Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka
I absolutely agree that there’s nothing wrong with bringing in vets to supplement the home grown players. But I guess it comes down to our personal definitions of “short term, reasonable contracts” then. I thought Houston’s two-year, largely guaranteed deal was a little rich for a guy who (1) is past his prime, (2) is changing teams after being cut by the team that knows him best, (3) is changing positions, and (4) has had some injury problems in recent years. That said, I am excited to have him, and truly I hope he plays well and outperforms his contract. I just think the chances aren’t that great that he will. I’m hoping that Ballard’s familiarity with him from his time in KC will reduce some of the risks.
On Funchess, I like the strategy of signing guys heading into their prime, and if the team’s talent evaluators think this guy has a chance to break out I’m onboard with the risk at $7-$10 million for one year. Reminds me a little of the Ebron signing - another guy who came in with a bad hands rep, and who's signing was widely panned at the time. The one year deal tells me that the team isn’t quite so confident Funchess will perform well. That's fine, but I don’t like that our upside on the deal is limited to this year. Again, the ideal solution would have been an option year or two.
|
Houston did get a nice chuck of upfront money, but what makes his deal reasonable IMO is that his 2nd year only has $1M guaranteed. So if he doesn't produce in year 1 we can release him with no long term implications.
With Funchess I don't disagree with bringing him in, but we definitely overpaid for a 1 year rental. Especially on a player with below average production who really regressed this last year. If we had signed him to a similar contract to Ebron's then that would have made a lot more sense.