Do it now or wait and see? (Foles contract)

[Alan]

drasconis with a question:
Why do you put the line at the first ten games? Is there a mjor factor at that point that changes it? Thanks

There is a certain amount of games you can miss because of a contract dispute (or other reasons) and still have it count as a season contract wise. You don't get paid for those games but your lack of participation and denying the team your services is supposed to force them into seeing things your way. I don't think anyone has ever actually done that, just as no one has decided not to play for the franchise tag a team put on them. I think some have held out for a couple of games though.

I also don't think it's 10 games (I think you have to play at least half the season?) but that's unimportant to his point.

 

[Alan]

TheTackle thinking it's better to be safe than sorry:
You point about the QBs in the 2016 draft may well be true, but we would be far better of with Foles on board, even if we do decide we should trade up for one... it is a long way to go to the draft and I would not start betting our future on us getting 'the' QB highest on our board come May 2016

Exactly why there have been long term deals done with QBs whose on field accomplishments have been less than stellar.

Better the mediocre QB in the hand than the great QB in the bush.

 

[Riverumbbq]

You make some excellent points, and I would like to know the CAP implications of signing him after the season has started, as I would think that it would also benefit the team this year and next, if part of the hit is commuted to 2016

You point about the QBs in the 2016 draft may well be true, but we would be far better of with Foles on board, even if we do decide we should trade up for one... it is a long way to go to the draft and I would not start betting our future on us getting 'the' QB highest on our board come May 2016

Well, any new contract wouldn't go into effect until 2016, so there would be no change in the 2015 CAP with regards to Foles. Also, often enough, the first year of a long term contract is fairly CAP friendly, even if primarily front loaded. I'd also guess that the contract would be for 5 or 6 years.

While I understand your desire to keep Foles as insurance should we make plans to draft a top 2016 prospect, chances are even his failure this season may push his cost to more than what we want to spend for what would amount to a stop-gap starter while a rookie gets up to speed. He isn't going to sign a one or two year deal unless he is injured and misses a good portion of this season. If Foles is unsigned when free agency begins, doubtful he remains so when the Rams choose his successor in the draft. He'll be long gone by then. I'm not betting on anything at this point, that's why I offered two options, ... if the Rams collapse this season they will have a fairly high first round draft pick, they will also have two 2'nds to help them move up if they find it necessary. And this next 2016 draft is MUCH deeper at QB than 2015. In the event Foles looks to be doing well as the season unfolds, this draft scenario disappears completely and the Rams will just pay Foles. Either way, the Rams come out ahead, Foles will become our feature QB or we will draft a top candidate. Foles is in the drivers seat, his success puts this all to rest. jmo.

 

[TheTackle]

Well, any new contract wouldn't go into effect until 2016

I do not agree with much of your post and particularly with 'Foles is in the drivers seat'.... the team are in the driving seat, as of now...

back to the issue of the CAP

'One of the great myths about the NFL salary cap is that it is a hard cap. It is not; it is soft. The primary reason is allowing for the proration of signing bonuses, allocating for greater short-term cash than cap distribution while depositing the cap leftovers into the future.

Let’s use the Terrell Suggs’ recent extension with the Ravens as an example. Suggs was in the last year of his contract and scheduled to make $7.8 million. The Ravens increased that $7.8 million to $12 million with a completely different structure: $11 million signing bonus and $1 million salary. With the signing bonus now prorated over this year and four additional years, Suggs’ cap number—excluding previous unamortized proration—went from $7.8 million to $3.2 million, calculated as follows: $2.2 million of proration on the new bonus and $1 million salary'

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/26/nfl-salary-cap-explained/

I do not claim to be an expert, but I think a new deal can be structured so that Foles gets an increase in pay this season, with part of the guaranteed money being placed against future CAPs

 

[Riverumbbq]

I do not agree with much of your post and particularly with 'Foles is in the drivers seat'.... the team are in the driving seat, as of now...

back to the issue of the CAP

'One of the great myths about the NFL salary cap is that it is a hard cap. It is not; it is soft. The primary reason is allowing for the proration of signing bonuses, allocating for greater short-term cash than cap distribution while depositing the cap leftovers into the future.

