Deeper look at contracts

I thought this was an interesting observation by Mike Reiss of ESPNBoston.com this morning. Especially the details of Talib's contract, in which he may never come close to the $$ in the contract he supposedly signed up for.

Can see where DRC refutes that the Broncos were really offering him $54mil over 6 years if his contract was layed out anything like Talib's.

Also shows that the pats may indeed be acknowledging that the Tom Brady window is closer to closing and different methods need to be looked at to win now.

1. There was a lot to like in the Patriots’ signing of cornerback Darrelle Revis, which was detailed here. Those thoughts still hold true, but after getting a closer look at the details of the contract, there were two things that stood out to me as un-Patriot-like.

• • One year after owner Robert Kraft said the team doesn’t do “fake” deals, which was a response to those questioning if a contract extension for quarterback Tom Brady would simply be renegotiated in a few years, the team did a “fake” deal with Revis. The reason it’s a “fake” deal is that the second year of the contract almost certainly won’t be executed because it includes a whopping $25 million salary cap charge.
  • The two-year deal seems to be structured, in part, so that Revis can still claim he earns an average annual salary of $16 million. That appears to be important to him because that’s the figure he held firm on when previously negotiating with the Jets, and that’s also what he received from the Buccaneers after last year’s trade. That the Patriots would acquiesce to that, albeit with a “fake” year, surprises me a bit because I can’t think of another time they’ve placated a free-agent from another team in that type of contract/perception standpoint.

Revis is obviously an exceptional talent, and if that was the cost of closing a deal, it’s well worth it. I’m not debating that as much as pointing out that these details deviated from what I perceive to be some of the core philosophies of the organization.

2. When details of Revis’ deal were revealed, with the presence of a “fake” second year, some expressed disappointment the structure of the contract made it more of a one-year rental, in part because the team lost any leverage to assign the franchise tag on Revis in 2015. That might be the way it turns out, but I don’t think the second year decisively alters the picture when it comes to a potential long-term agreement. The 2014 season will be about both sides getting a better feel for each other to see if it’s a fit in the long run, and there’s nothing that says the Patriots and Revis can’t extend the deal at this time next year if they hit it off. A lot can happen between now and then.

3a. Similar to Revis, the details of cornerback Aqib Talib's contract with the Broncos reveal a few things that somewhat alter our initial impression of the pact. It was a reported six-year, $57 million contract with $26 million in guarantees when Talib signed it. But that’s a bit misleading because $8.5 million of the “guarantee” is his 2016 base salary, and that’s only guaranteed in the event of injury. So if the Broncos decide Talib isn’t playing up to the desired level after two years, they can cut him and Talib wouldn’t see the $8.5 million or any remaining money in the deal. That’s why I’d more accurately describe the contract as a two-year, $18 million pact. When looking at it that way, it’s much more reasonable.

3b. One other part of Talib’s deal to pass along: He gets $31,250 for each game he’s on the 46-man game-day roster in the 2014, 2015 and 2016 seasons, which when added up is $1.5 million of his reported $26 million “guarantee.” Given Talib’s injury history, I don’t think it’s any guarantee he sees all of that money.

3c. This is one reason why football consumers should always demand/seek deeper analysis of contract information once the official contract becomes available (it sometimes takes a few days after the initial agreement is announced). Many of the initial reported numbers are either inflated by agents to make them look better, or simply don’t go into enough detail to provide important context.