Flowtrain Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Art Flow, Keep reading the CBA guy. But, first, read the friggen article here. What I did was read the friggen article here... Washington's proposed signing bonus is $7.4 million, with a $6 million option bonus. http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20030820-113904-6152r.htm Again, I don't know what sort of accuracy this was reported with, but it's significant. So Snyder can "wink-wink nod-nod" like a bobble-head doll with a bad twitch, but none of that changes the fact that $6M would be at risk. And Snyder didn't do himself any favors in building the trust on which the wink/nod relate by pulling the rug out from veteran BDW as late as he did and ignoring negotiations with Champ for so long. Also, while you raise Strahan as an example of this type of contract, his example is probably one the Skins would hope to avoid. Strahan's assessment of the "wink-wink nod-nod" as adequate protection led him to reject the option bonus and cause dissention among teammates, most notably, Tiki. Ultimately, it was a deal-breaking issue that Strahan took a stand against - and it wasn't until the clause was removed that it got inked. Stahan ended up taking less up front money and more guaranteed deferred money as a result. If nothing else, Strahan's example is a source of leverage for Champ, not the Skins. Now that you're caught up - we get back to the original point - IF Snyder wanted Bailey signed before the season, he should've extended an offer earlier, both as a show of the team's committment to Bailey and for the practical time concerns implicit in signing a deal of this magnitude. Though the "I was too busy," "I had to deal with unsigned players like Wuerffel or Patrick Johnson first," "I was on vacation," and "the cat ate my homework" excuses seem to be well-received by you, I don't know that they add up to a pass for the FO. Bailey is an important player to this team - and his contractual status was handled as an afterthought. Rightly or wrongly, that tends to make players resentful, especially when they see the cake being served around them, and it appears to be what happened here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 As far as anyone questioning the FO as to whether they are serious about resigning champ. Snyder was on Jim Rome last week and without even being asked about Champ Bailey, be brought it up on his own and talked about how important he is to the defense. He said, he will without hesitation franchise tag him if that is what it takes to keep him part of this team. He said he doesn't want it to come down to it, but if Bailey won't agree on a contract, the FO has to explore other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsanity56 Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 easy now FLOW,don't go jumping all over the FO just yet.they haven't screwed anything up to this point.we got 6mths to FA & probably atleast 12more after that to pull it off.but if they do pull a "bradway" on this one don't you worry many of us will be right with/beside you bashing it instead of defending it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Flow, Do you realize what a dope you seem like when you are asked to simply read the article that's provided here, in this very thread, and you say you did, and to validate that you did you post a two-week-old article from another newspaper entirely? What you didn't do is read the article here. I can only say this however because the word "option" doesn't appear in it at all. Not once. So, again, what I'm asking you is to read the friggen article that's here and to shut the hell up until you show some mild comprehension. I don't like being forced to be pedantic with you, but, until you show some agreeable nature to actually pay attention, it's kind of my duty, you know? Again, what the Redskins are offering is a simple, straight forward, two-tiered bonus payable in four payments. Two payments would be made this year. Two more payments would be made next year. Those payments are contained in a simple roster bonus, which being non-guaranteed can be accelerated into one year. It's the PRECISE same deal the team tried to sneak by Jansen with a month left in the season and it's the precise same deal the team will try to offer Samuels and Arrington soon enough. Now, it would ALSO help you here if you understood what the CBA means. Even the part you found and quoted. Read over what you quoted of the CBA again and try to grasp what it means. If you can't, read here because I'll tell ya. "Any amount specified to be paid for the exercise of an option by a Club to extend the term of a Player Contract shall be treated as signing bonus, pro-rated over the remaining term of the contract commencing in the League Year in which it is exercised or the last League Year in which the option may be exercised, whichever comes first," is something ENTIRELY different than what's described here for Bailey. An option clause in a contract means the contract is for, say, five years, but the team has the option of picking up