Russell Wilson Contract (speculation)

[ceej22]

2 of the 5 QBs you mentioned are still on very good teams. The other 3 have good games from time to time and even manage to put together a full season but they are not in the ELITE category that Peyton and Brees are in. And Eli has 2 SB MVPs so while he is not elite I wouldn't go so far to say his contract has crippled the Giants.

 

[rightbench]

Another way to think about it:

For the sake of argument, let's assume right now that Wilson remains the Hawks QB for 10 more years. Now the question is should RW consider taking a sub market price wage over that time so that the Seahawks can afford a high talent roster to accompany him.

From a purely self-interested stand point, this would make sense for RW if doing so reasonable raised his chances of getting bigger endorsement deals than he would otherwise. Maybe this is the case or maybe they'll be about the same either way. If they are substantially bigger then RW's may not make any less money. Just the extra money will come from another source (sponsors). This is a gamble since none of this is guaranteed. Would be a really cool study to try to measure the elasticity of (present value) endorsement dollars with respect to official salary. In expectation, when does it payoff (if ever) to reduce salary to get a better shot at legacy (and endosements)? Would be damn hard to measure I since it depends on a lot of subjective factors and the fact that players who get big salary increases also tend to get a lot of endorsements (because they're great players), but interesting nonetheless.

From an altruistic standpoint RW does not expect to make up the difference in additional sponsors, but instead does it because "he values other things besides money," and wants to make sure Seattle has a great team. Well, that's his choice, but it seems silly to expect that of him. Basically it's a tax on his earnings to make Seahawks fans happier. Why should he pay millions of dollars a year for our sake? How many of us would be willing to part with 10-20% of our salary to pay for Seattle's roster (if such a thing were even legal)?

I'm with ya up until the last couple sentences. My argument there would be that Russell wants to win more than he wants money. If you just take Joe Flacco as a similar situation, he was really good quarterback who won a superbowl right before he received a new deal. Look at what happened to the Ravens this year. 9 starters at least left the team (that's not ALL because of Flacco's new deal, but I would say that a majority of those players went elsewhere to get paid.)

And they're not absolutely horrible this year. They still have good receivers, a good O line and a good RB. But they're struggling to make the playoffs this year, and in a division like ours, would almost be in last place. Here's a list of some of the guys who left after the Superbowl win.

•Ed Reed, safety (left, signed with Houston)
•Bernard Pollard, safety (cut, signed with Tennessee)
•Paul Kruger, pass rusher (left, signed with Cleveland)
•Dannell Ellerbe, linebacker (left, signed with Miami)
•Cary Williams, corner (left, signed with Philly)
•Ray Lewis, linebacker (retired)

If you had to pick 6-8 guys to remove from our starting defense just so we could pay RW, would you just assume that we would be just as prepared to make a superbowl run next year?

Again, I will say this is not the same situation we will be in as our front office is more than capable of continuing to hit home runs with the draft and FA, I'm just saying that I bet this is the sort of thing that Dangeruss thinks about when he sits down at that table because he wants to WIN more than he wants to pad his savings account.

 

[hawk45]

Another way to think about it:

For the sake of argument, let's assume right now that Wilson remains the Hawks QB for 10 more years. Now the question is should RW consider taking a sub market price wage over that time so that the Seahawks can afford a high talent roster to accompany him.

From a purely self-interested stand point, this would make sense for RW if doing so reasonable raised his chances of getting bigger endorsement deals than he would otherwise. Maybe this is the case or maybe they'll be about the same either way. If they are substantially bigger then RW's may not make any less money. Just the extra money will come from another source (sponsors). This is a gamble since none of this is guaranteed. Would be a really cool study to try to measure the elasticity of (present value) endorsement dollars with respect to official salary. In expectation, when does it payoff (if ever) to reduce salary to get a better shot at legacy (and endosements)? Would be damn hard to measure I since it depends on a lot of subjective factors and the fact that players who get big salary increases also tend to get a lot of endorsements (because they're great players), but interesting nonetheless.

From an altruistic standpoint RW does not expect to make up the difference in additional sponsors, but instead does it because "he values other things besides money," and wants to make sure Seattle has a great team. Well, that's his choice, but it seems silly to expect that of him. Basically it's a tax on his earnings to make Seahawks fans happier. Why should he pay millions of dollars a year for our sake? How many of us would be willing to part with 10-20% of our salary to pay for Seattle's roster (if such a thing were even legal)?

