1 Year FA philosophy - risky?

[DJrmb]

I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.

.

Which is my concern for next off season

These situations may or may not be equivalent. It really depends on how well one is set up to replace these players (comments in red).

At this time Seattle will be projected to have 17 UFA's next year per Spotrac.com:

Jimmy Graham - none (Rookie option this year in strong class, or resign)
Luke Joeckel - (hedge for Glowinski/Odhiambo development)
Kam Chancellor - none (Rookie option this year, also extention candidate this year or next)
Eddie Lacy - none (likely not resigned. Also generically available UFA talent in any given year)
Bradley McDougald - none (possible Rookie option this year)
Luke Willson - Vannett
Garry Gilliam - Ifedi
Deshawn Shead - Elliott, Lane or likely rookie option
Blair Walsh - none.
Oday Aboushi - Glowinski/Odhiambo or rookie option in 2018/19)
Justin Britt - none. Priority resign
Perrish Cox - easily replaced with street UFA
Demetrius McCray - easily replaced with street UFA
Pierre Desir - Likely replaced with dev CB in draft 2018/19
Cassius Marsh - possible resign. Should be under 2m
Kevin Pierre-Louis - easily replaced with street UFA

When you break down the list, now it looks downright manageable. Seattle has really only three guys they have to truly consider resigning: Graham, Chancellor and Britt. Of those three, there are elite draft options available in 2017. How we predraft for need next month will give us a clue to what our future intentions are for these three. And in the cases of Graham and Chancellor -- those guys are getting into their third contracts. Teams have to tread carefully with those deals, since decline to age and injury is at an elevated risk. But just as important -- Chancellor and Graham are already on high value deals. Resigning them is a negligible bump (if indeed a bump at all) from their current cap figures.

The only hard must resign in this entire list is Britt as of today. Many of these UFAs are simply hedges for guys we just added last year. Meaning that draft strategy for 2018 probably rests on how those guys develop. Most of these UFAs we've added are merely bridge options to allow flexibility in the upcoming draft. And their quality is of a pretty generically replaceable level (Gilliam, Aboushi, McCray, Desir, Pierre-Louis, McDougald, Cox).

And we do have flexibility in dropping some contracts in 2018. Lane (should he again suffer a bad season), and Kearse. Those 2 contracts alone would account for Britt's increase and then some.

It looks like we've established a better bridge option for the OL this year as opposed to last year. Which is smart considering the lack of talent in the OL class this year. With the cap flexibility we enjoy -- we can still resign one or even two new faces if they should have standout seasons.

I am not intimately familiar with how Arizona was set up to account for their cap defections this year. Maybe they had guys waiting in the wings. Maybe not. Seattle added a LOT of talent last year. Eight rookies and 4 UDFAs made the active roster. We should assume about 8+ make it from this year's class. Seattle is setting themselves up well to reload with players steeping on the depth chart.

Overall, the # of players seems daunting. But on closer examination, it's really not at all that scary.

Great post Attyla

Also if you look at other teams 2018 projected FA lists we're not in as scary a situation as what the number alone without any context makes it look. You have to look at things within context. If you have nothing you're comparing Seattle's 32 players under contract through 2018 to, how do you know if that's good or bad or normal???

For example New England has only 35 players under contract through 2018, 3 more than Seattle. Are they in dire straits and in a bad position for 2018 because they have to fill 16 positions? I don't think so, they are one of the best run teams in the league.

Atlanta has 32 players signed for 2018 like Seattle. Arizona 34 (which includes Palmer and Fitz so probably 32). Green Bay has 31. I can go on and on...

As a matter of fact it seems the teams with the most players signed through 2018 are the worst run teams: Cleveland has 49 players signed. Jacksonville has 48. LA Rams, 45...

So if anything it seems like the teams committing to tons of long term contracts are the teams not winning.

 

[A-Dog]

When you break down the list, now it looks downright manageable. Seattle has really only three guys they have to truly consider resigning: Graham, Chancellor and Britt.

