WR market

[jblaze]

With the new higher salary cap, I'd be thrilled to throw Tate a 5/25m with 15m guaranteed even.

How about:

3 yrs for 16 mil w/ 10 mil guaranteed. The premise that when he's 28-29 years he'll still be young enough to get a big time deal while he's still in his prime.

Yr1: 4.33
Yr2. 5.33
Yr3. 6.33

For Baldwin, a 4 yr deal, 18 mil deal also w/ 12 mil guaranteed.

Yr1: 3.0
Yr2: 4.5
Yr3: 5.0
Yr4: 5.5

After the 2015 (Yr 2) season you are looking at possibly a restructure/pay-cut or be cut situation for Percy Harvin that will help alleviate the rising cap hit
.
Baldwin and Tate are both worth it. They are two of the most efficient, clutch WRs in the NFL and they'll only get better and better as they grow with Wilson.

Why would you give Baldwin that much when you don't have to? He's a RFA so we have the leverage. We set a 2nd round tender on him and sign him @ 2.1m (set by the league) and we're done.

Because they see him as a guy they'd like to keep around for a long time maybe. If you do a 1 year deal, then he could potentially command a lot more money next year especially with the WR draft class and all of the WR FA this off season helping to lower the market. If he goes off next season and earns a bigger $7m/yr type deal, then we've lost out on him.

THey may not have him in their long term plans anyway but just a though.

They want to keep him around but there's no reason to overpay when you don't have to. Baldwin is good not great and is replaceable so he's not going to be in a position of leverage. The Hawks have all the leverage here and you have to be frugal with your cap or else it will haunt you down the road.

Baldwin will never get a 7m/yr deal. I hate the term, but he is pedestrian in a way in that he's replaceable fairly inexpensively. Same with Kearse. They're #3-#4 WR's in any system at best.

They got a ton of work this year because we lost our #1 and #2 receivers for most of the year. That was not by design but they certainly stepped up and earned a second contract albeit at a modest market level.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

They do it all the time. The don't directly work together, but you'll get black balled if you go above market to get a guy and end up setting the curve disproportinately. That hurts everyone in the long run.

It's players/agents vs. owners/front office. It's critical they maintain ranks.

If this is true, then why do we still see crazy contracts like Revis and Mario Williams?

Every team is it's own entity, with it's own cap issues. I'd say very rarely do GM's and owners discuss other team's contracts. Each player at his own position is slotted into a salary cap range based on his production and value to HIS team.

IMO Desperation plays a big part in over paying. You rarely see really good teams overpaying players. But the Buffalo's of the league have no choice, if they want the top tier free agents to come play in a god forsaken land like Buffalo, they have to overpay. Kinda like our local baseball team.

 

[rigelian]

You're not listening. It's not provable in court, thus it's not illegal for all intents and purposes. It's implied upon all front office people and it's ignorant to assume it doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with the CBA, they can't legislate something like this because it technically doesn't happen per legal enforcement.

This happens everywhere, OPEC, car manufacturers, food production, everything and everywhere. It's market influences, not collusion if you can't prove it and they're smart enough to to explicitly define such methods.

OPEC is immune from antitrust enforcement because us antitrust laws don't apply to acts of state. What you are talking about with respect to other actors you are talking about illegal behavior that has not "yet" been caught. An analogy, speeding is not legal because all acts of speeding aren't caught.

By the way these "smart" actors sometimes get caught. Take a look at the collusion bit I cited to involving Major League Baseball.

By the way, cartel behavior that restricts price is not in the public interest. In fact it is inefficient.

 

[MysterMatt]

The notion that GMs "work together" on fixing price ranges in any meaningful sense of the phrase "work together" is a bit silly. Every year we see contracts get handed out that leave many scratching their heads. Markets, without any sort of coordination among GMs, get set on certain players, but I really doubt anybody gets "blackballed" if he opts to make an offer above what is generally accepted. C'mon.

 

[rigelian]

The notion that GMs "work together" on fixing price ranges in any meaningful sense of the phrase "work together" is a bit silly. Every year we see contracts get handed out that leave many scratching their heads. Markets, without any sort of coordination among GMs, get set on certain players, but I really doubt anybody gets "blackballed" if he opts to make an offer above what is generally accepted. C'mon.

