-04-2007, 12:33 PM
Nate Clement, Wes Welker, Dwayne White, Leonard Davis, Dennis Northcutt, Michael Lewis, all getting over paid. I mean Nate Clement is a very good CB. But the highest paid player in the NFL? I mean he's no Champ Bailey! Wes Welker getting 39 million! Why didn't they just re-sign Deion Branch? Dwayne White getting 6 Million a season. Over a million dollars a sack! Leonard Davis getting 7 Mill a season. Dennis Northcutt getting paid like a starter?

I for one am glad the Steelers aren't mixing it up in free agency yet.

miamichamp_305
03-04-2007, 12:34 PM
Many will say it's because the salary cap has increased, I for one say it doesn't matter, everyone is still getting overpaid! Just like in baseball.

yourfavestoner
03-04-2007, 12:41 PM
How insightful. Absolutely nobody else has brought this issue up on the message board yet.

JT Jag
03-04-2007, 12:51 PM
Get used to it. This isn't your father's NFL. With 65% of NFL income being used on players (I.E., the Salary Cap), it'll only get worse. This is the market now. Considering how much Drew Bennett got and Kevin Curtis and Donte' Stallworth will get, Dennis Northcutt with eventually be considered something of a bargain.

yourfavestoner
03-04-2007, 12:58 PM
Northcutt is making around the same that he was making in Cleveland, by the way. Like almost all of the free agent contracts signed this offseason, the deal is backloaded, so the team can cut him with few losses after a few years.

princefielder28
03-04-2007, 01:00 PM
It's reminding me alot of baseball where teams feel that they need to overpay right away to get the guys they want instead of taking their time and making reasonable deals.

etk
03-04-2007, 01:21 PM
Take a look at the Vishanthe Shiancoe thread.

LocCsta
03-04-2007, 01:23 PM
how did michael lewis get overpaid?

JoeMontainya
03-04-2007, 01:26 PM
Lewis = 10 million gaurantted on a 6 year deal, when he wasnt even a starter.

draftguru151
03-04-2007, 01:31 PM
People need to realize how much the contracts actually are. The players won't see most of that money. Just like when all the rookies got HUGE contracts last year they weren't really that big because that is the most money they can see, but they won't get see most of it. The deals are pretty crazy because of the signing bonuses but they aren't anywhere near as bad as people are making it seem.

From the last one of these.

Denver Bronco99
03-04-2007, 01:42 PM
well champ still makes the most a year...he avrages 9 mill a year

JoeMontainya
03-04-2007, 01:43 PM
It doesnt matter if they wont see all the money, the fact is they very well COULD see all the money, and the contract alone is alot.

IndyColtScout
03-04-2007, 01:44 PM
The answer is building through the draft, & avoiding FA unless someone special is out there & is worth overpaying. I'm glad the Colts usually stay out of FA (damn you Corey Simon).

Number 10
03-04-2007, 01:44 PM
Consider this.

Look at the 12 teams that have signed FAs. Then go check the teams who have not been paying for FAs.

Tell me if you can find the trend.

yourfavestoner
03-04-2007, 01:49 PM
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of people on this site just don't understand the salary cap.

draftguru151
03-04-2007, 01:50 PM
I've come to the conclusion that the majority of people on this site just don't understand the salary cap.

I think you could replace salary cap with most football terminology.

etk
03-04-2007, 01:51 PM
Madden 08 is gonna suck big time if I have to pay this much for mediocre offensive linemen and backup TEs/Safeties. Especially because Madden is not like the NFL, and the contracts you give players are what they seem. There's no incentives or bonuses. Ugh!

etk
03-04-2007, 01:52 PM
I think you could replace salary cap with most football terminology.

QFT + 932-8428 (character limit)

JoeMontainya
03-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Just turn the salary cap off and have a hay day.

yourfavestoner
03-04-2007, 01:55 PM
Madden 08 is gonna suck big time if I have to pay this much for mediocre offensive linemen and backup TEs/Safeties. Especially because Madden is not like the NFL, and the contracts you give players are what they seem. There's no incentives or bonuses. Ugh!

The salary cap isn't hard on Madden at all, because it escalates much more quickly than it does in real life. In reality, the salary cap increases about 6% every year. In Madden, it's something like 10%. Plus, there's the fact that in Madden, players ask for ridiculously small signing bonuses.

BehrenMan007
03-04-2007, 01:55 PM
thats free agency. teams spending waaayyyy too much money cause they think they need the top guy right now. ridiculous.

