Denver signs tender w/David Anderson [Texans Match Offer] [Archive]

Keith

02-27-2009, 10:14 PM

more details from the chron (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/6284444.html):

In a surprising move, Denver signed receiver David Anderson, a third-year restricted free agent, to a three-year, $4.5 million offer sheet that includes a $1 million signing bonus. The Texans have a week to match Anderson’s deal or let him go and get a seventh-round pick in return.

Surprising? Uhhhhh.... no. I'd match and slap Rick Smith on the wrist. Anderson's cap value this year has to be under $1 million still, so even as a WR4, this isn't a cap killer.

ETA - The Texans were committing $1.01 million in cash anyway to Anderson this year. That matches the signing bonus. I would guess the first year salary would be around the vet minimum or so, meaning the cash to keep Anderson in 2009 would be roughly the same as it would have been had he received the 2nd round tender. Seems like a no-brainer to me to match this, but then again, I would have never put the team in this position to begin with, so who knows what will happen here.

Nconroe

02-27-2009, 10:19 PM

well, Denver has been pretty active today, but not really impressive gets it seems. I guess I'd match this 4.5 offer, but its close. Good for David though.

popanot

02-27-2009, 10:27 PM

Can these RFA offers contain poison pills? I wonder if there's something hidden in the offer that would prevent us from matching? Honestly though, I'm not as worried as some about losing DA. I really don't think he brought anything to the table that AD/JJ/OD/Dressen or a decent FA/draft pick couldn't take up the slack on. DA was good at finding an open slot in the 5~10yd. range, but he was never a deep threat or a threat to break a big play.

Keith

02-27-2009, 10:37 PM

Can these RFA offers tenders contain poison pills? I wonder if there's something hidden in the offer that would prevent us from matching?

Theoretically, yes. But usually the poison pill is to front-load the cap figure to make it harder for a cap-laden team to match. The Texans have ample cap room, so I doubt there is anything fishy here.

I can understand the casual attitude from some thinking it's okay to let Anderson go (I'm guessing he would probably relish a return to Colorado).

It's probably something the Bengals felt when the Texans signed Kevin Walter to an offer sheet for a 7th rounder. Nothing too exhorbitant in the offer, no poison pill, just more than the Bengals wanted to pay since they felt they had a deep WR corps, what with T.J. Whosyourmama, OchoCinco, and Chris Henry. Fast foward to 2009... think the Bengals would like Walter back?

Walter had 19-211-1 (11.1 avg) for a statline in 2005. Anderson in 2008 had 19-241-2 (12.7 avg). They look different in person, but otherwise the comparison is eerily similar.

superbowlbound

02-27-2009, 10:37 PM

popanot

02-27-2009, 10:50 PM

Theoretically, yes. But usually the poison pill is to front-load the cap figure to make it harder for a cap-laden team to match. The Texans have ample cap room, so I doubt there is anything fishy here.

I can understand the casual attitude from some thinking it's okay to let Anderson go (I'm guessing he would probably relish a return to Colorado).

It's probably something the Bengals felt when the Texans signed Kevin Walter to an offer sheet for a 7th rounder. Nothing too exhorbitant in the offer, no poison pill, just more than the Bengals wanted to pay since they felt they had a deep WR corps, what with T.J. Whosyourmama, OchoCinco, and Chris Henry. Fast foward to 2009... think the Bengals would like Walter back?

Walter had 19-211-1 (11.1 avg) for a statline in 2005. Anderson in 2008 had 19-241-2 (12.7 avg). They look different in person, but otherwise the comparison is eerily similar.I was thinking a poision pill like; "If player XYZ plays X amount of games in Texas the player gets an extra $$$ in bonus or contract money". Something corny like that.

As for losing DA, I find it hard to compare him and Walters. Walters is much more explosive and has/had much higher upside potential. I can see some comparions of DA to Wes Welker or Brandon Stokley, but I don't think DA will ever reach their productivity. Sorry, I just don't see it happening. If Andre D can stay healthy, I think he's much more dangerous in the slot than DA was. I'd take Angry Dre, Davis and Walters over Dre, DA and Walters.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like him to be here. It's just that I don't see it as that big of a deal if he goes. Even if he does well, I don't think I'd ever think back and say "damn we should have kept him".