I would hope not. Especially since the collective bargaining agreement itself is an already price constraining device that was legally negotiated by players and management.

In this context, I would consider management collusion deplorable.

 

[jblaze]

They do it all the time. The don't directly work together, but you'll get black balled if you go above market to get a guy and end up setting the curve disproportinately. That hurts everyone in the long run.

It's players/agents vs. owners/front office. It's critical they maintain ranks.

If this is true, then why do we still see crazy contracts like Revis and Mario Williams?

Every team is it's own entity, with it's own cap issues. I'd say very rarely do GM's and owners discuss other team's contracts. Each player at his own position is slotted into a salary cap range based on his production and value to HIS team.

IMO Desperation plays a big part in over paying. You rarely see really good teams overpaying players. But the Buffalo's of the league have no choice, if they want the top tier free agents to come play in a god forsaken land like Buffalo, they have to overpay. Kinda like our local baseball team.

Revis' contract is not a good example. None of it is guaranteed with no signing bonus, it's basically a continuous one year contract for the life of the contract for injury concern reasons and production in a cover 2 system (non man to man).

Williams was a previous #1 overall pick with proven production with Houston. He's the highest paid DE and at the time, deservedly so. They probably did overpay him though but they have to do that to get guys to come to Buffalo.

I'm not saying GM's from other teams are discussing this in email or even on the phone, they're not because an implied part of the business. This isn't something new, John Clayton, Chris Mortenson and even Bill Polian have all commented on this as a given way of doing business on TV.

I'm just saying, these are the market forces at play. If someone overspends, it becomes the comparable standard and everyone else pays for it so there's a sense of "for the greater good" when it comes to the CBA and NFLPA vs. GM's. This isn't an NFL thing or even a sports thing, it's an economics thing. It's the invisible hand of the market.

 

[jblaze]

The notion that GMs "work together" on fixing price ranges in any meaningful sense of the phrase "work together" is a bit silly. Every year we see contracts get handed out that leave many scratching their heads. Markets, without any sort of coordination among GMs, get set on certain players, but I really doubt anybody gets "blackballed" if he opts to make an offer above what is generally accepted. C'mon.

Again, you guys aren't understanding. That's fine, ignorance is bliss.

I'm not talking about meaningful coordination or even talking to each other, it's in everyones best interest to field a team of there are standards of compensation that don't get out of hand.

These are things widely discussed on talk radio and ESPN for christs sake. It's not rocket science.

 

[mikeak]

GM's all work together under the premise of keeping contracts to market norms so the new salary cap shouldn't affect the contracts this offseason, much. They will a little but not much.

It's a type of price collusion but it's legal. It's how everyone keeps the market in check. JSPC likely have a number for Tate and that will be unaffected by the new cap number. That's just how good front office's do business, stay in your lane and price your talent and stick with it.

It's not legal if they reach agreements on what the price range looks like.

They do it all the time. The don't directly work together, but you'll get black balled if you go above market to get a guy and end up setting the curve disproportinately. That hurts everyone in the long run.

It's players/agents vs. owners/front office. It's critical they maintain ranks.

OK you may believe this but I completely disagree. Two main issues - market results doesn't support it and two you are talking from two different angles. You are saying they coordinate and then that they don't talk.

If you mean that they listen to all the talk about what agents say their guys want and then listen to what GM's pay other guys and then try to give something slightly more than the other team based on this intelligence - yes they do that. It is called using market intelligence PUBLICALLY available to make business decision.

If you think they have a deal that they can't pay more than others etc then blatantly false or at least completely unsubstantiated. There are many deals showing how this isn't correct. Mike Wallace to Miami - do you think he goes to Miami if the other teams were very close? Mario WIlliams - you are arguing that he was maybe worth the money well if that is the case Buffalo Bills would be "in line" and only slightly more than the next team. Do you think Mario goes to Buffallo if they were way up there compared to everyone else?

The available cap money and the room to the cap for each team are huge drivers of what is paid out in FA market. You are now tempering this some because of the ability to roll over unused cap money so if value isn't there wait to next year.

 

[mikeak]

but you'll get black balled if you go above market to get a guy and end up setting the curve disproportinately. .

