Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

1 Year FA philosophy - risky?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:20 am
  • OK I get the advantage with 1 year contracts

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

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

    and yes if they are good we can get comp picks

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

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

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

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


    Free Agency


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thoughts?
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:26 am
  • My thought is, they have set the team up for that knock it outta the park draft.

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

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

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

    This league is a "get it now" league and smart GM's like JS know how to spread the wealth or lack thereof.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33673
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:35 am
  • I can see where it could work against them but overall I think its pretty smart. Lacy is a prime example. They're putting him in a position where he has to succeed at a relatively low cost.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:36 am
  • I suspect this league wide trend to 1 year, prove it, type deals is an attempt to max out opportunities for teams to acquire comp. picks rather than anything else. The advantges you note are certainly there, but the risk of losing the player if they play well during their 'contract year' are also high. I really think this may become a new way of doing business with backup players reducing the team's financial exposure to them until they prove themselves to the team.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5473
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:38 am
  • I personally like the idea of loading up on these 1 year prove it deals.

    If any of these guys has a great season, that benefits the Hawks. If they then leave and sign for big money elsewhere that too benefits the Hawks. I'm struggling to see the negatives TBH.
    User avatar
    el capitan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 655
    Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:48 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:40 am
  • I don't see how signing guys to 1 year deals and risking losing them because they play well is any more risky than signing guys to long term contracts and screwing up your salary cap for multiple years.

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

    Plus if someone performs well on a 1 year deal and gets a big contract you get a comp pick (which are even more valuable now because they are trade-able). I think that's actually part of John and Pete's strategy with these 1 year deals. Stack up on picks and use them to draft, yes, but also to trade for other players.
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1436
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:42 am
  • I'm not sure a 1 year prove it deal will give us the information we need to sign these guys to longer contracts or not? Look at the Kearse and Lane signings. We had them 3 plus years and still made bad signings in their cases.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5843
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:46 am
  • It's risky because if any of these guys do well, they're probably gone. To me, this signifies that the front office sees this as a crucial year. They're leaving themselves a ton of room to make major changes next offseason if they feel changes are needed. They're trying to buy themselves time to improve through the draft, but sooner or later, they're going to have to hit on some draft picks or blow the whole thing up and start over.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3807
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:51 am
  • And if they do hit it out of the park, we would get a month head start on negotiating a longer term deal. And there's always the franchise tag.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3776
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:53 am
  • Sort of where I'm at. Big picture I think it makes sense and even helps us to avoid the big Cary Williams, Percy type stuff and to sign the guys we know can play.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:00 am
  • I think this will be the new model for FA. Instead of the dumb mega contracts for upper 20's players now handed out like halloween candy.

    If a player does good (and the SHOULD, because of incentives) then it can be evaluated as to whether they should be retained. Smart business decisions IMO.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33673
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:02 am

Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:05 am
  • el capitan wrote:I personally like the idea of loading up on these 1 year prove it deals.

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


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

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

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

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

    We now will not have any of the upside and can potentially still have the downside that they don't work out
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:08 am
  • The guys getting 1 yr deals are getting them for a reason. These are the guys that will fill roster holes year after year. I'm fine with most of the 1 yr deals and players we may want to retain could be extended before the start of FA next year. Hitting the draft will be the key to future success.
    penihawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 524
    Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:11 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:08 am
  • Largent80 wrote:I think this will be the new model for FA. Instead of the dumb mega contracts for upper 20's players now handed out like halloween candy.

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


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

    As I stated - I get the upsides but I see downsides and I think the right formula is a mix of short and longer term contracts. I think the FO agrees as they tried to sign Lang to more than one year so this is probably also related to simply not getting the guys they want for the right length of time
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:09 am
  • [quote="mikeak"
    one should recognize that a team that signs several FAs will hit on some and fail on others.[/quote]

    The same can be said about drafted players. There are no guarantees, so for a team to roll with one year, all it does is give that player incentive to perform. And in the "what have you done for us lately" category, that is all that matters.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33673
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:27 am
  • mikeak wrote:
    el capitan wrote:I personally like the idea of loading up on these 1 year prove it deals.

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


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

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

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

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

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


    You also have to consider the person (and their Agent) on the other side of the deal. No way would Lacy sign a multi year deal for low money like that at the age of 27. He's hoping to have a big year and get his last big contract. You couldn't have signed him for 3m-5m over multiple years.
    User avatar
    DJrmb
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1436
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:29 am
  • I think the most important factor is that it allows the team to evaluate culture/scheme fit before committing big money.

