That's not what I meant Lym. I was just talking about the turnover over the last 24 months. It has to be a little unnerving to negotiate a contract with someone you're not sure is going to be there a year from now. I'm not saying he gets a share of the decision making. I'm saying the decision making has led to him being less than enthused about staying in Cleveland. Free agency is there to give players the right to play where they like. The tags can delay that but inevitably he'll get an opportunity to go where he likes if that's what he chooses to do. There's nothing wrong with a guy wanting to play elsewhere. Mack is the exception, not Ward. Most guys have bumps and bruises. Not looking it up but I don't remember him missing much time the last two seasons. Maybe I'm wrong. 1) Yes 2) No Mack has had his hand in the pile with Jackson. By all indications he's a helluva teammate and great leader on that team. I don't think the release of Dqwell sat well with any of the Browns veterans. It's not like they don't have the cash.
NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reports transition-tagged C Alex Mack's five-year offer sheet with the Jaguars is worth $42 million, and includes a player opt-out clause after 2015. The deal includes $18 million guaranteed over the first two seasons. The $8.4 million average annual value will make Mack the highest-paid center in the league. Mack can void the deal after 2015, and cannot be franchise tagged if he does so. However, if Mack chooses not to opt out, he'll be guaranteed $8 million for 2016. It's a creative clause, but hardly a roadblock to the Browns matching. Mack is expected to officially sign on Friday, while Cleveland is expected to match.
I was referring to these two statements when I asked if you'd feel differently... "In the end, this is really no hair brained scheme to outsmart anyone. It is what it is, an over payment of one of the top players at his position. " "So...take this at face value and leave the theatrics to the professionals, this was a simple free agency deal that a franchise chose to over spend to get that player to come to their team. That is all this is... " I don't believe when the dust clears this will be true. I don't believe they would spend the amount of time they have spent working on this, with all the other things they need to be doing to prepare for the 2014 season to simply offer him a really expensive contract. He should have been the highest paid center before the Jags ever got involved because he's a better player than the guy who currently holds that title. Not to mention that contract was constructed a few years ago and that's the nature of NFL contracts. They escalate. This conversation started with me suggesting there was going to be something written into the contract that would make it very difficult for the Browns to match. I gave two examples. The first was a one year deal for 15 million. The second was a 5 year deal with a player option for years 2-5. In either case, it was my opinion that it would be structured in a way that allowed Mack to walk after a year (now that I think about it, it would probably also include a clause that prevented him from being franchised again). You thought that was a fantasy. Everything I've read up until now only confirms my belief. Front-loaded with the potential to be a very short term deal that he can extend into a long-term deal with the Jags but would probably decline to do with the Browns. And if that comes to fruition it is indeed a "hair-brained" scheme.
If that's true I see Haslam getting Farmer to have the deal matched before the ink on Mack's signature dries. Probably should have said as beer thirty nears :[ Been a crazy week in RL for me so will now wait till the Alex Mack ordeal is settled... for now... and hey *DRINK* Yup it's that time... Catch ya'll on the flip side.
All this talk about the line and who is gonna play where and who is going to draft who. Dont forget that Weeden and his 6 seconds till release is gone. You can have average lineman when your QB can actually read a defense and get the ball out of his hands 2 seconds faster than the future Cowboys ring of honor member.