This is true... I'm not worried about free agency next year much beyond these three. It's the year after that's going to be a monster. All of these guys are set to be UFAs:

Cliff Avril 43DE
Earl Thomas S
Jermaine Kearse WR
KJ Wright 43OLB
Richard Sherman CB
Ahtyba Rubin 43DT
Neiko Thorpe CB
Frank Clark 43DE
Tyler Lockett WR
Mark Glowinski LG
Trevone Boykin QB
DeAndre Elliott CB
George Fant LT
Tanner McEvoy WR

In the 2018 season/offseason we'll see which of these guys get extensions, which guys are cut for cap space, and which guys are simply allowed to play out their deals. Things will likely look very different after these decisions are made.

This is the sea change I mentioned - this draft sets the stage for what we are able to do with these highly-paid vets with expiring deals.

 

[mikeak]

Thanks for all the classy posts in this thread! Lots of good information some we agree on, some we disagree on but good tone exchanging how we each view the situation. What started as my concern for 2018 now includes a post that we should look at 2019 as the big concern

Either way I think we all agree that the years of not getting much out of the draft need to be behind us and these next two drafts will set the tone for the next couple of years. Hopefully we can do that with another Super Bowl win behind us!! I think it is clear that the ability to go far into the playoff will help in the FA market as players tend to be more willing to take risks if they think they are joining a winning organization

 

[Sports Hernia]

Lots of great info, insight, and discussion in this thread from ALL sides. :2thumbs:

 

[mrt144]

I find the 1 year FA stuff to actually be mutually beneficial. If a player performs really well we recouped that output. We will have a crack at extending them during the season. If a player doesn't we don't have to spend another thought upon them. If a player does really well and leaves we get a comp pick provided we don't make FA moves that nullify it. If a player does really well they can leverage it into a long term contract with another team.

It's not an ideal contract situation for every player or every team but I think it fits right now. Keep the young irons in the fire and not tied down to any one strategy.

 

[semiahmoo]

Just want to say, this has been a great thread. Some excellent commentary.

Keep up the good work.

 

[semiahmoo]

I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.

.

Which is my concern for next off season

These situations may or may not be equivalent. It really depends on how well one is set up to replace these players (comments in red).

At this time Seattle will be projected to have 17 UFA's next year per Spotrac.com:

Jimmy Graham - none (Rookie option this year in strong class, or resign)
Luke Joeckel - (hedge for Glowinski/Odhiambo development)
Kam Chancellor - none (Rookie option this year, also extention candidate this year or next)
Eddie Lacy - none (likely not resigned. Also generically available UFA talent in any given year)
Bradley McDougald - none (possible Rookie option this year)
Luke Willson - Vannett
Garry Gilliam - Ifedi
Deshawn Shead - Elliott, Lane or likely rookie option
Blair Walsh - none.
Oday Aboushi - Glowinski/Odhiambo or rookie option in 2018/19)
Justin Britt - none. Priority resign
Perrish Cox - easily replaced with street UFA
Demetrius McCray - easily replaced with street UFA
Pierre Desir - Likely replaced with dev CB in draft 2018/19
Cassius Marsh - possible resign. Should be under 2m
Kevin Pierre-Louis - easily replaced with street UFA

When you break down the list, now it looks downright manageable. Seattle has really only three guys they have to truly consider resigning: Graham, Chancellor and Britt. Of those three, there are elite draft options available in 2017. How we predraft for need next month will give us a clue to what our future intentions are for these three. And in the cases of Graham and Chancellor -- those guys are getting into their third contracts. Teams have to tread carefully with those deals, since decline to age and injury is at an elevated risk. But just as important -- Chancellor and Graham are already on high value deals. Resigning them is a negligible bump (if indeed a bump at all) from their current cap figures.

The only hard must resign in this entire list is Britt as of today. Many of these UFAs are simply hedges for guys we just added last year. Meaning that draft strategy for 2018 probably rests on how those guys develop. Most of these UFAs we've added are merely bridge options to allow flexibility in the upcoming draft. And their quality is of a pretty generically replaceable level (Gilliam, Aboushi, McCray, Desir, Pierre-Louis, McDougald, Cox).

And we do have flexibility in dropping some contracts in 2018. Lane (should he again suffer a bad season), and Kearse. Those 2 contracts alone would account for Britt's increase and then some.

It looks like we've established a better bridge option for the OL this year as opposed to last year. Which is smart considering the lack of talent in the OL class this year. With the cap flexibility we enjoy -- we can still resign one or even two new faces if they should have standout seasons.