    Not every guy works in this program. One year deals allow them to figure out which ones do.
    Mojambo
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1644
    Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:38 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:32 am
  • penihawk wrote:The guys getting 1 yr deals are getting them for a reason. These are the guys that will fill roster holes year after year. I'm fine with most of the 1 yr deals and players we may want to retain could be extended before the start of FA next year. Hitting the draft will be the key to future success.


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

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

    http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/3/22/1 ... t-contract
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:52 am
  • nanomoz wrote:Don't ignore the compensatory pick part of this formula.


    That's going to be diluted as well. Apparently 85%+ of contracts handed out this FA period have been a record number of 1 year deals. So the signings are going to be diluted by 31 other teams with the same mindset. Which means a lot more players eligible for the 32 comp picks. So really it comes down to, who has the best performances, goes on to get larger contracts, and signs the least UFA's next season.
    User avatar
    ringless
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1971
    Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:37 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:55 am
  • nanomoz wrote:Don't ignore the compensatory pick part of this formula.


    Which is probably more than 50% of why they're doing it.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16151
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:56 am
  • The ultimate goal is win the superbowl, not how many comp. picks you get for losing players because of success.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33673
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:06 am
  • Maybe for some from this years group but there will be a whole new group of guys that fall into the limited FA market 1 year deal guys next year. It's just the reality of playing the salary cap.
    penihawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 524
    Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:11 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:12 am
  • They use a 3+ year model, so even though they give out one year contacts, they're thinking about how they effects the team down the road.

    They don't want to get stung with another Carey Williams deal that effected the cap in a bad way.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 17925
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:54 am
  • Pete is a master motivator. These 1 year prove it deals got me all giddy. Perfect situation.

    It may be sad to let some break out players go next year... but another ring would take the sting outa that.
    Go Hawks.
    Sealake80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 543
    Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:42 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:39 pm
  • Not at all, at this day and age, as Cary Williams and J'marcus Webb have taught us, you can't bend to fill. When you give mediocre veterans multi-year deals with guaranteed money, the Seahawks have gotten burned. Seahawks shelled out almost $10m for 2 guys who gave the Seahawks 18 games, 13 starts.

    In the curious case of Webb, he not only gave 8 games, 3 starts before he was cut: he wasn't a great role model or mentor, his injury forced Gilliam back to RT, which in my opinion one of the reasons for Gilliam' s regression amongst other things.

    Seahawks promised Gilliam an opportunity to compete at LT, I'm sure he wasn't too happy about being forced back to RT because of Webb as Gilliam spent his entire off-season training to be a LT. Then when Sowell got hurt, Fant was given the opportunity over Gil because it was obvious the Seahawks didn't want anything to do with Webb.

    I'm certain Gilliam, behind the scenes, probably propositioned Cable for the LT job during Sowell's absence. I could see Gilliam sour when Cable said Gilliam would stay at RT, and that was all but cemented when the Seahawks cut Webb leaving Gilliam without any leverage. At that point Gilliam bitter, probably started to mail it in and his performance fell off even more so. Which probably led to more talks with Cable I could imagine leading up to Gilliam' s demotion to get his mind right or whatever.

    I'm speculating but the logic is within reason of the timeline. I think it's part of the reason why Gilliam was re-signed, the potential he showed in the 2nd half of 2015 where he was an average to above average performer was kind of set back in 2016 for the reasons stated above. And the Seahawks challenged Gil to fight for it, grit it out, put it on the field when he was put back in after 3 games.

    But back to Webb, so all of that was affected by Webb plus he cost the Seahawks a comp pick for Mebane or Sweezy.

    TL:DR version:

    What did Webb cost the Seahawks?
    - $2.55m for 8 games, 3 starts none at RT
    - With no leadership to show for it
    - Circumstances possibly leading to Gilliams regression/demotion
    - Partly to blame for Russell Wilson's lack of mobility, as Webb got hurt, putting rookie Rees Odhiambo at RG in the play Suh steps on Russ's ankle IIRC. Or it could have been Webb getting owned.
    - Probably a 5th Round Comp, maybe a 4th but I'm not going to look for a chart.

