Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

No, not in regards to wins although the team certainly does seem poised for a long run of success with the current shape of the roster.  What I am referring to is how the Jacksonville Front Office is one of the leaders in terms of contract structure. 

Remember the Maurice Jones-Drew contract dispute of 2012? Jones-Drew held himself out of mini-camp and all of Training Camp and forfeited over $1 million due to dissatisfaction with his contract that he signed in 2009 and how the money he was due compared to that of his peers. Fast forward to 2018 and Julio Jones is not happy with his yearly income of $10.5 million on top of the fact that Jarvis Landry and Sammy Watkins now stand to make more than him. Remember that Jones signed that contract back in 2015 and it was worth a staggering $75 million; easily the top WR contract at the time. However, just like we all saw with MoJo, that mythical "total contract value" number that the players won't ever see isn't that important. What is important is "what am I making right now?" 

So how does this relate to Jacksonville? Well, look at the "It's not a real Franchise QB contract" contract that Bortles just signed. Three years, $54 million, $26 million guaranteed. And in three years, everyone has to come back to the negotiating table if they haven't already done so. Know how long it took Jones-Drew to get unhappy with his deal? Three years. When did Julio start reading Spotrac for every other WR's contract? Three Years. See the trend?

Yes, yes. We all know that what the team did with Bortles was sign him to a 'prove it' contract. At least, that's the general consensus. But what if what the team and Bortles agent did was provide better value for everyone involved and avoid a holdout situation to boot? After all, Julio's $47 million guaranteed money was roughly $9 mil per year. Bortles? His is a little over $8 mil. And seeing as how the two relate in terms of production, I would think Blake ended up doing very well for himself. 

So what do you think? Is the 7-year contract a thing of the past? Is it better for everyone to have shorter term contracts? I'm thinking everyone wins with this approach.

We are the benefactor of having such bad draft pics that we never had to resign them. Under our new Front Office, most of the players are still on their rookie contracts so we're going to face $$ issues down the road, inclusive of but not limited to, player holdouts and releasing talented players because we cannot afford them.

I see it as a player/salary evaluation on a case-by-case basis. Teams like the Falcons and Steelers are having some issues because they actually drafted good offensive skill players and are now faced with salary issues that may take away from the balance of talent --- one can already see that the Steelers defense pretty much sucks and the Falcons just had to let go of one of the best DL in the NFL (Adrian Clayborn).

Our time is coming .... just not here yet.

I’m too lazy to speculate either way, but regardless, good post Deacon, food for thought for those less intellectually lethargic than I.

(06-12-2018, 11:16 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]We are the benefactor of having such bad draft pics that we never had to resign them.  Under our new Front Office, most of the players are still on their rookie contracts so we're going to face $$ issues down the road, inclusive of but not limited to, player holdouts and releasing talented players because we cannot afford them.

I see it as a player/salary evaluation on a case-by-case basis.  Teams like the Falcons and Steelers are having some issues because they actually drafted good offensive skill players and are now faced with salary issues that may take away from the balance of talent --- one can already see that the Steelers defense pretty much sucks and the Falcons just had to let go of one of the best DL in the NFL (Adrian Clayborn).

Our time is coming .... just not here yet.

I still believe that a team can draft well and not pay for it in the 4th and 5th year of a player's career. It makes sense to me that Atlanta painted themselves into a corner with the Jones deal, and Pittsburgh is still +$4 mil under the cap with both Roethlisberger and Brown signed to long-term contracts. Granted, the Bell situation seems untenable right now but I think they will see that through.

Your overall point is a good one though; is Jacksonville simply lucky because they haven't had to sign "Second" contracts? Maybe. But the team avoided a potentially large contract situation with Allen Robinson - still not sure I agree with that move, but whatever - and has shown good foresight in limiting the length of even highly valued Free Agents. I can't help but think Idzik had a huge hand in flattening out Malik Jackson's contract and keeping both his and Campbell's yearly Cap Hit to ~$15 mil.

Our time indeed is coming. How will they approach it?

(06-12-2018, 01:57 PM)Deacon Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2018, 11:16 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]...

Our time is coming .... just not here yet.

...

Our time indeed is coming. How will they approach it?

I think the easy answer is "continue to draft and develop talent."  

The Bryan and Harrison picks in this year's draft clearly resulted in part from forward thinking concerning the cap. 
The decision to let Fowler ride w/o the option speaks to a certain degree of caution.  
The decisions within the WR corps speak to value and limiting long term investment.

I think this front office is very forward thinking. They are taking proactive steps and planning contingencies to prevent a salary cap nightmare.  I believe a few players will receive large second contracts, but I also believe they'll very discerningly allow some very talented players to walk when they see a viable replacement with a lower price tag.

(06-12-2018, 11:16 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]We are the benefactor of having such bad draft pics that we never had to resign them.  Under our new Front Office, most of the players are still on their rookie contracts so we're going to face $$ issues down the road, inclusive of but not limited to, player holdouts and releasing talented players because we cannot afford them.