Doesn't make sense from a standpoint of self-interest either. The value of the money in a contract is quantifiable. The benefit to Russell of taking less money is speculative. The front office could piss the money away, or the front office personnel could change, Pete could leave for Texas tomorrow, etc. Not that folks don't make business decisions sometimes based on speculation, but based on speculation of future team performance in today's NFL?

As far as studying some sort of correlation, what a waste of time and money that would be. Firstly you couldn't do it because you couldn't isolate hardly any of the infinite variables. Secondly if you could do it, its predictive value would be nil because it would basically say "if you don't have an awesome front office it doesn't matter one bit if you take a few less bucks, and even if you do have a great front office your team may suck, this is the NFL." That'd really help QBs make future decisions wouldn't it.

 

[Evil_Shenanigans]

Nothing in life is certain. A Pro Football players career least of all. Wilson will sign big!

 

[hawks4thewin]

Ya know.. think about it like this.. if russel was on any other team in the NFL. (really) they woudl be doing good..
He extends plays most of the time the play being sucessfull is him. he wuold do well anywhere. SO.. if we turn down his offer who wouldnt pick him up.
he has shown he can learn a new system every year and not struggle..I think he would take the jags to a winning season easily.
thats my take,, someone smart should google our offence before russel, and with russel.. I mean Heck Look what FLYNN did in green bay imagine russel LOL

 

[rightbench]

NO ONE SAID TURN DOWN HIS OFFER. NO ONE SAID MAKE HIM TAKE LESS MONEY.

My entire post revolves around Russell Wilson and his thought process about how the team will look when he signs his new deal and what his new deal will mean for the team that he will be locked up with for the rest of his career, the Seahawks.

 

[AbsolutNET]

If he continues to play better and better and wins a super bowl over the next two years, would anyone be surprised to see him get the biggest contract in NFL history? He's going to get Megatron/Flacco/Fitz money and they'd better pay him with a big smile on our faces at that point.

 

[rightbench]

Another way to think about it:

For the sake of argument, let's assume right now that Wilson remains the Hawks QB for 10 more years. Now the question is should RW consider taking a sub market price wage over that time so that the Seahawks can afford a high talent roster to accompany him.

From a purely self-interested stand point, this would make sense for RW if doing so reasonable raised his chances of getting bigger endorsement deals than he would otherwise. Maybe this is the case or maybe they'll be about the same either way. If they are substantially bigger then RW's may not make any less money. Just the extra money will come from another source (sponsors). This is a gamble since none of this is guaranteed. Would be a really cool study to try to measure the elasticity of (present value) endorsement dollars with respect to official salary. In expectation, when does it payoff (if ever) to reduce salary to get a better shot at legacy (and endosements)? Would be damn hard to measure I since it depends on a lot of subjective factors and the fact that players who get big salary increases also tend to get a lot of endorsements (because they're great players), but interesting nonetheless.

From an altruistic standpoint RW does not expect to make up the difference in additional sponsors, but instead does it because "he values other things besides money," and wants to make sure Seattle has a great team. Well, that's his choice, but it seems silly to expect that of him. Basically it's a tax on his earnings to make Seahawks fans happier. Why should he pay millions of dollars a year for our sake? How many of us would be willing to part with 10-20% of our salary to pay for Seattle's roster (if such a thing were even legal)?

Doesn't make sense from a standpoint of self-interest either. The value of the money in a contract is quantifiable. The benefit to Russell of taking less money is speculative. The front office could piss the money away, or the front office personnel could change, Pete could leave for Texas tomorrow, etc. Not that folks don't make business decisions sometimes based on speculation, but based on speculation of future team performance in today's NFL?

As far as studying some sort of correlation, what a waste of time and money that would be. Firstly you couldn't do it because you couldn't isolate hardly any of the infinite variables. Secondly if you could do it, its predictive value would be nil because it would basically say "if you don't have an awesome front office it doesn't matter one bit if you take a few less bucks, and even if you do have a great front office your team may suck, this is the NFL." That'd really help QBs make future decisions wouldn't it.

I didn't say put together a mathematical formula for how much to pay Russell. You can use Tom Brady as an example of how taking a paycut for the team doesn't mean you'll win every superbowl.

