Jalen Hurts gets paid

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Just curious, but we don't have the details about this deal, right? So we can't really say how team-friendly this contract is yet?

No details but if 70% of it is guaranteed at signing and it's only a 5 year deal, it can't be SUPER team friendly; there's just not that much room for wiggle.

The question comes down to what type of guarantees. Sometimes mere injury guarantees get reported at the beginning when in actuality an injury that simply makes the guy less productive wouldn't be enough to trigger them. It may be that year 4 is guaranteed for injury and year 5 has no guarantees and both years have substantial base salaries.

In which case it COULD be pretty team friendly. But as presently reported, there's just not many ways to make that a very team friendly deal. In fact, it could be a cap nightmare as early as year 3 if you presume they have a relatively low year 1 hit as most do.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No details but if 70% of it is guaranteed at signing and it's only a 5 year deal, it can't be SUPER team friendly; there's just not that much room for wiggle.

The question comes down to what type of guarantees. Sometimes mere injury guarantees get reported at the beginning when in actuality an injury that simply makes the guy less productive wouldn't be enough to trigger them. It may be that year 4 is guaranteed for injury and year 5 has no guarantees and both years have substantial base salaries.

In which case it COULD be pretty team friendly. But as presently reported, there's just not many ways to make that a very team friendly deal. In fact, it could be a cap nightmare as early as year 3 if you presume they have a relatively low year 1 hit as most do.

Cool, thx. That makes a lot of sense to me.

[DRM08]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No details but if 70% of it is guaranteed at signing and it's only a 5 year deal, it can't be SUPER team friendly; there's just not that much room for wiggle.

The question comes down to what type of guarantees. Sometimes mere injury guarantees get reported at the beginning when in actuality an injury that simply makes the guy less productive wouldn't be enough to trigger them. It may be that year 4 is guaranteed for injury and year 5 has no guarantees and both years have substantial base salaries.

In which case it COULD be pretty team friendly. But as presently reported, there's just not many ways to make that a very team friendly deal. In fact, it could be a cap nightmare as early as year 3 if you presume they have a relatively low year 1 hit as most do.

Void years is the new trick. Cowboys are doing that to cheat the cap as much as possible. Won’t be surprised if Philly does the same thing.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DRM08

Void years is the new trick. Cowboys are doing that to cheat the cap as much as possible. Won’t be surprised if Philly does the same thing.

But with a QB contract? Yikes, man - that's playing with fire. Those numbers will be soooooooo biiiiiiiig that you're really over a barrel if/when it comes time to re-do that deal.

Voidable years are hinky but understandable when dealing with a player who's probably not going to be around anyway when those void years get there; they'll have aged out.

But if you're the Eagles, you don't really want to have yourself in a bargaining position where you're about to take a zillion dollar dead money hit if you can't get a deal re-worked for the QB you want to keep around for another few years. Because man, that's a good way to get cornholed at the table (as Rodgers has done to GB repeatedly; Brees wasn't kind to NOLA either).

I just think that's a pretty awful idea.