HPF Bob

02-27-2009, 10:51 PM

Anderson played at Colorado St. so he may just want to go home.

I read where the Broncos were also pursuing Jabar Gaffney. The New England OC they hired for head coach apparently loves Welkeresque receivers.

kravix

02-27-2009, 10:53 PM

I hope we match. I think that Kubes likes DA. I am also hoping that the low tender was a wish in the well that no other teams were catching on to what we have potentialy in our #3-4 reciever.

I have this odd feeling that DA is one of the "guys" in the locker room that gives this team a odd ball feeling to it, personality wise. It has also been reported that his work ethic and dedication is huge. Losing a guy that is as versital as he is with the ability to produce with the chances he has been given could be a bad thing.

popanot

02-27-2009, 11:01 PM

Sure didn't take long for someone to pounce on him, did it? Looks like we got vonta leach'd again.So just because someone quickly signed him to an offer sheet means he's destined to be a star?

painekiller

02-27-2009, 11:02 PM

Not so sure I would match the offer. Like Bob said the kid may just be trying to go home. And because I have my eye on this kid, Johnny Knox (http://draftguys.com/index.php/articles/dgtv_1/johnny_knox_-_wr_-_abilene_christian/)

Keith

02-27-2009, 11:38 PM

http://www.inthebullseye.com/archive/2009/20090227.html

I'd prefer to keep Anderson, eschew the 7th rounder, and use my other picks to continue to address the needs on defense and running back.

Arky

02-28-2009, 01:06 AM

I'm with popanot on this one. If the Texans match, fine. If they don't, not a big deal. Maybe use that 7th rounder on a future punter..... Turk ain't gonna last forever...I'd rather see AD or JJ get more reps, anyway. Although DA did an admirable job while he was on the field, he's just not going to run away from anybody....

dadmg

02-28-2009, 02:38 AM

whoops. Guess that's what happens when you try to slip one by. I'd be mildly surprised to see us match even though I like Anderson.

mussop

02-28-2009, 04:09 AM

Im happy for the guy. He had to work his ass off to get this far. He deserves this. No matter where he plays I wish him well and hope he plays great.*

*Unless he is playing against us.

nunusguy

02-28-2009, 07:27 AM

whoops. Guess that's what happens when you try to slip one by. I'd be mildly surprised to see us match even though I like Anderson.
I dunno but perhaps that just tells us they don't really value him that much ? We'll soon see.
A downside it would seem is that its now not as easy to deal Jacobey ?

mussop

02-28-2009, 10:31 AM

I dunno but perhaps that just tells us they don't really value him that much ? We'll soon see.
A downside it would seem is that its now not as easy to deal Jacobey ?

We did talk to alot of WR's/returners at the combine.

NBT

02-28-2009, 04:31 PM

I look on this as perhaps one last reprieve for JJ to pick up his game and hold on to the damn ball.

superbowlbound

02-28-2009, 06:18 PM

So just because someone quickly signed him to an offer sheet means he's destined to be a star?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Just that we tried to slip a guy by with a low tender, and then he went and signed an offer sheet with another team. That's all, even though it's not quite the same, because we ended up having to give vonta a significant raise, whereas matching the broncos offer will put his 09 cap figure at just about what it would be if we'd given him the second round tender. I do think DA's gonna have himself a nice little career, though. Not great by any means, but he's an NFL caliber receiver, for sure. That and i'm sure gonna miss the string dance.

papabear

03-02-2009, 08:39 AM

well, Denver has been pretty active today, but not really impressive gets it seems. I guess I'd match this 4.5 offer, but its close. Good for David though.

I would match it without a second thought. I was with Keith in not understanding why they didn't place a second round tender on him for 500k more. I think you guys are underestimating what DA does for this team. It's not catastrophic if he leaves, but most teams in this league have trouble finding two solid WR's they are happy with. We've got three and I see no reason to lose that for basically peanuts.

dalemurphy

03-02-2009, 10:55 AM

I would match it without a second thought. I was with Keith in not understanding why they didn't place a second round tender on him for 500k more. I think you guys are underestimating what DA does for this team. It's not catastrophic if he leaves, but most teams in this league have trouble finding two solid WR's they are happy with. We've got three and I see no reason to lose that for basically peanuts.