The Morning Kickoff ? Upon further review: The gut reaction to the prospect of the Browns losing center Alex Mack was that they bungled the whole thing. First, they failed last year to secure Mack to a long-term contract when they held the upper hand. That was on Joe Banner?s management team. Mack reacted by telling the club to table talks until after the 2013 season. And then there was a surprise coaching change, followed by a stunning front office housecleaning. That was on owner Jimmy Haslam. The shakeup resulted in Mack losing the only offensive line coach he had known in the NFL, George Warhop, and a head coach that he really liked, Rob Chudzinski. Like others in the Browns? locker room, Mack slowly lost hope of ever achieving team success with an organization that changed regimes every one or two years. After the 2013 season, Mack departed knowing in his heart that he did not want to return. The Browns still had the leverage, though, to restrict Mack?s movement by applying the franchise tag to him. But instead of franchising him and guaranteeing themselves two first-round draft choices as compensation, the Browns did something most considered dumb. They gave him the transition tag, which merely secured the Browns the right to match any offer, but promised no compensation if he left. And that was on General Manager Ray Farmer. Why would they not franchise Mack for a 2014 salary of $11.6 million and remove all doubt of him leaving? Why would they give Mack the $10.039 million transition tag with the opportunity to attract another team to construct an obscene multi-year deal? ?I don?t think it was dumb,? a league source observing the situation with great interest said to me. ?I think there were some deep divisions in his value to the team. That?s reflected in taking this goofy route. I think there were people in the building that thought, ?Do we really want to do a 5y/$40m deal for a center ? who?s going to be 29 in November??? The business of football: When contemplating the Browns? next move, it?s important to take all emotions out of the decision. So, Mack doesn?t want play for the Browns? Then let him go! Who needs him? That not only would be an emotional knee-jerk, it would be a dangerous precedent to set. Merely granting Mack his wish to play elsewhere would send an unwanted message to other players who may become disgruntled in the future: If you want out, just play like you want out or say you want out. No, if the Browns consider Mack a player they can not lose, then they should match Jacksonville?s offer sheet. Mack is a consummate professional. In my opinion, he would suck it up and come back and practice and play as hard as he always has. Mack indeed is the epitome of the player you want on your team. But he plays center. An important position? Yes. A difference-making position? Absolutely not. ?It?s easier to find a serviceable center than to find front-line corners, wideouts, D-tackles or offensive tackles,? said the source. Quick quiz: Who is Brian de la Puente? He was the starting center for the New Orleans Saints the past four seasons. In his four years, the Saints won 42 games and lost 22. And when de la Puente?s contract expired this year, the Saints didn?t think twice about letting him leave in free agency. Centers are replaceable. The Browns already are paying left tackle Joe Thomas $12.3 million (cap figure) this year. Tying up Mack for $8 million-plus a year for five years would hurt the Browns? ability to extend the contracts of younger core players at other, more crucial positions. Such as: Cornerback Joe Haden, 25; tight end Jordan Cameron, 25; pass rusher Jabaal Sheard, soon to be 25; defensive tackle Phil Taylor, 26; quarterback Brian Hoyer, 28; and, of course, receiver Josh Gordon, who turns23 next week. The bailout: Would the loss of Mack affect the Browns? draft? Indeed it would. Weeks ago, I reached the conclusion that the Browns would choose their next quarterback with their second pick, No. 26 overall, and that they would use their first pick, No. 4, on the best player available. The group of players under consideration for No. 4 are closely bunched ? pass rusher Jadeveon Clowney, linebacker Khalil Mack, receiver Sammy Watkins and offensive linemen Greg Robinson and Jake Matthews. Choosing from the group will come down to availability and need. Clearly, if Mack leaves, offensive line ? not necessarily center ? becomes a greater priority. The Browns? contingency plan likely involves moving left guard John Greco to center, where he has filled in on occasion and should play adequately when exclusively focused on the position. So that would leave guard as a priority. Both Robinson and Matthews are considered blue-chip prospects at the glamour left tackle position. But Robinson is raw as a pass protector and some believe breaking him in at guard ? at which he was considered the No. 2 prospect in the nation coming out of high school ? would aid his pro development. And Matthews, like his father Bruce, the Hall of Famer, has the amazing versatility to excel at guard, too, if need be. The benefit of taking Robinson or Matthews is that either can still grow into the role of elite tackle ? on either side ? while commanding salaries through their first five years at a fraction of what Mack will cost. Mack always will be simply a center. The undeniable appearance of the Mack situation is that the Browns? rookie front office fell victim to the brilliance of agent Marv Demoff, who shrewdly crafted an offer sheet that secured Mack?s freedom from the losing culture he endured in Cleveland. For sure, Demoff and Mack took advantage fairly and squarely of the opportunity presented by the Browns. But more likely, the victims are the Jacksonville Jaguars. Imagine a 4-12 team without a star quarterback, receiver, cornerback, pass rusher or running back making a center its highest-paid player. How dumb is that?
Okay . . . time to pump the brakes here. It is believed that the Browns used the Transition Tag on Mack to (a) simply allow Mack to test the Free Agent market and (b) buy some time to consummate a long term deal with him. If needed, they could have hit him with the Franchise Tag next year to buy even more time. The Transition Tag this year costs a little over $10M. The Franchise Tag next year would be in the range of $12M. If the Browns had already considered paying him $22M over the next two years (via the Transition and Franchise Tags) why wouldn't pony up $20M for the same two year period? Obviously, the Franchise Tag for 2015 becomes a mute point as Mack will probably sign the Jag's offer and the Browns will match it meaning they have Mack under contract for at least the next two years. Should Mack opt to void the contract after these two years . . . okay - adios Alex. But then the Browns would no doubt receive some form of draft pick compensation (which they do not get this year if they decide not to match the offer) -and- they get two years to groom his replacement.
