Angry DB EXTENDED.

OP
OP
pmedic920

pmedic920

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
30,245
Reaction score
5,953
Location
On the lake, Livingston Texas
To me the GT vs ADB argument is a mute point. Least at this point in time.
GT is long gone.
That makes ADB's deal all that more important and COOL.
There wasn't much chance of us getting them both.
I like GT, and I'm happy he is in a place that he should flourish. Megaton will draw the double and that leaves plenty of opportunities for GT.
I predict that ADB will make us all happy that it worked out the way it did.
:{) GoHawks.
 

MidwestHawker

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,046
Reaction score
0
Location
Indianapolis
UwVmZRs

"Clutch" isn't a real thing, people. It's just something that players get called for not being choke artists.

Anyway, carry on.
 
OP
OP
pmedic920

pmedic920

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
30,245
Reaction score
5,953
Location
On the lake, Livingston Texas
MidwestHawker":2uyyjoay said:
UwVmZRs

"Clutch" isn't a real thing, people. It's just something that players get called for not being choke artists.

Anyway, carry on.


That's what cowboy fans say when they talk about Romo. :)
 

seanutz

New member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
pmedic920":1qjlr88v said:
umazy3ez.jpg

Edit:
Nb4L80 :)
Awesome!!!
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
Escamillo":2ml4x9zv said:
But at the end of the day, it's not as much a question of whether to keep Baldwin or Tate, it's a question of whether to outbid Detroit for Tate.

This. Thank you.
 

MidwestHawker

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,046
Reaction score
0
Location
Indianapolis
pmedic920":f5jsv8rw said:
That's what cowboy fans say when they talk about Romo. :)

Romo is very good. Gets blamed a lot essentially for not quite winning games when he's the whole reason they're in the game to begin with.

But anyway, I don't want to cause a whole derail so yeah I'll exit stage left now. But I do disagree that Baldwin's so-called "clutchness" should be any sort of factor in boosting his value. Still I'm reasonably happy with this deal.
 

bjornanderson21

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
885
Reaction score
0
DavidSeven":1tn2d51p said:
bjornanderson21":1tn2d51p said:
kearly":1tn2d51p said:
Seattle supposedly offered Tate $4 million per, and Baldwin gets roughly $5.5 million per year in those two extra seasons when factoring his would-have-been $2 million 2014 salary. Seattle was willing to go $5 million a year on a longer deal.

I don't hate this deal, but why value Baldwin over Tate? If it's because he was more clutch or better in the playoffs, then that's kinda dumb. Tate brought huge value on special teams that will be difficult to replace, and he has more versatility, more overall production, more pure talent, and far more durability than Doug Baldwin.

My theory is that what tilted the scales in Baldwin's favor was his competitive nature at a time when Seattle wants to make competitiveness a focal point in the program more than ever. Losing one of your fiercest competitors would have a team-wide impact.
Im glad someone who is respected on this board made this comment. Only respected members get away with posting anything negative.

Yes, this deal will end up being frightfully close to what Tate was offered and it is questionable whether ADB deserves it more than Tate.

I personally like cheering for ADB more than tate, but if I was told that they would be paid the same and I was asked which one I would keep I would choose Tate.

Keeping Baldwin around a bit longer is something I wanted, but NEVER did I hear anyone saying that Baldwin will be paid like Tate just fewer years. The seahawks in no way are getting a bargain and in all likelihood they probably overpaid.

Im kinda bummed that the hawks found a way for me to not like them keeping a player I wanted them to keep.

He's not getting paid like Tate. Tate is making $6.25M/year over 5 years with $13M+ guaranteed. His guarantees alone are higher than Baldwin's new money.

How exactly is a deal that averages $4.3M over the next three years "frightfully close" to Tate's deal? Even if you calculated the "new money" separately (which honestly makes no sense), Tate is still making more money in Detroit.

I'd argue they're comparable in value anyway, though, yes, Tate is probably at the higher end of that tier. And he was compensated accordingly. I don't really see your issue.

The $4.3m figure you give is misleading and I wish people would understand numbers better.

The seahawks did nit have to pay him more than the $2m tender offer for 2014. Paying him anything more than that $ m means you gave a raise when none was required.

So really he is making $11m extra for the 2 year extension. That isnt $4.3m, its $5.5m for each year of the extension just like kearly said.


If I have a contract or a legal right to purchase a car for $20k, and the dealer says he will sell me 3 cars for $130k, which is the bette4 deal? 1 car for 20k or 3 cars for 130k (over 43k each) ?