JoeMontainya
03-04-2007, 01:57 PM
IMO what do you want a bad team that has huge holes to fill do? You cant just not participate in FA because they demand money. And you cant address everything in the draft, theres not enough high round picks for quality players.

etk
03-04-2007, 01:59 PM
The salary cap isn't hard on Madden at all, because it escalates much more quickly than it does in real life. In reality, the salary cap increases about 6% every year. In Madden, it's something like 10%. Plus, there's the fact that in Madden, players ask for ridiculously small signing bonuses.

In Madden I just turn off injuries and sign the cheapest backups while all my starters are at least 96, so it's not really my problem, but it could be annoying.

Number 10
03-04-2007, 01:59 PM
IMO what do you want a bad team that has huge holes to fill do? You cant just not participate in FA because they demand money. And you cant address everything in the draft, theres not enough high round picks for quality players.

But building a winner takes time and smart, sound decisions that are both beneficial in a football and business sense.

Larry
03-04-2007, 02:02 PM
Lewis = 10 million gaurantted on a 6 year deal, when he wasnt even a starter.

The Eagles benched him to lower his value, oldest trick in the book.

TheChampIsHere
03-04-2007, 02:03 PM
yeah, players seem to be getting overpaid. But is anyone surprised?

What stands out to me is that Hutch, who was easily the best OG in the game, got a 49 mil contract last year which was unprecedented for a guard. The Hawks declined to match it it was so big. Now, they cant even bring in Steinbach, Dielman or Dockery for that price as Steinbach and Dielman got 49 mill deals elsewhere and Dielman got a 6 year deal with about the same average salary. The Hawks offered him about the same deal they declined to match with Hutch and he turned it down to stay in SD. And Dielman isnt close to being as good as Hutch.

draftguru151
03-04-2007, 02:06 PM
They didn't match Hutchinson's contract because the poison pill clause in it.

Number 10
03-04-2007, 02:10 PM
The Eagles benched him to lower his value, oldest trick in the book.

They benched him because he was playing terrible.

ks_perfection
03-04-2007, 02:11 PM
yeah, players seem to be getting overpaid. But is anyone surprised?

What stands out to me is that Hutch, who was easily the best OG in the game, got a 49 mil contract last year which was unprecedented for a guard. The Hawks declined to match it it was so big. Now, they cant even bring in Steinbach, Dielman or Dockery for that price as Steinbach and Dielman got 49 mill deals elsewhere and Dielman got a 6 year deal with about the same average salary. The Hawks offered him about the same deal they declined to match with Hutch and he turned it down to stay in SD. And Dielman isnt close to being as good as Hutch.

They didn't turn down Hutchs 49 mil contract because they thought it was too much but because they had to guarntee the whole contract if he wasn't the highest paid linemen on the team, which he wasn't. If it wasn't for that clause they would have signed it (don't know why they didn't just offer it to him in the first place).

yourfavestoner
03-04-2007, 02:31 PM
They didn't turn down Hutchs 49 mil contract because they thought it was too much but because they had to guarntee the whole contract if he wasn't the highest paid linemen on the team, which he wasn't. If it wasn't for that clause they would have signed it (don't know why they didn't just offer it to him in the first place).

I've never understood the point of the Transition Tag anyways. All you're doing is letting another team negotiate a contract for you.

JT Jag
03-04-2007, 02:35 PM
The salary cap isn't hard on Madden at all, because it escalates much more quickly than it does in real life. In reality, the salary cap increases about 6% every year. In Madden, it's something like 10%. Plus, there's the fact that in Madden, players ask for ridiculously small signing bonuses.Yeah, but in Madden, it's irritating that you can't carry over unused salary cap like you can in real life. I always find myself losing all my cap room because I just don't have anything else to do and I have too much money to spend.

yourfavestoner
03-04-2007, 02:48 PM
Yeah, but in Madden, it's irritating that you can't carry over unused salary cap like you can in real life. I always find myself losing all my cap room because I just don't have anything else to do and I have too much money to spend.

You can't carry over unused salary cap in real life, either. The only way is to use a loophole with incentives, but I'm not 100% positive how it works. Vic did an explanation for it a long time ago; I'll try to find it.

Either way, it's Madden. Over the last few years, I've realized that it's way too ambitious to expect them to make the game, you know, realistic or anything.

etk
03-04-2007, 02:52 PM
They benched him because he was playing terrible.

QFT. Also because they loved Sean Considine and wanted to get him on the field as much as possible. He was pretty bad too, but they still love him for some reason.

