View Full Version : Shaun Alexander re-signs
Yisman
03-05-2006, 09:48 PM
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
Jay Glazer / FOXSports.com
Posted: 8 minutes ago
The No. 1 free agent on the open market is now off the market.
FOXSports.com has learned that the Seattle Seahawks have agreed to terms with Pro-Bowl running back Shaun Alexander on a whopping eight-year, $62 million deal that includes in excess a total of $15 million in the first year in bonuses (signing and roster) and salary.
The Alexander deal is not contingent upon a new CBA getting done as the Seahawks have the necessary cap space to make such a move. However, the contract still has to get approved by the NFL front office and Alexander needs to sign the contract.
He deserves it, they are set for years to come.
hydro51
03-05-2006, 09:54 PM
thats alot of money 8 years damn.
PennyandtheJets
03-05-2006, 09:55 PM
WOW...I had no idea they were even working on a contract. Nice re-signing by them.
NYJATW
03-05-2006, 09:56 PM
8 frickin years holy hell!
jetsaholic1094
03-05-2006, 10:04 PM
He'll be 29 next season. Eight years for a guy nearly hitting the age where RBs tend to drop off is a pretty risky move by Seattle. Then again, he has been a phenomenal player. Over the last 5 seasons, he's averaged about 1,700 yards and 20 TDs a season (includes rushing and receiving).
Yisman
03-05-2006, 10:08 PM
I wouldn't have given him the money. He has maybe one elite season left. He's closing in on 30.
BamaDoc
03-05-2006, 10:09 PM
The eight years is just for prorating over time. he will get cut at some point prior. The 15 up front is amazing.
The eight years is just for prorating over time. he will get cut at some point prior. The 15 up front is amazing, but considering the agreement may fall through the whole deal may collapse.Exactly, there's probably a total of around 20 Mill or so garanteed - with 15 of it up front, leaving little left to prorate over the "7" years left on the contract. My money says it's a 3 year deal made to look pretty.
NYJATW
03-05-2006, 10:17 PM
its a long deal cuz they need to save money
i'm sure that's why
jetsaholic1094
03-05-2006, 10:39 PM
its a long deal cuz they need to save money
i'm sure that's why
Er, I must be bad with numbers. How does a longer deal save them money?
NYJATW
03-05-2006, 10:46 PM
Er, I must be bad with numbers. How does a longer deal save them money?
then they give him less money for the current year
jetsaholic1094
03-05-2006, 10:53 PM
then they give him less money for the current year
Less money than what? I doubt they would've given him the same 62 mill. for a two year contract.
NYJATW
03-05-2006, 10:56 PM
Less money than what? I doubt they would've given him the same 62 mill. for a two year contract.
well if they sign him to a 2 year deal worth 62 mil > they've gotta pay him right away
if it's in an 8 year time span, they have quite a few years to pay him...instead of all at once..
that's what i'm sayin
jetsaholic1094
03-05-2006, 11:06 PM
well if they sign him to a 2 year deal worth 62 mil > they've gotta pay him right away
if it's in an 8 year time span, they have quite a few years to pay him...instead of all at once..
that's what i'm sayin
I said they wouldn't have given him the same 62 mill. for a two year deal. If they gave him a 2-year deal, it would've for something like 15 mill. How would giving him 6 more years and 47 million more dollars be saving money? Do you really think Seattle would've agreed to give 62 mill over 2 years??
NYJATW
03-05-2006, 11:08 PM
I said they wouldn't have given him the same 62 mill. for a two year deal. If they gave him a 2-year deal, it would've for something like 15 mill. How would giving him 6 more years and 47 million more dollars be saving money? Do you really think Seattle would've agreed to give 62 mill over 2 years??
yeah i know what you mean.. but if you have a 2 year deal with 15 million as compared to a 8 year deal worth 62 million..wouldn't you be NOT saving as much money then?
maybe i'm just too tired tonight...
jetsaholic1094
03-05-2006, 11:16 PM
yeah i know what you mean.. but if you have a 2 year deal with 15 million as compared to a 8 year deal worth 62 million..wouldn't you be NOT saving as much money then?
Goddamnit, did you just use a double negative? I still have no clue what you're talking about. You said a longer contract saves money [as opposed to a smaller contract]. So, how is giving 62 million saving more money than giving 15 million? Granted, the 62m is over 8 years, you'll still be paying him that money, unless you cut him. If you cut him, you'll still have to pay the 20m or so that was guaranteed, wouldn't you?
NYJATW
03-05-2006, 11:20 PM
Goddamnit, did you just use a double negative? I still have no clue what you're talking about. You said a longer contract saves money [as opposed to a smaller contract]. So, how is giving 62 million saving more money than giving 15 million? Granted, the 62m is over 8 years, you'll still be paying him that money, unless you cut him. If you cut him, you'll still have to pay the 20m or so that was guaranteed, wouldn't you?
yeah you would...but i'm saying...
if its an 8 year deal...about 8 million per year would be something like...
6 million then 6.3 million, etc... 8th year (when he's retired) would be 9.something
and if it was a 2 year deal with 8 million per year...
8 million, 8 million...idk it's hard to explain...i just thought you saved more money when you had longer contracts because you pay more money towards the END of the contract as opposed to paying in the beginning
Yisman
03-05-2006, 11:28 PM
Alexander demanded a large bonus. Seattle had to spread out the cap hit. That's why it's 8 years.
NYJATW
03-05-2006, 11:33 PM
Alexander demanded a large bonus. Seattle had to spread out the cap hit. That's why it's 8 years.
that's what i thought
Goddamnit, did you just use a double negative? I still have no clue what you're talking about. You said a longer contract saves money [as opposed to a smaller contract]. So, how is giving 62 million saving more money than giving 15 million? Granted, the 62m is over 8 years, you'll still be paying him that money, unless you cut him. If you cut him, you'll still have to pay the 20m or so that was guaranteed, wouldn't you?Most team sites have a salary cap page, pull one up and it explains it in black and white.
The deal is for 62 Million, but Alexander will probably be lucky to see half of that. That's the way NFL contracts have been structured for years.
plinko
03-06-2006, 05:48 AM
Exactly, there's probably a total of around 20 Mill or so garanteed - with 15 of it up front, leaving little left to prorate over the "7" years left on the contract. My money says it's a 3 year deal made to look pretty.
Under normal circumstances a signing bonus can only prorate over a maximum of 7 years. However this deal was signed before a new CBA deal meaning they can only prorate the signing bonus over 2 years.
Yisman
03-06-2006, 07:01 AM
the deal was contingent on a new CBA being reached.
plinko
03-06-2006, 07:11 AM
the deal was contingent on a new CBA being reached.
The first post quoted the article:
The Alexander deal is not contingent upon a new CBA getting done as the Seahawks have the necessary cap space to make such a move.
Yisman
03-06-2006, 10:12 AM
Hmmm, you're right. I'm positive I heard someone say it was contingent on that. If a new CBA wasn't reached, Seattle would've had difficulty with the cap this season (not as much space to sign other FAs).
I think the reason they did it is because they were sure a new CBA would be reached.
Mexican Buc
03-06-2006, 10:55 AM
Good for them. I'm happy for Alexander, who locked up with the big contract he deserves. Would've hated to see the Seahawks lose their face player and the best RB in the league. Well, now I can keep using them in Madden
I would've let Alexander hit the road. He has two or three years left...
Dinobot 2
03-06-2006, 07:04 PM
Good for him. Seattle's gonna be a contender next year for sure.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.