The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Please explain how he is not the highest paid safety on our team?

OK but this is the last time....

He signed a 6 year $30 million contract with $10M bonus. The bonus was split up over two years so he got $5M upfront and will get the other half next March (if he is on the team) His base $ 585000.00 this year, $595000.00 in 07, almost doubles in 08 to $1M even then jumps to $4M in 2009, and goes up $1M each year from there.

If he is here in 2008 he’ll be paid $1M but his cap hit will be around $3M , this years cap hit is about $1.6M. That’s where the story is – The Cap once the cap hit gets too high he’ll have to rework the deal or be cut. The last three years of the deal total $15,000,000 that he won’t see, (He’ll be 32 in 2009 and scheduled to make $4M?). So now that reported 6 years for $30M at best is 3 years at $15M and ten million of that is bonus money. If you really want to include the bonus money than go back a few years and you’ll find that Sean Taylor signed a 7 year deal worth $18M but with the escalators in the deal and his play on the field it’s really a 6 year $40M deal. Taylor’s base this year was $750,000 and it will reach its peek in 2010 and then will be less than $1.5M.

One has a contract that paid more upfront but include a way to make more later, while the other got a bunch upfront and a lot promised later.

If AA played like ST then you’d think he’d be around long enough to play out the contract, AA doesn’t play like ST. Taylor’s cap hit next year will be a third of what it is this year, Arch’s will go up a million.

Next week I’ll let you know what it’ll cost to let him go.

So basically what you are saying is that you don't think that he will end up being the highest paid safety on our team...because even with the explanation it is not clear who will actually wind up making the most money.

I understand what you are saying, but you are assuming that the Skins signed Archuletta anticipating that he will A) underperform his contract and B) rework his deal (which he doesn't have any incentive to do)

While you could be right, I think it's highly suspect for the team to do business like that. Of course you want to strike a balance between incentivizing & rewarding the player, and saving money....but your explanation suggests that the Skins are intentinoally signing players to contracts when they have no intention or expectation that the player can actually receive a great deal of the money.

What follows from that is we are signing players, but actually have an interest in them playing poorly, missing games, not making the pro-bowl, then getting cut or restructuring after a relatively short period of time....isn't that a counter productive way to run a football team?

Under your hypothetical, who is to say that Taylor would not be released prior to hitting his incentives? While I get your theory, its pretty speculative because you have to assume that Archuletta will be cut, while also assuming that Taylor will hit his incentives while remaining with the team.

This is the same team thats currently the oldest in the league...to say that Arch wouldn't be here when he is 32 is no guarantee, especially if his play picks up this year or next year.

The Hogster wrote:So basically what you are saying is that you don't think that he will end up being the highest paid safety on our team...because even with the explanation it is not clear who will actually wind up making the most money.

I'm saying we are looking at their contracts the younger guy is making/will make the most money. Everyone knew what they were getting into when they drew uo the paperwork

The Hogster wrote:I understand what you are saying, but you are assuming that the Skins signed Archuletta anticipating that he will A) underperform his contract and B) rework his deal (which he doesn't have any incentive to do)

Arch may not even think he'll play 6 years ..... they sign long term contracts in order for the team to give them big bonuses and the space to spread it out.
$10 million over 6 in NFL terms is $2M per year in cap space. Gibbs broke it up into two payments or $1M the 1st years, then add a million each year down the road. If things don't work out then let him go before the March bonus is due ($5M) and deal with the cap hit but you get a growing salary off the books. (everything is based on him being on the team if he wants the money in the deal.) If a player makes it to the point of re-doing a contract that was too big to start with they normally work out pretty good (see C. Samuels)

The Hogster wrote:While you could be right, I think it's highly suspect for the team to do business like that. Of course you want to strike a balance between incentivizing & rewarding the player, and saving money....but your explanation suggests that the Skins are intentinoally signing players to contracts when they have no intention or expectation that the player can actually receive a great deal of the money.

The Skins do contracts that produce joy for everyone. The player feels he is getting his worth (Signing Bonus is all they are guaranteed and the Skins shell out big ones). The fans get players to hype all off-season, and the press get to blow the deals so far out of proportion it's laughable. But all of the contracts are signed to benefit the Washington Redskins.
If Taylor hadn't have worked out, it would have cost the team less than $20M but based on his play he's worth ten time that, in reality he'll get paid twice the face value of the deal (if not re-worked before it expires). If AA works out then in 3 years it'll be time to re-work his deal (it won't be a option, it'll be a must). Adam has been around for a while so it's safe to assume he and his agent knew what they were signing. If it doesn't work out he won't even get a third of the face value. (It will always be about production)

The Hogster wrote:What follows from that is we are signing players, but actually have an interest in them playing poorly, missing games, not making the pro-bowl, then getting cut or restructuring after a relatively short period of time....isn't that a counter productive way to run a football team?

The Skins sign players to:
a) Fill a need
b) Make a splash
c) for cap reason.... not in any particular order

Players sign contracts to:
1. Get to the next contract
2. Get to the next contract
3. Just to say they got another contract

The Hogster wrote:Under your hypothetical, who is to say that Taylor would not be released prior to hitting his incentives? While I get your theory, its pretty speculative because you have to assume that Archuletta will be cut, while also assuming that Taylor will hit his incentives while remaining with the team.

Other than Pro Bowl apperences and a Lombardi Taylor is there. So much for speculation (he really is a Beast)

The Hogster wrote:This is the same team thats currently the oldest in the league...to say that Arch wouldn't be here when he is 32 is no guarantee, especially if his play picks up this year or next year.

Regardless of how he plays, what direction the team is going or what the cap is in 2009 Adam, Eric and "the Danny" know he won't be paid what's on the books when the season rolls around.