I am not intimately familiar with how Arizona was set up to account for their cap defections this year. Maybe they had guys waiting in the wings. Maybe not. Seattle added a LOT of talent last year. Eight rookies and 4 UDFAs made the active roster. We should assume about 8+ make it from this year's class. Seattle is setting themselves up well to reload with players steeping on the depth chart.

Overall, the # of players seems daunting. But on closer examination, it's really not at all that scary.

You have the mind of a GM. Really enjoyed your take. One of the strongest posts of what is among the strongest threads in this place. I poke a bit of fun at the silly thin skins of some, but then I come across some actual sound reasoning and learn something.

Nice job!

 

[Tical21]

I would've probably liked a few calculated risks on a couple multi-year deals, or maybe options. We really have to hit on some guys in the draft and develop some guys from last year so we can slide those guys into these expiring spots rather than having to sign a bunch of filler guys again next year. They put a ton of pressure on themselves when they decided to pay the entire defense to draft well in virtually all the other positions, and they haven't been faring that well in that regard. If they don't draft well, this whole strategy blows up.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I would've probably liked a few calculated risks on a couple multi-year deals, or maybe options.

Agree. But it has to be the right guys. We tried with Lang.

In this regard, I think it's very much a case of 'Sometimes the best deals you make are the ones you don't'. This UFA class was decidedly mediocre. This was noted leaguewide and we've discussed it heavily here. There was very little quality outside of players who were extremely old. Players for whom we'd have been paying salary for quality they expended on other teams. Because they were unlikely to produce at similar levels even in the short term.

Overall, I'm glad we exercised restraint this year. The talent available warranted that. And as we can see plainly -- the teams that did take that risk, paid ridiculous money to do it. For Okung's contract, we could almost have paid for Joeckel AND Joe Thomas.

They put a ton of pressure on themselves when they decided to pay the entire defense to draft well in virtually all the other positions, and they haven't been faring that well in that regard. If they don't draft well, this whole strategy blows up.

Absolutely true. The draft is our lifeblood. And our whole cap structure is predicated on rookie deal turnover. We pay significantly higher numbers of 6m+ contracts that most any other team. We are an outlier in that regard in the NFL.

As for not faring well, that would apply in 2013/14. However, we can easily see that 2013 was a really crappy class. The UFAs of this year are the fruit of that generally bad class. There probably aren't 5 teams in the league that have 4+ players from that class retained on their roster. If we want to be fair and state we didn't do well -- I think relative to the league should be part of that assessment.

The 2015 and 2016 classes look pretty good. With players we'll want to resign to second deals. The 2017 class has the potential to be better yet. So I think we're well on our way to drafting ourselves out of the corner painted by 2013/14.

 

[hawxfreak]

With all the moves it feels like pete's first year to me , It really screams of wanting to do everything to win and get more players wanting to come here for a ring
Also stating to the core group that the F O is doing everything to win so you also should or make room for someone who will
I really like this off season so far

 

[vin.couve12]

Haven't read anything in this thread beyond the first post, but the short answer is that you do not....build a team through free agency. That model can never be supported. Sure, you can get some pieces here and there, but you build a team through developing youth.

I know that doesn't cut it for impatient average football fans, but you'd really be surprised just how much that coaching, coaching decisions, and playcalling on both sides of the ball really do affect wins and losses.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Haven't read anything in this thread beyond the first post, but the short answer is that you do not....build a team through free agency. That model can never be supported. Sure, you can get some pieces here and there, but you build a team through developing youth.

I know that doesn't cut it for impatient average football fans, but you'd really be surprised just how much that coaching, coaching decisions, and playcalling on both sides of the ball really do affect wins and losses.

If I may qualify it better, You do not build a team thru free agency, but you can maintain or refresh a team with free agency. It is better to train the youngsters to do what you want them to do when they are fresh and able to learn what you think they need to learn. All kids are that way. And with the salary cap era, you have to be able to interchange youth with what you want to pay for that experience. I hope I typed this with what I wanted to say. Maybe qualify is not the correct term.

 

[vin.couve12]

Sure, that's fine. It's also Weighted Round Robin so to speak, IMO. This year....FA doesn't really have a lot of sure bets to alter a team is the respective desired fashion. This year is kind of a weak FA class. The draft has some depth this year, however. The top 3 rounds is a lot cloudier than some other drafts.