JT Jag
03-04-2007, 03:15 PM
You can't carry over unused salary cap in real life, either. The only way is to use a loophole with incentivesYou give a so-so player who doesn't get much playing time (Usually Quinn Gray for us, but it was Kenny Pettaway last year) a number of "Likely to be earned" incentives that there is no expectation of them reaching.

Those incentives are automatically deducted from the salary cap, before they're reached. If they're not reached, the money that would have been given in incentives is moved up to the next year's salary cap.

You can't micromanage contracts in Madden like that.

eaglesalltheway
03-04-2007, 03:47 PM
The Eagles benched him to lower his value, oldest trick in the book.

Actually, we benched him because he was getting beaten for big plays that were hurting our defense. Thats just a dumb thing to say.

yourfavestoner
03-04-2007, 04:00 PM
You give a so-so player who doesn't get much playing time (Usually Quinn Gray for us, but it was Kenny Pettaway last year) a number of "Likely to be earned" incentives that there is no expectation of them reaching.

Those incentives are automatically deducted from the salary cap, before they're reached. If they're not reached, the money that would have been given in incentives is moved up to the next year's salary cap.

You can't micromanage contracts in Madden like that.

Lol. Yup, that's how you do it.

cunningham06
03-04-2007, 06:23 PM
QFT. Also because they loved Sean Considine and wanted to get him on the field as much as possible. He was pretty bad too, but they still love him for some reason.

Where did you get that Considine was pretty bad? He was solid, and certainly better than Lewis who was giving up TD's all over the place.

P-L
03-04-2007, 07:11 PM
A playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations doesn't bench someone for an inferior player just to lower his value.

TheMadLionsFan
03-04-2007, 07:21 PM
is it true that Nate clements got 23 million guaranteed?....becuase I thought that was the entire contract

Jonathan_VIlma
03-04-2007, 09:59 PM
This year and next might really seperate the correctly run teams from the teams who will be paying for a lot of these mistakes. I know we're still paying from making Robertson the highest paid DT in the NFL on his rookie contract.

Notice how the franchises that are consistantly good (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Diego, Baltimore, etc.) aren't breaking the banks for average players. It's all about knowing when too much is too much.

It's a good point that the players will never see the 80 million they are receiving, but the guaranteed money is ridiculous. They will obviously see all of that along with their base salary from that 80 mill.

49ersfan_87
03-04-2007, 10:05 PM
Notice how the franchises that are consistantly good (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Diego, Baltimore, etc.) aren't breaking the banks for average players. It's all about knowing when too much is too much.



I said this in another post as well, but most of the teams who arent spending already have their holes filled, or dont have a lot of holes. While how good an organization is comes into it, just look at the teams that have made FA splashes- buffalo, cleveland, san francisco. They all have many many needs and need some proven players.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2007, 10:10 PM
This is why I say Free Agency is for suckers. There are some moves so far that I like (AD to Patriots should be pretty sick) but for every one good move someone is giving 18 million guaranteed to a player that never did **** as a pro. If teams draft properly you can continually use that money to resign their own and lock them up earlier so you don't have to blow so much money. That's what the good teams do. The teams that are throwing this kind of money around are generally desperate for immediate help, and in many cases I'm using that term lightly.

Crabjuice
03-04-2007, 10:12 PM
Yeah... New England sure has been quiet. That must be why they're so consistently good.

Jughead10
03-04-2007, 10:17 PM
This year and next might really seperate the correctly run teams from the teams who will be paying for a lot of these mistakes. I know we're still paying from making Robertson the highest paid DT in the NFL on his rookie contract.

Notice how the franchises that are consistantly good (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Diego, Baltimore, etc.) aren't breaking the banks for average players. It's all about knowing when too much is too much.

It's a good point that the players will never see the 80 million they are receiving, but the guaranteed money is ridiculous. They will obviously see all of that along with their base salary from that 80 mill.

Since when have the Chargers been consistently good?

Number 10
03-04-2007, 10:23 PM
Once again....check out which teams are dishing out the big contracts right now. You will get my point.

49ersfan_87
03-04-2007, 10:27 PM
Once again....check out which teams are dishing out the big contracts right now. You will get my point.

What about NE? They dished some big cash to adalius and welker.

Number 10
03-04-2007, 10:45 PM
What about NE? They dished some big cash to adalius and welker.


Other than them.....forgot to mention that.

Number 10
03-04-2007, 11:10 PM
-If you wanted to have the last word and then lock the thread you should have just told me and I would have said my last piece and then let it rest. Here is my last post regarding the Davis contract.