Whatever the numbers are, if I'm Taylor, or Marcus Washington for that matter, I'm holding out for more money after this season because they're the only ones I'd absolutely fight to keep if I was starting a new defense... even though they're not quite playing up to past performances, they're running around trying to do the job of two people half the time...

as far as the topic at hand goes, I do think Vincent can be a good replacement for Prioleau (except for special teams) and maybe help keep Arch out of those unfavorable situations...

Where do you get the details on these contracts? Is that info available online? And thanks for the research.

Mursilis, THN's cap page has salary cap info and links to where you can find even more detailed information.

Irn-Bru wrote:Mursilis, THN's cap page has salary cap info and links to where you can find even more detailed information.

Thanks. And whoever put that together, nice work!

Mursilis wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Mursilis, THN's cap page has salary cap info and links to where you can find even more detailed information.

Thanks. And whoever put that together, nice work!

As always, BH is the main to thank for THN. 1niksder is our capologist, so he also gets credit for that page. . .it's by far the best Skins' cap resource on the web.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Mursilis wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Mursilis, THN's cap page has salary cap info and links to where you can find even more detailed information.

Thanks. And whoever put that together, nice work!

As always, BH is the main to thank for THN. 1niksder is our capologist, so he also gets credit for that page. . .it's by far the best Skins' cap resource on the web.

No argument there. I've never seen it broken down like that, player by player. Great stuff. to all involved. But then, that's why I refer other fans to this site.

You can see what the Skins are trying to do with these contracts, but the logic of it is mindboggling....is it more of a priority to sign guys like Archuletta to deals that appear to be blockbusters...or resign your own players for deals that are much smaller and keep continuity with the "team"?

I just dont see how the concept of winning is pursued with this method...however you speculate Arch's contract...he will still get more in bonus money than it took to sign Clark for 4 years...that is just retarded to me....in order for the contract to make since, we will have to cut the guy and then either promote from within or bring in someone else...well we don't have many draft picks so that will put us in the same position in another couple of years...meanwhile we are not getting the production to justify the dollars.

The Hogster wrote:You can see what the Skins are trying to do with these contracts, but the logic of it is mindboggling....is it more of a priority to sign guys like Archuletta to deals that appear to be blockbusters...or resign your own players for deals that are much smaller and keep continuity with the "team"?

I just dont see how the concept of winning is pursued with this method...however you speculate Arch's contract...he will still get more in bonus money than it took to sign Clark for 4 years...that is just retarded to me....in order for the contract to make since, we will have to cut the guy and then either promote from within or bring in someone else...well we don't have many draft picks so that will put us in the same position in another couple of years...meanwhile we are not getting the production to justify the dollars.

One thing about these contracts you have to remember is that the agents are frequently behind these bonuses/escalators/etc. which make a contract look bigger than it actually is. The more they can puff up a contract with meaningless bonus clauses which the player has little chance of claiming, the better they'll look in the press when it's announced Player X signed a 5yr/$30M deal with Team Y.

Not to mention, I'm fairly certain that the agent's cut is 10% of the total value of the contract, and payable up front, regardless of whether the player actually earns those bonuses.

Not to mention, I'm fairly certain that the agent's cut is 10% of the total value of the contract,

Actually agents get 2 or 3% of the contract, not 10%.

I just picked a random percentage. My real point is that they get it off the total, whether the player actually earns them or not.

Mursilis wrote:

The Hogster wrote:You can see what the Skins are trying to do with these contracts, but the logic of it is mindboggling....is it more of a priority to sign guys like Archuletta to deals that appear to be blockbusters...or resign your own players for deals that are much smaller and keep continuity with the "team"?

I just dont see how the concept of winning is pursued with this method...however you speculate Arch's contract...he will still get more in bonus money than it took to sign Clark for 4 years...that is just retarded to me....in order for the contract to make since, we will have to cut the guy and then either promote from within or bring in someone else...well we don't have many draft picks so that will put us in the same position in another couple of years...meanwhile we are not getting the production to justify the dollars.

One thing about these contracts you have to remember is that the agents are frequently behind these bonuses/escalators/etc. which make a contract look bigger than it actually is. The more they can puff up a contract with meaningless bonus clauses which the player has little chance of claiming, the better they'll look in the press when it's announced Player X signed a 5yr/$30M deal with Team Y.

That has nothing to do with the Redskins re-signing Ryan Clark for less than what we paid Archuletta in bonus money. By the way, my cousin is a sports agent and before I went to law school, I worked for him....this was prior to the CBA extension, but I understand the concept of negotiating a player contract....the problem that I have is our philosophy of throwing huge bonuses at players who were someone elses guy instead of taking care of our own players that have performed for us.

Combine that with our weird system of evaluating talent, and you have a recipe for disaster...guys come here, get paid, and don't work out. I was listening to a replay of Red Auerbach's interview with John Thompson, and he said something very profound.

He said if an agent came into his office and tried to negotiate a deal based on a bunch of statistics, he would put the guy out. He said the key to winning was to always have your players believing that their compensation is tied to their contribution to winning games.

The Redskins don't do that because we keep bringing in guys, throwing a huge amount of money at them, then expecting them to remain hungry.

Apply that to the NFL and its no surprise that the teams who have won the last 4 Superbowls have had payrolls well into the bottom 3rd of the NFL...the Pats and Steelers have consistently had payrolls of under 80 million.......Redskins are up over 117 million.

no comments on Vincent?

USAFSkinFan wrote:no comments on Vincent?

I am glad that he replaced Archuletta in the starting lineup...the coaches apparently saw the same thing that we as fans saw during the bye.