The hawks only had the right to keep him cheaply in 2014 so yes they would have to pay him more to keep him here for more than just 2014, but they are paying him an extra $5.5m for each extra year beyond 2014.

Remember how Russell Wilson wanted to redo his contract after his rookie year but couldn't? Well imagine if he WAS able to redo his contract and we paid him $20m in 2013 and $20m in 2014.... drafting him would no longer be a steal because instead of paying him a ROOKIE CONTRACT they would essentially be paying him like a Free Agent.

The value from drafting players comes from NOT having to pay much. ADB wasn't drafted but he was picked up as a rookie and part of that value comes from the fact that we would be able to keep him cheaply as a RFA.

Im not saying this will seriously hurt the team, but offering the same annual value extension to Baldwin as they offered Tate is a serious headscratcher.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
Honestly I just glanced at the post above because it's not really worth digging into something so inaccurate. They could've easily ripped up the tender and replaced it with a new deal. Giving him an extension + signing bonus that is paid THIS YEAR and is prorated over three years is functionally the exact same thing as giving him a brand new three year deal.

In terms of REAL DOLLARS and REAL CAP HITS, it only makes sense to look at the deal over it's three year life. His signing bonus has the potential to reduce obligations in years 2 and 3 of the deal. That is why "by average," the new money is higher in years two and three. If he played out the tender and then signed a new deal, his contract would be lower because Seattle loses the benefit of spreading the cap hit via the signing bonus over a three year period.

It's a 3 year deal at a $4.3m average. When you see the cap hit breakout, you will see this.

Try learning this stuff before you go accusing people of "not understanding numbers."
 

bjornanderson21

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
885
Reaction score
0
DavidSeven":1852qeag said:
Escamillo":1852qeag said:
But at the end of the day, it's not as much a question of whether to keep Baldwin or Tate, it's a question of whether to outbid Detroit for Tate.

This. Thank you.
Now that part I CAN agree with. In no way woukd I want the hawks to outbid detroit.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,974
Reaction score
0
DavidSeven":1qw3af50 said:
I don't necessarily think he got a higher value than Tate. While it's true that the "new money" averages out to around $5.5M in 2015/2016, the amount you're paying him between 2014-2016 averages out to $4-4.5M/yr. If Tate had signed a new deal with Seattle, it probably would've been the same or more over that same period.

I don't think it's a cheat to think of it this way since Doug will likely get a nice signing bonus, some portion of which will hit our cap this year. It's essentially a new deal in terms of actual dollars and cap hits (though technically a two year extension on an RFA year).

Seattle already had Baldwin for $2 million with assurances he wouldn't hold out (they wouldn't "rip it up" without a tradeoff of some kind, I have zero doubt it was an asset in negotiations). The opportunity cost between not signing Baldwin and signing him was $11 million over two years. They can move those numbers around some, but the opportunity cost remains the same.

I think one way to look at your point that I could agree with is that Baldwin's situation was much more conducive to Seattle. If Tate had one more cheap year left when he had signed his deal, Seattle probably would have offered Tate a little bit more knowing they could spread the hit a little. Maybe there is a dollar value of some kind that comes with that flexibility.

DavidSeven":1qw3af50 said:
Tate is gone because Detroit offered him $6.25m/yr and more guaranteed money. No other reason.

If Seattle had offered Tate $5.5 million per year instead of $4 million per, which team do you think he picks? I guess we can't say for sure, but we can say that he appeared VERY butthurt that Seattle didn't make it a close contest.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,974
Reaction score
0
MidwestHawker":2ju7t30b said:
"Clutch" isn't a real thing, people. It's just something that players get called for not being choke artists.

Anyway, carry on.

I don't know if "clutch" play is real every sport (it's probably a myth in baseball), but it's definitely real in the NFL. Mental toughness, presence of mind, focus, confidence, playing with an edge, all those things are real traits that lead to clutch plays when one player is stronger in those areas than his opponent. A lot of guys fold when the pressure is on and those who don't rise above.

There have been way too many players who were "clutch" over large sample sizes in the NFL to think it is not real.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
13,932
Reaction score
2,372
Clutch receivers ........ I just had a Bobby Engram flash back.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,974
Reaction score
0
-The Glove-":1x4kbm0d said:
Why would it be dumb to value Baldwin over Tate by using big games and the playoffs as a reference? The clutch factor and the fact he shows up when he counts should tilt things to Baldwin's side

IMO, it doesn't outweigh Tate's overall superior resume at this point. Even if both players were of equal value as receivers, Tate gets a huge edge for staying healthy and being the NFL's best and most consistent punt returner. Good punt returners are not easy to find.