I see it as a player/salary evaluation on a case-by-case basis.  Teams like the Falcons and Steelers are having some issues because they actually drafted good offensive skill players and are now faced with salary issues that may take away from the balance of talent --- one can already see that the Steelers defense pretty much sucks and the Falcons just had to let go of one of the best DL in the NFL (Adrian Clayborn).

Our time is coming .... just not here yet.

Steelers were fifth in overall defense last year. Almost the complete opposite of sucking.

I can imagine the howling and gnashing of teeth if Leonard Fournette is not signed to a big 2nd contract. He's one of the ones they may have to let go rather than pay 10+ M a year. But that decision is down the road.

(06-12-2018, 10:01 AM)Deacon Wrote: [ -> ]No, not in regards to wins although the team certainly does seem poised for a long run of success with the current shape of the roster.  What I am referring to is how the Jacksonville Front Office is one of the leaders in terms of contract structure. 

Remember the Maurice Jones-Drew contract dispute of 2012? Jones-Drew held himself out of mini-camp and all of Training Camp and forfeited over $1 million due to dissatisfaction with his contract that he signed in 2009 and how the money he was due compared to that of his peers. Fast forward to 2018 and Julio Jones is not happy with his yearly income of $10.5 million on top of the fact that Jarvis Landry and Sammy Watkins now stand to make more than him. Remember that Jones signed that contract back in 2015 and it was worth a staggering $75 million; easily the top WR contract at the time. However, just like we all saw with MoJo, that mythical "total contract value" number that the players won't ever see isn't that important. What is important is "what am I making right now?" 

So how does this relate to Jacksonville? Well, look at the "It's not a real Franchise QB contract" contract that Bortles just signed. Three years, $54 million, $26 million guaranteed. And in three years, everyone has to come back to the negotiating table if they haven't already done so. Know how long it took Jones-Drew to get unhappy with his deal? Three years. When did Julio start reading Spotrac for every other WR's contract? Three Years. See the trend?

Yes, yes. We all know that what the team did with Bortles was sign him to a 'prove it' contract. At least, that's the general consensus. But what if what the team and Bortles agent did was provide better value for everyone involved and avoid a holdout situation to boot? After all, Julio's $47 million guaranteed money was roughly $9 mil per year. Bortles? His is a little over $8 mil. And seeing as how the two relate in terms of production, I would think Blake ended up doing very well for himself. 

So what do you think? Is the 7-year contract a thing of the past? Is it better for everyone to have shorter term contracts? I'm thinking everyone wins with this approach.

To answer your closing question-yes, the seven year contracts are a thing of the past.

The longest a rookie can sign for is five years-four years is the standard, but 1st round draft picks have the 5th year option.

Assuming a rookie is 22-23 when he enters the league as a first round pick, and he earns the 5th year option, he will be 27-28 years old when his new deal is due if he is to be retained.  A RB likely won't get a lucrative deal after that, much less a seven year deal, which would have him signed to age 33.  Same is true with CBs and WRs, unless you are dealing with a Hall of Famer, and even then, he may not get that kind of deal taking him to his mid 30s.

Basically the only position that might warrant a seven year contract is a franchise QB.  If he's that young and that good, he likely wouldn't sign anything that long, because if he's healthy, he could get a 3rd contract to possibly pay him even more, because certainly by then, other QBs-possibly lesser QBs, will get deals to pay them more.

I think whether it's better or not is immaterial.

If you have the longer deal and the player doesn't perform, the team will cut him.

If you sign the longer deal whose terms become obsolete due to the the player outperforming it and market, the player will hold out for a new deal.  If the team doesn't sign him, the holdout becomes a distraction, and possibly alienates other players on the team, depending upon how the negotiations are handled.  Eventually, he could be cut or traded, making the team lesser for it.

If you sign the shorter deal, and the player is still healthy, in his prime, and still performing well, you will need to re-sign him anyway.

Barring injury, there's no escaping the need to re-sign the  ultra productive star player.

Unless a team signs a player before reaching that 5th year, there will be holdouts.

(06-12-2018, 04:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2018, 01:57 PM)Deacon Wrote: [ -> ]...

Our time indeed is coming. How will they approach it?

I think the easy answer is "continue to draft and develop talent."  

The Bryan and Harrison picks in this year's draft clearly resulted in part from forward thinking concerning the cap. 
The decision to let Fowler ride w/o the option speaks to a certain degree of caution.  
The decisions within the WR corps speak to value and limiting long term investment.

I think this front office is very forward thinking. They are taking proactive steps and planning contingencies to prevent a salary cap nightmare.  I believe a few players will receive large second contracts, but I also believe they'll very discerningly allow some very talented players to walk when they see a viable replacement with a lower price tag.

I think this paragraph in bold represents the ideal.

