| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
turtle28
Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 53048
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:29 pm Post subject: Irsay- Close to signing luck, is that good for Us & Grif |
 |
|
|
http://www.csnwashington.com/football-washington-redskins/redskins-talk/Irsay-says-Luck-deal-is-close-what-about?blockID=737080&feedID=6355
| Quote: | Despite the apparent optimism in Irsay’s tweet, “close” doesn’t mean that a deal is imminent. You need not think back any more than to last summer when a resolution to the NFL labor dispute was “close” from sometime in mid-June until it finally was done in early August to know that a deal is either done or its not.
Although the parameters of the contract are set by the CBA—Griffin will get a shade over $21 million over four years—other aspects such as the signing bonus and “offsets”, which affect how much a player will get paid if he is released and picked up by another team, are points that can be negotiated. It is not known if disagreement on such issues is holding up RG3’s deal. |
Still no one in the top 8 has signed yet, so if the Colts can lock up Luck soon, obviously this will be a good sign for us locking up griffin soon.
_________________
 mike23md
Days until:Days until: OTAs 2; Minicamp 25; Training camp 69; Eagles @ Redskins 115 RIP SSF |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
THESKINSFAN21
Joined: 14 Jul 2011
Posts: 3996
Location: West Palm Beach
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We always get our guys signed. Griffin will be inked by July 25.
_________________
mike23md on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THESKINSFAN21
Joined: 14 Jul 2011
Posts: 3996
Location: West Palm Beach
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turtle28
Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 53048
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We can only hope, that tweet doesn't exactly make feel all warm and fuzzy inside about the deal getting done on time. Yeah "Anything we can happen..." we already know that bruce!  let us know when something productive actually happens. 
_________________
mike23md
Days until:Days until: OTAs 2; Minicamp 25; Training camp 69; Eagles @ Redskins 115 RIP SSF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marcus21
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 421
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| These contracts are sloted. Im not sure how much there really is to negotiate. When Luck signs his deal the rest will fall in line like dominos! Im not at all concerned. This is one of my favorite parts of the new CBL. We could have relly used this when Trent signed his deal. Contracts should be earned on the field...not draft # |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turtle28
Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 53048
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Marcus21 wrote: | | These contracts are sloted. Im not sure how much there really is to negotiate. When Luck signs his deal the rest will fall in line like dominos! Im not at all concerned. This is one of my favorite parts of the new CBL. We could have relly used this when Trent signed his deal. Contracts should be earned on the field...not draft # |
Agreed. Good points, oh and it's the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)not CBL.
_________________
mike23md
Days until:Days until: OTAs 2; Minicamp 25; Training camp 69; Eagles @ Redskins 115 RIP SSF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THESKINSFAN21
Joined: 14 Jul 2011
Posts: 3996
Location: West Palm Beach
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ripsean21
Joined: 20 Mar 2009
Posts: 846
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Thats good to hear! Also I think the only thing that is negotiated is the way the money is spread over the years if my momory is right. So I mean thats probablly the only thing holding the deals up for most players. Also this is the first reagular offseason in 2 years clubs are prolly still adjusting to everything again
_________________
Ripsean21-Adopt a Redskin 2012; Pierre Garcon: Great first game! Im not adopting any more im bad Luck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woz
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 17406
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ripsean21 wrote: |
Thats good to hear! Also I think the only thing that is negotiated is the way the money is spread over the years if my momory is right. So I mean thats probablly the only thing holding the deals up for most players. Also this is the first reagular offseason in 2 years clubs are prolly still adjusting to everything again |
It's not how about the money is spread over the years (that's more or less dictated by the CBA), it's more about "offsets."
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a72b56/article/whats-the-holdup-for-top-picks-getting-signed-offset-language
| Quote: | But in the fourth year comes the debate over offset language. If there is offset language, it allows the team to save money when releasing a player. Let's say a first-rounder is due $2 million in his fourth year. If he's released, and then agrees to a $2 million deal with a new team, the original team is completely off the hook. He receives $2 million from his new club, and the team that drafted him washes its hands of the situation. If there is no offset language, the discarded player receives the guaranteed money from his original team and the full salary from his new team. The original team can't merely allow the new team to pay the remaining guaranteed money as part of the new deal.
