Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Packers sign LB Clay Matthews to 5-year, $66M extension
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31683
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

still don't agree. Sometimes extensions involve a tear-up of the remaining deal.

GB has Clay Matthews for the next 6 years for $70million. It's an accurate way to portray the deal.

Had Flacco signed his before this season, Baltimore would have had him for whatever and whatever too, which is accurate as well.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but I disagree.

I also don't necessarily think Baltimore overspent for Flacco, either, so that might be part of the reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RashaanSalaami


Moderator
Most Valuable Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 29875
Location: Jersey
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
tom cody wrote:
A bit to much money for him but still a solid signing nonetheless, Matthews is an important player for that team.
Really? Too much? With the extention it works out to be like a 6 year $70 million. Compare that to Mario Williams 6 year $100 million, I know who I would rather have Shocked We didn't steal Matthews but I think he would have seen a lot more if he hit the open market.


Honestly, not picking on you, but I hate the "with the extension" and then throwing in the last year of their deal into it to make the yearly average come down.

If that's the case, let's just do it with every player who re-signs with their team. I mean, in Flacco's case -- if he signed the same exact deal he just did, but a year before his SB MVP people would shout overpaid -- but that would average out to $18.2m/year instead of $20.1 and people would magically think that's a fair average now.

If you're going to compare apples to apples, then compare extensions the same across the board -- by what they are, not what they average out to be when you factor in years from a previous contract.


Well that's not how it works. A player is going to see more money if he doesn't have a full year left on his current deal.

Thus, extending a player before imminent free agency is going to be a better deal for the team. Had GB waited til next offseason, he would have gotten more than 5 for 66.

So it's absolutely fine to include the entire length of the deal since the remaining year has a pretty big impact.


My point is when comparing it to other contracts, it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Again, with the Flacco example -- if the Ravens signed him to the same 6 years, $120m contract but it was considered an "extension" because his contract hadn't expired yet, and so it was essentially a 7 year, $128.6m contract ($18.4m a year), would that change your view of the contract as a whole compared to a 6 year, $120.6m that he got?

That's the only point I'm making -- if a guy signs his "new contract" a year early, when comparing to anyone's contract (extension or FA), to make it a valid comparison, only the extension portion should be what's use. None of the "well yeah, it's 5 years, $66 million, but if you include the last year of his other one, it averages to X". Just because he signed it a year early doesn't change the value of the new deal, unless you're going to add in the last year for guys who signed theirs once their original one expired. That's all. I'm all for taking it all into account on its own, but in comparisons, it shouldn't be factored in.


That doesn't make sense bc you can't put any if that additional 120 on his year one cap, which is now in the past. The packers are putting part of this 70 mil total (extra 66) on this years cap making it a lot more team-friendly, only bc the Packers can afford to. Granted his cap hit isn't crazy this year, they did essentially rip up his old deal and replace it with this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
JaguarCrazy2832


Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 83824
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great deal, essentially 12M a year over 6 years is a steal!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Frank-O


Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 1215
Location: Wisconsin - Cheeseland
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Love it. I'm kind of scared to see us break the bank for Rogaz though. Shocked
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Uncle Buck


Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 15116
Location: Viking Country
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ted Thompson has been sitting on his hands all offseason, but this was a smart move. As a fan of an NFC North opponent, I can say that Matthews is a great player, and it was good for the Pack to get him locked up long term. CMIII and Rodgers are going to eat up a lot of cap space, but it has to be done. They are both vital to their team's success.
_________________


Aout wrote:
What is wrong with all these Packer fans insulting and raging all the time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22884
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
still don't agree. Sometimes extensions involve a tear-up of the remaining deal.

GB has Clay Matthews for the next 6 years for $70million. It's an accurate way to portray the deal.

Had Flacco signed his before this season, Baltimore would have had him for whatever and whatever too, which is accurate as well.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but I disagree.

I also don't necessarily think Baltimore overspent for Flacco, either, so that might be part of the reason.


