PDA

View Full Version : Pittsburgh should blame Seattle!


tony hipchest
05-16-2007, 10:09 AM
NFL.com article on Faneca situation - no trade

http://nfl.com/news/story/10183442
Impact of Hutchinson's '06 deal, Hester's move


By Pat Kirwan
NFL.com Senior Analyst


(May 15, 2007) -- Two months ago, a prominent NFL general manager warned me that escalating contracts were going to really affect the business of football.

"Managing our locker rooms is getting more difficult all the time," he said, "because players with less credentials than the best players at their positions are getting deals that are throwing everything out of whack."

Well, no better example than at offensive guard.


If Alan Faneca signs somewhere else, Pittsburgh should blame Seattle.
Last year, the rules changed when Steve Hutchinson, Seattle's exceptional offensive guard, got a transition tag from his team. That tag gave any other team the right to negotiate a deal with Hutchinson and have the player present it to the Seahawks to match. The Vikings broke the bank to get Hutchinson's services and changed forever the value of an offensive guard.

In years past, a guard was not considered a position to be paid like a left tackle, but since the guards (and centers) were grouped with the tackles in the "tag" process, it was only a matter of time before guards would get paid big.

As we entered this offseason, a number of personnel people told me the Hutchinson deal would not be the impetus for more mega contracts for the guards. Wrong! Eric Steinbach, Leonard Davis and Derrick Dockery all hit a jackpot off the Hutch deal.

The Steelers are really the first team to feel the effects. There's no way the Steelers want to lose the best guard in football, Alan Faneca. In fact, according to his agent, there was an assumption that when Faneca reached the last year of his deal, which is 2007, that both sides would sit down and iron out an extension. Keep in mind when Faneca signed his current deal, it made him the highest-paid guard in the league.

Now the Steelers are looking at what it will take to keep Faneca and will not pay at that level, even if it is for a future Hall of Famer.

The subject of trading him comes up and you have to ask, why trade him? The Steelers are confident Faneca will play at a high level this season, and when he leaves for "greener" pastures, the Steelers will receive a third-round compensatory pick in the 2008 NFL Draft. If you trade him now for a second-round pick, you lose the use of his services in 2007 and wind up gaining compensation that might only be 30 picks higher than what they would get anyway.

Next year, Faneca will be paid and his age will not be a factor. Watch the game tapes, because this 30-year-old will probably play four more seasons at a very high level. It just won't be in a Steelers uniform.

Had Hutchinson never gotten a transition tag from the Seahawks, a lot of NFL offensive guards would have never been paid what they are getting right now. Next year, Faneca is probably going to rewrite the record book for paying guards and young players behind him will be the next to benefit.

Five years from now, maybe it's Ben Grubbs of the Ravens or Justin Blaylock of the Falcons or Arron Sears in Tampa. Someone or all of them have a chance to get paid a salary no one ever thought was possible.

his post draft trade value has dropped and now its just better to use him at the bargain rate of 4 mil./ year rather than trade for a pick we wont get til next year. kirwan made 1 mistake in the article though. the 3rd round comp pick for faneca wont come until the 2009 draft. interresting point with grubbs, sears, or blaylock. any of these 3 coulda been steelers with additional pick or 2 if faneca woulda been traded in march when the market was at its highest. its not the greatest replacement for the best guard in football, but what is? a third round pick in 09?

it is nice to see faneca get some national recognition though. it seems to be trendy for some steelerfans to say a player is washed up as soon as they hit 30.

SteelerFanInCA
05-16-2007, 10:15 AM
Fanceca hasn't really had any big injuries in the past few years. I believe he still has lots of gas still left in his tank.

The bar has been set high so I am only assuming this guy will be looking for the farm.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-16-2007, 10:33 AM
I wouldnt mind seeing us trade for a cominiation draft pick and WR....so that we get some immediate return...I have a level of confidence in Kemo and believe that Colon could fill in at guard so have little worries about who will take his place. I think that the downside of his staying is that there is that "presence" in the locker room of someone who at least appears to be "not taken care of by management"...Trade him and get maximum value with minimum locker room negativity.

DACEB
05-16-2007, 10:39 AM
Great article Tony. Just another reason to hate Seattle, then again shouldn't we blame the Vikings.

If the report that Faneca turned down a 3yr/$19mil deal is true, then he didn't want to retire a Steeler that bad. Obviously if $6.3mil a year isn't enough then it is absolutely about the money and nothing else.

fansince'76
05-16-2007, 10:48 AM
It surprises me at this point as to how there have been no instances of widespread team collusion to try to hold salaries down. This is getting ridiculous.

RoethlisBURGHer
05-16-2007, 09:08 PM
We should really blame the Minnesota Vikings for giving Hutch all that damn money.

Preacher
05-16-2007, 11:37 PM
When it comes to money.. who do we blame? Seriously?

Do we blame the players... who are making millions?

Do we blame the Owners who are making 10's of millions?

Do we blame the T.V. Broacasters, who have turned this into a billion dollar affair?

Or the companies that advertise, which pump billions more into it?

The pie is growing ever bigger, and everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie.

