Russell Wilson wants the richest contract in NFL history

[Davis_Mike]

Quick question.

When you franchise tag someone it means the player must be a top 5 paid player at their position. What does top 5 paid mean?

Does it mean top 5 cap hit?
Does it mean top 5 base salary?
Does it mean top 5 total cash?

I ask because I don't know, and whichever it is would be a vastly different number from the others.

The exclusive tag amount is pretty simple to calculate. It's either an average of the five largest salaries at the offered players' position at the end of restricted free agency this season, or 120 percent of the offered player's current salary—whichever is greater.

That would mean base salary. A second tag is 44% of the previous year's salary. A third tag is 44% of previous year's salary.

 

[blstoker]

The exclusive tag amount is pretty simple to calculate. It's either an average of the five largest salaries at the offered players' position at the end of restricted free agency this season, or 120 percent of the offered player's current salary—whichever is greater.

That would mean base salary.

Thank you, that's what I thought.

So, if sportrac is correct then the qb tag (as it stands right now) for 2016 would be $18.3 million.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Ok we've now agreed on two things this year. I forget what the 1st was thought

You sure it's two?

Hey wait, I just remembered, you said I was killing it in the Seahawks vs Pats smack talk thread. So you were right it's twice now. We got a trend happening!

 

[Davis_Mike]

Thank you, that's what I thought.

So, if sportrac is correct then the qb tag (as it stands right now) for 2016 would be $18.3 million.

That's the 2015 QB number. 2016 is going to be close to $20 mil. The numbers for 2016 won't be available till around the start of the 2016 league year.

 

[blstoker]

That's the 2015 QB number. 2016 is going to be close to $20 mil. The numbers for 2016 won't be available till around the start of the 2016 league year.

No, I used 2016 salaries

Drew Brees - $19.75 million
Peyton Manning - $19 million
Joe Flacco - $18 million
Ben Roethlisberger - $17.75 million
Matt Stafford - $17 million

Now, all this can change with new contracts, but this is how it stands right now (base salary wise).

NFL Salary Rankings | Spotrac

Now, if it was cap hit - the number is north of $25 million.

 

[LambeauLegs]

You are clueless.

So you are saying that the player contracts that fall off the cap fr 2016 to give them room will have no effect on the talent level that the Seahawks will have?

I am clueless as team I like has no such issues to deal with as they have a franchise QB under contract for many years and are already paying $18 mil and are still $16 mil under the cap and the team is generally competitive.

 

[Davis_Mike]

No, I used 2016 salaries

Drew Brees - $19.75 million
Peyton Manning - $19 million
Joe Flacco - $18 million
Ben Roethlisberger - $17.75 million
Matt Stafford - $17 million

Now, all this can change with new contracts, but this is how it stands right now (base salary wise).

NFL Salary Rankings | Spotrac

Now, if it was cap hit - the number is north of $25 million.

I think cap inflation is figured into the tag number as well. It won't be lower than 2015's $18.554 mil.

 

[Davis_Mike]

I did some quick guesswork math.

If we use the same percentage of the cap that 2015's tag was, 12.942%, and project the non-adjustment cap to be $150 mil, we get a tag number of $19,413,000.

So I would put the 2016 QB tag number around or a little above $19,413,000.

 

[blstoker]

I think cap inflation is figured into the tag number as well. It won't be lower than 2015's $18.554 mil.

I'm sure there's more to it than simply averaging out the salaries of the top 5 quarterbacks base salary - since if $18.554 million is the tag number this year, then that would be the second highest base salary among qbs in 2015 (less than $200,000 than Brees' salary).

 

[Manster7588]

Couldn't this have went in the "Give me love or nothing" thread?

 

[Podunkparte]

Writers whose articles end with the possibility of RW, a guy who struggled to hit Single A pitching, leaving the NFL for baseball are automatically disregarded in my mind. Wilson is not a major league caliber baseball player. That's not realistic leverage.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Writers whose articles end with the possibility of RW, a guy who struggled to hit Single A pitching, leaving the NFL for baseball are automatically disregarded in my mind. Wilson is not a major league caliber baseball player. That's not realistic leverage.

You know they are clueless if they think RW has a future in baseball. Shoot like you said he was over matched in the A league.

 

[Davis_Mike]

I do laugh whenever I read an article that gives baseball any leverage for Wilson. Since when is making a pittance putting time in the minors & being under team control for 6+ years before you get a big payday, leverage?

 

[GenJac]

Wow, Seattle messed up bad by not getting this done before the Tannehill deal.

 

[packerzrule]

You gotta admit Harold, it certainly looked like the Seattle HO did not anticipate Wilson clamoring for a mega deal what with the huge contracts they paid out the last few years.

 

[SonnyCID]

Ok you are the expert so please explain how you fit an $18 million to $20 million contract in the cap for 5 or 6 years with a guarantee of $50 mil using your prorated bonus that you talked about with $11 mil in cap space as well as paying rookies that have not been paid yet

Ok, so you don't know how it works.

This is basic shit. You don't need to be an expert to know that signing bonuses are prorated by up to 5 years. Meaning you don't need to have the entire signing bonus in the bank when the contract is signed. Now, this means bigger cap hits down the road, that's why QBs are always restructuring and turning salary in to bonuses, in order to prorated it and lighten the cap load for a year.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Wow, Seattle messed up bad by not getting this done before the Tannehill deal.

Why? The Tannehill deal will have no significant effect on his negotiations. Wilson is likely asking for more than what Tannehill's deal is going to pay. While the AAV is close to what Wilson is likely asking, the deal as a whole, is shorter & worth less money. It’s only a four-year extension worth $77 million, which equates to $19.25 million per year with modest guarantees.

I am pretty sure Seattle would jump at the chance to sign Wilson to a similar deal or anything close to that.

 

[GenJac]

Why? The Tannehill deal will have no significant effect on his negotiations. Wilson is likely asking for more than what Tannehill's deal is going to pay. While the AAV is close to what Wilson is likely asking, the deal as a whole, is shorter & worth less money. It’s only a four-year extension worth $77 million, which equates to $19.25 million per year with modest guarantees.

Read more here. This guys explains it all. Could Ryan Tannehills new deal make it more difficult for Seahawks to extend Russell Wilson? | The Seattle Times

 

[Manster7588]

Seattle better sign RW before Luck resigns. The franchise tag will raise above 20M when he does.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Read more here. This guys explains it all. Could Ryan Tannehills new deal make it more difficult for Seahawks to extend Russell Wilson? | The Seattle Times

It doesn't really explain much.

And one salary cap expert says that new money average of $19.25 million per year (sixth among all QBs) and the fact that Tannehill is also getting $45 million guaranteed, are the real keys to the deal that could impact Seattle’s attempts to extend Wilson.

First off, his projected $19.25 mil future AAV starting 2017, ranking sixth among QBs doesn't mean much this far out. And likely his AAV won't be that high when you figure in the 2 years already under contract, into the cap number mix. Which would put him around $16 mil+. Secondly, the $45 mil guaranteed is a fictitious number. His current 2 years under contract is figured into that number. He is only getting about $23 mil in new guarantees.

If Seattle has already offered a deal of greater value than what Tannehill got, which is what has been rumored, then this deal has no weight on negotiations, because both side are already above the where Tannahill's contract money is capped at.