17 catches and very little help on special teams doesn't seem difficult to replace. He was a nice player but I'd rather have the extra 7th round pick at that price. LZ commented on his inability to separate from man coverage which is just indicative of his physical limitations. His possible departure reminds me of Billy Miller. Both guys made some plays and got the most out of their abilities and were also fan favorites. However, in both cases, their physical limitations were too great and the roster could be strengthened (potentially) by replacing them.

papabear

03-02-2009, 11:36 AM

17 catches and very little help on special teams doesn't seem difficult to replace. He was a nice player but I'd rather have the extra 7th round pick at that price. LZ commented on his inability to separate from man coverage which is just indicative of his physical limitations. His possible departure reminds me of Billy Miller. Both guys made some plays and got the most out of their abilities and were also fan favorites. However, in both cases, their physical limitations were too great and the roster could be strengthened (potentially) by replacing them.

I'm not saying they aren't plenty of guys who could upgrade David Anderson, but your comparing the small chance most seventh round picks have of making a team vs. a guy who you know can play the role you need of him, who is still young, and relatively cheap, with great hands.

I'm a guy who preaches about the value of draft picks...and advocates hoarding as many of them as you can, but in this case a 7th rounder is not enough, IMO, for a guy who has earned his way onto the team and shown he's capable of contributing (even if it's only a little). If it was a 5th I would probably offer to give him a ride to the airport though.

painekiller

03-02-2009, 01:41 PM

I'm not saying they aren't plenty of guys who could upgrade David Anderson, but your comparing the small chance most seventh round picks have of making a team vs. a guy who you know can play the role you need of him, who is still young, and relatively cheap, with great hands.

I'm a guy who preaches about the value of draft picks...and advocates hoarding as many of them as you can, but in this case a 7th rounder is not enough, IMO, for a guy who has earned his way onto the team and shown he's capable of contributing (even if it's only a little). If it was a 5th I would probably offer to give him a ride to the airport though.

I don't call his new offer cheap? League minimum is cheap

Keith

03-04-2009, 03:50 PM

Texans have matched.

The Texans have matched the three-year $4.5 million offer sheet that wide receiver David Anderson signed with the Denver Broncos last week.
Anderson, who will receive a $1 million signing bonus, is the Texans fourth receiver behind Andre Johnson, Kevin Walter and Andre Davis. ...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/6293740.html

Mike

03-04-2009, 04:02 PM

I was wondering about this. Good for DA. Hard work and determination does pay off. He seems like a team guy and plays as hard as he can and I respect the hell out of that.

On a side note, he was one of the most fun players to talk to at last years season ticket holder event. He was with Dreesen and they were a riot to talk with.

nunusguy

03-04-2009, 07:06 PM

I dunno but wonder just how much interest the Broncos have in DA ? Maybe Smith is holding out for something more than just a seventh round pick ?

Keith

03-04-2009, 08:26 PM

Maybe Smith is holding out for something more than just a seventh round pick ?Probably not. The Texans would have a fresh $1 million in dead money if they traded Anderson.

Thinking the Texans might match their offer, I would guess that the Broncos might have asked Smith for a trade before signing him to the offer sheet, if at all of course.

Then again, considering what the Broncos have done re: Cutler these last few days, there's no telling what's going on in Denver anymore.

As for Anderson, I stated my position early and often, so I'm happy. This is not a huge money deal. For a 4th WR (and perhaps a first choice slot receiver), this is fair, especially on an offense that likes to sling the pigskin around the yard like the Texans do.

popanot

03-04-2009, 08:50 PM

Good for DA. It wouldn't have bothered me had the Texans not matched, but he does bring some value to the team so I'm glad he's back. No doubt, he deserves to be here more than some.

painekiller

03-04-2009, 09:07 PM

barrett

03-04-2009, 09:51 PM

painekiller

03-04-2009, 10:16 PM

So you think he should have been tendered at the higher number ($1.5 million), but you think it is a bad business deal to match this offer (3 years, 4.5 million, or 1.5 per year).