The thing w this deal is nobody on here has a clue what was offered when they met in Cali....mayb the Browns offered only $6-7 mill/yr over a period of 3-5 yrs...now its $9 mill/yr Im sure Jax wouldnt have been dumb enough to make a similar offer that the Browns made if they truly wanted the guy
I don't know where this started but I think it's severely flawed... 1) I don't believe for a second they are looking ahead at 2015 2) Even if you assume they have they couldn't possibly make an informed decision as to whether or not they would tag him again. It's a full season away. 3) Very rarely do teams tag a player for a second time. Since the new CBA (excluding kickers) 14 players have played on the franchise tag. Only one (Anthony Spencer) was tagged a second time and the Cowboys are probably the worst team in the league at cap management. Four signed a deal the following year with the team that tagged them. Nine of the 14 left the following year in free agency. It rarely happens for a reason. If a team and a player can't come to an agreement the first time around the likelihood is pretty slim they'll come to an agreement the second time. Players don't like being franchised in their prime. They are outraged if it's done a second time. 4) Guaranteeing 10 million for this season and guaranteeing 12 million next season are two separate acts 12 months apart using everything you've learned in that year to make the second decision. Guaranteeing someone two years' salary two seasons in advance without any guarantee the player is going to help your franchise for the next 4-5 seasons is insane. It would be an unprecedented decision. If Mack signs a contract structured the way it is rumored to be he is sending a pretty clear message. No one makes you sign a contract like that. He is telling the Browns he doesn't want to be in Cleveland. If he was willing to play in either city he would sign a traditional contract - which is still a possibility. I don't believe the Browns will match a contract structured in that way.
The Jags could simply be testing to see if Cleveland will sign off on this deal then they might come back with a more top heavy deal to try and pry him away. If Jacksonville gets Mack on this deal then its better for them, but perhaps they already have another figure that they are willing to go with that is higher than this one. Total speculation on my part, but I would think that this is more along the lines of the opening scene than it is the curtain call.
I was under the impression that a team only has one chance to sign a player. Once he signs the Jacksonville offer, and if the Browns match that offer . . . then isn't Mack under contract to the Browns? If so, then how can Jacksonville come back with another offer?
Yep, you are right, the Jags get one chance only to strike a deal that Cleveland does not want to match. I have not considered this up till now (honestly never read up on the transition tag) but it does make it extremely difficult for Jacksonville to make this offer in a manner that would deter the Browns from signing off on it. Unless there is an option for Mack to get out after one year it appears to be a win-win kind of situation for Cleveland from the standpoint of keeping him on for 2 seasons even if Mack does not want to be here.
I wuld not say win win....most of their own big FA contracts are after next season....appx amounts Haden-$14 mill, Cameron-$8 mill, Taylor-$8 mill, Rubin-$6 mill, Sheard-$7 mill, Skrine-$4 mill and Hoyer-depends on his season....blows up $6 mill.....ur talking over $50 mill just on these guys.
It will be tight but possible. o Sheard, Rubin and/or Skrine may have say adios. That's $17M right there. o Plus there's currently $18M in dead money on the books this this year. Don't know how much of that goes away next year. o We're currently around $30M under the cap right now (includes the current base for all the players you listed). Figure (what?) $12M for rookie contracts? That puts us at around $18M carryover into next year. o I understand the cap will go up another $10M again next year. Without debating what you think those players will get in their next contract, if you do the math, we should be somewhere around $52 - 54M in cap space at the start of next year. (I only used half of the dead money on the books for Richardson, Weeden, Jackson and Bess as they are the four players that eat the vast majority of the dead money.) Hoyer is the wild card. If he lights it up, that a good problem to have. If he doesn't - meh.
There is absolutely no financial reason they can't sign Mack and every other stud young player on their roster - which begs the question why the heck didn't Banner just pay the man last summer. Looking ahead at 2015 they have 50 players under contract and only 81 million on the books. Compare that to a team like the Steelers who have only 28 players under contract and 100 million on the books. The Ravens have 31 players and 123 million on the books. If you believe the early cap projections that leaves about 60 million* in cap room before displacement (Haden, Cameron, Mack, Rubin, Sheard will replace players 47-50). It also doesn't include any unused cap money from 2014 that is carried over and I seriously doubt they are going to spend another 30 million between now and the end of the year. The salary cap is not an issue in Cleveland. You can sign everyone and still have plenty of money left over. *That includes healthy cap numbers for guys like Kruger (8.2M) and Bryant (7M) who may or may not be worth that much at positions the Browns have younger, more talented players. p.s. Dead money is only accumulated when you cut players after June 1st - or cut them prior to June 1st and designate them a June 1 cut (I think you are allowed two of those). Cleveland has no dead money on the books for 2015.