I get that. But it seems you may understand my point -- the timing of the contract signing doesn't impact what the contract (or extension) actually is. Like I said, if Flacco signed the same 6 year, $120.6m contract a year earlier, it actually looks a lot better to say he's secured for an average of $18.3m/year than $20.1m/year, despite it being the exact same thing.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22884
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RashaanSalaami wrote:

That doesn't make sense bc you can't put any if that additional 120 on his year one cap, which is now in the past. The packers are putting part of this 70 mil total (extra 66) on this years cap making it a lot more team-friendly, only bc the Packers can afford to. Granted his cap hit isn't crazy this year, they did essentially rip up his old deal and replace it with this one.


My point isn't that they are identical, my point is that when comparing contracts between players, including years from a prior contract makes the comparison not a fair one to make.

Again, I take you back to my Flacco contract. He signed a 6 year, $120.6m deal this off-season, making him the highest paid QB in the league and brought a lot of controversy.

Now, if he signed that exact same contract, just a year ago as an extension, it would make the average salary $18.3m/year instead of $20.1m/year.

The vast majority of people would then view that as a much more fair average salary, and as such, that would be the # used when saying "Brees is paid $20m/year, Manning $19m/year, Flacco $18.3m/year", etc, would it not? All because of including the last year of his prior deal, despite it being the EXACT same contract signed. That's my point. It invalidates the comparison.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31683
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
RashaanSalaami wrote:

That doesn't make sense bc you can't put any if that additional 120 on his year one cap, which is now in the past. The packers are putting part of this 70 mil total (extra 66) on this years cap making it a lot more team-friendly, only bc the Packers can afford to. Granted his cap hit isn't crazy this year, they did essentially rip up his old deal and replace it with this one.


My point isn't that they are identical, my point is that when comparing contracts between players, including years from a prior contract makes the comparison not a fair one to make.

Again, I take you back to my Flacco contract. He signed a 6 year, $120.6m deal this off-season, making him the highest paid QB in the league and brought a lot of controversy.

Now, if he signed that exact same contract, just a year ago as an extension, it would make the average salary $18.3m/year instead of $20.1m/year.

The vast majority of people would then view that as a much more fair average salary, and as such, that would be the # used when saying "Brees is paid $20m/year, Manning $19m/year, Flacco $18.3m/year", etc, would it not? All because of including the last year of his prior deal, despite it being the EXACT same contract signed. That's my point. It invalidates the comparison.


Maybe that's the issue. I don't care what the vast majority think typically Very Happy

The astute will always break down the contract and look at it more discerningly. In that, I trust that Ozzie made a solid offer to Flacco that wouldn't handcuff the team. He's too good to do that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 8078
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
still don't agree. Sometimes extensions involve a tear-up of the remaining deal.

GB has Clay Matthews for the next 6 years for $70million. It's an accurate way to portray the deal.

Had Flacco signed his before this season, Baltimore would have had him for whatever and whatever too, which is accurate as well.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but I disagree.

I also don't necessarily think Baltimore overspent for Flacco, either, so that might be part of the reason.


I get that. But it seems you may understand my point -- the timing of the contract signing doesn't impact what the contract (or extension) actually is. Like I said, if Flacco signed the same 6 year, $120.6m contract a year earlier, it actually looks a lot better to say he's secured for an average of $18.3m/year than $20.1m/year, despite it being the exact same thing.
I get what you are saying, the problem is The Ravens didn't extend Joe Flacco a year ago. The Packers did extend Clay a year before his deal was up. We put part of the extention, onto this contract. Clay is under contract for 6 more years. It will cost us about $70m to have him. Had we not put any new money on his last year, then yeah it would a basic extention but he is seeing new money on his old contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wackywabbit


Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 7065
PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure what Flacco has to do with this, but I do agree that you have to exclude the last year of the rookie deal when comparing the contract to what other LB's get on open market. That money is just a sunk cost from a player's draft slot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mitchconnor


Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 1131
PostPosted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrettFavre004 wrote:
70 million over the next 6 years is good news for the Packers.

Really glad we got to work off Ware's multi year old contract now instead of the ones Von Miller and Aldon Smith will be getting.


You hit the nail on the head. The going rate is about to go way up, we were smart to do this deal now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
buddyharsch


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Location: iowa
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good signing for the Pack. I figured it would be a lot higher for Mathews. I'd hate to see what the Broncos would have to pay to keep Von Miller!
_________________
img]http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7691/dallassigcopypy3.png[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group