Aaron Donald not concerned about contract, focused on 2016

http://overthecap.com/thoughts-fletcher-cox-contract-extension/#more-12093

Thoughts on Fletcher Cox’ Contract Extension
Posted on June 14, 2016 by Jason Fitzgerald

After a year of contentious contract discussions, the Eagles and their new front office has ended any problems between the Eagles and Fletcher Cox by signing Cox to a massive $102.6 million contract extension that contains over $60 million in injury guarantees. Based on a report by Pro Football Talk we can look at the contract in a bit more critical manner to see just how it ranks in a few different metrics compared to those of the other big defensive players.

He $17.1 million APY will make Cox the 2nd highest paid defensive player in the NFL, just surpassing Olivier Vernon’s contract with the Giants. From a cap perspective the contract will carry a value of $15.771 million which is a bit more affordable than those free agent contracts.

The initial guarantee on the Cox contract trails all but Houston in the big defensive contract category both in terms of the total amount and percentage of contract that is guaranteed. While he did get the largest injury guarantee of any player once you factor in the fact that he already had $7.8 million guaranteed that number does drop to $55.5 million. That’s still second in the NFL, but in terms of being some major bright spot for Von Miller as some suggested I don’t see that at all as the numbers are more in line with the market.

Where Cox makes out tremendously well is the guarantee and bonus structure. Guarantees get a significant amount of press, but there are ways to virtually guarantee contracts through smart structuring and that is what Cox did here. Cox received a $26 million signing bonus and a $6 million option bonus which creates a huge dead money charge if the Eagles were to think of releasing him.

The $32 million ties Dareus for the most friendly contract structure and is more or less $7 million more than anyone else in the group at the time they signed their contract. These kind of signing bonuses for a non-QB are tremendous and in both cases the players did great for themselves.

Cox makes out even better with early vesting dates that make it more difficult for the Eagles to consider releasing him. His 2018 and part of his 2019 salary will become fully guaranteed in 2017 which is a major win for the player. So even though the on paper full guarantee is not anything record setting everything else in the deal is more or less terrific for Cox.

In terms of year by year cash, again I don’t see this moving the market for a Miller. While it is another data point to consider its not something that completely turns the market on its head.

Cox was not able to get the same up front payment terms as Dareus and will be right in line with Vernon over the first two new years of the contract. Cox will take over the second spot in year 3 and he will slightly maintain an edge over Vernon in year 5. The bigger difference between Cox and Vernon is that Vernon will be a free agent after 5 years while Cox will be under contract an additional season. That is probably not a big concern for Cox though.

I think at this point it is safe to say that the Vernon deal signing by the Giants this year is clearly the market defining deal. Suh is still an outlier but the numbers here are designed to slowly build on Vernon’s deal. Vernon’s contract was a major leap from the Justin Houston contract. There is a bit of Dareus in here but that contract also remains an outlier of sorts with the up front cash.

Cox’ contract should become the next jumping point for the next wave of extensions or free agents not named Miller. This contract should further bolster Muhammad Wilkerson’s demands on a new contract with the Jets and I cant see that contract happening. Wilkersons in the most immediate contract on the horizon.

The Cox contract will further the Eagles move into superstar pay strategy that is currently used by the Packers and Seahawks. When looking at the Eagles moves this offseason I think it further justifies why they did what they did to draft a quarterback. While you can defer cap charges, as they did here, for a year or two eventually there comes a time where you can not do that. If you are forced into paying a veteran $18-$20M a year it makes it very difficult to handle a roster like Philadelphia’s.

With a rookie QB a team can possibly get $20 million in play for a $7 million salary. That $13 million benefit can be spread around the roster so you can maintain a high priced roster for a few seasons. By the time the rookie is signed to a market value extension most of the big priced players from today will be gone. Chase Daniel remains the failsafe in the event Carson Wentz fails so you don’t waste a high priced roster because of the QB. So while a good portion of the benefit goes to the backup I can understand the logic in the construction.

The Eagles may be a better case study than the other teams with expensive rosters since they are the one with the big questions at quarterback. If Wentz is great then they wont be any different than Seattle, but if he struggles it will give a better idea of how a non-great QB team can do with a roster that is in theory very good.

