Brissett signs 2 year $30 million extension

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Yes, the Colts obviously like him, and that's the one thing that helps me understand this deal. Not sure I agree with your franchise tag rationale, as Spaceman pointed out, the QB franchise tag is only $25m. It will go up by next year, but probably not significantly above the $28 million we paid to Brissett under this deal. Yes, I suppose it's a "free" franchise tag in a sense, so we wouldn't start the escalations for the following year, but was the cost worth it?

I'm a big Ballard fan, no question, but deals like this aren't my thing. To me, you reward performance, which is kinda what I thought Ballard was all about. So I would have been perfectly fine with letting Brissett prove himself, and then paying him a lot if he did - even more than the $28M if necessary. Outside of the draft, I'm not as much of a fan of paying a guy top dollar before he's done anything to merit it.

The deal he signed will come really close to equaling next years tag plus what he was owed this year. That’s one reason I’m fairly certain the tag entered into the equation. They have gained another year to evaluate him without using the tag and then still have the tag available as a worse case scenario. 1 year of tag is realistic, 2 is not IMO. They maintained flexibility with this deal.

I understand paying for performance but is one year of performance enough? Remember that’s my issue with the Funchess signing. Guys have a good year and they are going to want to capitalize on it. And as you have repeatedly said - teams overpay in free agency. One year of performance is better than none, but is it enough to lock a guy up for 3-5 years with big guarantees? For me it’s not. Especially not at QB.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

The deal he signed will come really close to equaling next years tag plus what he was owed this year. That’s one reason I’m fairly certain the tag entered into the equation. They have gained another year to evaluate him without using the tag and then still have the tag available as a worse case scenario. 1 year of tag is realistic, 2 is not IMO. They maintained flexibility with this deal.

I understand paying for performance but is one year of performance enough? Remember that’s my issue with the Funchess signing. Guys have a good year and they are going to want to capitalize on it. And as you have repeatedly said - teams overpay in free agency. One year of performance is better than none, but is it enough to lock a guy up for 3-5 years with big guarantees? For me it’s not. Especially not at QB.

And I agreed with you on the Funchess signing – at least the part about the length of the contract. It was a bit out of character for Ballard, and while I had no objection to the player or price, I didn’t like that our upside would be limited to one year. Part of that is also that few of us, up to that point, had spent a lot of time watching Funchess so we had to trust in Ballard's talent evaluation.

I don’t see the Brissett situation as analogous, however. First, we've seen Brissett in action, both in 2017 (admittedly in a different system with different, lesser players) and in lots of preseason action since then. I've seen very few glowing reviews of his skills or performance, however.

Second, I don’t think our out-of-pocket costs would be much different under a wait-and-see approach (franchise tender scenario) than under the contract he just signed. He’d still end up with around $30 million for the next two years. And I disagree that a second franchise tender is untenable. It’s actually the third franchise tender which is nearly impossible except in the most extreme circumstances (as a practical matter, only a QB, and only someone like Peyton Manning, for instance). I recall posting the details here last season, but I ran a quick search to refresh my memory and the second year a 20% bump in pay, so it's expensive but workable. The third year is the GREATER of (1) another 44% bump in pay or (2) the average salary of the top 5 players regardless of position. So, applying these rules to the real world, if Brissett got $30 million the first franchise year, he’d get $36 million the second year, and a whopping $52 million the third year – all fully guaranteed.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Chaka

And I agreed with you on the Funchess signing – at least the part about the length of the contract. It was a bit out of character for Ballard, and while I had no objection to the player or price, I didn’t like that our upside would be limited to one year. Part of that is also that few of us, up to that point, had spent a lot of time watching Funchess so we had to trust in Ballard's talent evaluation.

I don’t see the Brissett situation as analogous, however. First, we've seen Brissett in action, both in 2017 (admittedly in a different system with different, lesser players) and in lots of preseason action since then. I've seen very few glowing reviews of his skills or performance, however.

Second, I don’t think our out-of-pocket costs would be much different under a wait-and-see approach (franchise tender scenario) than under the contract he just signed. He’d still end up with around $30 million for the next two years. And I disagree that a second franchise tender is untenable. It’s actually the third franchise tender which is nearly impossible except in the most extreme circumstances (as a practical matter, only a QB, and only someone like Peyton Manning, for instance). I recall posting the details here last season, but I ran a quick search to refresh my memory and the second year a 20% bump in pay, so it's expensive but workable. The third year is the GREATER of (1) another 44% bump in pay or (2) the average salary of the top 5 players regardless of position. So, applying these rules to the real world, if Brissett got $30 million the first franchise year, he’d get $36 million the second year, and a whopping $52 million the third year – all fully guaranteed.