OK, that was a lot to digest. To put it simply ... Offset language is what teams covet. No offset language -- double-dipping -- benefits the players. |
Honestly, if I were the Redskins, I'd go without the offset language, but make it clear that you are only doing it because Griffin is a quarterback. If I were the Browns with Richardson, I'd fight as long and hard as I could to keep the offset language in. It comes down to positional value.
Quarterbacks:
IND - Luck - no offset
WAS - Griffin - no offset
MIA - Tannehill - no offset
Offensive skill players:
CLE - Richardson - offset
JAC - Blackmon - offset
Defensive players (non-major positions):
TAM - Barron - offset
KAN - Poe - offset
Kalil (MIN #4) and Claiborne (DAL #6) ... those are the ones the questionable ones. Personally, I'd lean to no offset with Kalil but offset with Claiborne, but I can understand breaking either way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
21 ALL THE WAY
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Posts: 2895
Location: WASHINGTON DC
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I believe all player's should get a "no-offset language" type deal with them agreeing to reach certain goals or incentives. A player playing to there full potential but maybe cut because a team can't afford them is pretty unfair in my mind so that's why I say you include goals in the deal that the player has to live up too. Also if a player out plays that deal there should be a way a player can get more money from there original team or signed by other without being Franchised or Tendered IMO.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turtle28
Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 53048
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 21 ALL THE WAY wrote: | | I believe all player's should get a "no-offset language" type deal with them agreeing to reach certain goals or incentives. A player playing to there full potential but maybe cut because a team can't afford them is pretty unfair in my mind so that's why I say you include goals in the deal that the player has to live up too. Also if a player out plays that deal there should be a way a player can get more money from there original team or signed by other without being Franchised or Tendered IMO. |
Sounds fair. Good idea
_________________
mike23md
Days until:Days until: OTAs 2; Minicamp 25; Training camp 69; Eagles @ Redskins 115 RIP SSF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woz
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 17406
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 21 ALL THE WAY wrote: | | I believe all player's should get a "no-offset language" type deal with them agreeing to reach certain goals or incentives. A player playing to there full potential but maybe cut because a team can't afford them is pretty unfair in my mind so that's why I say you include goals in the deal that the player has to live up too. |
There's almost no scenario where a team has a guy who is playing up to his potential under his rookie contract and cuts him. Well, unless his full potential is very low ... however, this is mostly focused on the top 12 picks in the draft so that's not really in the cards.
Realistically, where this comes into play is when a guy isn't panning out. Should said player get the money from the team who cut him and from the team who signed him? I'm not talking about signing bonuses, but salary.
Also, I don't think the player would agree to removing the offset language in exchange for meeting some sort of incentive. Remember, the only reason the offset language is there is to preventing a double-dip scenario; if the player hits the incentive, they are unlikely to be cut and thus be able to double dip. That just removes money from the player's pocket.
| Quote: | | Also if a player out plays that deal there should be a way a player can get more money from there original team or signed by other without being Franchised or Tendered IMO. |
Well, there is, provided the player is a first round pick.
If the player is a top ten pick, his original team has the right to extend his rookie contract by one extra year at the cost of the average of the top ten picks at his position. If the player was taken in the rest of the first round, it is the average of the third through twenty-fifth player (I think those are the numbers).
This can only be done once at the end of the player's third year, which is not coincidentally the first time the player can re-negotiate his contract.
If the team chooses not to exercise the option after the player's third year, I believe they cannot use it later. So, there will be no "hey you really turned it on in your contract year ... oh look, you're ours for one more year, surprise!"