In light of the money the Eagles are paying Cox it is hard to justify not doing this contract last year. All I can think is that Chip Kelly, who looked to move Cox as part of a package to Tennessee, did not see Cox as a future piece for the team. Not only would the Eagles have saved a few dollars by signing prior to free agency this year but they would have been able to reduce the cap charges even further. My assumption is that the guys in the Eagles front office probably wanted to do this deal last season but were told not to do so. We’ll have to wait and see if that was a mistake.

Let’s try to make this clearer. First, Cox’s contract value did not change for 2016. Some/most of his 2016 salary is now part of a bonus. Second, this is an extension, we should look at what it means in new money and new years. This is simple here, cause nothing really changed for the cap charge in 2016.

I would expect Donald’s contract to follow this model. The first four new years of new money[2017 – 2020] are almost fully guaranteed.

Cox’s salary = 9.5% of cap in the first 4 years. 8.5% in the last 2 years.

That is in line with 8.9% of the cap for a franchise DT. The biggest thing imo is that the contract is virtually guaranteed or 4 years. That is a long time for a player to play at that level.

By the time Donald gets a new contract it could be for ~19M/year = or -, but it will probably be for ~9.0% of the cap.

Watt’s got 10.1%, but he is considered a DE. imo Suh got 10.5%. I consider this a bit of an outlier. I use my own models for this. Somebody else might get slightly different numbers.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Agamemnon.

NFL Franchise Tag: Everything You Need to Know

Teams can continuously franchise players, but it’ll cost them to do that. As had been the case previously, a player tagged a second straight year would have his number set at 120 percent of the previous figure. A third straight year? That’s where things change, and the percentage goes up to 144.

It’s clear that signing a player to a long-term deal is mutually beneficial for teams and player after the first year, if the team still views the player as one worth a long-term deal.

10 things to know about the franchise tag

10 things to know about the franchise tag
Posted by Mike Florio on February 28, 2013, 2:31 PM EDT
Super Bowl XLVII – Baltimore Ravens v San Francisco 49ers Getty Images

The franchise tag is old enough to vote, and nearly old enough to drink. The tag made its annual return more than a week ago. Unlike the Great Pumpkin, the tool for restricting a player’s ability to move from team to team will indeed make an appearance, in multiple NFL cities.

Eventually. We think. Perhaps starting as soon as today.

So here are 10 things to know about the tag. You may have already known them. You may have known and forgotten. Or you may not have known at all.

Or perhaps that you didn’t want to know.

1. The formula has changed.
.
Under prior labor deals, the non-exclusive franchise tag was determined by calculating the average of the five highest-paid players at each position from the prior year. Under the 2011 CBA, the franchise tenders come from a more complex procedure.
.
Under Article 10, Section 2 of the CBA, the number is based on the five-year average cap percentage for the tag at each position.
.
So it’s no longer driven by what players at the same position made in the prior season, but by the average cap percentage consumed by the franchise tender over five years. Then, that percentage will be applied to the 2013 salary cap to determine the franchise tender at each position.
.
Already confused? We’ve got nine more.

2. In some cases, the formula doesn’t matter.

A player getting the non-exclusive franchise tag is entitled to the greater of the formula clumsily explained above (and that was the fourth draft of it) or 120 percent of the player’s cap number from the prior year.

That’s why, for example, the franchise tender for Dolphins tackle Jake Long would be much higher than the franchise tender for an offensive lineman. Long made enough in 2012 to result in a 20-percent raise, trumping the franchise tender.

This dynamic often applies to players who were taken high in the draft before the implementation of the rookie wage scale. As rookie contracts expire under the new labor deal, franchise tenders for many of them will be lower.

3. The transition tag has become meaningless.

Teams can use, in any given year, one franchise tag or one transition tag. The transition tag gives a team the right to match an offer sheet, but no compensation if the team chooses not to match.

At one point, the transition player’s contract was not fully guaranteed once it was accepted by the player. It now is.

The fact that the guaranteed pay on the one-year transition tender isn’t much less than the guaranteed pay for the one-year franchise tender, coupled with the lack of draft-pick compensation, has made the transition tag largely meaningless.

4. Franchise tags can be withdrawn.

The amount of the franchise tender becomes fully guaranteed once the player signs it. Since signing the franchise tender puts the player under contract, requiring him to show up to all mandatory offseason activities and training camp, some players choose to wait deep into the preseason before inking the offer.

The risk is that the franchise tag can be withdrawn, at any time, before it has been signed.

