This is Prof's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Prof's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
First of all, I have not read anywhere that it is six years, so could you get a source for that? But, assuming you are right, here is what I mean. Suppose he voids his sixth year and negotiates a new contract. Let's use your numbers and say we pay him $52M for the first five years. Under his new (second) contract, lets assume that with the prorated signing bonus and annual salary that he earns $16M in that first year (which would be his sixth year with us) of his second contract. This is probably a reasonable number, based on inflation. Then we would be paying him 52+16 = $68 million for his first six years with us. Yes, this is less than $72M but not 16% less. Moreover, I still think we are paying him $58M for five years, not six years, which would put him at $74M for the first six years here.
1 reply
I guess we'll have to see how much that sixth year salary is to know for sure... But, once you knock off that sixth year and then add in whatever we will have to pay him in the first year of his new contract, there is no way that Ryan will be earning 16% more than Jake for their first six years here. My guess is that Jake will earn much more than Ryan if he opts out of the sixth year of his contract.
1 reply
Parrothead: I'm not surprised that Jake got paid less per year than Russell got last year. There is a general understanding that franchise QBs get paid a premium. Similarly, given that Ryan is a QB, I don't think that the fact that Jake's guaranteed portion is "only" 3.3% higher than Ryan's is that surprising either. I wasn't aware that we actually signed him to a six-year deal, but, as you say, this will easily be voidable by him (unless he stinks it up). You are suggesting, then, that we are only paying him $52 million for the first five years? Where did you get that figure? I have never seen it. It sounds like you estimated based on projected salary increases. Are the actual per year amounts not delineated?
1 reply
Armando, I've got to vehemently disagree that the Dolphins did better than the Falcons. If we really believe that Jake Long will be a fixture at left tackle and a perennial Pro Bowler (which we should believe for a number one pick), then the most important factor is not the size of the signing bonus but rather the length of the contract. We paid him $58M for five years; I'd much rather have paid him $72M for six years. Here is why: Fast forward five years. Do you think we will be able to resign him for $14M for the first year of his next contract? No way! At that point Pro Bowl lineman will be earning more than $20M per year, which means that we will be paying much more than $72 million for the first six years of service we get from Jake Long (if we can even afford to resign him). You wouldn't have been happy if he had signed for one year for the bargain price of one million dollars, right? Well, this is the same idea stretched out a bit longer. Those second contracts are huge and must be put off as long as possible. Don't the Dolphins understand inflation?
1 reply