    So, case in point Seahawks learned from their past. Not to put themselves in a multi-year deficit. Not to put themselves in a position where free agents don't have to prove themselves first in our system and earn it.

    By all accounts, this was a really poor market, and I'm glad the Seahawks didn't shackle themselves to long term contracts like they did with Webb and Williams, and to a lesser extent like Kearse and Lane, both who seemingly regressed after getting paid and those deals force the Seahawks to keep them on roster.

    Other than Joeckel's 7.25m guaranteed but at least if he fails, that 7.25m comes back 2017. No dead cap to deal with like the $3m shelled out for Williams and Webb over this year and last year.

    And I'm certain Seahawks want all of these guys to thrive, to perform, to exceed expectations, why wouldn't they. They've put themselves in a position that if these guys perform well, they will net them comps picks.

    And that's the end game, with a crazy FA market, any sustained success for a team paying so many premium players, you really need to build through the draft. More draft picks the better. We know this.

    Not counting future contract signings, Seahawks signed, re-signed, or tendered:

    DB Parrish Cox
    PK Blair Walsh
    RB Troymaine Pope
    RB Terrance McGee
    OT Garry Gilliam
    OT Luke Joeckel
    RB Eddy Lacy
    CB Neiko Thorpe
    CB Deshawn Shead
    TE Luke Willson
    OL Oday Aboushi
    LB Arthur Brown
    DB Bradley McDougald

    12 players. Not all guaranteed to make the team. But all having to compete either to make the roster or earn playing time and perform well to gain any future value. Only long term commitment is Thorpe at 2 years. Meaning whatever cap Seahawks put in for these guys, they'll get back.

    12 players for money other teams probably spent on just 1-2 players. I'd say at least 3/4th of these guys will have the opportunity to be either starters or key backups and/or key special teams contributors.

    Not a bad haul. No true difference makers unless you can get Joeckel and Lacy to play to thier utmost potential.

    I see this off-season as a success thus far, Seahawks have done well in getting back to thier recipe of success, churning out bodies for high competition with some risk for reward free agents while also raising thier floors at certain positions.

    Sure everyone would rather was the ceiling but last year's team still won 11 of 18 games dealing with many key injuries. The team beat both Superbowl contenders. The team also had alot of youth on the roster, plenty of rookies, first-time/full-time starters especially at O-Line and RB.

    I think the Seahawks are doing exactly what they need to thus far, now they just need to go out and get those ceiling raisers through the draft, and churn out more bodies for competition.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3287
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:08 pm
  • Nice post PH. Thanks
    Fire Tom Cable

    Still can't believe we let Alex Collins go
    User avatar
    bigskydoc
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2394
    Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:27 am
    Location: Kalispell, MT


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:08 pm
  • mikeak wrote:
    However what I am not seeing discussed at all is the big negative

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

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

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



    I suppose it would be a negative if Seattle did this every year. The team's issue the past couple of years seems to be depth so one year deals on a young team might not be a bad idea. Get some hungry players that think they have been overlooked and that want a starting job and a big contract. The FO's FA talent evaluation and cap management seems to be Seattle's competitive advantage in the league so they should use it.

    What if Lacy and Graham have stellar seasons in 2017? Might only be able to keep one after the year is up. This is a problem that any team would be ok with having (just an example, I realize there are multiple variables involved). Seattle just has to make sure they pick the right one.

    Not really concerned about consistency when it comes to depth players. If they are too good at the end of the contract to ride the pine and we cannot afford them, good for them. Time to move on and find more depth.
    "It's Ground Hawks Day" Chris Berman
    User avatar
    seahawkfreak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5070
    Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:36 pm
    Location: Aiken , SC


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:16 pm
  • OK lets look at what the two bad ones cost - Williams and Webb

    Williams
    Signed a 3 year $18million contract

    Signing Bonus was $3.5M

    Guaranteed money was $7M -- all paid in 2015 his first year of the Contract

    Cost for having him for year 2 and 3 of the Contract -- 2/3 of $3.5M so the cost was $2.3M -- everything else went away when we cut him

    Point being if we sign Cary Williams to a 1 year deal we save $2.3M -- if he had panned out and been a good player we would have had him under contract for another 2 years. $2.3M is NOT that much in dead money. The problem with Cary is that he sucked from day 1 and he would have sucked regardless if it was a 1 or a 3 year deal

    Webb
    I don't really care what it cost to sign him. The question of this thread is what did it cost in ADDITION to sign him to a two year deal vs a one year deal. The loss of a comp pick would have been there regardless

    Signing bonus - $1.2M for 2 years - dead money for 2nd year - $600k. ZERO guaranteed money for year 2

    Both of these deals were great from the standpoint that you could cut the player with minimal impact for year 2 and 3. From a "how to draft a contract" they were great by the FO and an example for how to do it. They are not examples why you shouldn't sign a guy to 2 or 3 years......