I made my points known and have yet to hear a rebuttle other than...

"Well other teams have overpayed for guards (coughBills&Brownscough), why can't we?"

"Well he is all happy and jolly now because friends and family live in the state that the Cowboys home stadium resides in."

"He was a pro bowler at one time back when there was a ton of hype surrounding him and his massive size."

"The Cardinals let go of product-of-the-system Simeon Rice who turned out to be good, so Davis will be good too."

--I will certainly give you that G is a need for you guys but back to my initial point, that is not a position that needs to be thrown all that money. And IMO, your biggest need is at FS because you don't have anyone there that is good and your SS can't cover. But that is another debate.

bearsfan_51
03-04-2007, 11:13 PM
Agreed. D-Unit you're such a little ***** about everything. If that gets me banned so be it. The only reason you're an admin anyway is because you're a suck up to Scott.

Number 10
03-04-2007, 11:17 PM
Agreed. D-Unit you're such a little ***** about everything. If that gets me banned so be it. The only reason you're an admin anyway is because you're a suck up to Scott.


BF51.....I like you so don't go down that path, I'd rather you stay here because I have had some good discussions with you despite not seeing eye to eye sometimes.

D-Unit is fine with me too, just don't agree with that tactic he pulled. He was and still is one of my favorite mods here and we simply don't agree on something. We were arguing but it did not get out of hand and I don't see why it got locked, but by no means should anyone come down on him hard.

16_SFfan_80
03-05-2007, 12:14 AM
Lol, if you look at the entire picture, there are GUARDS getting $18 million guranteed, and therefore the $23 million guranteed for Nate Clements is actually a bargain. Considering that his deal actually boils down to something along the lines of a 6 year deal worth around $46 million, with the last two years simply so Nate can walk around and brag about getting $80 million to boost his ego.

Watch when D'Angelo Hall and Asante Samuel hit the market eventually and get 10 year deals for $100 million. It is bound to happen.


And the Michael Lewis signing for $10 million guranteed isn't too bad, considering that it's prorated over 6 years, and Nolan really loves Michael Lewis. He will return to Pro-Bowl form in our secondary, book it.

cunningham06
03-05-2007, 12:25 AM
I seriously doubt he will return to pro bowl form. I expect him to improve his coverage from last season, but then again it's pretty hard to get worse than how he was playing last year in coverage.

D-Unit
03-05-2007, 12:34 AM
-If you wanted to have the last word and then lock the thread you should have just told me and I would have said my last piece and then let it rest. Here is my last post regarding the Davis contract.

I made my points known and have yet to hear a rebuttle other than...

"Well other teams have overpayed for guards (coughBills&Brownscough), why can't we?"

"Well he is all happy and jolly now because friends and family live in the state that the Cowboys home stadium resides in."

"He was a pro bowler at one time back when there was a ton of hype surrounding him and his massive size."

"The Cardinals let go of product-of-the-system Simeon Rice who turned out to be good, so Davis will be good too."

--I will certainly give you that G is a need for you guys but back to my initial point, that is not a position that needs to be thrown all that money. And IMO, your biggest need is at FS because you don't have anyone there that is good and your SS can't cover. But that is another debate.
Guard wasn't our number one overall need. Just that I felt it was our number one need that we could address in FA based off the players available. FS and NT are bigger needs imo, but I don't think the players available make any of them the #1 FA target for us. After Steinbach and Dielman were taken off the shelf Davis became the #1. The rest of the options out there only become more and more iffy.

D-Unit
03-05-2007, 12:38 AM
Agreed. D-Unit you're such a little ***** about everything. If that gets me banned so be it. The only reason you're an admin anyway is because you're a suck up to Scott.
Oh come on.. You think that would get you banned? You're too much of an angel. I really couldn't care what you say... It's meaningless. I barely even know who you are. As for being a suck up to Scott? Yeah... whatever makes you feel like the tough guy.

Xenos
03-05-2007, 12:43 AM
Since when have the Chargers been consistently good?

Since AJ Smith became GM.

Xenos
03-05-2007, 12:48 AM
yeah, players seem to be getting overpaid. But is anyone surprised?