Absolutely right beach..In the end this whole embarrassment could have been avoided, if not for Banner's egotistical style of managing. Wait...wasn't Lombardi SUPPOSED to be the GM? That whole situation was an embarrassment. But, I already laid out the free agency situation in two other posts. Just like you said beach, this signing should mean little to getting those free agents signed...Except for Hoyer, if he becomes a top 5 QB overnight... There's only one flaw... The reality of this statement is only partially correct...They will be replacing themselves, just at a higher rate. So their cap money will come off the books and whatever contract they sign will go back on the books... I will use Stopper's example: Haden-$14 mill (though I believe this to be high estimate) Haden's $9M comes off the books, so his REAL cap number increase is only $5M, not $14M like Stopper is suggesting. Another; Rubin $8M comes off the books, so his REAL cap number actually DECREASES by $2M, not $6M (which is in line, but I am not convinced he will be back.) I believe reality is, either Rubin or Taylor will be replaced by younger players from the draft. Rubin is destined to go back to a 4-3 DT, even though I think he has performed well at what ever position each regime has asked of him. So that cap number increase for these two players, using Stopper's numbers, is only $3M, NOT $20M like Stopper suggested.
(EDIT I didn't even address the statement by you here...There wasn't an opportunity to sign a traditional contract beach. As soon as Mack was tagged, it became the Agent's job to find a willing partner to structure a contract that would in some way deter the Browns from matching it, otherwise, there isn't a team to negotiate with. In that case you are wasting the time of your GM and his staff, because the Browns wouldn't hesitate to match that deal, so the team wouldn't even negotiate with you. I can say with confidence, I believe this contract was written by Demoff's office and the Jaguars simply told him to keep coming back until he had something they were willing to sign. I don't think they went offer, counter offer like is traditionally done. The Jaguars will not put a player ahead of the franchise simply because they believe the player will stick to his word 1-2-3 years down the road. This contract was always going to be friendly and the Jaguars simply said, make it friendly to the club, or we won't sign it and that's what they did and now the Browns will match. Simple as that...They had to, in good faith, put something in the contract to deter the Browns, otherwise there would be no need for the Jaguars in negotiations. Putting an player option after year 2, for a reasonable amount of money I might add, isn't much of a deterrent in the end. Alex Mack and his agent, I am sure, felt it doesn't matter who this contract is with, they have an out after year two , if the center position money increases over that time. If it decreases for whatever reason, well they have that option as well. OK, here are Mack's EXACT words beach, just so you know how he is REALLY feeling and not what Jason LaConfora tells you he is feeling and you believe... That doesn't say "If they fire this coach then I am pissed and want out of Cleveland as fast as I can find a plane ticket, and don't try to talk me out of it" ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Then AFTER the firing he went on to say this: THOSE are words from Alex Mack's mouth, not national talking heads writing/saying what he is thinking... His "feelings" on this matter are "I think they liked what they heard from me or they wouldn?t have tagged me. It was fun to talk to them. Now, we just go from there. It?s nice to possibly play in a system that fits your skill set and sets you up for success. That?s what I got from that meeting."
Haden isn't on the books in 2015. Neither are any of the other guys I listed. So they are in fact displacing the 47-50th men on the roster. But Stopper's numbers are off for another reason. You can't use their yearly average to determine their impact in any of those scenarios. Say Haden signed for 6 years, 72 million (which I believe is nuts). His cap impact would probably look more like: 2015: 6 million 2016: 8 million 2017: 10 million 2018: 13 million 2019: 15 million 2020: 15 million And then there would be 4-5 million of that as incentives. By the time he truly impacts the cap ('18) the cap will have risen proportionately to his contract and some of the other guys that are impacting the cap in '15 like Kruger, Whitner and Bryant (22M combined in '15) will be gone and replaced with guys younger and cheaper. The last thing the Browns need to worry about is cap space - unless of course you want to worry they have work to do to meet their minimum. Nothing will be more embarrassing than if the Browns have to pay back a portion of cash to players that are no longer on the roster because they didn't spend enough from '13-'16.
Very true beach!! It is difficult enough to explain some of this though, Keep It Simple Stupid is usually the easiest way to understand. Just averaging the contract is the easiest way to do it until the structure is known. That's what I have been saying all along...I AM WORRIED about the cap floor! They need to start spending to catch up. 2013 was a very down year and if I am not mistaken at some point they must catch up...pretty sure I'm not mistaken on THAT point. *SCRATCH*