This is illegal - you cannot blackball others for not staying in line. Staying in line starts with having an agreement so it is illegal on multiple levels

There are multiple recent examples of industries getting caught - it is not common practice

Separately you are missing the fact that the league operates under a cap. How the curve for one type of player moves is irrelevant for the total amount of money spent.

 

[StoneCold]

So much speculation in this thread. What is the time frame for getting actual info on free agent signings? Is there a dead line? Sorry for the stupid question. I'm just a fair weather fan.

SC

 

[Sgt. Largent]

So much speculation in this thread. What is the time frame for getting actual info on free agent signings? Is there a dead line? Sorry for the stupid question. I'm just a fair weather fan.

SC

The free agency period begins March 11th, which means each team has to have it's cap in order by then. That's why players are getting cut right now.

 

[jblaze]

but you'll get black balled if you go above market to get a guy and end up setting the curve disproportinately. .

This is illegal - you cannot blackball others for not staying in line. Staying in line starts with having an agreement so it is illegal on multiple levels

There are multiple recent examples of industries getting caught - it is not common practice

Separately you are missing the fact that the league operates under a cap. How the curve for one type of player moves is irrelevant for the total amount of money spent.

If you don't think these things are happening, you're wrong. It's one thing that it may or may not be illegal, it's another to prove it. Again, it's not direct collusion, it's an understanding between parties of what's best for the greater good. It's cute how you guys think everyone follows the letter of the law and everything is above board.

The CBA and cap have nothing to do with this. I'm talking about positional players and standards/baselines for pay set by precedent that there are understandings between GM's and front office. It hurts everyone if one person overpays and sets a baseline above what their market value is.

I don't get how this is so difficult to understand because no one is actually refuting the point, they're just derailing into tangents that have nothing to do with anything. Apparently not everyone is experienced in supply side economics and divergent demands. This is how business is done, period. I work in this industry.

 

[rigelian]

but you'll get black balled if you go above market to get a guy and end up setting the curve disproportinately. .

This is illegal - you cannot blackball others for not staying in line. Staying in line starts with having an agreement so it is illegal on multiple levels

There are multiple recent examples of industries getting caught - it is not common practice

Separately you are missing the fact that the league operates under a cap. How the curve for one type of player moves is irrelevant for the total amount of money spent.

If you don't think these things are happening, you're wrong. It's one thing that it may or may not be illegal, it's another to prove it. Again, it's not direct collusion, it's an understanding between parties of what's best for the greater good. It's cute how you guys think everyone follows the letter of the law and everything is above board.

The CBA and cap have nothing to do with this. I'm talking about positional players and standards/baselines for pay set by precedent that there are understandings between GM's and front office. It hurts everyone if one person overpays and sets a baseline above what their market value is.

I don't get how this is so difficult to understand because no one is actually refuting the point, they're just derailing into tangents that have nothing to do with anything. Apparently not everyone is experienced in supply side economics and divergent demands. This is how business is done, period. I work in this industry.

jblaze,

I'm an antitrust lawyer. I'm very familiar with both law and economics. The behavior you're describing is illegal. The reason why the the CBA is relevant is that there is a labor exemption from the antitrust laws and issues negotiated and agreed to pursuant to a labor agreement fall out of antitrust law scrutiny. To the extent that behavior is not covered by the CBA, it's subject to antitrust law attack. GM's acting in concert to set the range for pricing contracts to players are engaging in an impermissible form of price fixing. If they enforce it via a boycott (that is excluding GMs that don't go along), that enforcement becomes part of a group boycott and is a separate violation.

When you say that competitive pricing hurts everyone---I think you mean it hurts management and owners. I think price fixing in this instance hurts players. If owners want the right to price fix like this let them negotiate this right into a collective bargaining agreement. The problem is that the players would not agree to such terms.

I know of little economic literature that suggests that a non-integrated buyer cartel is efficiency enhancing. Most of the economic literature would suggest that it leads to inefficient outcomes.

If you're saying this behavior occurs all the time---I can't say it occurs all the time or not. It would not surprise me if it did---but that does not make the behavior legal, nor does it make it tantamount to being legal. I understand that in some markets kickbacks are not unusual---but that doesn't make kickbacks legal.

As for the "supply side" economics---different subject matter altogether. Supply-side economics focuses on tax policy and how marginal tax rates affect the supply of labor.