    Pandion -- without copying your whole post appreciate the input. I do agree that the FA market this year drove the 1 year deals to a large extent. I also agree that from a 2017 season perspective we did good. I am actually not even saying we did bad for the future I am simply saying that it should be concerning with this many FA going into 2018 and we really need to hit it in the upcoming draft.

    Signing some FA for need will allow us to draft the best players which does increase the odds but don't kid yourself we have to be very active in the FA market next year unless all our draft picks stick and the 1 year deals aren't sustainable long term
    Last edited by mikeak on Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:18 pm
  • seahawkfreak wrote:Not really concerned about consistency when it comes to depth players. If they are too good at the end of the contract to ride the pine and we cannot afford them, good for them. Time to move on and find more depth.


    This is all opinion based so in the end we will all disagree and I think it is partially because of this

    I don't see $3M-$5M on a RB and $7M+ on an OL to be money spent on "depth players"

    I see that as money spent on starters and for starters I think consistency matters

    The rest of the guys - 100% agree with you (and several other posters). Having a churn of the below starter guys that are very motivated to play awesome on their one year deal is probably a really good thing
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:29 pm
  • mikeak wrote:
    1) If they succeed you will pay more next year for their services than you would have for next year right now.....



    This isn't bad. It's good. Teams get in cap hell because they pay bloated contracts to bad talent. And next year, you have other options/avenues to keep players (increasing cap, ability to resign own players before UFA period begins, other contracts falling off the books). You have considerably more cap flexibility which is the real key.

    The alternative of course would be you sign 3 guys to long term deals. One hits, the other two fail. You now eat dead money to release the other two. And you still have to spend to replace them on the roster.

    One year deals on unknown quality is always preferred. You are paying the cap hit all up front, and are free to address the failed attempts to improve in the following year.

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


    This isn't true. You still have the option to pay them a higher salary. A new deal can have very little new money in it up front. The reality is too, that your next year, your entire roster is a year older. Some of those salaries that come off the books in 2018 aren't going to be retained.

    It's worth noting too -- that Seattle is very rigidly against pushing cap space down the road. They like to pay up front. Many of our contracts actually decline in cap value as they come closer to expiring.

    Flexibility in the cap: one year deals in conjunction with front loaded contracts in conjunction with limited dead money in conjunction with targeting younger talent -- gives Seattle the ability to resign players who do hit. The youth of the guys we target (almost always 25-27 yrs) gives us a greater measure of realizing maximum value for a 3 year resign commitment.

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



    This is totally true. In this age however, that's completely unavoidable. All teams have to roll over talent. The best teams year in and year out are the ones that successfully reload cheap talent. The Patriots are absolute masters of this and it's been undeniably one of the two most important reasons for their success.

    The best you can do, is to keep your core guys around. And change out your role players.

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

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

    Thoughts?


    Yes, we reload with rookies. That's exactly what you want to do with role player talent.

    It's also why pre drafting ahead of need is so useful. And why we do it. One can look at who we draft a year or two in advance of these expiring contracts. So that when the time comes for them to roll off the books (to help pave the way for resigning UFAs that stick) -- we have a successor in place in the system and somewhat experienced.

    Seattle uses roster mirrors for this express purpose. To give us flexibility where we need it. We can't know which players we can't live without two years down the road. But having options so that when you have to make tough choices on the roster -- as every team in the league does -- we can allow those players whose backups are the most ready to contribute.

    These one year deals are perfect. If a guy just becomes something awesome (like Michael Bennett in 2013), you can make a tough choice elsewhere. Maybe with a player that has a capable alternative. Or a player whose role isn't as vital to success. Or a player whose position is strong in UFA or the draft. Or a guy who's on the wrong side of 30.