I am missing your logic on this one.

Your correct i did not make any sense, $1.5M is to much for Anderson's talent level. And now he has dead money if he is cut.

barrett

03-04-2009, 10:27 PM

Your correct i did not make any sense, $1.5M is to much for Anderson's talent level. And now he has dead money if he is cut.

Isn't the whole tender gauranteed on a RFA. So tendering him at 1.5 would have actually resulted in more gauranteed money, and more potential dead money. This deal is every bit as cap friendly as the higher tender (or maybe more so).

Arky

03-04-2009, 11:05 PM

.... there's no telling what's going on in Denver anymore.......

I think we may be seeing the last of the Denver Connection. With Papa Shanahan gone, there might not be the same good ole boy stuff happening that much. I don't believe Mike Shanahan would have done the DA offer....

Denver picked up Jabar Gaffney from New England so perhaps with the DA move, they were attempting to stockpile some experienced receivers for Cutler...

Keith

03-05-2009, 12:08 AM

Isn't the whole tender gauranteed on a RFA. So tendering him at 1.5 would have actually resulted in more gauranteed money, and more potential dead money. This deal is every bit as cap friendly as the higher tender (or maybe more so).
I don't think the RFA tender is guaranteed. The franchise tag becomes guaranteed once signed by the player, but unless I am too sleepy to remember, the RFA (and ERFA) tenders are not guaranteed when signed. There's also no signing bonus on the RFA tenders, so dead money there is not an issue.

Tossing aside the guarantee issue... Anderson's cap value will probably be less in 2009 under a 3-yr contract than as a RFA. With a $1 million signing bonus split into thirds, his bonus would then be $333k. Add that to whatever 2009 base salary he negotiated with the Broncos (probably the min for a player with 3 credited seasons, $535k), and the '09 cap figure for Anderson is maybe around $868k, a few hundred thousand less than with the tender.

So the threat of dead money... Anderson seems to be a virtual lock to make the team in 2009. In 2010, there may or may not be a cap, so I'm not sure dead money is an issue if there isn't. Assuming 2010 is played under the same cap rules as any normal capped year, then yeah DA could have as much as $667k in dead money on the 2010 cap (or half that as a June 1 cut with the other half deferred to 2011, again assuming old rules apply).

Probably overkill on the subject, especially considering this is not at all a big money deal. Take a harder look at Eugene Wilson's cap figures... now there's a dude who needs to perform and not flame out a la Will Demps.

barrett

03-05-2009, 07:54 AM

Are you sure it's not gauranteed. If not, why wouldn't everyone tender at the high amount to make a play for draft picks and then cut the player if nobody signed them to an offer sheet.

Keith

03-05-2009, 08:28 AM

Are you sure it's not gauranteed. If not, why wouldn't everyone tender at the high amount to make a play for draft picks and then cut the player if nobody signed them to an offer sheet.
Because the low tender is $1.05 million this year, which is almost double the vet minimum for a player with three credited seasons. Is Stanley McClover worth a one-year $1.05 million contract? No, which is why that RFA wasn't tendered and signed to the vet min.

papabear

03-05-2009, 09:52 AM

I don't think it was a wise move. If the team thought he was worth the money they should have tendered him more upfront. Another overpaid role player. Yes he is a nice guy and everyone pulls for him, but this is a bad business deal, IMO.

I agree with part of this. It's obvious the Texans have DA in their plans and want him around or they wouldn't have matched. I think it was almost a given that someone would make him an offer if the risk was only a 7th round. If they would have just given him a second round tender that would have stopped any offers IMO. Now they are tied up to him for more money. The deal is not huge, and the dead money would not be a killer if we had to cut him....if there's even a cap.