I think you want to be in a position that, when it comes to filling holes in the roster, you are working a year ahead of time.

This means you have a complete roster, where you almost never have to start a rookie-unless he is just that good, which improves your team-or.  The rookies learn under accomplished veterans, which mitigates the pressure placed upon them to start immediately, rookie mistakes are minimized.  While learning, they are able to provide depth to help with in game freshness and injuries.  Teams like the Steelers, despite low draft position, are able to sustain success because they have players who, after an initial apprenticeship where they can develop and learn the habits of successful pro players, can eventually step in and perform.

The front office also benefits because they are able to plan the evolution of the team to a large degree, as opposed to having to do things totally on the fly.

If this is where the Jaguars are-and I think they are-that is a very good thing.

(06-12-2018, 04:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2018, 01:57 PM)Deacon Wrote: [ -> ]...

Our time indeed is coming. How will they approach it?

I think the easy answer is "continue to draft and develop talent."  

The Bryan and Harrison picks in this year's draft clearly resulted in part from forward thinking concerning the cap. 
The decision to let Fowler ride w/o the option speaks to a certain degree of caution.  
The decisions within the WR corps speak to value and limiting long term investment.

I think this front office is very forward thinking. They are taking proactive steps and planning contingencies to prevent a salary cap nightmare.  I believe a few players will receive large second contracts, but I also believe they'll very discerningly allow some very talented players to walk when they see a viable replacement with a lower price tag.

Like Bullseye, I agree with you. I think a lot of that "forward thinking" was covered up by the sorry state of the roster they inherited, then the further gutting that they did. They don't give me the impression that they are trying to collect talent for any one season, but rather to have a constant churn of talent that they can work with. 

Kinda, sorta unrelated to this; I want to see if they ever get to the point with their draft a la New England where they are constantly collecting First and Second round picks. The moves that they make at that point would be interesting to watch.

(06-12-2018, 09:50 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2018, 10:01 AM)Deacon Wrote: [ -> ]...

...

I think whether it's better or not is immaterial.

If you have the longer deal and the player doesn't perform, the team will cut him.

If you sign the longer deal whose terms become obsolete due to the the player outperforming it and market, the player will hold out for a new deal.  If the team doesn't sign him, the holdout becomes a distraction, and possibly alienates other players on the team, depending upon how the negotiations are handled.  Eventually, he could be cut or traded, making the team lesser for it.

If you sign the shorter deal, and the player is still healthy, in his prime, and still performing well, you will need to re-sign him anyway.

Barring injury, there's no escaping the need to re-sign the  ultra productive star player.

Unless a team signs a player before reaching that 5th year, there will be holdouts.

That "cut" part is what I believe has drawn the attention of the Team. Remember that the Cap ramifications of cutting a player is that their cap hit accelerates onto the Cap in the given year. So if you have spread his hit out over the contract that will still hurt you due to having to carry that cap hit.

This is why I think teams like the shorter deal because it lets them get out of a bad situation that much easier. But it does make more work for them later when they want to re-sign him.

The Bryan pick kind of surprised me but after reading all of the cap logic/implications and especially this thread, it makes sense...even more so when you consider the Harrison pick in the same light. The Steelers comparison is very apropos. A Patriots approach worth considering is their taking flyers on failed early round picks (McClellin, Ealy et al) or "washed-up" veterans (sometimes it works: Moss, Dillon; sometimes it doesn't: Haynesworth, Ochocinco, Wayne).

I like the drafting philosophy and wonder where it came from: Coughlin? Caldwell? Idzik? Likely all three. Tony Khan?

(06-14-2018, 03:17 PM)Deacon Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-12-2018, 09:50 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]...

I think whether it's better or not is immaterial.

If you have the longer deal and the player doesn't perform, the team will cut him.

If you sign the longer deal whose terms become obsolete due to the the player outperforming it and market, the player will hold out for a new deal.  If the team doesn't sign him, the holdout becomes a distraction, and possibly alienates other players on the team, depending upon how the negotiations are handled.  Eventually, he could be cut or traded, making the team lesser for it.

If you sign the shorter deal, and the player is still healthy, in his prime, and still performing well, you will need to re-sign him anyway.

Barring injury, there's no escaping the need to re-sign the  ultra productive star player.

Unless a team signs a player before reaching that 5th year, there will be holdouts.

That "cut" part is what I believe has drawn the attention of the Team. Remember that the Cap ramifications of cutting a player is that their cap hit accelerates onto the Cap in the given year. So if you have spread his hit out over the contract that will still hurt you due to having to carry that cap hit.

This is why I think teams like the shorter deal because it lets them get out of a bad situation that much easier. But it does make more work for them later when they want to re-sign him.

 
Worth noting that many of the FA big contracts signed here over the past 4 years have a team "out option" after two (or three) years with minimal cap hit.

I’d be all for give Leonard the 5th year option and then letting him hit the market after that. I suspect he will be pretty banged up and ran into the ground at that point.