Over Paying Free Agency horrible this year - Page 2

TheChampIsHere · 03-04-2007, 02:03 PM

yeah, players seem to be getting overpaid. But is anyone surprised?

What stands out to me is that Hutch, who was easily the best OG in the game, got a 49 mil contract last year which was unprecedented for a guard. The Hawks declined to match it it was so big. Now, they cant even bring in Steinbach, Dielman or Dockery for that price as Steinbach and Dielman got 49 mill deals elsewhere and Dielman got a 6 year deal with about the same average salary. The Hawks offered him about the same deal they declined to match with Hutch and he turned it down to stay in SD. And Dielman isnt close to being as good as Hutch.

draftguru151 · 03-04-2007, 02:06 PM

They didn't match Hutchinson's contract because the poison pill clause in it.

Number 10 · 03-04-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry

The Eagles benched him to lower his value, oldest trick in the book.

They benched him because he was playing terrible.

ks_perfection · 03-04-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChampIsHere

yeah, players seem to be getting overpaid. But is anyone surprised?

What stands out to me is that Hutch, who was easily the best OG in the game, got a 49 mil contract last year which was unprecedented for a guard. The Hawks declined to match it it was so big. Now, they cant even bring in Steinbach, Dielman or Dockery for that price as Steinbach and Dielman got 49 mill deals elsewhere and Dielman got a 6 year deal with about the same average salary. The Hawks offered him about the same deal they declined to match with Hutch and he turned it down to stay in SD. And Dielman isnt close to being as good as Hutch.

They didn't turn down Hutchs 49 mil contract because they thought it was too much but because they had to guarntee the whole contract if he wasn't the highest paid linemen on the team, which he wasn't. If it wasn't for that clause they would have signed it (don't know why they didn't just offer it to him in the first place).

yourfavestoner · 03-04-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ks_perfection

They didn't turn down Hutchs 49 mil contract because they thought it was too much but because they had to guarntee the whole contract if he wasn't the highest paid linemen on the team, which he wasn't. If it wasn't for that clause they would have signed it (don't know why they didn't just offer it to him in the first place).

I've never understood the point of the Transition Tag anyways. All you're doing is letting another team negotiate a contract for you.

JT Jag · 03-04-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

The salary cap isn't hard on Madden at all, because it escalates much more quickly than it does in real life. In reality, the salary cap increases about 6% every year. In Madden, it's something like 10%. Plus, there's the fact that in Madden, players ask for ridiculously small signing bonuses.

Yeah, but in Madden, it's irritating that you can't carry over unused salary cap like you can in real life. I always find myself losing all my cap room because I just don't have anything else to do and I have too much money to spend.

yourfavestoner · 03-04-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jag

Yeah, but in Madden, it's irritating that you can't carry over unused salary cap like you can in real life. I always find myself losing all my cap room because I just don't have anything else to do and I have too much money to spend.

You can't carry over unused salary cap in real life, either. The only way is to use a loophole with incentives, but I'm not 100% positive how it works. Vic did an explanation for it a long time ago; I'll try to find it.

Either way, it's Madden. Over the last few years, I've realized that it's way too ambitious to expect them to make the game, you know, realistic or anything.

etk · 03-04-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10

They benched him because he was playing terrible.

QFT. Also because they loved Sean Considine and wanted to get him on the field as much as possible. He was pretty bad too, but they still love him for some reason.

JT Jag · 03-04-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

You can't carry over unused salary cap in real life, either. The only way is to use a loophole with incentives

You give a so-so player who doesn't get much playing time (Usually Quinn Gray for us, but it was Kenny Pettaway last year) a number of "Likely to be earned" incentives that there is no expectation of them reaching.

Those incentives are automatically deducted from the salary cap, before they're reached. If they're not reached, the money that would have been given in incentives is moved up to the next year's salary cap.

You can't micromanage contracts in Madden like that.

eaglesalltheway · 03-04-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry

The Eagles benched him to lower his value, oldest trick in the book.

Actually, we benched him because he was getting beaten for big plays that were hurting our defense. Thats just a dumb thing to say.

yourfavestoner · 03-04-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jag

You give a so-so player who doesn't get much playing time (Usually Quinn Gray for us, but it was Kenny Pettaway last year) a number of "Likely to be earned" incentives that there is no expectation of them reaching.

Those incentives are automatically deducted from the salary cap, before they're reached. If they're not reached, the money that would have been given in incentives is moved up to the next year's salary cap.

You can't micromanage contracts in Madden like that.

Lol. Yup, that's how you do it.

cunningham06 · 03-04-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etk

QFT. Also because they loved Sean Considine and wanted to get him on the field as much as possible. He was pretty bad too, but they still love him for some reason.