For any player taken after the first round, this doesn't matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
21 ALL THE WAY
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Posts: 2895
Location: WASHINGTON DC
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Woz wrote: | | 21 ALL THE WAY wrote: | | I believe all player's should get a "no-offset language" type deal with them agreeing to reach certain goals or incentives. A player playing to there full potential but maybe cut because a team can't afford them is pretty unfair in my mind so that's why I say you include goals in the deal that the player has to live up too. |
There's almost no scenario where a team has a guy who is playing up to his potential under his rookie contract and cuts him. Well, unless his full potential is very low ... however, this is mostly focused on the top 12 picks in the draft so that's not really in the cards.
Realistically, where this comes into play is when a guy isn't panning out. Should said player get the money from the team who cut him and from the team who signed him? I'm not talking about signing bonuses, but salary.
I say the team that cut him should be responsible for a percentage of the contract and the new team is allowed to work out a new deal with the player without being held responsible for anything dealing with the player's old deal. Basically saying hypothetically RG3 dosen't work out for us so we release him after his 3rd year but signed a 5yr deal we still would have to pay him (not the whole contract but some) while he can then work out a new deal with another team who has now seen his play and a bit less likely to over spend on RG3 than we may have just because of his draft position at number 2. Basically I would just try to put something together to protect both the player and team who draft him. With incentives and goals added to a deal you then have things written to say what happens if things go good or bad.
Also, I don't think the player would agree to removing the offset language in exchange for meeting some sort of incentive. Remember, the only reason the offset language is there is to preventing a double-dip scenario; if the player hits the incentive, they are unlikely to be cut and thus be able to double dip. That just removes money from the player's pocket.
| Quote: | | Also if a player out plays that deal there should be a way a player can get more money from there original team or signed by other without being Franchised or Tendered IMO. |
Well, there is, provided the player is a first round pick.
If the player is a top ten pick, his original team has the right to extend his rookie contract by one extra year at the cost of the average of the top ten picks at his position. If the player was taken in the rest of the first round, it is the average of the third through twenty-fifth player (I think those are the numbers).
This can only be done once at the end of the player's third year, which is not coincidentally the first time the player can re-negotiate his contract.
If the team chooses not to exercise the option after the player's third year, I believe they cannot use it later. So, there will be no "hey you really turned it on in your contract year ... oh look, you're ours for one more year, surprise!"
For any player taken after the first round, this doesn't matter. |
I dont really care where a player is drafted, I don't like a player being held basically captive by one team with the Franchise Tag or Tender while holding them back from making more with another team. Once the player's contract is up they should be able to go anywhere they want.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woz
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 17406
Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 21 ALL THE WAY wrote: | | I say the team that cut him should be responsible for a percentage of the contract and the new team is allowed to work out a new deal with the player without being held responsible for anything dealing with the player's old deal. |
Umm ... that's the offset language. While the new team can offer whatever they like to the free agent, whatever they give him is subtracted from what he would get from his old team.
So, if team A cuts a player who was supposed to get $4M in his fourth year, and team B offers him a $2M contract, he gets the $2M from team B, and $2M from team A.
Without the offset language, he would get $4M from team A and $2M from team B.
In short, the player doesn't lose any money; he just doesn't get to both the old team and the new team's money in total.
| Quote: | | Basically saying hypothetically RG3 dosen't work out for us so we release him after his 3rd year but signed a 5yr deal we still would have to pay him (not the whole contract but some) while he can then work out a new deal with another team who has now seen his play and a bit less likely to over spend on RG3 than we may have just because of his draft position at number 2. |
Let's back up for a second.
First off, RG3 can only sign a maximum four year deal.
There does exist a fifth year option that the team can execute. If the Redskins choose to execute that option, RG3 would be paid either the average of the top ten quarterbacks in his fifth season. It would be the equivalent of the transition tag with the exception that the Redskins would control his rights; he could not receive a tender from another team. I'll talk about this more in a minute.
Second, the amount of money that we are going to pay Griffin is essentially fixed. It's probably around 4 years/$25-26M and will likely be fully guaranteed. Other than things like the offset language and maybe some escalator clauses, there isn't much for Griffin or his agent to negotiate about. They also cannot change the contract until after Griffin's third year.