    It's not a bad thing to have too many great players that are worth top dollar in this league. Even if you have to pick between two great players -- you have the flexibility to let walk the one player who is more readily replaceable.
    User avatar
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2155
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:33 pm
  • As strange as this may sound, I believe the front office is committed to paying players what they are worth.

    They have shown to be less interested in locking good players into "bargain contracts" than just about any other team in the league. They have tried to not force an unrestricted free agent's hand through use of the fifth-year rookie option, transition tag, or franchise tag since 2011. They have preferred offering four-year deals to established veterans, even though five-year deals could save money in the long term and have been more popular league wide.

    This strategy could be a way to avoid contract dissension and holdouts. Plus, they might just view it as the right thing to do. If a player has proven enough, then we are happy to pay them what they are worth. See: Bennett, Michael.
    User avatar
    hawknation2017
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1812
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:44 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:27 pm
  • mikeak wrote:OK I get the advantage with 1 year contracts

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

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

    and yes if they are good we can get comp picks

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

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

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

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


    Free Agency


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thoughts?


    My thoughts are that this is business as usual for pcjs. They sign a lot of fa's to one year deals. It just usually isn't for 8 mil, which is what I think has got everyone worried about this. That is the risk they will have to take. Plus, we assume that it is pcjs that wants the one year deals. It might be that some of, or maybe a lot of these guys won't sign a multi year deal. They "bet on themselves."
    User avatar
    Jimjones0384
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 801
    Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:43 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:36 pm
  • I think they will draft heavy in the areas they are also grabbing FAs. Means competition in the teams areas of need. If the FA guys play well then they can go, Hawks get the comp pick and cap flexibility and have the players they drafted.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13918
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:53 pm
  • People are seeing this the way they want to see it. Let me explain something to you from an actual experience this off-season. A lot of Cardinals fans, like many others thing it's great to get all these comp picks. But at what expense? You can get a maximum of 4 comp picks. Not 5, just 4. The Cardinals for example lost 9 starters... Do you see an issue there with diminishing returns? Had we extended some prior, and lost 4 qualifying players, and in essence got 4 comp picks there is a lot more value there. Instead, players 5-9, we got 0 value for. So having 20+ UFA's in one season can do a lot more harm than good.

    I frequent a lot forums. The other thing I see in common is Cardinals fans, and Seahawks fans think all these 1 year deals we signed are great. They are to in extent, but thinking that its 50% of the equation is going to lead to disappointment. Not just for the reason listed above, but the fact that this off-season has had more 1 year deals handed out league wide then ever. That means next year the market is going to have the biggest flood of UFA's ever. But the amount of comp picks will remain at 32. So that means your UFA's have to perform better, and get better contracts next season then they would have in any other season to get those comp picks. You can lose a lot more then you are going to potentially gain. So I doubt, comp picks are the main reason why. I mean look at this. If I was told for 9 starters off Arizona we'd be getting a 3rd, 4th, and two 6th round picks for players like Campbell, Jefferson, Swearinger, etc. I'd be extremely disappointed and trust me I am. I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.

    If you temper your expectations now, for next off-season. It's likely going to lead to a lot less disappointment then if you want to believe Seattle is going to get rewarded greatly via comp picks.
    User avatar
    ringless
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1971
    Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:37 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:01 pm
  • ringless wrote:
    nanomoz wrote:Don't ignore the compensatory pick part of this formula.


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


    Your observation is absolutely right as to the dilution but the team will have many more chances for a comp pick when following this scheme, and no dead cap problems.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5473
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:09 pm
  • Some of what produced these one year contracts may be a reaction to the weakness of the 2013 draft class i.e. lots of guys getting a fresh start and a second chance. So, although this could be an emerging trend, it could also be an anomaly.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 8007
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:28 pm
  • IMO the reasons for the Seahawks in particular signing a lot of one-year players has nothing to do with motivation or comp picks.

    There is a sea change coming, so to speak, over the next two years. The org wants as much flexibility as possible to carry out this change to maximum effect.

    The org wants to figure out what it has in the young OL it's invested all this time developing. We no longer have the underpaid RW advantage with contracts. If the young OL pans out, and I actually think it will (Fant and Gilliam included), we'll have a similar advantage via OL. Last year's sucktitude was a high price to pay, possibly costing us a strong title run, but that investment may start to really pay off this year. If they sign a prime vet to unequivocally take one of those spots for 3+ years and the young guys develop as expected, you waste that advantage.