I think Tate was probably right when he intimated that the Harvin trade cost him his place in Seattle, despite Pete's official stance to the contrary. Tate's ace in the hole during negotations would have been how unique and difficult he is to replace, but the presence of Harvin put the kibosh on that.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
kearly":3md3msdx said:
DavidSeven":3md3msdx said:
I don't necessarily think he got a higher value than Tate. While it's true that the "new money" averages out to around $5.5M in 2015/2016, the amount you're paying him between 2014-2016 averages out to $4-4.5M/yr. If Tate had signed a new deal with Seattle, it probably would've been the same or more over that same period.

I don't think it's a cheat to think of it this way since Doug will likely get a nice signing bonus, some portion of which will hit our cap this year. It's essentially a new deal in terms of actual dollars and cap hits (though technically a two year extension on an RFA year).

Seattle already had Baldwin for $2 million with assurances he wouldn't hold out (they wouldn't "rip it up" without a tradeoff of some kind, I have zero doubt it was an asset in negotiations). The opportunity cost between not signing Baldwin and signing him was $11 million over two years. They can move those numbers around some, but the opportunity cost remains the same.

I think one way to look at your point that I could agree with is that Baldwin's situation was much more conducive to Seattle. If Tate had one more cheap year left when he had signed his deal, Seattle probably would have offered Tate a little bit more knowing they could spread the hit a little. Maybe there is a dollar value of some kind that comes with that flexibility.

DavidSeven":3md3msdx said:
Tate is gone because Detroit offered him $6.25m/yr and more guaranteed money. No other reason.

If Seattle had offered Tate $5.5 million per year instead of $4 million per, which team do you think he picks? I guess we can't say for sure, but we can say that he appeared VERY butthurt that Seattle didn't make it a close contest.

I understand your point of bringing up the "opportunity cost" above what it would have cost to retain him anyway, but functionally, I don't think this is a useful concept.

Assume Seattle had $13-15M slotted in cap space for WR2 from 2014-2016. If Tate accepts a low ball offer in that range, then he gets that allotment of money. Since he declined, we offer that allotment to Doug Baldwin. Either way, we are paying just above $4M/yr for a WR2 from 2014-2016. So, you can't really say we valued Doug at "$5.5M" and Tate at "$4M", because the cost to Seattle of retaining one WR2 over that three year period is the same whether it was Tate or Baldwin.

And the point I made above is still valid. Doug gets a premium on Years 2-3 because his signing bonus is spread over three years. If he, instead, played out his tender and signed a new deal, then Seattle would offer him less (assuming his value is the same) because Seattle loses that benefit. When his cap numbers come out, the Year 2 and 3 cap hits will fall far short of a $5.5M avg because his signing bonus will be deducted off the "new money" and prorated over three years. His base salary in those years will likely fall in the $3-4M range.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,974
Reaction score
0
It's still 2/11 no matter how you spin it. You can't just pretend cheap years didn't exist after signing extensions. They are an asset teams need to make the fullest use of, and the opportunity cost remains absolute.

Though as said before, I agree that there is probably a dollar value on the flexibility Baldwin's situation offered.

It was also a different situation for Baldwin than it was for Tate which probably helped inflate his price. When Tate was being courted, Seattle still didn't know how much money they'd need for Sherman and Earl, and they were looking at other pricey players as well such as Jared Allen. When Baldwin signed, Seattle had a much more stable and predictable financial picture which likely led to a less stingy offer.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
It's $11 million in new money and a two year extension. However, that doesn't mean those two numbers should be used together to create any sort of average.

Example: The $11 million can be divided like this -- $6 million bonus paid in 2014; $2.5 million in avg. base salary paid out in 2015-2016. All that money is paid over a three year period.

Cap hits: Year 1: $2M salary + $2 prorated bonus = $4M, Year 2: $2.5M salary + $2M prorated bonus = $4.5M, Year 3: $2.5M salary + $2M prorated bonus = $4.5M.

Davis Hsu ‏@DavisHsuSeattle 12h
I said Baldwin would get Edelman APY- $4.5....exactly what he got
 

v1rotv2

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
3,538
Reaction score
5
Location
Hurricane, Utah
I honestly think that the way Kearse played made Tate the expendable one. And I don't think it will be hard to find a special teams talent to fill Tate's spot. We have some fast guys and we just drafted one in Richardson. While it was fun to watch Tate and I would have liked to have kept him the bottom line is he can be replaced.
 
Top