(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.

---