another year or two if it desires. In the bargaining, if it's negotiated so that the team can pick up two more years at the end of a negotiated contract, and for that option the team has to pay $5 million, that $5 million will be pro-rated over the remaining two years of the option for cap purposes. There may well be $6 million in an option clause for Bailey after seven years. This was reported as a nine year deal. The team may have written in that after seven years if the team takes the option on Bailey for the next two, then it pays him $6 million. That's what an "option" bonus is in the CBA portion you cited. When the team has the "option" to extend a player contract and within that contract is a clause that gives the player another bonus. I realize you have difficulty processing simple things like this, and therefore you've come to the somewhat ignorant conclusion that the Redskins are trying to work a one year deal with Bailey with an "option" for eight more, but, since YOU KNOW that's not true, you KNOW what the parameters of the contract are. Again, so we're clear and no longer side-tracked by your lack of understanding, the offer is a two-tiered bonus payable over four installments with two installments being guaranteed immediately and the last two being guaranteed if Bailey is on the roster in a year. Or, a roster bonus guy. See how easy this is? Now, for the rest, the Strahan deal is an interesting one. Yes, he turned down the "roster" bonus, which was not guaranteed money but for New York's tradition of actually coming through on it. Instead of taking $32 million over 4 years per the Giants initial offer which would have given him $10 million in a signing bonus right away, and $7 million the following season if he made the roster, he took $32 million over four years, with just a $6.5 million signing bonus to pro-rate over the contract, and higher base salaries. When he signed, in fact, his base salary for 2003 was $9 million with $7 million guaranteed. The Redskins may end up offering something very similar to Bailey. A signing bonus at around $8 million over 7 years, but a base salary of $9 million next year with $7 million guaranteed. In either case it provides the precise same structure the Redskins seek here. So, the Strahan deal is very much in play here as it may ultimately be what the Skins do. As Bailey was already under contract, the team did have to finish offseason business for THIS year first, before turning to next year. Bailey is the first of next year's offseason goals. And, the team wanted negotiations to move more rapidly to its credit. Sad Bailey's side didn't and worse, that Bailey thinks we're believing it's the team's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 One note on the timing. The FO did not have the money under the cap to resign Champ until they released Wilkinson. Also, the 'option' bonus for next year is all but guaranteed as the only way we don't pay it would be to release him in which case we'd have the HUGE cap hit of his entire signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Flow is right that the FO should have begun negotiations at least in setting a framework earlier, even if it couldn't be executed. However, I think he's wrong about the bonus. One subtle thing I noticed was that the Post reported that Reale never countered with a "formal proposal" that could mean that Schaffer and Reale were on the phone bandying numbers like lunatics, but neither side could get close enough to where the counter offer was put on paper... could also meant that Reale wanted to leave the 'skins swinging and see if they get desperate enough to forse the action. However, are you kidding me? Champ's quotes are ridiculous... delusional at best. That offer in no way can be construed as unserious or insulting. In overall value, salary per anum, and signing bonus isn't he still being offered top money? I won't talk about what he's worth or not worth, because if I honestly wrap my logic around it I don't think there is a single athlete who is worth is salary. Entertainment and the catharsis it provides has value, but not equal to their salaries. Is Champ great, sure. Has he created the excitement that change games? In a subtle way, but he does lack a little drama... I do want more interceptions, more touchdowns... aw heck if he can say what he does... less fumbles. There's a part of me that thinks Champ wants out. He does act like it. I think he believes he's Superman. He's upset that he doesn't get more opportunities on offense, despite the chance that he literally fumbled away those opportunities last year. Should we keep him? Absolutely. Should we have begun this process earlier. Yeah. Should he be insulted. No. Can we break the team for him? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Flow, The 2 option bonus is the norm now. Look at Ray Lewis's deal and Urlacher's they both have huge SBs but break it up. This has become the norm to help with the cap situations for the teams. I bet we will start to see a lot of these when players ask for 15 to 20 million SBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Sack Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 55 mil over 9 years? WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH THAT?? Tell ya what. I'll suit up for that. Sure, I can't play worth a d@mn, but at least you guys won't have to worry about me holding out and copping an attitude. I'm not too happy about Champ's attitude. I remember an interview we did with him in training camp last year. He seemed like a classy guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Art And, it's Bailey's fault for not asking his agent why he didn't make any counters in two weeks. Well see, that may just be it. How do we know Bailey's agent was instructed to make a counter-offer? All an agent is suppose to do is represent the interest of his client, since his client isn't qualified to represent himself. An agent doesn't recieve an offer, smirk at it, then not make a counter-offer, and then suspend negotiations until a later day for no reason. Champ didn't want to sign a contract with us two weeks ago. And it does seem like he's ready to go elsewhere, unless the Skins make him an enormous contract offer than only a fool would refuse. With LaVar's contract negiotations looming in the horizon, that just isn't going to happen. We'll be franchising Champ in 2004, and hoping someone takes the bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Art Flow, Do you realize what a dope you seem like when you are asked to simply read the article that's provided here, in this very thread, and you say you did, and to validate that you did you post a two-week-old article from another newspaper entirely? What you didn't do is read the article here. I can only say this however because the word "option" doesn't appear in it at all. Not once. So, again, what I'm asking you is to read the friggen article that's here and to shut the hell up until you show some mild comprehension. An option clause in a contract means the contract is for, say, five years, but the team has the option of picking up another year or two if it desires. In the bargaining, if it's negotiated so that the team can pick up two more years at the end of a negotiated contract, and for that option the team has to pay $5 million, that $5 million will be pro-rated over the remaining two years of the option for cap purposes. There may well be $6 million in an option clause for Bailey after seven years. This was reported as a nine year deal. The team may have written in that after seven years if the team takes the option on Bailey for the next two, then it pays him $6 million. That's what an "option" bonus is in the CBA portion you cited. When the team has the "option" to extend a player contract and within that contract is a clause that gives the player another bonus. I realize you have difficulty processing simple things like this, and therefore you've come to the somewhat ignorant conclusion that the Redskins are trying to work a one year deal with Bailey with an "option" for eight more, but, since YOU KNOW that's not true, you KNOW what the parameters of the contract are. Again, so we're clear and no longer side-tracked by your lack of understanding, the offer is a two-tiered bonus payable over four installments with two installments being guaranteed immediately and the last two being guaranteed if Bailey is on the roster in a year. Or, a roster bonus guy. See how easy this is? Now, for the rest, the Strahan deal is an interesting one. Yes, he turned down the "roster" bonus, which was not guaranteed money but for New York's tradition of actually coming through on it. Instead of taking $32 million over 4 years per the Giants initial offer which would have given him $10 million in a signing bonus right away, and $7 million the following season if he made the roster, he took $32 million over four years, with just a $6.5 million signing bonus to pro-rate over the contract, and higher base salaries. When he signed, in fact, his base salary for 2003 was $9 million with $7 million guaranteed. As Bailey was already under contract, the team did have to finish offseason business for THIS year first, before turning to next year. Bailey is the first of next year's offseason goals. And, the team wanted negotiations to move more rapidly to its credit. Sad Bailey's side didn't and worse, that Bailey thinks we're believing it's the team's fault. Art, As usual, we are having difficulty communicating. What I did was write a post based on the Times' articles assertion that Bailey was offered a $6M option bonus as part of his $15M "total bonus." If you're under the belief that the article was inaccurate, that's fine. Then let's look at the Post article on which you rely. It says, "The Redskins' offer included $14.75 million in bonus money payable in four installments, two of which would have been guaranteed immediately and two of which would have become guaranteed if Bailey still had been on the team's roster in one year. " The Post is intentionally murky regarding the breakdown of this bonus and what they do say is in no way inconsistent with what the Post says. The fact that