Stafford re-signs 3 year deal through 2017

[RobBase]

2m[/ame] Matthew Stafford is expected to sign a three-year contract extension soon, possibly today.[MEDIA=twitter]354665973644660736[/MEDIA]


Surprised not longer? Still great to see him re-up before the season.

 

[Rollingthndr]

This is interesting, gets him through his 27 year. Enough to sign one more massive contract afterwards.

 

[RobBase]

1m[/ame] Stafford's new deal won't hit 9 figures, but good for both sides. Allows him another mega deal in a few years, Lions get downside protection

 

[Microwahevo]

Beat me to it swarm.

But I like it. If all things go well, in 3 years he will get a huge payday if he and the team can step up and become legit SB contenders/winners. If not, 3 years from now we may be looking for another "franchise" QB.

 

[BigJoeWall72]

The numbers on Stafford's extension are perfect, in my opinion.

The deal going forward is 5 more years, $75M. That's an average of $15M per season, putting him around the 7th or 8th highest paid QB, until Matt Ryan gets him big extension soon.

I think this deal protects the Lions if Stafford can't get his mechanics tightened up to where he is consistent all the time, and it gives them the cap flexibility to try to sign Suh to a contract extension. On the other hand, it protects Stafford if the Lions can't get the right pieces to build a good team around him.

I love this contract.

 

[Kreton]

Cap stuff confuses me and I usually get it wrong. But looking online, prior to this resigning Stafford was getting $20 mil this year. Does he still get that? If so does that make it 4 years 55 mil? Also with $20 paid out, and 43 million guaranteed, is the guaranteed money after this year only 23 mil? Other than just trying to understand this cap crap, I am also thinking about how this can help our teams cap next year, or if we did have to cut him later.

 

[RobBase]

It's basically a 5 year 75 million dollar deal.

 

[broncosmitty]

I'm not exactly excited about this. Does the contract stipulate he needs to throw overhand, work off his jubblies, and stop throwing TDs to the other team?

 

[Naughtymax]

All good.

 

[themuzzer]

I don't have any complaints with it. I think it's fair for both sides.

 

[tpaulus_2]

This is interesting, gets him through his 27 year. Enough to sign one more massive contract afterwards.

It will take him through 30, since he still had two years remaining on his original deal. Still enough time to sign another big contract, though. He's still got at least 10, and up to 15ish good years left in him...

 

[Rollingthndr]

It will take him through 30, since he still had two years remaining on his original deal. Still enough time to sign another big contract, though. He's still got at least 10, and up to 15ish good years left in him...

Yeah my bad, was thinking three years from now.

 

[Old Lion]

Saves something like 6 or 7 mill off the cap for the next 2 years each. Suh's contract issue is worse and needs to get done next offseason. Something like 25 million against the cap. I am not the expert, but its a lot.

 

[Dr. Evil-er]

The contract by itself is a good deal for the Lions, actually better than I was expecting. It's the previous mismanagement by the team that is going to make things difficult. Because of all those idiotic restructuring of the original contract he has $19m in dead $ that carries over.

So while the Lions will only have to pay $75m they have to amortize $94m of cap hit over those 5 yrs. This is exactly why I can't stand the way the Lions operate their cap mgmt. Suh's deal is even worse. Unless they want to take a $21.4m cap hit on him in 2014 they will have to redo that deal with $19.5m dead that will be applied in the first two years, and that is before his new signing bonus and actual salary is even applied.

Just like the new contract for Stafford if we want to create cap savings that means that once again we are just pushing back enormous cap amounts a few years and we have the same problem all over again that never actually gets fixed. Before someone tells me that other teams do the same let me say that I completely disagree.

Feel free to look at the better teams in the league and you will not find these huge pushbacks of dead $ that lead to insane cap amounts in those final years. Look at the new deal for the league's highest paid player in Aaron Rodgers for a great example of cap mgmt. Despite being paid quite bit less the cap hits for Stafford will be higher than Rodgers, and look how easy the Packers can get out of that deal penalty free after 5 yrs and have had very reasonable cap hits every year.

 

[jdwills126]

Since Suh has reworked his contract already his will be much harder due to the fact his money has already been moved around. I do not believe you can move signing bonus from 1 contract to the next. You can guarantee years and make salary changes.

As for Stafford this was a fair deal. He wasn't payed like Rogers, Brees, or even Romo...although thats Jerry Jones and Romo is not worth the cash IMO. He wins and he should get to that next level!

 

[tpaulus_2]

Before someone tells me that other teams do the same let me say that I completely disagree.

You can disagree, but it doesn't make it true.

Other teams are having the same problems because of the way the salary cap now stays flat under the new CBA, whereas all of the contracts done under the old CBA were structured in a way that expected the same cap growth every year that the previous CBA featured.

That's why there was a handful of teams this year in a complete cap mess- some much, much worse than ours.

The difference is that you follow our closely enough to note the differences.

Obviously you're right- pushing all that money back really sucked (sucks), but Mayhew also had 3 of the biggest rookie deals in league history to deal with and did what he could with what he had. I think it was the timing as much as anything that fucked everything all up.

CJ's deal is straightened out, Stafford's is now, too. If they get Suh's figured out then we'll be in much better shape going forward.

Also, I thought that dead money in Stafford's deal was included in that $75 million figure? Are you sure that's all on top of the reported deal?

 

[tpaulus_2]

Old people these days, I tell ya...

 

[Dr. Evil-er]

You can disagree, but it doesn't make it true.

Yes it does

That's why there was a handful of teams this year in a complete cap mess- some much, much worse than ours.

And how many of them are playoff teams? I said that you dont see the better teams in the league doing that. The closest example is Pittsburgh who overpaid to keep players after winning a SuperBowl. That helped them to win another SuperBowl and play in yet another. The problem they created for themselves is a problem I'd love to have.

but Mayhew also had 3 of the biggest rookie deals in league history to deal with and did what he could with what he had

It wasnt the contracts that made the mess, it was the numerous restructurings.

If they get Suh's figured out then we'll be in much better shape going forward.

He has even more dead money on his deal just waiting to be applied at the same time that Stafford's and CJ's deals start to balloon up. I am beginning to wonder if the Lions are trying to set a record for having the largest cap hit ever counting against the fewest players. $75m on three players isnt out the question in another couple years the way they keep working these deals.

Also, I thought that dead money in Stafford's deal was included in that $75 million figure? Are you sure that's all on top of the reported deal?

So you think Stafford actually just signed a 5yr, $58m deal? He got a $27.5m signing bonus, that applies as $5.5m per year, and his first year salary is $4m. That would be $9.5m but his cap hit is $17.8m. Welcome to the joy of pushing back dead money.

Old people these days, I tell ya...

Do they still teach math to the young kids these days or did the liberals have it eliminated from the school curriculum because it wasnt fair to the kids from the U.P?

 

[RobBase]

I thought dead money only occurred when a player was cut or released.

Dead money disasters | National Football Post

I don't get into the money thing too much. I remember when the Redskins had less than 100k in cap money but somehow managed to still sign Albert Haynesworth to a 100 million dollar contract. So who knows.

 

[Microwahevo]

I said that you dont see the better teams in the league doing that.

Well, you actually said both. You initially said:

Before someone tells me that other teams do the same let me say that I
completely disagree.

And then went on to say:

Feel free to look at the better teams in the league and you will not find
these huge pushbacks of dead $ that lead to insane cap amounts in those final
years.

So maybe TP only read your initial sentence and decided to "skim over the post" like he hates being done to him so much? Anywho....back to the debate......