Let’s use the Terrell Suggs’ recent extension with the Ravens as an example. Suggs was in the last year of his contract and scheduled to make $7.8 million. The Ravens increased that $7.8 million to $12 million with a completely different structure: $11 million signing bonus and $1 million salary. With the signing bonus now prorated over this year and four additional years, Suggs’ cap number—excluding previous unamortized proration—went from $7.8 million to $3.2 million, calculated as follows: $2.2 million of proration on the new bonus and $1 million salary'

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/26/nfl-salary-cap-explained/

I do not claim to be an expert, but I think a new deal can be structured so that Foles gets an increase in pay this season, with part of the guaranteed money being placed against future CAPs

I disagree, ... I see the Rams with the leverage (as explained earlier), with Foles in the drivers seat so far as how his 2015 success or failure will determine his future salary expectations long term, whether with the Rams or not. In essence, this is a 'contract year' for Foles and his performance this season directly affects his next.

My understanding is that the Rams won't need to increase Foles' 2015 salary or CAP hit with a renegotiated long term 2016 contract that will pay him a large signing bonus. jmo.

 

[Akrasian]

I do not agree with much of your post and particularly with 'Foles is in the drivers seat'.... the team are in the driving seat, as of now...

back to the issue of the CAP

'One of the great myths about the NFL salary cap is that it is a hard cap. It is not; it is soft. The primary reason is allowing for the proration of signing bonuses, allocating for greater short-term cash than cap distribution while depositing the cap leftovers into the future.

Let’s use the Terrell Suggs’ recent extension with the Ravens as an example. Suggs was in the last year of his contract and scheduled to make $7.8 million. The Ravens increased that $7.8 million to $12 million with a completely different structure: $11 million signing bonus and $1 million salary. With the signing bonus now prorated over this year and four additional years, Suggs’ cap number—excluding previous unamortized proration—went from $7.8 million to $3.2 million, calculated as follows: $2.2 million of proration on the new bonus and $1 million salary'

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/26/nfl-salary-cap-explained/

I do not claim to be an expert, but I think a new deal can be structured so that Foles gets an increase in pay this season, with part of the guaranteed money being placed against future CAPs

The way to do that would be a signing bonus. Keep his base pay at $1.5 million for this season, give him say $18 million in signing bonus with the contract running through 2020 say - that would raise his cap hit this year to $4.5 million, but he would actually have $19.5 million - enough so that unless he's stupid he's set for life, even if he'd like more. Then each year in the contract his cap hit would be $3 million more than his salary. Guarantee his salary - at whatever price it is - for next season, and guarantee part of his 2017 contract - suddenly he has $30 million or so guaranteed, but relatively little dead money after 2017.

 

[RamBill]

ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner breaks down quarterback Nick Foles’ contract negotiations with the team.

Watch Wagoner Talk Foles Contract Negotiations

 

[Alan]

Nick Wagoner needs to stop reading our stuff and pretending it's his! :eek:

 

[TheTackle]

The way to do that would be a signing bonus. Keep his base pay at $1.5 million for this season, give him say $18 million in signing bonus with the contract running through 2020 say - that would raise his cap hit this year to $4.5 million, but he would actually have $19.5 million - enough so that unless he's stupid he's set for life, even if he'd like more. Then each year in the contract his cap hit would be $3 million more than his salary. Guarantee his salary - at whatever price it is - for next season, and guarantee part of his 2017 contract - suddenly he has $30 million or so guaranteed, but relatively little dead money after 2017.

Exactly, you are a scholar and gentleman my friend

That looks like a smart bit of business from a team and fan standpoint... now all we need is someone with deep pockets to sanction the deal, unless of course we are all concerened for Stan's bank account

That would be a very team friendly deal and I would think Nick 'I don't play for money' Foles would be able to finally 'buy' his home and look forward to settling down... in California... joke

 

[Hey Man]

freaking A. @-X- made a thread about this already. Maybe be a little more clear next time, mmmkay?