it's not labelled an "option" bonus is hardly relevant to the fact that an "option" bonus is exactly what it appears to be. This may sound strange and it's understandable that it's the source of your confusion. You're under the impression that option bonuses are reserved for picking up the tail-end of contracts, not for triggering the second tier of a "signing bonus". That's incorrect. You think that mechanism is the roster bonus, and while sometimes it does augment the option bonus, the truth is that option bonus is the primary way to deliver the second tier, precisely because it prorates the cap hit while the roster bonus does not. In fact, sometimes the large roster bonus is put in place specifically to force a renegotiation down the road. Your misunderstanding is evident when you insist that Strahan rejected a "roster" bonus in his second tier. But that's not what it was. Giants | More On Strahan - from www.KFFL.comSun, 17 Mar 2002 18:23:07 -0800 According to John Clayton of ESPN, the contract offer rejected by New York Giants DE Michael Strahan was reportedly a seven-year, $57.1 million contract that included $17 million in signing bonus money, $10 million paid this year and $7 million in the form of an option bonus in 2003. Earlier reports said Strahan was concerned the second part of the bonus was not guaranteed. This is the way these two-tiered bonus option deals are set up. Players can also set up an option bonus with buyout option which helps guarantee that the option gets exercized. But without the buyout, and there's no indication one exists here, all of this is incidental to the main fact that whether it's an unguaranteed option bonus, or an unguaranteed roster bonus, both are unguaranteed. I've grown accustomed to your condescending tone, but it's much more difficult to tolerate when you're simply wrong about the facts that you're preaching. Once again, these CBA details are pretty fun for the cap geeks and in Bailey's case all these points will get pushed back and forth for months. But the real issue is that the FO made its own bed by waiting so long before finally getting the negotiations under way and that's why the pushing and pulling is now on hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Champ signed a 5 year deal and is playing it out (right now and for the last few years he has been underpaid) he is the best corner in the league and is going to cash in on it next year. It is just business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Flow or Tom, What did Strahan end up signing?? I am curious to know what kind of deal it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Ego aside, why on Earth is the annual average in the least bit important? Most, if not all, of these huge contracts are not designed to go the full length of their deals. They're enormously backloaded to create the semblance of being bigger deals than they really are. None are meant to be valid for more than 4-5 years - they become too cumbersome. Would Champ feel any better if it were 9 years, $105M, with $70M payable in years 6-9? It might as well be - that money is purely illusionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 isn't it obvious to anyone else that Bailey had no intention of signing early unless he was completely bowled over by the offer? from a negotiating position, he is in much stronger shape LATER ON as long as he does not get injured in 2003 severely. Bailey was looking for the cornerback version of the Coles' signing bonus where he is looking for $15 or $18 million and the Skins actually offered him $20 million :laugh: Bailey's quote about 'they won't pay you as long as they don't have to' is certainly an indication that there is no real bond between Bailey and the area. He may end up staying under a franchise tag or because the Skins ultimately come across with the green in the end, but it won't be because there is any sentimentality to remaining a Redskin. You get the feeling that Arrington or Samuels and the team would get together to work out new deals to prevent their departure. But with Bailey I have never gotten the feeling that he would really be that upset by leaving and going to play at home in Atlanta or somewhere else for the dollars. He is a very good player, although not as dominant as the money he is looking for would suggest. He does not change the outcome of games the way a Ray Lewis, LT or Reggie White has done. He has not had the all-around impact another top tier athlete like Deion Sanders had in his prime, where he was a threat at CB and as one of the league's feared returners. Bailey failed as a returner, in fact he failed to do the basics, as in learn how to hold onto the ball. As a corner he is in the class of the best at the position. Because he is not a good tackler and run support guy, he is probably a half notch below what Mike Haynes and Rod Woodson were in their primes. He is basically a Troy Vincent without the physical edge to his game. Is that worth $18 million in guaranteed money? I don't think so. Bailey is no more valuable to the Redskins than Samuels or Arrington