Now, there are three scenarios:
1. Griffin goes nuts. At this point, as a sign of good faith that the new contract is coming, the Redskins don't execute the option, but instead focus on getting Griffin signed for the long term. In any event, the offset language is meaningless. It's possible the Redskins still could execute the option here, but I suspect that would be a bit more politically dicey.
2. Griffin is okay (perhaps he got banged up a fair amount). In order to truly know if he's the real deal or not (they've seen flashes), the Redskins execute the option and make year four a "prove it" deal. Again, the offset language doesn't matter here.
3. Griffin bombs out. After three years, it just isn't working so the Redskins swallow their pride and cut Griffin. This is where the offset language comes into play.
| Quote: | | Basically I would just try to put something together to protect both the player and team who draft him. With incentives and goals added to a deal you then have things written to say what happens if things go good or bad. |
Well, the player is going to want money in exchange for the incentives, not the removal of offset language. Note the above scenarios; there is only one option where the offset language comes into play. If the player hits the incentives, all that would accomplish would to remove language from his contract that in all likelihood wouldn't really matter.
Any agent who agreed to that would likely lose his clients.
| Quote: | | I dont really care where a player is drafted |
Well, where you are drafted is now very important for the player because of the extra option year that is available to teams for their first round pick. It also determines your contract amount.
As an example, David Wilson was taken 32nd by the Giants. He received a 4 year/$6.684M/$3.3M signing bonus contract. Brian Quick was taken 33rd by the Rams. Quick received a 4 year/$5.386M/$2.357M signing bonus contract. Wilson can be reserved by the Giants in year five using the team option; Quick can only be stopped by the transition or franchise tag.
| Quote: | | I don't like a player being held basically captive by one team with the Franchise Tag or Tender while holding them back from making more with another team. Once the player's contract is up they should be able to go anywhere they want. |
And that's one of the points that the players' union fought for in the new CBA.
| Article 10, Section 2, Paragraph (b) of the new CBA wrote: | | Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time shall, on the date the third such designation is made, be deemed to have tendered the player' a one-year NFL Player Contract for the greater of: (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) with the highest such average; (B) 120% of the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7 (a) below) at which the player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year; or (C) 144% of his Prior Year Salary. (By way of example, a kicker designated as a Franchise Player for the third time in the 2014 League Year would have a Required Tender equal to the greater of: (i) the average of the five largest 2013 Salaries for quarterbacks; (ii) 120% of the average of the five largest 2013 Salaries for kickers; or (iii) 144% of the player's own 2013 Salary.) |
That was bad enough for teams. However, now due to the Drew Brees arbitration, if a player were tagged twice in his career (not necessarily by his current team), this clause would be invoked if tagged again.
In short, this means upon a third tagging, almost every other player would be paid at the price of a franchise quarterback, and a quarterback would be 144% of his prior (very high) salary.
Above I said that the fifth year option for Griffin (and other top ten picks) is essentially a tighter version of the transition tag (it's a one year offer of the top ten salaries at the player's position). What's to stop a team from executing the option and then franchising the player?
Not a whole lot ... except a massive cap hit for two straight years. Think about it. This year, the transition tag for a quarterback was about $12.5M or so (if someone has the exact number, please post it). That's almost half of what Griffin's rookie contract was worth, and would count around 9.5-9.7% of the team's total cap. Should the team then franchise him the next year, at a minimum, it would be $15M (120% of his previous year's salary), but more likely in the $16.5M-17.0M range. To tag him again would be $19.8M, and the third tag would be an outrageous cap killer of $28.5M.
The other problem with this whole scenario is that it kills the relationship between the team and the player. Should a team actually do this, they would likely find that the player would have zero incentive to stay with the current team. So, in essence to do this would be make for a very expensive two year rental and a dog & pony show for the rest of the league. It also could make other players coming out of their rookie contracts less inclined to sign long term deals either because they have the same agent or because they don't trust the team to do right by them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
killacam
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 247
Location: Tucson, AZ
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
rookies are supposed to report today. any word on when Griffin might get this deal done and report??
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