All I said was that I bet Russell doesn't ask to be the highest paid QB in the league, and that he's intelligent enough to factor in more than just "pay me my money"

In regards to the 2 paragraphs you spent calling my post pointless speculation, I'll leave it at this:

You are guaranteed to have less money to spend on talent once you give away 15% of the total to 1 player. Without question that is fact and not speculation at all. And I bet RW realizes this.

 

[LawlessHawk]

Yes Paul Allen and some of these owners are some of the richest individuals in the world but they aren't paying the players contracts... they're not "writing the checks" out of their bank accounts... those checks are coming out of the same bank accounts that ticket, consession, merchandise, tv money is getting deposited into... the fans are paying the players contracts with ever increasing seat prices, season ticket prices, parking, beer, nachos, jerseys, TV contracts, etc. etc. The NFLPA/owners negotiate increased caps and super star player salaries take another big jump... Well then ticket prices and everything else goes up... its not coming out of owners pockets...

Owning the Seahawks or not owning the Seahawks for a Paul Allen probably doesn't mark a blip on his financial chart one way or the other... I would say it's more of an interest/hobby for him and a guy like PA could probably outspend every other owner in the league combined... and that situation is why the Cap is in place because he could definitely afford to pay Russell and any other top player in the league what ever it took and the Hawks would be 3 deep at every position and winning Super Bowls from now until the end of time...

 

[therealjohncarlson]

Doesn’t the NFLPA mandate that his salary be with in a certain percentage of the players at his position that he is compared with?

huh? Ive never heard of this. First of all define "compared with"

 

[Popeyejones]

Doesn’t the NFLPA mandate that his salary be with in a certain percentage of the players at his position that he is compared with?

huh? Ive never heard of this. First of all define "compared with"

I'm assuming he's talking about the franchise tag? Couldn't be anything else.

 

[setha880]

I believe he was referring to what happens when you get the franchise tag. For example, Jimmy Graham's agent is trying to classify him as a wide receiver so he gets paid like a top 10 wr instead of a top 10 tight end because of the drastic market price difference between the two positions.

 

[hawk45]

Another way to think about it:

For the sake of argument, let's assume right now that Wilson remains the Hawks QB for 10 more years. Now the question is should RW consider taking a sub market price wage over that time so that the Seahawks can afford a high talent roster to accompany him.

From a purely self-interested stand point, this would make sense for RW if doing so reasonable raised his chances of getting bigger endorsement deals than he would otherwise. Maybe this is the case or maybe they'll be about the same either way. If they are substantially bigger then RW's may not make any less money. Just the extra money will come from another source (sponsors). This is a gamble since none of this is guaranteed. Would be a really cool study to try to measure the elasticity of (present value) endorsement dollars with respect to official salary. In expectation, when does it payoff (if ever) to reduce salary to get a better shot at legacy (and endosements)? Would be damn hard to measure I since it depends on a lot of subjective factors and the fact that players who get big salary increases also tend to get a lot of endorsements (because they're great players), but interesting nonetheless.

From an altruistic standpoint RW does not expect to make up the difference in additional sponsors, but instead does it because "he values other things besides money," and wants to make sure Seattle has a great team. Well, that's his choice, but it seems silly to expect that of him. Basically it's a tax on his earnings to make Seahawks fans happier. Why should he pay millions of dollars a year for our sake? How many of us would be willing to part with 10-20% of our salary to pay for Seattle's roster (if such a thing were even legal)?

Doesn't make sense from a standpoint of self-interest either. The value of the money in a contract is quantifiable. The benefit to Russell of taking less money is speculative. The front office could piss the money away, or the front office personnel could change, Pete could leave for Texas tomorrow, etc. Not that folks don't make business decisions sometimes based on speculation, but based on speculation of future team performance in today's NFL?

As far as studying some sort of correlation, what a waste of time and money that would be. Firstly you couldn't do it because you couldn't isolate hardly any of the infinite variables. Secondly if you could do it, its predictive value would be nil because it would basically say "if you don't have an awesome front office it doesn't matter one bit if you take a few less bucks, and even if you do have a great front office your team may suck, this is the NFL." That'd really help QBs make future decisions wouldn't it.

I didn't say put together a mathematical formula for how much to pay Russell. You can use Tom Brady as an example of how taking a paycut for the team doesn't mean you'll win every superbowl.