It doesn’t happen often, but it’s not unprecedented. Especially in Philly. In 2002, the Eagles pulled the franchise tag from linebacker Jeremiah Trotter in early April. Three years later, the Eagles removed the franchise tag from defensive tackle Corey Simon in late August.

The move immediately converts the player to an unrestricted free agent. But if it comes after the big money has been spent, the player will have a hard time getting the pay day he would have realized on the first day of free agency.

5. Franchise tender is guaranteed, with one exception.

Once a player signs the franchise tag, the one-year salary becomes fully guaranteed. But there’s a little-known exception.

Under Article 10, Section 2(c) of the CBA, the contract can be terminated if the player fails “to establish or maintain his excellent physical condition.”

Any effort to do so would result in a review of the situation by a neutral physician and, eventually and inevitably, arbitration. Still, the franchise tender technically isn’t fully and completely guaranteed.

6. No non-quarterback will be tagged more than twice.

Former Seahawks tackle Walter Jones once spent three straight years under the franchise tag, pocketing a total of $20 million and then signing a long-term deal that paid him $20 million more guaranteed, back when $20 million was a very big deal for NFL purposes.

Jones rolled the dice on bearing the injury risk for the three franchise years, and he won. Most players prefer the certainty of a long-term deal.

That’s why the 2006 CBA changed the formula to pay a non-quarterback the quarterback franchise tender if he’s tagged a third time.

Quarterbacks are protected, too. In the third year of the franchise tag, they get at least a 44-percent raise over their cap number in the prior year.

7. Arguably, no player can be tagged more than three times.

Last year’s grievance filed by Saints quarterback Drew Brees established that, if a player is tagged once by two different teams, it counts as being tagged twice. Which would have entitled him to a 44-percent raise in 2013, if he had played under the franchise tag last year for the Saints. (He was tagged in 2005 by the Chargers.)

Based on the language of the CBA, there’s an argument to be made that no player may ever be tagged more than three times during the course of his career.

Of course, tagging a player a fourth time would entail paying out a second 44-percent raise one year after paying out an initial 44-percent raise. Which would make it highly unlikely that any team would ever want to use the tag more than three times.

8. It’s cheap to tag kickers and punters.

There’s a belief among some fans that the use of the franchise tag meant that the player was a “franchise player.” And so, when a team uses the tag on a punter or a kicker, fans are confused and/or amused.

But the formula for calculating franchise tenders has made it cheaper to use the tag than to sign the player to a market-value deal.

At $2.9 million for 2013, more kickers and punters could find themselves being regarded as “franchise players.”

9. Long-term deals can be negotiated, through July 15.

Previously, the window for a team signing its franchise player to a long-term deal closed not long after the free-agency period started and then opened again on July 15. Now, the window remains open until July 15.

After July 15, the franchise player can sign only a one-year deal with his current team. It can be for more than the franchise tender, and it can include other terms, like playing-time or performance triggers that would prevent the tag from being used again.

But the duration can be no more than one year.

10. One offer sheet may be signed, through July 15.

For a player carrying the non-exclusive tag, he can negotiate with any other team. Ultimately, one offer sheet can be signed.

Once it’s signed, the situation simplifies considerably. The player’s current team will match the offer and keep him, or the player’s team will not match the offer and collect a pair of first-round picks from the new team.

The two first-round picks given as compensation must be the team’s original picks — not any picks obtained via trade or otherwise.

And there’s a loophole which, eventually, a desperate coach or G.M. may use. The period for signing franchise players to offer sheets lingers beyond the current year’s draft. Thus, for example, a team that wants to sign quarterback Joe Flacco (if the Ravens use the non-exclusive tag) could, in theory, wait until after the draft, sign Flacco to a front-loaded offer sheet that the Ravens can’t match, and then surrender not the 2013 and 2014 first-round picks, but the first-round picks for 2014 and 2015.

There’s nothing in the labor deal that prevents this from happening until July 15, after which date the player can sign only a one-year deal with his current team.

The Rams have spent~98% of the their cap. Imagine trying to fit 2 players that count ~23% of the cap into this roster. Hard choices have to be made. imo

You can subtract Foles and the present cost of Goff and Donald. That is ~10%. We still have to save another ~14%?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Agamemnon.

zn wrote:

Oh I absolutely agree, hard choices.

It’s just that I would choose for a Donald.

If I had to fit AD in THIS year at (as a hypothetical) 21 M a year, I would sacrifice Johnson and Saffold. I would figure they could do more with a new CB plus AD than they could with Johnson and a different DT. And of course guards are easier to replace than elite DTs.

