Reworking deals?

[Direckshun]

So I'm screwing around with the salary cap calculator. I can get this team in a decent-enough position to stay beneathe the cap by about $3,000,000 if I:

(a.) Extend Alex Smith by about $15m/year.
(b.) Re-sign Schwartz to about $2.5m/year.
(c.) Re-sign McCluster to about $3m/year.
(c.) Re-sign Jordan and Powe to minimals.
(d.) Extend Berry to about $8m/year, lowering his cap number by about $4m.
(e.) Restructure Hali, which hurts our cap in 2015, but not fatally if handled in the other contracts, lowering his cap number in 2014 by about $4m.

There's still two deals on this team, after all this adjusting, that are vastly out of whack to their value. Bowe is at $12m/year, and Flowers is at $10m/year. (We can temporarily overlook Sean Smith's $5m/year & Fasano's $4m/year.)

How often do players rework their deals, if it's clear they're outsized contracts?

Suppose the Chiefs approach Bowe and Flowers and argue that they need to rework their deals to come out to about $8m/year and $6.7m/year, respectively. How common is it that players agree to something like that?

Last offseason, TJax reworked his deal to lower his cap number from $14m to $4m.

Bowe and Flowers could, ostensibly, threaten to hold out or demand a trade/release. But the Chiefs do have a starting corner-caliber player in Cooper, and the Chiefs could easily spend their 1st rounder on a WR, so it's not clear how much of an advantage that is.

The Chiefs, on the other hand, could cut either player, save about $10m in capspace doing it, and it's virtually impossible that Bowe or Flowers would find a better deal on the open market than what we're offering ($8m/year and $6.7m/year, respectively).

So the Chiefs have more leverage, right?

FYI, if the Chiefs follow all the steps I outlined above, and were able to rework both Bowe and Flowers' deal as I suggested, that would put the Chiefs $8m under the cap, which would allow them to chase down a premier WR or S. Or whatever value we could score.

[jjchieffan]

I found some cap numbers. Orton $4.3M, Fitzpatrick, $4.1M, Drew Stanton $3.6M, just to name a few.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by milkman

Rookies are paid on potential.

2nd contracts are based on previous NFL production.

So potential based on play at the college level, where the rules are different and the talent level isn't close is worth millions, but potential based on sitting behind a top 5 QB in the league for his career is totally worthless? I'm sure that Chase didn't learn a thing practicing every week in New Orleans. If he had been able to get a few starts, we wouldn't have got him for so little. He probably would've gotten a starting gig getting paid twice as much.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

So potential based on play at the college level, where the rules are different and the talent level isn't close is worth millions, but potential based on sitting behind a top 5 QB in the league for his career is totally worthless? I'm sure that Chase didn't learn a thing practicing every week in New Orleans. If he had been able to get a few starts, we wouldn't have got him for so little. He probably would've gotten a starting gig getting paid twice as much.

Matt Flynn.

[jjchieffan]

Matt Flynn was definitely overpaid. He was also signed with the intentions of him being the starter. Once he lost the starting job he was cut due to the size of his contract. But had he been on a 3 year $10M contract, he would probably still be in Seattle. I'm not seeing how just saying Matt Flynn helps make your point. Daniels contract isn't a fraction of what his was.If anything, Matt Flynn makes my point that Daniel is not overpaid.

[O.city]

Paying free agents based on what they've done in the past will get you in trouble, pay for the future

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by O.city

Hopefully, cause we are in about the same place there

Meh, I say let Hali play out his contract. No need to restructure him. I'd rather just take his contract completely off the books in 2 years than milk it out over 5 years when he's past his prime. A lot of players go off the books in past 2015, so I think you can sign a guy like Houston with the understanding that the big triggers are guaranteed payouts for his 3rd year.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

Matt Flynn was definitely overpaid. He was also signed with the intentions of him being the starter. Once he lost the starting job he was cut due to the size of his contract. But had he been on a 3 year $10M contract, he would probably still be in Seattle. I'm not seeing how just saying Matt Flynn helps make your point. Daniels contract isn't a fraction of what his was.If anything, Matt Flynn makes my point that Daniel is not overpaid.

Matt Flynn spent 3 years learning behind the best QB in the NFL.

What exactly did he get from all that learnin'?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by O.city

Paying free agents based on what they've done in the past will get you in trouble, pay for the future

Nice concept, but it doesn't work that way.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by milkman

Matt Flynn spent 3 years learning behind the best QB in the NFL.

What exactly did he get from all that learnin'?

A $26M contract. Duh.


Seriously though, he got an undeserved contract. Nobody disputes that. But 3 years $10M is a far cry from 3 years $26M. That's my point. Daniel got a fair deal.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by jjchieffan

A $26M contract. Duh.


Seriously though, he got an undeserved contract. Nobody disputes that. But 3 years $10M is a far cry from 3 years $26M. That's my point. Daniel got a fair deal.

You can't show me a 5' tall, 300 lber to prove that a 5' tall 200 lber isn't fat.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by milkman

Nice concept, but it doesn't work that way.

If teams were intelligent, it would. Actually, the better teams do it that way, toa. Certain extent

[milkman]

Originally Posted by O.city

If teams were intelligent, it would. Actually, the better teams do it that way, toa. Certain extent

What the better teams do is draft well and use free agency to find role players.

They still, however, pay those role players market value based on previous production.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by milkman

What the better teams do is draft well and use free agency to find role players.

They still, however, pay those role players market value based on previous production.

Not necessarily. They don't pay those last contract players based on a career. They pay guys who still have something left or still have a lot left.

It could be argued either way on what they're being paid for.

[jjchieffan]

Dorsey and Reid saw something to make them think he was worth it. I think they may know a thing or 2 more about QB evaluation than us. We could've probably re-signed Quinn for less. But I would much rather have Daniel myself.

[jkw87]

Originally Posted by milkman

You asked why he is overpaid.

I answered.

What he did after he received the contract he hadn't earned is irrelevant.

I would say playing fairly well in that one game shows why they gave him the contract.

The contract he got before he took any regular season games with us is irrelevant once he performed well in his role. Your argument is invalid otherwise.