This Brissett deal decreases that long-term risk. Instead of a 2nd and 3rd tag being in 2021-2022, they would now be in 2022-2023.

You also decrease the risk of Brissett having a good year, warranting a massive extension, and having that hanging over the franchise. Look at what happened with the Ravens and Flacco after their Super Bowl.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

This Brissett deal decreases that long-term risk. Instead of a 2nd and 3rd tag being in 2021-2022, they would now be in 2022-2023.

You also decrease the risk of Brissett having a good year, warranting a massive extension, and having that hanging over the franchise. Look at what happened with the Ravens and Flacco after their Super Bowl.

Yes, but don't forget that by paying him now, before he's proven anything, you also remove the benefit of having a guy in his "contract year" and trying to put his best foot forward for possible free agency.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Yes, but don't forget that by paying him now, before he's proven anything, you also remove the benefit of having a guy in his "contract year" and trying to put his best foot forward for possible free agency.

Are you serious?

[Oldcolt]

I do not get why this is an issue. This will not hamper the team at all. We still have 51 million in cap space. It hurts no one. It is chump change to Irsay so it doesn't hurt him. It is really nice for Jacoby Brissett. Good for him. He seems like a nice guy and has been loyal to this organization. I'm pretty sure it engenders good will among players both on the team and in the NFL as a whole. I just don't see the downside. I think this team is fiscally very responsible and is in as good a position as any team to be successful long term.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

I do not get why this is an issue. This will not hamper the team at all. We still have 51 million in cap space. It hurts no one. It is chump change to Irsay so it doesn't hurt him. It is really nice for Jacoby Brissett. Good for him. He seems like a nice guy and has been loyal to this organization. I'm pretty sure it engenders good will among players both on the team and in the NFL as a whole. I just don't see the downside. I think this team is fiscally very responsible and is in as good a position as any team to be successful long term.

Look, I have nothing against Brissett. I like the guy actually, and I certainly want him to succeed. Everything you say is pretty much true - it is unlikely to hurt us significantly (from a financial standpoint at least) if he doesn't work out, and he seems like a nice guy, and it may create some goodwill. But so would the same contract for $8-10M per year. I'm just saying I think, under the circumstances and with what we know as we sit here TODAY, it seems like an overpay. He may play well this season, or even great (I'm hoping he does), but it won't change this fact.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Are you serious?

I am, as a counterpoint to Vevejones' comments about the benefits of paying the guy before he's proven much. If you're going to make a comment like that, I think you've got to look at what you lose as well to see if it balances out. I'm sure you'll say that you might not want to sign a guy long term if he only performs when he's about to get paid, which is true, but the opposite can also be true - if you fill a guy's pockets with money before he's had to prove anything, isn't there the chance that he'll lose some motivation?

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I am, as a counterpoint to Vevejones' comments about the benefits of paying the guy before he's proven much. If you're going to make a comment like that, I think you've got to look at what you lose as well to see if it balances out. I'm sure you'll say that you might not want to sign a guy long term if he only performs when he's about to get paid, which is true, but the opposite can also be true - if you fill a guy's pockets with money before he's had to prove anything, isn't there the chance that he'll lose some motivation?

Out of all the stuff I worry about with him, not being motivated because he got a short term contract isn’t one of them. I don’t think what you are suggesting will happen, but the bigger issue is that what you are saying the team possibly lost out on (an unusually motivated, therefore good Jacoby) is exactly what the hell I don’t want. You think this contract hurts the team? Shit, let Jacoby play great, sign a big contract, then loose motivation and coast. That would effect the team magnitudes more than this contract and for many years. If you believe what you wrote then it’s a reason the extension was a good move, not a bad one! The reality is the extension puts more pressure on Jacoby to be good and show improvement. He is facing a huge payday and the team just said - we believe you, but prove it.

This contract was about the long term - the exact thing you’ve been telling me Ballard was building for. I told you before that a major reason I didn’t completely like Ballard’s frugalness was because of the presence of Luck. He’s gone now. So now it makes a lot more sense to me to take a longer term approach because I don’t believe Jacoby is yet capable of winning a SB. Ballard took the steps necessary to make sure he makes the right long term decision on Jacoby. He’s being smart and cautious with it. For the life of me, I can’t understand how you of all people are now saying “yeah, but what about this year”.