I agree that it’s different visions and different approaches. Given that, I favor the elite DT no matter what.

…

I would do that this year, although I am not as certain about doing it as you are. 😉

NO and Pitt have 2 players taking 23%+ of the cap. A couple others are close.

Ok, you want to find good players. You want to keep good players. At some point you can’t keep them all because you have a salary cap. You have to replace the players you lose with cheaper players. The best way to do that is through the draft. The more draft choices you have, the more chances you have to do that. But we knew that already. My stuff just gives me a better idea of different ways to do a cap model. Or at least that I shouldn’t/can’t spend more than 53% of the cap on premium players(players that make more 3M/yr in 2016). Cause I don’t want below average players as starters. imo

The numbers parts just give me reasonable baselines. They aren’t written in stone.

zn wrote:

As far as following it. It isn’t that kind of information. I put it out there and you make of it what you will. I am making observations more than finding a perfect model

It’s not a matter of whether it’s a perfect model or not. I just see numbers and I have no idea what the numbers mean. It wasn’t an advanced question on my part, it’s a basic question. So it’s like you wrote “2 + x = Y” and I asked “what do the symbols + and = mean?”

It is a list of all the teams in the nlf. It has two parts. One column is how much of the cap is dedicated to 2 players and the other is how much of the cap is dedicated to 4 players.

I added each column and divided by 32 to find an average of how much cap space was given to the top 2 players and the top 4 players per team.

The average was 18.5% for the top 2 players and 29.5% for the top 4 players.

Now I know which teams are the closest and farthest from the average. Which teams put a lot of money into 2 players, 4 players and which teams put the least money in only 2 or 4 players.

Pitt did both. They used 24% of their cap on 2 players. They used 39% of their cap on 4 players. 100 – 39 = 61. I also know that Pitt used 61% of their cap to pay the remaining 49 players of 53. *note: I ignore the other expenses IR, etc.

The average salary of their lowest 49 players = 61/49 = 1.2% of the cap for each of the 49. 1.2% of the cap is $1.9M/player.

This years cap of 155M divided by 53 players = $2.9M/player. or in percents = 1.9% of the cap/player.

I like to use %s cause that doesn’t change although the money each year does, the relative value of each player doesn’t change.

Est. Cap Space (Top 51): $2,927,740

8 players at 59.5%. The next 45 players fit in 40.5% of the cap. Pitt will have find a bit of cap space for IR and the PQ and going to 53 players. $2.9M isn’t enough. imo

Pitt also used 24% of their cap on 2 players. They used 39% of their cap on 4 players.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/cap/

They have 27 players making minimum wage and the will still need to adjust their cap space a bit.

This is what I did above. I just did it for all the teams, but stopped after doing 2 and 4 players. I then did an average and looked to see which teams spent the most for the fewest players. Your answer has to be here somewhere? right? 😉

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Agamemnon.

zn wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

Do you think there is a team out there that uses 60% of the cap for 8-10 players?

Well you;re being more exact than I am. I was always just working with a general idea. I just want to do quick hit observations without tons of calculation. To me major contracts are 6 M or more, and I just noticed that most teams spend anywhere from 50-60% of the cap on those players. I didn’t do anything remotely like the research you did. I just wing it. (And I respect your research, it’s very interesting and smart stuff.)

Seattle I know has (appx.) 58.7% of the cap tied up with 10 players. (90.3+ M out of 153.9 M.)

I’m not sure…are we still discussing whether to keep Donald? To me a defense with Donald and then maybe 1 or 2 fewer top contract players is going to be better than a defense with 1 or 2 more top players and no Donald.

It just may be rare for a team to have both (1)a franchise qb who has (or will have) a starting qb level 2nd contract, and (2) an elite, defense-altering DT.

So to me, it’s not as crucial to have a lot of top players dominating the cap (like Seattle does). If having both Goff and Donald edges a player or 2 out of the top tier contracts so they have 1 or 2 fewer, I think it will still be a better team than the one that doesn’t have the qb plus Donald.

…

You were discussing Donald/Goff as a specific. I was more discussing Donald/Salary Cap as a general thing. You included roster building as a specific. I never did more than a general, figuring good cap would help good roster.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Agamemnon.

NE is 14 players at 56.8%, using my stuff, $3M+.

NE is 6 players at 33.5% using your stuff, $6M+.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Agamemnon.