I commented on the Rams recap in this subject

 

[drasconis]

Thanks sir, appreciate it!

Did see this article on hold out and some other factors that go into it, such as fines and accrued seasons.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...ndbook-exploring-key-issues-for-players-teams

 

[LACHAMP46]

Click for Link HERE!!!!

Mar 13, 2015; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams quarterback Nick Foles (center) is introduced to the media at Rams Park. Foles is joined by Rams head coach Jeff Fisher (left) and general manager Les Snead (right). Mandatory Credit: Billy Hurst-USA TODAY Sports

Signing Nick Foles Long-Term Might be the Right Option
by Nic Moody 23h ago

The St. Louis Rams only traded for former Eagles quarterback Nick Foles a few months ago, but now the word on the street is that St. Louis could be looking to lock him up for a long-term deal, as Ian Rapoport reports:

This has sparked some question marks from Rams fans. Foles has not proven that he can be a good quarterback outside of Chip Kelly’s offense, and some still even question whether or not he is a true first string option. There is no doubt that this is a very high risk play for St. Louis if this deal gets done, but it very well could work out for them in the long run.

Quarterbacks are extremely overpaid. Actually, let me rephrase that, MOST quarterbacks are extremely overpaid. Aaron Rodgers makes a modest $18.2 million against the cap this year, which might actually be way less than he is worth, considering Matt Ryan and Eli Manning will make more this year than Rodgers will, but that is how the market is now, quarterbacks are expensive.

Once you have found a quarterback that can handle your offense and be a product for years to come, the base target is set about $20 million a year, $100 million total. Don’t believe me? Here are the last few quarterbacks to get locked up:

Cam Newton: 5 years–103.8 million

Ryan Tannehill: 6 years–96 million

Andy Dalton: 6 years–115 million

Carson Palmer: 3 years–50 million

Alex Smith: 4 years–68 million

That’s just a few examples, but it proves that if you can prove yourself a starter, you are almost guaranteed an average salary of 15 million plus. Alex Smith is a very reliable option, but only throwing for 3,265 yards and 18 touchdowns hardly seems worth that kind of money. Cam Newton does have legs, but only throwing an 18-12 touchdown to interception ratio with just over 3000 yards hardly seems 100 million worth.

That’s just the market today, and St. Louis knows this. So they basically have two options:

The first is the safest. Let Foles play out this season. If he does good, and can handle the offense, St. Louis will sign him to a six-year, $120 million-dollar deal, and will have their franchise quarterback for the long term. If he doesn’t work out, then St Louis can just let him go, and start building (ugh) Sean Mannion.

The second is more risky, but has a higher payoff. If St. Louis goes ahead and signs Foles now, they might be able to get him at a very reasonable discount. Foles is still unproven on the team, and if St. Louis signs him now, they might be able to get away with an average salary hit around $10-12 million, instead of 20.

Honestly, signing him now is the best option. Foles did a great job in Philadelphia despite that monstrosity of an offense they run. (nothing personal, I just hate it) I truly believe that Foles can succeed in a run-first power offense, especially if he can handle what Chip Kelly made him do. The truth of the matter is, Foles statistically has the numbers in favor of him. If Nick can throw for around 3,000 yards and 15-20 touchdowns, then he will be in the same company as Alex Smith, Colin Kaepernick, and Cam Newton, who all got lucrative extensions. Do you really think Foles can’t do that? He was on pace for over 4000 yards in each of the last two seasons with well over 25 touchdowns, if not slowed by the injury, and Chip Kelly changing quarterbacks every two seconds.

The other thing is, Jeff Fisher and company are obviously impressed from what Foles has shown at OTA’s. Foles immediately came in day one and embraced St. Louis, and wasted no time hanging out with his new receivers and getting chemistry built between them. Rams players have been raving over Foles, for his arm, his accuracy, but more importantly, his leadership.