who have also been pro bowlers with the team, albeit a year behind in seniority. I could see a scenario where the Skins re-up Smoot and trade Bailey for 2 #1 draft choices and then go out and sign a veteran at CB to go along with a drafted rookie as the long term replacement. If the Redskins improve themselves in the front four, that defense could be better than the one we have had with Bailey in the lineup. The best thing for the team is to keep continuity and get Bailey signed but you might just have seen the one contract monster that Snyder and the Skins are going to balk at. You give a guy a $18 million bonus and he goes down and the team is shot. That is four or five salary slots you lose due to dead cap space. Just ask the Cowboys about what happened when Sanders hurt that big toe and never returned to form. They were hamstrung in FA and the draft for a number of years until they worked his and other aging players money off their books. Rather keep Arrington, Samuels and Ramsey and lose Bailey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma Flow or Tom, What did Strahan end up signing?? I am curious to know what kind of deal it was. This link explains his deal. http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2002/0902/1426241.html He rejected a two-tiered $17M signing bonus and accepted a deal with $20M in guarantees over the first 3 years and an average of $8M per year over the first 4 years. The deal also rolled over guaranteed money from his previous contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 if Bailey suffers a career ending injury, the Redskins aren't going to pay him some money just because he is a nice guy and so Bailey doesn't owe the Redskins any favors either, I hold no ill will towards Champ no matter what happens and have no problem with anything he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 I agree with the prior assertion that our F.O. could have jumped on this a bit sooner. However, it sounds to me like Champ really doesn't want to be here after this season and will only do so if he gets a "premium" over what another club might offer. Why else would his agent wait to even respond to what he himself described as an opening offer ? Champ is a great corner, however if the price is right you let him walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Bulldog hit it right on the head. Champ isn't the impact cornerback the mediots continue to spew he is. He doesn't shut down one half of the field. Teams still throw at him, and he rarely comes up with the critical INT that turns the game. Heck.... Galloway has abused him on more than one occasion, and I grow weary of the 5-8 yard outs he gives up. Sure... offenses are going to move the ball at times.... but for once I'd like to see Champ jump a route and take an INT for a score instead of trying to tackle the receiver he just let catch a 10 yard out for a first down and then see him clap his hands together, wince, and shake his head. Furthermore, he isn't a good tackler or run support defender. He also whined about wanting to play offense and return punts. When he's given the opportunity what does he do.... fumbles a simple reverse and muffs two punts that cost us games. If he's a top notch corner, one for history...... a "Beyond the Glory" Deion type corner, then why doesn't he play like one? Most importantly, I don't want a "me" player like Champ who points fingers and shows little compassion for the community to be rewarded w/ a record breaking contract for play that is far from the best in the league. Unless he changes his tune, and negotiates with good faith, than I'll gladly take a #1 and #3 this year and a #2 next year and watch him go where the money is being handed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by bulldog I could see a scenario where the Skins re-up Smoot and trade Bailey for 2 #1 draft choices and then go out and sign a veteran at CB to go along with a drafted rookie as the long term replacement. All the reasons that you listed in your post as to why you wouldn't pay Champ are the same reasons that teams won't give up 2 #1 picks for him. Since he's not a dominant game-changing ball hawk with return skills like Deion, he's not worth sacrficing the future draft of a franchise. The best you could hope for is a #1, plus a conditional pick in a later round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 Originally posted by Flowtrain All the reasons that you listed in your post as to why you wouldn't pay Champ are the same reasons that teams won't give up 2 #1 picks for him. Since he's not a dominant game-changing ball hawk with return skills like Deion, he's not worth sacrficing the future draft of a franchise. The best you could hope for is a #1, plus a conditional pick in a later round. Well that would be great if its true since then we could keep Champ, BUT considering the way mediocre CBs like Dre Bly have gotten paid of late, I would expect someone to be willing to give up two #1s...probably someone who made the playoffs and has a low pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.