    This draft has a very deep talent pool. It's critical the Hawks pull out a good draft. If they do it's very possible we get 6+ future starters out of the draft and UDFA this year. We nail this draft and keep Wilson healthy and we have a Patriots-like SB window. We just need enough to get us through 1-2 years of transition while the young guys turn in to starts and pro bowlers. So these 1-year guys hold things down and give the rookies a year to develop before they're thrown in to prominent roles.

    Lastly, the big contracts are ending - either they expire, are extended, or terminated a year early to open cap space, all dependent on the performance and prospects for future performance of each individual player. JG, Kam, Avril, Sherm, KJ, Earl... along with mid-level contracts like Kearse and Lane. The team will keep who they want, let the ones they want go. They can open up oodles of cap space if they want to splash in FA - not on the Cary Williams of the world, but top players who carry little risk of performing poorly.

    It's gonna be big. This is the last year the team will make a run before big changes happen. The Seahawks have a solid chance but they weren't gonna mortgage the future for 2017. Title or no, everything will start changing dramatically after this year.

    It's brilliant planning by Pete and John - lining all this up perfectly. The key is pulling it off, and the first big part of that is this draft.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1040
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:22 pm
  • ringless wrote:People are seeing this the way they want to see it. Let me explain something to you from an actual experience this off-season. A lot of Cardinals fans, like many others thing it's great to get all these comp picks. But at what expense? You can get a maximum of 4 comp picks. Not 5, just 4. The Cardinals for example lost 9 starters... Do you see an issue there with diminishing returns? Had we extended some prior, and lost 4 qualifying players, and in essence got 4 comp picks there is a lot more value there. Instead, players 5-9, we got 0 value for. So having 20+ UFA's in one season can do a lot more harm than good.

    I frequent a lot forums. The other thing I see in common is Cardinals fans, and Seahawks fans think all these 1 year deals we signed are great. They are to in extent, but thinking that its 50% of the equation is going to lead to disappointment. Not just for the reason listed above, but the fact that this off-season has had more 1 year deals handed out league wide then ever. That means next year the market is going to have the biggest flood of UFA's ever. But the amount of comp picks will remain at 32. So that means your UFA's have to perform better, and get better contracts next season then they would have in any other season to get those comp picks. You can lose a lot more then you are going to potentially gain. So I doubt, comp picks are the main reason why. I mean look at this. If I was told for 9 starters off Arizona we'd be getting a 3rd, 4th, and two 6th round picks for players like Campbell, Jefferson, Swearinger, etc. I'd be extremely disappointed and trust me I am. I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.

    If you temper your expectations now, for next off-season. It's likely going to lead to a lot less disappointment then if you want to believe Seattle is going to get rewarded greatly via comp picks.


    Great thoughts. Thinking of one player in mind for next season too. But I am good with it. Hope to see you again in that area if I go for that game this year. You are a great team knowledge person.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8302
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:39 pm
  • I think we all wish the Carey Williams situation was a 1 year prove it deal. The Hawks may have benched him sooner.

    Adding players to the pile is never a bad thing.

    Competition is never a bad thing.
    Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5877
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:45 pm
  • I think it's fine for teams that can compete and are paying the second contract on a lot of player, it can keep you in the hunt and hedge your bets on draft picks to replace the second contract players, if you hit on the draft you are able to trade and or cut guys not performing rather then keep them longer then you should.

    Now if they perform you can try to extend, if not cut your losses.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25421
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:05 pm
  • Is this what the Patriots have done to fill gaps in their roster? Were Browner and Revis both on one year deals? Then this year I believe Bennett and Long both were.
    HawkRiderFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 607
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:10 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:10 pm
  • My take on NE is that they have Brady and spend a bunch of money on their defensive front 7. Of course we also know they're not afraid to cut bait on top players before they have to pay them.

    Pete and John are similar but tend to be more loyal to their top players, but now that we have RW getting paid like Brady was that might have to change.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1040
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:20 pm
  • The two best posts on this thread are differing but both thought provoking. I find PH's post more in line with my thinking, but ADog has a really interesting and thought provoking theoretical. Interestingly both could be right. Time will tell. These 1 year deals are interesting and may just mark a sea change.