 

[jblaze]

So much speculation in this thread. What is the time frame for getting actual info on free agent signings? Is there a dead line? Sorry for the stupid question. I'm just a fair weather fan.

SC

Players are being released already and they're also verbally agreeing to contracts at this time. So as far as the FA unofficial negotiating time, it's already begun. They can't officially sign until March 11th though.

Monday is the deadline for the franchise tag designation also.

Of note to the Hawks so far is that WR Riley Cooper of the Eagles who is a #2 receiver signed for a 5 year $22.5m deal today. The terms of the deal are actually very team friendly and say a lot about subsequent #2 WR contracts to come. It's basically a 2yr/$9m guaranteed deal (yr 1 = 1m, yr 2=3m, 4m signing bonus and other roster bonuses) with team options to drop him after that time but if the team decides to keep him, it locks him in for the next 3 years at roughly the same rate given the signing bonus is spread across the life of the contract. The team has all the control in this one.

The contract is well below Brian Hartline ($6m avg) or Danny Amendola's ($5.7m avg) #2 WR contracts of last year and point to a lesser #2 WR market for this year it seems. I'm sure the loaded WR draft has something to do with that as well.

It's always advantageous to set the curve instead of being set by it and I'm sure Tate will test the free agent market but I don't think there will be significant interest. I'd guess a 4yr/18-20m deal for Tate will be what he gets.

 

[Evil_Shenanigans]

Looked at on purely a return on investment perspective, the receiving corps was a conundrum for this team in 2013. We had Harvin out all season and Rice for half of it. Going into 2014 we still (at the moment anyway) have Rice, Harvin and Miller scheduled to make multi-millions for 2014. Now we are on the verge of having to (somewhat hopefully) offer Tate and Baldwin (our two most productive receivers in 2013) commensurate contracts for 2014. Rice is assumed (though not officially at the moment) to be either gone or restructured. It looks like Millers salary package is set to drop to around 7 million in 2014. With Rice gone, his salary could (nearly) cover both Tate and Baldwin IMO. If we restructure Miller there might even be enough in the kitty to re-sign Sidney on a one year deal?

A lot of this is going to hinge on what we do in FA and the upcoming Draft. With a healthy Harvin and Luke Willson getting better all the time, could the team afford to part ways with a 28 year old oft injured Zach Miller and pick another TE up in FA, the draft or perhaps even from within to replace him? Miller has more value to me as a blocker than as a receiver. I acknowledge that he was a big part of the run game this year. So you have to be careful about upsetting that which was working pretty well last year. Get your popcorn ready! :snack:

 

[jblaze]

but you'll get black balled if you go above market to get a guy and end up setting the curve disproportinately. .

This is illegal - you cannot blackball others for not staying in line. Staying in line starts with having an agreement so it is illegal on multiple levels

There are multiple recent examples of industries getting caught - it is not common practice

Separately you are missing the fact that the league operates under a cap. How the curve for one type of player moves is irrelevant for the total amount of money spent.

If you don't think these things are happening, you're wrong. It's one thing that it may or may not be illegal, it's another to prove it. Again, it's not direct collusion, it's an understanding between parties of what's best for the greater good. It's cute how you guys think everyone follows the letter of the law and everything is above board.

The CBA and cap have nothing to do with this. I'm talking about positional players and standards/baselines for pay set by precedent that there are understandings between GM's and front office. It hurts everyone if one person overpays and sets a baseline above what their market value is.

I don't get how this is so difficult to understand because no one is actually refuting the point, they're just derailing into tangents that have nothing to do with anything. Apparently not everyone is experienced in supply side economics and divergent demands. This is how business is done, period. I work in this industry.

jblaze,

I'm an antitrust lawyer. I'm very familiar with both law and economics. The behavior you're describing is illegal. The reason why the the CBA is relevant is that there is a labor exemption from the antitrust laws and issues negotiated and agreed to pursuant to a labor agreement fall out of antitrust law scrutiny. To the extent that behavior is not covered by the CBA, it's subject to antitrust law attack. GM's acting in concert to set the range for pricing contracts to players are engaging in an impermissible form of price fixing. If they enforce it via a boycott (that is excluding GMs that don't go along), that enforcement becomes part of a group boycott and is a separate violation.