We say the little man... the fan... gets screwed. However, when was the last Steeler game not sold out?

What team is not making money on jersey sales?

Oh yeah... and that is when tickets are being re-sold for 5 to 10 times the amount.

And yeah, I am one of those too.

Until the market shrinks, the money driving the markets will expand.

In the end, everyone is to blame. When everyone is to blame, no one is really to blame, that is just how it is and why nothing will change.

holmes
05-16-2007, 11:50 PM
Great article Tony. Just another reason to hate Seattle, then again shouldn't we blame the Vikings.

If the report that Faneca turned down a 3yr/$19mil deal is true, then he didn't want to retire a Steeler that bad. Obviously if $6.3mil a year isn't enough then it is absolutely about the money and nothing else.

I haven't heard this before, about turning that much money down. That makes me sick, and Faneca should be ashamed of how selfish he's being.

Preacher
05-17-2007, 12:01 AM
Personally, I blame Bush.

I blame Clinton... or was that Nixon....

You know, if we just knew what was on that erased portion of the tape... this would all be better!!

Galax Steeler
05-17-2007, 04:02 AM
I say let's trade fanica now so we don't have to deal with him through camp.

SteelerWatch
05-17-2007, 06:36 AM
I think it plays into the Steelers favor. While other teams are awarding mediocre players All-Pro contracts, the Steelers are going to keep payroll down and get back into the salary cap comfort zone.

Prices will come back in line eventually, but one team paying one player $10 million per year can't last long when there are 53 players on the team.

abgroove
05-17-2007, 11:53 AM
Great article Tony. Just another reason to hate Seattle, then again shouldn't we blame the Vikings.

If the report that Faneca turned down a 3yr/$19mil deal is true, then he didn't want to retire a Steeler that bad. Obviously if $6.3mil a year isn't enough then it is absolutely about the money and nothing else.

The deal I heard he turned down was longer than 3 years, but he would have gotten $19 million guaranteed. In today's football economics all contracts are 3 year contracts in essence.

tony hipchest
05-17-2007, 01:39 PM
Exactly. The teams who pay that much to any one player are stupid, unless maybe it's their franchise quarterback. If you give that kind of money to an offensive lineman, your team is going to be B-A-D in a year or two, because you're going to have to cut at least two or three decent players to get under the salary cap.

Hell, your offensive line probably won't even be that good, because you'll be plugging in $600,000 bargain-basement guys at the other four positions. So bottom line, much as I'd hate to see Faneca go, if he's demanding that kind of money, signing him will be bad for the team in the long run no matter how good he is.great points. in 06, nfaneca hartings, and smith counted $18 million against our cap. in 07 they were due to count 16 mil (its actually a good thing hartings retired). they always payed the bulk of the line top dollar. with todays economics we cant do that unless we want 3 players taking up almost 20% of our cap.

Crushzilla
05-17-2007, 02:29 PM
great points. in 06, nfaneca hartings, and smith counted $18 million against our cap. in 07 they were due to count 16 mil (its actually a good thing hartings retired). they always payed the bulk of the line top dollar. with todays economics we cant do that unless we want 3 players taking up almost 20% of our cap.

Well in 2008, they will be taking up much less when its just Smith and his 3.95 million he is set to earn next year in the last year of his contract...


I say let's trade fanica now so we don't have to deal with him through camp.


Won't happen. His trade value isn't amazing right now. He is old and he is running his mouth like Brett Farve...

Someone isn't going to give away a value player for the Alan Faneca that G.M.'s are seeing on TV right now working out nothing but his mouth. Wiz is NOT going to give us ANYONE when he can get this guy next year for the cheap price of the most insane contract a guard has ever recieved. A deal that will surpass Hutch's and will be the "norm" for guys with MUCH less talent for the next 2 or 3 years...

tony hipchest
05-17-2007, 02:46 PM
Well in 2008, they will be taking up much less when its just Smith and his 3.95 million he is set to earn next year in the last year of his contract...



...thats his salary. his cap value is $6,645,000, because were still paying off the pro rated portion of his signing bonus.

Crushzilla
05-17-2007, 02:51 PM
thats his salary. his cap value is $6,645,000, because were still paying off the pro rated portion of his signing bonus.

Right, I looked down the wrong column.

Tony how does the 6.6 figure come off of a 3.9 base and a 500k bonus? I never understood that.

tony hipchest
05-17-2007, 03:00 PM
Right, I looked down the wrong column.

Tony how does the 6.6 figure come off of a 3.9 base and a 500k bonus? I never understood that.the 500k bonus is either a roster bonus or workout bonus (which cannot be pro-rated). the signing bonus however is paid up front as the guranteed money and can be pro rated for the life of the contract.

casey hamptons deal looks much more favorable because even though his signing bonus is still counting every year, he got the bigger portion earlier so his cap value is actually going down in the next few years.

thats why they say that if you can afford to do it, fit as much of the bonus under the cap in the 1st year.

Crushzilla
05-17-2007, 03:14 PM
Thanks, buddy

That kind of clear's it up a bit...

Economics doesn't treat me well

Hamer
05-18-2007, 08:36 AM
Blame Canada!!!!