All I said was that I bet Russell doesn't ask to be the highest paid QB in the league, and that he's intelligent enough to factor in more than just "pay me my money"

In regards to the 2 paragraphs you spent calling my post pointless speculation, I'll leave it at this:

You are guaranteed to have less money to spend on talent once you give away 15% of the total to 1 player. Without question that is fact and not speculation at all. And I bet RW realizes this.

I thought it was clear that my post was in response to telerion, since I, uh, quoted telerion and everything.

In response to you specifically, I agree that based on Russell's mentality it isn't terribly farfetched that Russell might pull a Brady and take less (although I think it unlikely in Russell's first contract). I don't personally think that would be wise for him, but it's a possibility.

 

[kf3339]

All I will say about this subject is that there is a direct correlation between players with massive contracts and the overall team performance results. In other words if we aren't careful with making sure our best players don't rob the bank too hard we will be right back where we were as an average, mediocre team with a player or two with massive contracts that are sapping the life out of the team.

In the case of Wilson I actually don't think he wants that to happen at all. Hopefully I'm right about that.

 

[drdiags]

Doesn’t the NFLPA mandate that his salary be with in a certain percentage of the players at his position that he is compared with?

If he is Franchise tagged, otherwise he and his agent are free to pick whatever range in salary they want, once contract negotiations start. The Seahawks could try offering him low/mid/high starting QB salary using some type of standard to compare him against (maybe they use a 4th year starter of similar performance as a starting point?). I doubt he could start at top of the line QB money that 10 yr vets make but it would probably start over 16M which is the 2014 Franchise tag value for QB.

 

[Anthony!]

OKay so les look as some things

last SB winner had Flaco, the winner before that was E Manning and Brady was the other QB, before that Rodgers, before that Brees should I keep going? The point is you do not win SB without a top flight QBs, and top flight QBs get paid. All that said the other thing you need to consider, and while I doubt this is the case, what if Rw is tired of hearing how he is only this good, because of the defense, because of the system, because of the WR, the coaches. All those things I just mentioned is what a huge number of people think in other places than Seattle. What if he wants to play in a more pass orientated system. These things will also come into play, so anyone thinking him resigning is a slam dunk is nuts, it is not, and I am a huge RW fan, but I understand while the odds are probably 99% there is that 1%. What if PC thinks he can do as good with any QB and decides not to pay RW at all. These are all possibilities, though highly doubtful they are possibilities. There are people right on this forum who thinks any QB would do. Just something to think about.

 

[Scottemojo]

Amaze balls. We are a year from a new deal for Russell, and fans are already trying to get the third QB ever to get 50 TDs in his first two years to take less money.

Russell and his agent will get what they can, and that is exactly what he should do.

The implication he might hurt the team by taking too big a piece of the pie is both presumptive and petty.

No one's trying to get him to take less money. What I'm saying is that I don't think he'll demand to be the highest paid QB in the league, even if he deserves it. My statements have nothing to do with us as fans. I speculated that Russell Wilson probably is smart enough to look at other teams and see what their monster QB deals are doing to their team and it's future.

And please provide something other than repeating what I said and ending it with presumptive and petty to be passive aggressive. I provided my reasoning and I'd appreciate hearing yours, not veiled insults because you don't agree with me.

I would assume worrying about this a year early covers the word presumptive. Petty? That is aggressive, not passive aggressive.

As long as we are talking about good ol' passive aggressiveness, How about you wondering if Russell is smart enough to know that him taking a big deal will hamstring the team?

So, rather than deal in speculation about Russell's intelligence, dedication to the team concept, and committment to cash vs allowing his manager and coach to build a winner, lets deal in facts.

Russell will still have 3 possible years of team control after next year. The final year of his deal, and the 2 years following, when he could be tagged as a franchise player. That gives Pete and John modest contract leverage. Though Russell's agent can counter with the fact that two years of franchise tag will cost the Hawks at least 33 million (current tag of 15 mil, with a bump of 20% for year two). Over 3 years, that is 11 per. A great starting point. (and one they have used in the past in negotiating with Red and Clemons)

Those are the facts. Now, we can speculate, but please not about character and intelligence. For instance, I would speculate that Russell's agent will be well prepared, and might counter Schneider that Russell's mobility has allowed him to actually save money on the offensive line, where the Seahawks have been able to draft or sign slightly less pass block oriented linemen, maybe pointing out how much the Saints have had to pay their pass blockers to protect Brees. That mobility(the mobility that turned games with backup players on the O-line into wins, I might add) is going to cost you a bit, Mr. Schneider. I also might point out that the Seahawks are getting a cut of the number one selling jersey in the NFL. That Russell is on NFLN and ESPN all the time, that he has intrinsic value as the face of the franchise, and that he has made the Seahawks a national brand far more than ever before. That if Russell were two inches taller, Seattle would not have gotten him in the 3rd round, and Russell would have made a lot more on his rookie deal, so we would like that money now, please. Look at all that speculation, and none of it even remotely questioning the integrity of Russell if he gets a big deal.