When you say that competitive pricing hurts everyone---I think you mean it hurts management and owners. I think price fixing in this instance hurts players. If owners want the right to price fix like this let them negotiate this right into a collective bargaining agreement. The problem is that the players would not agree to such terms.

I know of little economic literature that suggests that a non-integrated buyer cartel is efficiency enhancing. Most of the economic literature would suggest that it leads to inefficient outcomes.

If you're saying this behavior occurs all the time---I can't say it occurs all the time or not. It would not surprise me if it did---but that does not make the behavior legal, nor does it make it tantamount to being legal. I understand that in some markets kickbacks are not unusual---but that doesn't make kickbacks legal.

As for the "supply side" economics---different subject matter altogether. Supply-side economics focuses on tax policy and how marginal tax rates affect the supply of labor.

I'm not disagreeing that it's illegal and at times it gets caught but that doesn't mean these forces don't happen. I work in sports management in the greater Seattle area and I know specifically that it happens and happens to our teams, to all teams. It's part of the culture and the good ol boy network.

My point is that don't think that these GM and front offices are completely mutually exclusive to each other. They're working together in more ways than you know. No one is going to prosecute it because it's expected and it's unproveable.

Terrell Owens a couple of years ago sued for collusion in the NFL because no one would sign him. Nothing came from it although I know for a fact that those conversations happened behind closed doors and the result from the conversations was that no one would agree to sign him.

But whatever, this has gotten ridiculous and off tangent enough. This stuff happens, I see it, illegal or not. If no one wants to know about it, that's fine but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As much as it's GM vs. GM in a competitive environment, the bigger picture is GM's/owners vs. players/agents and the NFLPA and this is part of that battle.

 

[rigelian]

Looked at on purely a return on investment perspective, the receiving corps was a conundrum for this team in 2013. We had Harvin out all season and Rice for half of it. Going into 2014 we still (at the moment anyway) have Rice, Harvin and Miller scheduled to make multi-millions for 2014. Now we are on the verge of having to (somewhat hopefully) offer Tate and Baldwin (our two most productive receivers in 2013) commensurate contracts for 2014. Rice is assumed (though not officially at the moment) to be either gone or restructured. It looks like Millers salary package is set to drop to around 7 million in 2014. With Rice gone, his salary could (nearly) cover both Tate and Baldwin IMO. If we restructure Miller there might even be enough in the kitty to re-sign Sidney on a one year deal?

A lot of this is going to hinge on what we do in FA and the upcoming Draft. With a healthy Harvin and Luke Willson getting better all the time, could the team afford to part ways with a 28 year old oft injured Zach Miller and pick another TE up in FA, the draft or perhaps even from within to replace him? Miller has more value to me as a blocker than as a receiver. I acknowledge that he was a big part of the run game this year. So you have to be careful about upsetting that which was working pretty well last year. Get your popcorn ready! :snack:

I like this thinking. The only thing I don't know is if given the deep draft whether the Seahawks would prefer to draft a wide receiver rather than resigning Rice. I also don't know how much money it's going to take to resign Bennett. The added cap space might make it more difficult to sign him.

 

[jblaze]

Looked at on purely a return on investment perspective, the receiving corps was a conundrum for this team in 2013. We had Harvin out all season and Rice for half of it. Going into 2014 we still (at the moment anyway) have Rice, Harvin and Miller scheduled to make multi-millions for 2014. Now we are on the verge of having to (somewhat hopefully) offer Tate and Baldwin (our two most productive receivers in 2013) commensurate contracts for 2014. Rice is assumed (though not officially at the moment) to be either gone or restructured. It looks like Millers salary package is set to drop to around 7 million in 2014. With Rice gone, his salary could (nearly) cover both Tate and Baldwin IMO. If we restructure Miller there might even be enough in the kitty to re-sign Sidney on a one year deal?

A lot of this is going to hinge on what we do in FA and the upcoming Draft. With a healthy Harvin and Luke Willson getting better all the time, could the team afford to part ways with a 28 year old oft injured Zach Miller and pick another TE up in FA, the draft or perhaps even from within to replace him? Miller has more value to me as a blocker than as a receiver. I acknowledge that he was a big part of the run game this year. So you have to be careful about upsetting that which was working pretty well last year. Get your popcorn ready! :snack:

I like this thinking. The only thing I don't know is if given the deep draft whether the Seahawks would prefer to draft a wide receiver rather than resigning Rice. I also don't know how much money it's going to take to resign Bennett. The added cap space might make it more difficult to sign him.