I understand that no one is going to bad mouth their new quarterback, but body language doesn’t lie, and it clearly tells that the St. Louis Rams are very impressed with how Foles has played. With the Rams having a clear run-first offense, it seems very clear that locking him up does indeed make sense, if Alex Smith is worth 15 million a year given his stats, then Foles at 10-12 million a year would be a God send. I don’t know how much Nick Foles will succeed, but I know he can put up 3000 yards and 18 touchdowns in any offense.

Sh!t, I think we better lock him up early now...Been reading your comments, and I thought no way he's worth more than $6-8 million...not so sure now...$10-12 may be a bargin, and help re-sign a large portion of the 2012 draft class in 2016...fuck man!

 

[Rams43]

What a great thread this has been.

So many thoughtful and knowledgeable posters on this board.

Well, after all is said and done, it can be reduced to two things for me.

First, at the very least, Foles seems more than capable of executing the projected Cigs/Fisher style O. That means winning football, fellas. And that's at the very least. Frankly, I think he will give us more than that.

Second, there is a helluva lot to be said for the security of having a quality (winning) QB in place for the next 5 years. Who wants to be forced into a bidding war for Foles' services after this season in FA? And at a higher cost than could be negotiated today?

Or being forced to trade up in next year's draft using our 1st and at least one of our 2nds on a risky rookie QB?

Don't know about you, but putting our QB position search on the back burner with a team friendly encentive laden contract with Foles makes a ton of sense to me. With our D and ST, even just a solid game managing QB sounds like a winning combo.

Other than having an incompetent HC, is there a worse problem for a team to face than lacking a sure quality QB? We can take that possibility off the table by extending Foles.

 

[RamBill]

Understanding both sides of Rams' desire to sign Nick Foles
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...-both-sides-of-rams-desire-to-sign-nick-foles

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- When St. Louis Rams coach Jeff Fisher confirmed Tuesday that the team is already interested in signing quarterback Nick Foles to a long-term contract despite him having never played a snap in a game for the Rams, the reactions were seemingly split down the middle.

On one side, there were many who wondered why the Rams would want to hand over big dollars to a quarterback who has so much to prove in a Rams uniform. On the other, some saw the value in signing Foles now before the season, when he could send his price tag shooting through the roof.

Personally, I can see the arguments on both sides. So with that in mind, let's take a look at some reasons why it makes sense for the Rams to sign Foles soon and some arguments why it doesn't.

Why it makes sense:

Signing Foles now could result in the Rams getting a bargain. Let's say the Philadelphia Eagles had tried to extend Foles before last season when Foles was coming off a 27-touchdown, two-interception performance in 2013. Foles' price was soaring, though it was still a one-year sample size. But Foles returned, his numbers took a major hit and he suffered an injury that limited him to just eight games. It remains to be seen how Foles will fare in a Rams uniform, and though that also qualifies as a reason not to sign him, the unknown also could keep his price more reasonable. Think Andy Dalton or Alex Smith -- something in the $13-17 million-a-year range rather than something closer to $20 million annually or having to use the franchise tag after the season.

The scariest proposition for any NFL team right now is simply not having a starting-caliber quarterback on the roster. The Rams have been a prime example of what below-average quarterback play can yield in the past two seasons. When they traded Sam Bradford, they made it a point to get a quarterback in return. They wanted one who can be a starter, and without Foles involved that deal never gets done. The Rams now have Foles on the roster, and he seems to want to stay with them. Getting a deal done now eliminates any anxiety the Rams might have about having to find a starter in the draft or betting their future on their ability to develop a rookie like third-round pick Sean Mannion.

The Rams have 16 players set to become unrestricted free agents after the season. They also could have that small matter of a possible move to Los Angeles coming after the season. In other words, they have a lot on their plate. Getting a deal done now with Foles or any of the players they want to keep around for the long haul lessens the stress for what could be an incredibly busy offseason.

Why it doesn't make sense:

As mentioned, Foles hasn't played in a game for the Rams yet. He's coming off a season in which he struggled with interceptions and injury. The Rams can't afford to have either of those become an issue in 2015. The offense isn't expected to be a high-powered passing attack, which means Foles' two primary jobs are taking care of the ball and not getting hurt. The 10 interceptions in eight games in 2014 are a red flag, and with the Rams expected to have three new starters on the offensive line, Foles' durability could be put to the test again. Signing him now only to see him struggle with either or both of those issues in 2015 could be crippling to the salary cap for a couple of years, even if they get him at a reasonable price.