 

[purpleneer]

I understand the concern if it was guys most would classify like you are (Joeckel and Lacy are likely to be key guys who we're sure will be tough to lose) or the team showed it was planning to continuously fill a number of key positions by bringing in guys on 1-year deals.
The other concerns have been adressed pretty well I think.

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.

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

This part I have to wonder about. What reason would Lacy have to do a deal like that? I very much doubt that he would put off the chance to cash in next year for so little, both guaranteed and potentially.

 

[QuickLightning]

You don't get comp picks for guys who leave in FA after being on a 1 year deal...

 

[mikeak]

You don't get comp picks for guys who leave in FA after being on a 1 year deal...

I had the same understanding in the past but was told this was wrong. Couldn't find a link to substantiate

 

[DJrmb]

You don't get comp picks for guys who leave in FA after being on a 1 year deal...

I had the same understanding in the past but was told this was wrong. Couldn't find a link to substantiate

Yeah, 1 year deals do indeed figure into compensatory picks. That is why we lost a 5th or 6th rounder we would have gotten for Mebane by signing Sowell. Also Arizona would have been eligible for a compensatory pick for Sowell, the only reason they didn't get one is because his earnings weren't in the top 32 players that qualified as "Compensatory Free Agents".

Also Kansas City received a 6th for Tyvon Branch who they only had for 1 year in 2015 before he signed with Arizona.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

You don't get comp picks for guys who leave in FA after being on a 1 year deal...

You most certainly do. In fact, you don't even have to be on the team for a year. NE will get a comp pick for Michael Floyd who they claimed off waivers with 3 games to go in last season. They basically had the cap room and stashed him on the inactive list for no other reason than to get a free draft pick in 2018 (assuming he signs in the qualifying period).

Not only that, but you also get comp picks for any player for whom you don't exercise club option years. NE was able to recoup a 3rd round comp pick in 2016 by not picking up Darrelle Revis' 2nd and 3rd year options after SB49. Basically signed him to a 3 year deal that was always going to be a one year deal and also got the comp pick instead of cutting him.

Never understood (nor still don't understand) why all teams in the league don't set up their contracts this way. Maybe it has to do with how signing bonus money is spread out? Almost all multi year deals have team friendly 'out' years on the back end. But to take that out on a traditional deal you have to cut a player, disqualifying them in the comp pick formula. If you make that last year you never intend on paying an option year -- you get the comp pick should that player get resigned before the 'post June 1' period which is now sometime in May.

If you want to understand how the comp pick system can be worked, study New England's roster moves. They know and understand the system better than every other club. And they stretch the system to it's absurd, yet fully legal limits.

 

[QuickLightning]

You don't get comp picks for guys who leave in FA after being on a 1 year deal...

You most certainly do. In fact, you don't even have to be on the team for a year. NE will get a comp pick for Michael Floyd who they claimed off waivers with 3 games to go in last season.

Doesn't look like he will qualify for anything considering he's still unsigned and will undoubtedly be suspended to start the season.

But either way, Floyd counts because the contract that he was under and expired this year was a multi year deal before his contract expired. Single year deals do not qualify.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

You don't get comp picks for guys who leave in FA after being on a 1 year deal...

You most certainly do. In fact, you don't even have to be on the team for a year. NE will get a comp pick for Michael Floyd who they claimed off waivers with 3 games to go in last season.

Doesn't look like he will qualify for anything considering he's still unsigned and will undoubtedly be suspended to start the season.

But either way, Floyd counts because the contract that he was under and expired this year was a multi year deal before his contract expired. Single year deals do not qualify.

This is patently untrue. Single year deals most definitely qualify.

Case in point: Nick Foles. Signed 1 year contract with KC in August 2016. With club option for 2017. Club declined to exercise the second year option Mar. 9th. Signed with Phi for 2 year deal.

Foles, despite only signing for a 1 year deal with KC, is bestowing on them an expected 5th round comp selection in 2018.


Second case: Matt Schaub

2015: released by Oakland, signed with Baltimore for 1 year 2m. Contract expires.
2016: signed 1 year deal with Atlanta
2017: Qualified for a 7th round comp pick for Baltimore (cancelled by Eric Weddle signing). Also canceled potential comp pick for Atlanta for Gino Gradkowski. As expected.

So yes, 1 year deals will qualify as a comp pick.