What stands out to me is that Hutch, who was easily the best OG in the game, got a 49 mil contract last year which was unprecedented for a guard. The Hawks declined to match it it was so big. Now, they cant even bring in Steinbach, Dielman or Dockery for that price as Steinbach and Dielman got 49 mill deals elsewhere and Dielman got a 6 year deal with about the same average salary. The Hawks offered him about the same deal they declined to match with Hutch and he turned it down to stay in SD. And Dielman isnt close to being as good as Hutch.
Not yet anyways. But he's only 26 and constantly improving. Barring a major injury, I can see him as one of the top guards in the NFL. Heck, the guy has only been an olinmen for two years. He was a former tight end turned defensive lineman turned olineman. The fact that he was able to step up his game so much is a testament to his hard work ethic and talent.
I mean before 2006, LT had problems running in the fourth quarter against good defenses. Now we were able to run on them even when they were expecting it. As long as the line continues to gel, you'll finally see what LT can do behind a good oline that has the potential to rival the lines of KC and Seattle in their prime.

yourfavestoner
03-05-2007, 02:02 AM
I just realized that I'm really, really glad we re-signed Manuwai before free agency started.

Addict
03-05-2007, 02:28 AM
I just realized that I'm really, really glad we re-signed Manuwai before free agency started.

You should be. Manuwai is probably kicking himself in the head for that though.

On the other hand, if he learns to kick himself in the head, that should improve his agility a great deal.

jackalope
03-05-2007, 07:15 AM
this is why i like Ted Thompson's approach to free agency. right now he's just sitting back and watching everyone overpay.

bearsfan_51
03-05-2007, 08:14 AM
this is why i like Ted Thompson's approach to free agency. right now he's just sitting back and watching everyone overpay.

Except for that whole, giving Charles Woodson about 20 million more than anyone else was going to.

But yes, I like Thompson too.

Number 10
03-05-2007, 08:23 AM
I just realized that I'm really, really glad we re-signed Manuwai before free agency started.

Wish I could say the same about Snee.

TheGunShow
03-05-2007, 12:38 PM
well champ still makes the most a year...he avrages 9 mill a year

And Nate Clements averages 10 million a year. Pretty simple math. 8 years 80 million dollars.

bearsfan_51
03-05-2007, 12:39 PM
And Nate Clements averages 10 million a year. Pretty simple math. 8 years 80 million dollars.
Actually it's not nearly that simple, which is what a lot of people don't understand.

frogstomp
03-05-2007, 12:45 PM
Agreed. D-Unit you're such a little ***** about everything. If that gets me banned so be it. The only reason you're an admin anyway is because you're a suck up to Scott.

Pfft, old news. You're too new and edgy to be posting stuff that people knew about day 1.

Anyways, regardless of overpaying people, I'll be mad if the Jets don't sign anyone.

Jughead10
03-05-2007, 12:47 PM
Pfft, old news. You're too new and edgy to be posting stuff that people knew about day 1.

Anyways, regardless of overpaying people, I'll be mad if the Jets don't sign anyone.

Yeah, they have a ton of room. I'm surpised. If Samuel hit the open market I think he would have definately been a Jet.

Shiver
03-05-2007, 12:47 PM
If BF51 gets banned, then it is a case of when keeping it real goes wrong. Seriously though, I hope not.

The more money the NFL makes, the more "overpaid" players get. Seriously though, most people here have no concept of the salary cap. These players will be lucky to make 1/2 of what their "deals" say they will. Just like Arrington and Burelson last year. Neither of them will see any of the money they were slated to make.

frogstomp
03-05-2007, 12:49 PM
Yeah, they have a ton of room. I'm surpised. If Samuel hit the open market I think he would have definately been a Jet.

Yeah. See, I'm glad we didn't sign Clements now, because he isn't worth it. However, Samuel would have rocked, even if we had to overpay him 2 million a year.

frogstomp
03-05-2007, 12:50 PM
If BF51 gets banned, then it is a case of when keeping it real goes wrong. Seriously though, I hope not.

He won't be banned. People who have been around as long as he has cannot get banned. Well, assuming they are moderately intelligent and know things about football.

Crap... he might get banned after all...

Addict
03-05-2007, 12:51 PM
Yeah. See, I'm glad we didn't sign Clements now, because he isn't worth it. However, Samuel would have rocked, even if we had to overpay him 2 million a year.

well clements should start putting up some solid numbers, he'll be the nr.1 dback in SF, while in Buffalo he had to share that with McGee.

Jughead10
03-05-2007, 12:53 PM
The more money the NFL makes, the more "overpaid" players get. Seriously though, most people here have no concept of the salary cap. These players will be lucky to make 1/2 of what their "deals" say they will. Just like Arrington and Burelson last year. Neither of them will see any of the money they were slated to make.

