Leonard Davis to Cowboys - $49 million/6 years

[Livinginthe past]

The Cowboys have joined the frenzy of teams splashing out close to $50 million for offensive linemen.

An interesting note is made by PFT - out of the 4 OL to sign huge Hutchinson-esque contracts in the last few days - they share a grand total of zero Pro-bowl appearances.

What price a perrenial Probowl Guard or tackle?

The Dallas Cowboys reached agreement with free-agent OL Leonard Davis on a seven-year, $49.6 million contract with $18.75 million guaranteed and $24 million in the first three years of the deal. Dallas is still uncertain whether Davis will play at right tackle or right guard.

NM

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by Livinginthe past

The Cowboys have joined the frenzy of teams splashing out close to $50 million for offensive linemen.

An interesting note is made by PFT - out of the 4 OL to sign huge Hutchinson-esque contracts in the last few days - they share a grand total of zero Pro-bowl appearances.

What price a perrenial Probowl Guard or tackle?



NM

what these guys are getting paid is reality. thinking faneca is gonna take a pay cut or thinking starks is overpaid and needs to be cut (at 1.8 mil/year) is living in fantasy land. looks like the steelers may have missed the boat by only offering starks the tender. he will cash in too, next year, and it wont be in pittsburgh.

now is a good time to offer arizona a trade. no way the steelers are gonna sink 1/3 of their cap into the offensive line alone.

[ChronoCross]

LOL Leanord Davis for that much. Really the 18mil guaranteed money is to much for him. Oh my knee knee knee, IR, knee knee, IR. He has been a total bust from the draft.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

what these guys are getting paid is reality. thinking faneca is gonna take a pay cut or thinking starks is overpaid and needs to be cut (at 1.8 mil/year) is living in fantasy land. looks like the steelers may have missed the boat by only offering starks the tender. he will cash in too, next year, and it wont be in pittsburgh.

now is a good time to offer arizona a trade. no way the steelers are gonna sink 1/3 of their cap into the offensive line alone.

As far as Starks leaving I think the Steelers can absorb that loss.

As for Faneca after 2007, can anyone clue me in on the consequences of popping the franchise tag on someone, other than that player being pi**ed off? This is not a rhetorical question - I confess to not being aware of how franchising someone works as far as salary/bonus/etc.

If you think (as I do) that Faneca is still an excellent player but is starting his inevitable slide as the years catch up, if you franchise him do you have to match the best offer or just pay him for that season as one of the top 5 at his position for that year? Might be able to squeeze out a year or so of less than ultimate (but still pretty damn good) Faneca after 2007 without breaking the bank with what it will cost to re-sign him to a multiyear contract. At a minimum that threat might provide some leverage in contract negotiations.

[Suitanim]

Franchising a player, if memory serves, means you pay that player a top 4 or 5 salary for that position and you get the guarantee of keeping said player.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Suitanim

Franchising a player, if memory serves, means you pay that player a top 4 or 5 salary for that position and you get the guarantee of keeping said player.

That is what I thought - if so, if a player is at the end of his primetime years why pay him top $$ w/ a major signing bonus for a multi-year contract rather than basically rent him for a year or 2 at top 5 $$ for that year only?

[Suitanim]

It's a balancing act...if you think the guy can play at a high level for a few more years, sign off. If not, or you can sign a younger guy with more upside, don't.

[CantStop85]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

That is what I thought - if so, if a player is at the end of his primetime years why pay him top $$ w/ a major signing bonus for a multi-year contract rather than basically rent him for a year or 2 at top 5 $$ for that year only?

Because the cap hit from that franchise tag would be much larger than a multi-year deal...something to consider especially when the player isn't top 5 caliber at their position. I would franchise players mainly for trades and to stall in signing mult-year deals, personally.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by CantStop85

Because the cap hit from that franchise tag would be much larger than a multi-year deal...something to consider especially when the player isn't top 5 caliber at their position. I would franchise players mainly for trades and to stall in signing mult-year deals, personally.

Well - I am asking it in the context of Faneca next year who I think will still be regarded as top 5 at his position in 2008 (by your post are you disagreeing?) but probably not for much longer thereafter. My inquiry/point is that is it worth it to take the hit for a year and not have any hit after that? Sounds like both sides of the point can be argued.

Thx for the info.

[tony hipchest]

if the steelers ever were to franchise a player faneca would be the best option. for the reasons you already poted atl dan. we would have him guaranteed and it would be the average of the top 5 at his position.

and actually its not broken down to all 5 positions on the line, which explains why you will never see a right guard or center franchised because they are never the top paid linemen. (pretty insane that starks and faneca would carry the same franchise tag value). this would give us one extra year with faneca at a relatively reduced rate.

as far as a franchise cap hit being larger, that only depends if a deal is backloaded. eventually you have to pay the whole cap charge. its just whether you choose to pay it now or try and spread it over future years.