The only leverage the Seahawks have right now is that they can give Russell a raise a year early and get a small discount because of that. Of course, and now we are back to me calling your speculation presumptive, what if Russell has a bad year in 2014? I know it isn't likely, but after the SB this year, talk about Kaepernicks deal in one year was he would get PAID. This year he has gone backwards. However unlikely, it is possible that due to injury, loss of talent around him, or some other stuff, Russell goes backwards in 2014. Presumptive. Premature. A year early. Questioning his intelligence if he does not agree with you on how to build a good team was Petty.

I hope that was un-passive aggressive enough for you.

 

[AgentDib]

Of course it is baseless to speculate on how Wilson should assign value to things, as that is a completely personal issue. He is worth every dollar that somebody is willing to pay him, and if he does some day earn a record setting amount of money it would be entirely petty to begrudge him that. That isn't how I read the OP, however, who instead seems to be simply guess what Wilson will do and that is interesting even if it is early.

The concept of utility represents satisfaction and came about when people realized quite some time ago that money is only one of many factors that influence decisions. Some of the other factors that come to mind on this issue that may be applicable:

- Winning. Most athletes are willing to take a bit less to play on good teams than they are to play on bad teams. How much less would you take?

- Loyalty. If I felt overlooked in a drafting process then I would have extra incentive to succeed with whichever team believed in me.

- Market size. Would you rather be a large fish in a small pond or a small fish in a large pond? Bear in mind that if Wilson were to succeed with a team like the Jets, he would be a very large fish in a very large bond.

- Hometown. Wilson grew up in Cincinnati and then played in NC (both football and minor league baseball), Wisconsin (football) and even Pasco, WA (baseball) briefly. I'm not sure why people think he would rather play in Seattle then elsewhere; he has no kids here in the school system and with his current pay probably has not yet built or bought the home he will be living in in 3 years.

- Teammates. I suspect that Wilson has always gotten a lot of respect from teammates and will get along well wherever he goes.

- Coaching staff. Wilson says all the right things. Drew Brees was his role model. Does he actually enjoy being in a run first offense or does he look at the 2009 Saints and those passing numbers with a bit of envy? I suspect that our success or lack thereof will hugely influence this part of it over the next two years. If we have a Superbowl trophy or come very close I think this will give him a huge incentive to stick around which translates to dollars.

Personally, I don't really see a strong argument in any of these areas to justify much of a discount.

 

[kearly]

I am curious about Wilson's next contract, but not concerned. Aaron Rodgers was for a time the highest paid QB in the NFL. You don't hear Packers' fans complaining about that contract. Nor Peyton's in Denver. Or Brees' in New Orleans. If they make Wilson the NFL's highest paid QB, he'd still be among the league's most desirable assets. He's that damn good. If he takes up 15% of payroll, I am okay with that because he makes much more than a 15% difference in Seattle's ability to win games.

That said, a lot of those top QB contracts are ego driven, particularly Flacco and Rodgers. If Wilson has an ego, he does a great job keeping it in check and hiding it from everyone else. He's also an extremely humble dude. I do not expect him to sign at a discount, but if he did, I wouldn't be surprised either.

 

[lsheldon]

I personally believe that Russell Wilson likes being a Seahawk, his teammates, the coaches, and the city. If the team were getting the cold shoulder like in years past from the National media, I could see someone with his talents wanting to go elsewhere. Lately all anyone is talking about is this team though, he's getting plenty of attention. He's also a very smart guy, I think that at this point in his career, he will do what is best for the team which is to win championships. He will get paid there is no doubt about that, but I don't believe that he will take a hard line and demand a salary that the Seahawks can't pay.

The team can't negotiate his contract until the 2015 season though, so all of this is speculation. But that's what drives fan forums anyway.