I think Rice is gone. His injuries are a valid concern above and beyond any possible restructure. His production was not at the compensation level at even half the cost. His knees are shot.

I think they go WR in the 2nd or 3rd round. With the new CBA, you'd get a good player in that round cheap for 4 years. They also signed WR Chris Matthews from the CFL recently and he's 6'5" and 220. He has all the skills necessary and was the rookie of the year in the CFL before getting hurt last year. His only knock is his speed but he'd be a great Rice replacement and a good redzone target.

 

[rigelian]

Looked at on purely a return on investment perspective, the receiving corps was a conundrum for this team in 2013. We had Harvin out all season and Rice for half of it. Going into 2014 we still (at the moment anyway) have Rice, Harvin and Miller scheduled to make multi-millions for 2014. Now we are on the verge of having to (somewhat hopefully) offer Tate and Baldwin (our two most productive receivers in 2013) commensurate contracts for 2014. Rice is assumed (though not officially at the moment) to be either gone or restructured. It looks like Millers salary package is set to drop to around 7 million in 2014. With Rice gone, his salary could (nearly) cover both Tate and Baldwin IMO. If we restructure Miller there might even be enough in the kitty to re-sign Sidney on a one year deal?

A lot of this is going to hinge on what we do in FA and the upcoming Draft. With a healthy Harvin and Luke Willson getting better all the time, could the team afford to part ways with a 28 year old oft injured Zach Miller and pick another TE up in FA, the draft or perhaps even from within to replace him? Miller has more value to me as a blocker than as a receiver. I acknowledge that he was a big part of the run game this year. So you have to be careful about upsetting that which was working pretty well last year. Get your popcorn ready! :snack:

I like this thinking. The only thing I don't know is if given the deep draft whether the Seahawks would prefer to draft a wide receiver rather than resigning Rice. I also don't know how much money it's going to take to resign Bennett. The added cap space might make it more difficult to sign him.

I think Rice is gone. His injuries are a valid concern above and beyond any possible restructure. His production was not at the compensation level at even half the cost. His knees are shot.

I think they go WR in the 2nd or 3rd round. With the new CBA, you'd get a good player in that round cheap for 4 years. They also signed WR Chris Matthews from the CFL recently and he's 6'5" and 220. He has all the skills necessary and was the rookie of the year in the CFL before getting hurt last year. His only knock is his speed but he'd be a great Rice replacement and a good redzone target.

I tend to agree. Given that the wide receiver draft is deep this year why sign Rice to a one year and try to draft a receiver in a market that isn't as deep.

 

[mikeak]

The CBA and cap have nothing to do with this. I'm talking about positional players and standards/baselines for pay set by precedent that there are understandings between GM's and front office. It hurts everyone if one person overpays and sets a baseline above what their market value is.
.

I understand what you are saying but you are missing my point so I was possibly unclear.

In a regular market it hurts the consumers as a group if GM and Chrysler agrees that a truck shouldn't cost less than $30k. Simple concept pretty sure we agree

In the NFL labor market - as a group the NFL players are not negatively impacted if GMs agree that WRs will get no more than $10 million per year (I realize you said it isn't this explicit but I am taking it a bit further to make my argument).

There is $130 million available for the year. The money will be spent - either this year or when it is rolled over for future years. So as a group the players will basically get the $130 million. If you price collude all you do is impact how much WRs get / QBs but your total spend is the same. If the price goes up for one group it means it goes down for the other group.

So GB has a crappy defense. It is in their interest if the defensive players are cheap
Miami has a crappy offense. It is in their interest if the offensive players are cheap

Different teams have different agenda's. Overall they are spending the same amount. Some people need WRs so they will spend more on them, others need DBs so they spend more there. The only thing accomplished by spending less on a group is spending more on others

There is no reason for price collusion in the NFL even at the individual position levels and the market is filled with buyers (owners) with different interests. This isn't OPEC where everyone is selling the same thing