Should the Chiefs sign Eric Berry for 5/70m with 38m guaranteed?

[BossChief]

I'm not sure any safety is worth that much.

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

The exact numbers the agent is using? ****ing please. I'll eat crow if he signs for that much.

Should I explain it in crayon for you?

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Should I explain it in crayon for you?

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by BossChief

The cap is expected to push 170m...up from 155 in 2016. That's a 10% increase. The numbers I posted are 10% higher than honey badgers deal.

Tell me again how my numbers aren't realistic...and probably the exact numbers the agents are using.

You guys should get used to the fact that as the salary cap rises, so do player contracts.

A 10% cap increase does not equate to a 10% salary increase. That sounds like some bullshit logic. You have evidence to support that logic?

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Berry has the Chiefs by the balls.

He's stated he'll sit out this season if he's franchised and he wants to be the highest paid safety in the league.

If the Chiefs don't sign him, the court if public opinion will be staunchly against them and most likely, savage. If they do sign him to a similar deal that Boss has suggested, he could really hurt their cap for a few years, especially if he has an injury in which he misses a significant amount of time.

My gut tells me Dorsey, Reid and Hunt choose to overpay for the posistion.

If they do we'll never be like the Patriots.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Hog Farmer

[/B]

If they do we'll never be like the Patriots.

If you want to be like the Patriots then you'll need to find the GOAT QB and get him to agree to take a fraction of what he's worth.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

A 10% cap increase does not equate to a 10% salary increase. That sounds like some bullshit logic. You have evidence to support that logic?

10% more money infused into an open market does mean that you're likely to see 10% more spending.

Now the question is where. Will that necessarily be at the top of the salary scale? Will it be at any particular position?

Of course his agents will say exactly what is being suggested - 10% more money means my client should get 10% more, but Dorsey's response will be pretty simple; nah, it means that QBs, pass-rushers and cornerbacks will get 15% more but we'll gladly consider you worth 5% more.

OR, he'll argue that Mathieu's extension was done with the new cap in mind and was based on that new reality, thus it set the market with the 10% already in place.

I don't think Berry gets anywhere near what the OP suggests.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Rooster

It's not my money so sure why not?

because the money effects how much you can spend on other players

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

He isn't going to get much more than $12MM per year so that deal would be epically stupid IMO.

Safety is not a position where the value is going to continue to skyrocket. It has a ceiling do to the nature of the position.

Wanna bet?

He is shooting for 15+m per.


I think the Chiefs will end up folding and paying it

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

See. This is the kind of troll bait bullshit we are talking about.

He's just pointing out how much better Berry is than Ward and stewart combined.

Lighten up Sandy.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

If you want to be like the Patriots then you'll need to find the GOAT QB and get him to agree to take a fraction of what he's worth.

That's what I'm saying Genious. If we let players dictate the way we spend the cap money it takes away our ability to build a contender. If you do overpay then you have to nail every draft.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by RunKC

It was reported that he wanted the same % as Earl Thomas, which Thomas got 13.3% of Seattle's cap ($133 million cap in 2014 divided by Thomas' $10 million avg)

We have no choice but to keep him, but the smart thing to do here is offer him a deal that's 5% higher than Honey Badger's deal in every aspect and if he refuses, tell the media that we offered him top dollar and he said no.

Have not read the entire thread so this may have already been pointed out but your math is all wrong. $10 million out of $133 million is not 13.3%, it is close to 7.5%. You got your numbers backwards. 13.3% of $133 million is close to $17.5 million.

Now you may return to your normally argumentative thread!

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

10% more money infused into an open market does mean that you're likely to see 10% more spending.

.

Of course, but Boss is claiming that a 10% cap increase has a direct correlation to a 10% contract increase. There's no correlation there.

A 10% cap increase just means that the Chiefs can spend 10% more through out their roster.

It DOESN'T mean that you take Tyron's contract and increase it by the % that the cap increased.

Now, this is very easy for Boss to prove. You take the % amount the cap increased last season and check to see if that's how much of an increase Tyron received over the last highest paid safety.

My guess is the numbers won't correlate.

[Marcellus]

We have gone from Clark is cheap to people saying we are going to pay a safety $15MM per year.

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

We have gone from Clark is cheap to people saying we are going to pay a safety $15MM per year.

Good point.

A testament to the finicky nature of an NFL fan.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Of course, but Boss is claiming that a 10% cap increase has a direct correlation to a 10% contract increase. There's no correlation there.

A 10% cap increase just means that the Chiefs can spend 10% more through out their roster.

It DOESN'T mean that you take Tyron's contract and increase it by the % that the cap increased.

Now, this is very easy for Boss to prove. You take the % amount the cap increased last season and check to see if that's how much of an increase Tyron received over the last highest paid safety.

My guess is the numbers won't correlate.

It's easier than that, really.

Mathieu and Harrison Smith both signed contract extensions that start in 2017. They were clearly signed based on the cap as of 2017 because those projections were out long before the ink was dry.

So you don't have to 'adjust' at all - you just say that Mathieu and Smith ARE the market and operate accordingly. You don't build an additional bump into it at all. You either say that Berry's a better player and better risk than those two guys and pay him a little more than they are getting, or you don't.

But you don't need to guess how much more of the cap should go to them at all; their markets were set under this cap.