Arrington's contract was a whole lot different though. He didn't have close to 18 million in guaranteed money. I think he only had 5.

TheGunShow
03-05-2007, 12:55 PM
Actually it's not nearly that simple, which is what a lot of people don't understand.

Are people ********?

Champ Bailey
63,000,000.00 divided by seven years equals 9,000,000.00 a season.

Nate Clements
80,000,000.00 divided by eight years equals 10,000,000.00 a season.

So if I'm wrong how this doesn't come out that Nate Clements is getting paid more on average let me know.

Shiver
03-05-2007, 12:56 PM
Arrington's contract was a whole lot different though. He didn't have close to 18 million in guaranteed money. I think he only had 5.

What I am saying is the unintelligent looked at the deal and thought the Giants gave him a big deal. I remember many a heated argument with some pesky Redskin fans who were laughing at the Giants.

Shiver
03-05-2007, 12:57 PM
Are people ********?

Champ Bailey
63,000,000.00 divided by seven years equals 9,000,000.00 a season.

Nate Clements
80,000,000.00 divided by eight years equalts 10,000,000.00 a season.

So if I'm wrong how this doesn't come out that Nate Clements is getting paid more on average let me know.


35$ Million of Nate Clements contract, he will NEVER see. He is going to get paid 45$ Million for six years, then as he turns 32 years old, he will be cut loose.

Jughead10
03-05-2007, 12:59 PM
What I am saying is the unintelligent looked at the deal and thought the Giants gave him a big deal. I remember many a heated argument with some pesky Redskin fans who were laughing at the Giants.

Yeah a lot of the bonus money was set in roster bonuses in future years he never reached. I'm not sure the way a lot of these contracts are set up but Davis for example says 18 million guaranteed. That means roster bonuses aren't part of that 18 million. That is a whole lot to give and mediocre player no matter what the market value is set at.

yourfavestoner
03-05-2007, 01:01 PM
Shiver and BF51, you're wasting your time. People here don't understand the salary cap. People have been trying to explain this **** all weekend, and they still don't get it. They don't want to get it, for whatever reason.

Jughead10
03-05-2007, 01:01 PM
35$ Million of Nate Clements contract, he will NEVER see. He is going to get paid 45$ Million for six years, then as he turns 32 years old, he will be cut loose.

I'm sure Bailey is similar as well. Bottom line is neither will play through the last year on their contract. Clements still got more guaranteed money.

TheGunShow
03-05-2007, 01:14 PM
35$ Million of Nate Clements contract, he will NEVER see. He is going to get paid 45$ Million for six years, then as he turns 32 years old, he will be cut loose.

Oh, my God. Please don't breed. Follow along.

I mean Nate Clement is a very good CB. But the highest paid player in the NFL? I mean he's no Champ Bailey!

well champ still makes the most a year...he avrages 9 mill a year

And Nate Clements averages 10 million a year. Pretty simple math. 8 years 80 million dollars.

Actually it's not nearly that simple, which is what a lot of people don't understand.

Champ Bailey
63,000,000.00 divided by seven years equals 9,000,000.00 a season.

Nate Clements
80,000,000.00 divided by eight years equals 10,000,000.00 a season.

So if I'm wrong how this doesn't come out that Nate Clements is getting paid more on average let me know.

35$ Million of Nate Clements contract, he will NEVER see. He is going to get paid 45$ Million for six years, then as he turns 32 years old, he will be cut loose.

HE AVERAGES 10,000,000.00 A SEASON! Could Clements be cut, yes. Could Bailey get cut, yes. But the bottom line is Clements deal is worth MORE than Bailey's.

yourfavestoner
03-05-2007, 01:17 PM
So do you really believe that Nate Burleson's deal was worth $49 million?

Teams put ridiculous roster bonuses or escalate the salary to a ridiculous degree in the latter years of the contracts because it gives the contract more years to prorate the signing bonus over, and it gives Clements and his agent something to trump about. Once most of that guaranteed money is paid and there is little remaining amortization, the team and the player will come to the negotiating table to either restructure the deal, offer the player a new contract, or cut him, as they have NO INTENTION OF PAYING HIM THAT MONEY FROM THE OLD CONTRACT. They're dummy years. Nothing else.

Shiver
03-05-2007, 01:17 PM
Your argument is not very good. If you really wanted to make your point, you'd bring up the guaranteed money in Clements' deal. Taking contract numbers and extrapolating them into an average, shows an ignorance with how most NFL contracts are designed.

