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.