Where did you get that Considine was pretty bad? He was solid, and certainly better than Lewis who was giving up TD's all over the place.

P-L · 03-04-2007, 07:11 PM

A playoff team with Super Bowl aspirations doesn't bench someone for an inferior player just to lower his value.

TheMadLionsFan · 03-04-2007, 07:21 PM

is it true that Nate clements got 23 million guaranteed?....becuase I thought that was the entire contract

Jonathan_VIlma · 03-04-2007, 09:59 PM

This year and next might really seperate the correctly run teams from the teams who will be paying for a lot of these mistakes. I know we're still paying from making Robertson the highest paid DT in the NFL on his rookie contract.

Notice how the franchises that are consistantly good (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Diego, Baltimore, etc.) aren't breaking the banks for average players. It's all about knowing when too much is too much.

It's a good point that the players will never see the 80 million they are receiving, but the guaranteed money is ridiculous. They will obviously see all of that along with their base salary from that 80 mill.

49ersfan_87 · 03-04-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan_VIlma

Notice how the franchises that are consistantly good (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Diego, Baltimore, etc.) aren't breaking the banks for average players. It's all about knowing when too much is too much.

I said this in another post as well, but most of the teams who arent spending already have their holes filled, or dont have a lot of holes. While how good an organization is comes into it, just look at the teams that have made FA splashes- buffalo, cleveland, san francisco. They all have many many needs and need some proven players.

bearsfan_51 · 03-04-2007, 10:10 PM

This is why I say Free Agency is for suckers. There are some moves so far that I like (AD to Patriots should be pretty sick) but for every one good move someone is giving 18 million guaranteed to a player that never did **** as a pro. If teams draft properly you can continually use that money to resign their own and lock them up earlier so you don't have to blow so much money. That's what the good teams do. The teams that are throwing this kind of money around are generally desperate for immediate help, and in many cases I'm using that term lightly.

Crabjuice · 03-04-2007, 10:12 PM

Yeah... New England sure has been quiet. That must be why they're so consistently good.

Jughead10 · 03-04-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan_VIlma

This year and next might really seperate the correctly run teams from the teams who will be paying for a lot of these mistakes. I know we're still paying from making Robertson the highest paid DT in the NFL on his rookie contract.

Notice how the franchises that are consistantly good (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, San Diego, Baltimore, etc.) aren't breaking the banks for average players. It's all about knowing when too much is too much.

It's a good point that the players will never see the 80 million they are receiving, but the guaranteed money is ridiculous. They will obviously see all of that along with their base salary from that 80 mill.

Since when have the Chargers been consistently good?

Number 10 · 03-04-2007, 10:23 PM

Once again....check out which teams are dishing out the big contracts right now. You will get my point.

49ersfan_87 · 03-04-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10

Once again....check out which teams are dishing out the big contracts right now. You will get my point.

What about NE? They dished some big cash to adalius and welker.

Number 10 · 03-04-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49ersfan_87

What about NE? They dished some big cash to adalius and welker.

Other than them.....forgot to mention that.

Number 10 · 03-04-2007, 11:10 PM

-If you wanted to have the last word and then lock the thread you should have just told me and I would have said my last piece and then let it rest. Here is my last post regarding the Davis contract.

I made my points known and have yet to hear a rebuttle other than...

"Well other teams have overpayed for guards (coughBills&Brownscough), why can't we?"

"Well he is all happy and jolly now because friends and family live in the state that the Cowboys home stadium resides in."

"He was a pro bowler at one time back when there was a ton of hype surrounding him and his massive size."

"The Cardinals let go of product-of-the-system Simeon Rice who turned out to be good, so Davis will be good too."

--I will certainly give you that G is a need for you guys but back to my initial point, that is not a position that needs to be thrown all that money. And IMO, your biggest need is at FS because you don't have anyone there that is good and your SS can't cover. But that is another debate.

bearsfan_51 · 03-04-2007, 11:13 PM

Agreed. D-Unit you're such a little ***** about everything. If that gets me banned so be it. The only reason you're an admin anyway is because you're a suck up to Scott.

Number 10 · 03-04-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Agreed. D-Unit you're such a little ***** about everything. If that gets me banned so be it. The only reason you're an admin anyway is because you're a suck up to Scott.

BF51.....I like you so don't go down that path, I'd rather you stay here because I have had some good discussions with you despite not seeing eye to eye sometimes.

D-Unit is fine with me too, just don't agree with that tactic he pulled. He was and still is one of my favorite mods here and we simply don't agree on something. We were arguing but it did not get out of hand and I don't see why it got locked, but by no means should anyone come down on him hard.