Addict
03-05-2007, 01:17 PM
HE AVERAGES 10,000,000.00 A SEASON! Could Clements be cut, yes. Could Bailey get cut, yes. But the bottom line is Clements deal is worth MORE than Bailey's.

I suck at math, but that I understand :D

TheGunShow
03-05-2007, 01:23 PM
I suck at math, but that I understand :D

lol! Finally.

Shiver and yourfavestoner. Who averages more a season... Champ Bailey or Nate Clements? That's all you need to answer. I don't believe you are as dense as you are letting on.

Jughead10
03-05-2007, 01:27 PM
lol! Finally.

Shiver and yourfavestoner. Who averages more a season... Champ Bailey or Nate Clements? That's all you need to answer. I don't believe you are as dense as you are letting on.

I see both sides. Both their averages are so high because of backloaded money they will never see. So it doesn't matter. Clements got more guaranteed money. We won't know who ends up making more until we know how long each play into their respective contracts.

Larry
03-05-2007, 01:28 PM
Actually, we benched him because he was getting beaten for big plays that were hurting our defense. Thats just a dumb thing to say.

He was put a position to fail. If the Eagles knew how to use him he could have been better. Why did you guys have him man up on WR's all the time? He is a SS. If you guys didn't blitz every down maybe a CB could do what he is supposed to do and cover the WR's. Nolan isn't that dumb to play his SS man on WR's for a majority of the game

Shiver
03-05-2007, 01:29 PM
If you cannot formulate an intelligent counter-point, rather than continuing your asinine "who averages more" argument, then you are hopelessly lost in this discussion. Looking at the sum of the contract is the absolutely wrong way to look at it, we've made our case for why it's not. As 44% of his contract will never see the light of day. Yet all you've been able to refute our statements is a "he averages more!" retort, while completely ignoring the context. If you were to argue that Clements was overpaid, then bring up the guaranteed money in contrast to Bailey, not this "average" nonsense.

TheGunShow
03-05-2007, 01:45 PM
If you cannot formulate an intelligent counter-point, rather than continuing your asinine "who averages more" argument

THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL POST MORON READ OVER FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!! You are as dense as a brick of lead! Probably less intelligent!

well champ still makes the most a year...he avrages 9 mill a year

WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? WHO AVERAGES MORE? Got it?

yourfavestoner
03-05-2007, 02:05 PM
The whole point of making an argument is, well, to make a point. The point you're making is that, in terms of contract language, Clements makes more per year than Bailey. Cool. That's great. When you examine the contract, common sense and an understanding of the salary cap and NFL contracts shows that Clements will not see 33% of his contract.

So I ask you: so what? Champ Bailey set the market for NFL cornerbacks three years ago. The new CBA ushered in a new era for the NFL, where teams have much, much more money to spend. If Bailey was in the market for a new contract this season, his deal would undoubtedly be in the $100 million range.

Geo
03-05-2007, 02:21 PM
Only an idiot would use the average of the overall figure.

Jamal Lewis' 3-year, 25-mil contract (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_previousnews.aspx?sport=NFL&id=7), which he signed last year, is working out really well right now, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Man_Of_Steel
03-05-2007, 02:23 PM
Nate Clement, Wes Welker, Dwayne White, Leonard Davis, Dennis Northcutt, Michael Lewis, all getting over paid. I mean Nate Clement is a very good CB. But the highest paid player in the NFL? I mean he's no Champ Bailey! Wes Welker getting 39 million! Why didn't they just re-sign Deion Branch? Dwayne White getting 6 Million a season. Over a million dollars a sack! Leonard Davis getting 7 Mill a season. Dennis Northcutt getting paid like a starter?

I for one am glad the Steelers aren't mixing it up in free agency yet.

Thank God for that.

-fellow steeler fan

TheGunShow
03-05-2007, 02:40 PM
All you crack babies are ASSUMING Clements doesn't see the entirety of the contract. That is a possibility. But do I have to tell you what happens when you assume?

Bottom line, Champ Bailey is the best CB in the NFL. Champ Bailey isn't making as much money as Nate Clements. None of you have an argument that is going to change that fact.

jackalope
03-05-2007, 04:38 PM
Except for that whole, giving Charles Woodson about 20 million more than anyone else was going to.

But yes, I like Thompson too.that does contradict it but we needed a top corner and it turned out he was worth the money.

Shiver
03-07-2007, 12:30 AM
All you crack babies are ASSUMING Clements doesn't see the entirety of the contract. That is a possibility. But do I have to tell you what happens when you assume?

