Anthony!":jl7b2k8v said:
hawknation2015":jl7b2k8v said:
tdlabrie":jl7b2k8v said:
Apologies to all the posters in this thread. I admit I haven't read them all and I am probably duplicating many others. That said, one and only one thing remains crystal clear to me: unless Lloyd's of London offers some imaginative insurance, Wilson will accept some deal before the season starts to avoid a catastrophic injury and loss of a bajillion dollar contract. Everything else on both sides of the negotiation is bluff and bluster.
And if I'm wrong and Wilson does play, how conservative will he be to protect himself? Don't know about you, but if I had that kind of money on the line, I'd drop to the ground if I felt the wing change!
I also believe this to be true. For Russell's agent to say that they are perfectly fine with him playing out this year because Russell does not have a house or car payment -- which is funny on its own, given that Russell is making over a million dollars this year -- is disingenuous at best. There is a logical incentive to want to secure Russell's future before he risks the possibility of injury during a contract year, and any ethical representative would counsel his client on the importance of securing his future in an inherently violent game like football. IMO, his agent has created a disingenuous public posture in a laughable attempt to diminish the team's leverage.
In addition to the injury risk during a contract year, there is also the risk of some public diminishment of Russell's reputation if a deal is not done soon. The longer this goes, the more people will begin to see him as greedy, which would be unfortunate. Russell has been No. 1 in jersey sales for a while now, but is currently No. 4 behind Brady, Mariota, and Winston. Maybe that's not an indication of much due to the post-draft bump for rookies and the showing of support for Brady post-Super Bowl/deflategate penalties, and hopefully it does not become a trend. More importantly, will as many sponsors continue to seek Russell to represent them while there is this uncertainty about his future in Seattle? I doubt that is an issue now, but it could become an issue if the contract talks become messy.
I disagree that the longer it goes on the more people will see him as greedy. Right now the only offer that has been talked about is 4 years 80 mil and we have nothing stating how much Wilson is asking. With Tannehiil and Cam both singing for more unless new numbers come out about an offer to Wilson it makes the FO look cheap not Wilson look greedy.
Both things are likely to happen to a certain degree. The difference is it doesn't really matter whether people think the Seahawks are cheap. The FO does things every year that people disagree with or find odd, and it hasn't stopped them yet.
On the other hand, the public's perception of Wilson does have an effect on his endorsement opportunities. If people start to view him as selfish for wanting more money than any other player, and hurting his team in the process, that could eventually impair his reputation in the eyes of many.
Anthony!":jl7b2k8v said:
I do not believe they can tag him for 2 years, that all hits the cap that year and right now just year1 would be over 20 mil and might go up if Luck signs. Year 2 would be over 25 mil. I do not believe they can absorb that kind of cap hit. Without being able to spread it out like a normal contract would.
Cam's contract had zero effect on next year's franchise tag, as his cap hit is only $13 million, and Luck's contract (if he signs one) is unlikely to have any effect next year for the same reasons. Luck's hypothetical new contract would need to increase his cap hit this year by over $10 million just to figure into the equation; not likely. To increase the 2016 franchise tag by just a million dollars, his cap hit this year would need to increase by $15 million. Last time I checked, the Colts were in the bottom half of the league in cap space.
Both Cam and Luck will probably have an effect on the 2017 franchise tag amount, but that will still likely be less than 120% of the 2016 franchise tag (around $20.3 million). 120% of $20.3 million would be $24.36 million for 2017. That's an average of $22.3 million over those two seasons, which is right around the average that Wilson should reasonably expect to sign for . . . and we get to keep his 2015 salary in place, meaning we save the $5-8 million in cap space that would have otherwise gone to the prorated portion of his signing bonus.
Oh, and here's an article about Newton's deal that speaks in part to what we were discussing yesterday:
Length of contract: Negotiations are different for every player, but for a player of Newton's caliber at the most premium position in all of sports, teams will look for longer contracts. Why? To extend the length of time the club has control of the player, and for cost control that will beat inflation. With NFL salaries rising substantially with the ever-growing cap -- especially at quarterback -- locking a top-tier player down at 2015 "average per year" rates is the smart move for a front office, with the caveat that they obviously believe his play will continue at a steady pace and/or improve significantly.
Russell Wilson is reportedly looking for a shorter four-year contract extension, which would give him the leverage to renegotiate another contract sooner -- at presumably much higher rates -- so the length of Cam's deal is important. Perhaps Newton's big cash payout in the first three years was an incentive in order to get him to agree to that five-year extension -- not to mention an incentive to sign early, before the season starts.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/6/3/86 ... 1429227724