Foles is making a big transition from Chip Kelly's wide-open offense to the Rams' more conservative approach. While it's a change he should be able to handle, there are still a lot of unknowns on how that will go. Something as simple as taking snaps under center hasn't really been a part of Foles' repertoire in a long time. Now, he has to get those mechanics down and learn a new scheme with new terminology. Signing him without seeing how that translates to games is a tricky proposition.

While it's understandable that a team would fear not having a quarterback, making a big decision and devoting big money to a player who has never played for your team based on emotion isn't exactly a great way to do business. Fisher said Tuesday the Rams believe in Foles based on what he did in Philadelphia and what he's showed so far in St. Louis. The Rams don't figure to ask Foles to carry the load for the offense, which makes re-signing him, even at a so-called discount, an expensive venture.

 

[Alan]

flv with this:
I know we're looking at the same numbers differently. Dalton is being paid an unrealistically low $7.2M this year because he was paid an unrealistically high $18,086,027 last season. How bad would he have to be for a team to commit $18M 1 year and then not pick up next year's option? Even if he was that bad the coach would say it was a 1-off and he still believed in his QB.

The cap figures are irrelevant. The money is what is important. We could pay Foles $745K in salary and $17,255,000 as a bonus and have it count as $4,196,000 this year. Eventually we'd have to account for the whole $18M...and again, why would we guarantee Foles $18M for 1 year if we weren't prepared to risk $13M on Bradford?

Average salary figures are irrelevant because most contracts are terminated before their intended expiry date. Cutler isn't expected to last 5 more years in Chicago and Dalton isn't expected to play 6 more years in Cincinnati. You have to look at what is realistic on their contracts. Cutler's deal is $54M over 3 years. Dalton's deal is $25.28M over 2 years or $36M over 3 years. Cutler used to be a franchise QB. I don't think Dalton ever was or will be.

I wouldn't expect any franchised player to hold out, including Dez Bryant. I would expect a player to hold out if his low value contract was significantly lower than his real value. I mentioned the possibility of Foles holding out on a future $6.5M contract or his $1.542M contract this year, not a future $20M franchise tag contract.

I'm not against a Dalton type deal for Foles if he's worth that amount of money. At the moment I don't think he is, (could change in 4 months), and nor did any other team. Who else was trying to trade with the Eagles for this 3-year QB on a very low contract?

I'm not against gambling. I'm against taking bad odds regardless of whose money i'm gambling with.

As I was reading your reply it became immediately apparent that you didn't notice that my post you're replying to consisted of two parts. The first of which continued our conversation and the second of which was more tangential to the subject.

The first two paragraphs were noting that we were looking at the same data but concentrating on different data points. The next paragraph was, as you observed, irrelevant to our earlier conversation. It dealt solely with analyzing Dalton's contract with an eye to whether I'd like it to be similar to a long term contract we might offer too and get signed by Foles. I came to the conclusion that I'd be very happy with giving him a contract that was very similar to Dalton's. If his play this year warrants it of course. The good QBs in the NFL are making much more that $16M per year and I think the Rams would be very fortunate to lock him up for 6 more years under those conditions.

A player's ability to reject a franchise tag by sitting out most or all the games that year had no direct correlation with what you were talking about. It was just another example of what a player could do under the CBA that no one ever actually will do. Just like your scenario of Foles holding out 10 games to get a better deal. Neither of them will ever happen and if by chance someday someone does try it, I feel it will just be an anomaly and thus not a possibility to take seriously in a negotiation.

I was just trying to make my post a little shorter (unlike this one ) because despite my propensity to post long involved novellas on a subject, it's very hard for me to do that without having to rest my eyes afterwards. Condensing your replies is kind of like trying to have a conversation via twitter and that of course often leads to misunderstandings that I later have to clarify. My bad. It won't be the last time it happens that's for sure.