Bottom line, Champ Bailey is the best CB in the NFL. Champ Bailey isn't making as much money as Nate Clements. None of you have an argument that is going to change that fact.

FINAL YEAR OF CLEMENTS DEAL IS PHONY

Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange explains that the eight-year, $80 million deal given by the 49ers to cornerback Nate Clements contains a phony final year, which automatically will be voided when a $10 million option bonus is paid to the player in 2008.

So either the option bonus won't be paid, and it'll be just a one-year deal -- or the option bonus will be paid, and the contract will be worth $64.02 million over seven years.

This is far different from a puffed up back end; it's a complete fabrication of the final year.

They could have picked any number for that final year. Instead of eight years, $80 million, the contract could have been eight years, $100 million. Or eight years, $800 million. Or eight years, infinity.

So why did they plop $15.98 million into the eighth year will disappear a year from now? It was, in our view, a favor to the agent, who'll now be able to trumpet to recruits the fact that he negotiated an "eight-year, $80 million" contract.

He didn't. It's seven years, $64.02 million. Still impressive, but not as catchy.

You are wrong, plain and simple. I would like an apology for me and YFS, whom you rudely insulted under the pretense that you actually knew what you were talking about. At best, he's making as much as Champ Bailey, and it's doubtful he even sees that much money.

TitleTown088
03-07-2007, 12:34 AM
Wade 15 mil... ha

TitleTown088
03-07-2007, 12:36 AM
Except for that whole, giving Charles Woodson about 20 million more than anyone else was going to.

But yes, I like Thompson too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't woodson's contract largly performanced based and front loaded?

niel89
03-07-2007, 12:45 AM
You are wrong, plain and simple. I would like an apology for me and YFS, whom you rudely insulted under the pretense that you actually knew what you were talking about. At best, he's making as much as Champ Bailey, and it's doubtful he even sees that much money.

you deserve a gigantic internet high five.(no im not being sarcastic, i really want to give you a high five)

Shiver
03-07-2007, 12:48 AM
Not only was that guy flat out wrong in his asinine argument, but he acted like a pompous jerk to those who told him such.

niel89
03-07-2007, 12:51 AM
Not only was that guy flat out wrong in his asinine argument, but he acted like a pompous jerk to those who told him such.

so i guess you wont be buying tickets to the gun show?:D

Shiver
03-07-2007, 12:54 AM
Nope, don't plan on it.

niel89
03-07-2007, 12:57 AM
Nope, don't plan on it.

how bout now?:D

http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia/m45.jpg

Mr. Stiller
03-07-2007, 02:17 AM
Nope, don't plan on it.

he's like that in every single thread.

You should read his retorts to my comments.

Peyton Manning could sign a 3 year 100Million dollar contract.

Doesn't mean he's making 33.33 Million dollars a season.

Didn't I tell you in another thread that you can't take everything for Face Value?

Iamcanadian
03-07-2007, 06:17 AM
People need to realize how much the contracts actually are. The players won't see most of that money. Just like when all the rookies got HUGE contracts last year they weren't really that big because that is the most money they can see, but they won't get see most of it. The deals are pretty crazy because of the signing bonuses but they aren't anywhere near as bad as people are making it seem.

From the last one of these.

Your absolutely right, NFL contracts don't mean much except for the guaranteed money which is all these FA's are likely to receive. The rest of the contract like Clements, he'll never ever see that money. It has become just good publicity to make the contracts a lot bigger than they really are.
What has me interested is, just how are a lot of these teams paying these huge guarantees going to handle their own future FA's when they have spent all their money this year. They aren't going to have the same kinds of money available next year as all the TV contracts are settled. I guess the Denver's and the NE's know what they are doing, I sure hope so for their sakes.

I could see a lot of holdouts this training camp as teams try to calm down their veterans who could come to camp generally pissed seeing an inferior player playing beside them for a lot more money. It could be very disruptive on teams which invested heavily in FA's and could seriously backfire on a lot of teams.

jkpigskin
03-07-2007, 06:35 AM
its ridiculous... almost as ridiculous as baseball... hopefully it calms down in the years to come

Jughead10
03-07-2007, 08:21 AM
its ridiculous... almost as ridiculous as baseball... hopefully it calms down in the years to come

I'm hoping it will as well but I'm not sure. Teams will have less cap room next year because the cap won't be going up as much as it has the last two years. That should bring prices down. However FAs next year will want the same money that players of similar talent and position got this year. So we'll see.