    There will need to be a rebuild of the team soon as it is getting old at a few key positions. Don't agree with ADog on the need to hit on 6 position in the draft but some critically important pieces need to be added this draft. I think the best players for us are defensive players.

    Even if the team finds two players with talent this draft who can add significant minutes this season they improve.

    One year deals are a new wave until an advantage exists for them not to be. This is a direct consequence of the draft advantage of tradeable comp picks.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5473
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:42 am
  • austinslater25 wrote:Sort of where I'm at. Big picture I think it makes sense and even helps us to avoid the big Cary Williams, Percy type stuff and to sign the guys we know can play.


    Absolutely, particularly as it concerns Lacy and Joeckel, who really do have to "prove it".

    With the situation we're in, we really can't afford a lot of big, long term deals as we have a considerable number of veterans on long term deals with several (Kam, Graham) that are on a little bit of a 'prove it' condition themselves that we'll want to have the flexibility to resign next season if we so choose and still leave enough room to sign a very desirable FA should they come walking our way. That's where the Cowboys have, in so many cases in the past, painted themselves into a corner.

    I have no problems with one year deals regarding players like Lacy and Joeckel. It makes a ton of sense. Now, if we were to sign someone like Russell to a one year deal....
    User avatar
    RiverDog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1616
    Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:58 am
    Location: Kennewick, WA


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:01 am
  • The benefit of the comp pick is simply part of the asset the FO has gained when they signed the player. The player was not signed for the pick exclusively. All of these deals were given to players who willl and competition (and flexibility) to positions of need. These are not game changers. They fill a role that may be supplemented by draft picks in April as well.

    Their is littke risk (outside Joeckels contract). The comp pick is just part of the benefit of signing the player. Nothing more than addressing depth without taking a huge risk.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13918
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:41 am
  • chris98251 wrote:I think it's fine for teams that can compete and are paying the second contract on a lot of player, it can keep you in the hunt and hedge your bets on draft picks to replace the second contract players, if you hit on the draft you are able to trade and or cut guys not performing rather then keep them longer then you should.

    Now if they perform you can try to extend, if not cut your losses.


    This concept also allows teams that have very little chance of making it to the post season over a period of years to let their free agents walk into a situation with a better fit for them to excel. The former rookie may have only one fit position and were never able to achieve satisfaction in that position. Their current team may not like that idea of checking the waters, but it is not really their choice when free agency comes around if they are unrestricted or not tagged.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8302
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:33 am
  • A-Dog wrote:
    The org wants to figure out what it has in the young OL it's invested all this time developing. We no longer have the underpaid RW advantage with contracts. If the young OL pans out, and I actually think it will (Fant and Gilliam included), we'll have a similar advantage via OL. Last year's sucktitude was a high price to pay, possibly costing us a strong title run, but that investment may start to really pay off this year. If they sign a prime vet to unequivocally take one of those spots for 3+ years and the young guys develop as expected, you waste that advantage.
    .


    I agree with this and actually wrote it in a different thread after the Joeckel signing, but the attempt at signing Fant kind goes against it a little bit. But at least for the core the signal I get from the FO is that they think it will be a good OL core but need stability from veterans if for nothing else to be able to handle injuries

    good post
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:45 am
  • ringless wrote: I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.

    .


    Which is my concern for next off season

    The other thing I find interesting is this "we don't want to sign the wrong guy to a bad long term deal" (which I get) so instead we want to "spend a lot of money each year on a bunch of guys and do it over and over again"

    The chances of failure doesn't decrease by signing 5 guys to 1 year deals this year and 5 guys to 1 year deals next year vs signing 5 guys to 2-year deals this year.......

    and again Cary Williams was a bad deal because he was a bad player - the 2nd and 3rd year really didn't hurt us much
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7433
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: 1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:57 am
  • mikeak wrote:
    ringless wrote: I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.

    .


    Which is my concern for next off season

    The other thing I find interesting is this "we don't want to sign the wrong guy to a bad long term deal" (which I get) so instead we want to "spend a lot of money each year on a bunch of guys and do it over and over again"

    The chances of failure doesn't decrease by signing 5 guys to 1 year deals this year and 5 guys to 1 year deals next year vs signing 5 guys to 2-year deals this year.......

    and again Cary Williams was a bad deal because he was a bad player - the 2nd and 3rd year really didn't hurt us much


    How many expiring contracts are on the roster right now?
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13918
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Next


It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:08 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information