I think DA is slotted to be our #3 WR this year. I' sure Davis will get a few reps, but it looks doubtful that Jacoby is even part of the plan. I don't think that this contract is outrageous for the role he is likel to fill for this team this year. I do think the Texans didn't play their hand well with the low tender.

painekiller

03-05-2009, 10:38 AM

I agree with part of this. It's obvious the Texans have DA in their plans and want him around or they wouldn't have matched. I think it was almost a given that someone would make him an offer if the risk was only a 7th round. If they would have just given him a second round tender that would have stopped any offers IMO. Now they are tied up to him for more money. The deal is not huge, and the dead money would not be a killer if we had to cut him....if there's even a cap.

I think DA is slotted to be our #3 WR this year. I' sure Davis will get a few reps, but it looks doubtful that Jacoby is even part of the plan. I don't think that this contract is outrageous for the role he is likel to fill for this team this year. I do think the Texans didn't play their hand well with the low tender.

Well said papabear, where I disagree is I think we need a more talented guy for the #3 slot. Read that to mean a little faster/quicker.

Now what do we have tied up in #3 WR? Anderson, Andre Davis and JJ or at least his 3rd round pick.

But over all I must be nitpicking, if I am the only complaining. After all you cannot have super stars at every position.

Keith

03-05-2009, 10:53 AM

The WR depth chart is not exactly linear. Angry Dre is the X and Walter is the Z. Andre Davis is the first choice backup at the X and probably at the Z, but I think if the Texans go three wide with a receiver in the slot (instead of Owen Daniels as the Y in the slot), then Anderson should be that receiver.

They move around some, too. I think Angry Dre plays any of the positions now. I've seen Davis line up in the slot, too. But I think this is the year we might see more of DA on the field in those 3-WR formations.

And I'm sure Bob McNair is pleased that we all want his money spent wisely, but as fans, I'm surprised we're not a little more thrilled to retain some decent depth here. A second day drafted WR (like Mike Thomas, who I like a lot around the 4th round in fact), will not be as ready to take over like DA is ready now. Receivers usually take a couple years to catch on.

And DA isn't taking a spot away from anyone on the roster, imo. Jacoby Jones is still at the 5th and likely final spot, so unless he is traded, he'll have to fend off Darnell Jenkins and/or some low round rookie and street FAs in training camp.

papabear

03-05-2009, 11:02 AM

Well said papabear, where I disagree is I think we need a more talented guy for the #3 slot. Read that to mean a little faster/quicker.

I can see that, but I think that most teams have enough trouble being happy with their #1 and #2 WR's much less three. The only scenario where I think your really going to be much better skill wise at WR#3 is in the case of drafting a young guy to develop. Jacoby SHOULD be that guy, but Gonzales in Indy is probably a better example.

One reason I like this is Anderson appears to appreciate being here. Your not going to find many guys who are athletically better than Anderson who are content to be #3 who also run a good route and have excellent hands. Again, Jacoby is a great example...who do you trust more to run the route correctly and make the catch at this point? Jacoby is more athletically gifted than DA, but he's not the WR that DA is at this point.

I don't think there's any doubt that he will work his tail off for you.

barrett

03-05-2009, 11:13 AM

I agree with part of this. It's obvious the Texans have DA in their plans and want him around or they wouldn't have matched. I think it was almost a given that someone would make him an offer if the risk was only a 7th round. If they would have just given him a second round tender that would have stopped any offers IMO. Now they are tied up to him for more money. The deal is not huge, and the dead money would not be a killer if we had to cut him....if there's even a cap.

I think DA is slotted to be our #3 WR this year. I' sure Davis will get a few reps, but it looks doubtful that Jacoby is even part of the plan. I don't think that this contract is outrageous for the role he is likel to fill for this team this year. I do think the Texans didn't play their hand well with the low tender.

But the high tender was 1.5 million a year and that is what they got him for. How is that a bad deal? And the gauranteed money is tiny. Not to mention if you sign him as a RFA for a year he hits URFA next year and probably receives another raise. There is no way the deal he got is worse for us than the high tender would have been.

papabear

03-05-2009, 12:11 PM

But the high tender was 1.5 million a year and that is what they got him for. How is that a bad deal? And the gauranteed money is tiny. Not to mention if you sign him as a RFA for a year he hits URFA next year and probably receives another raise. There is no way the deal he got is worse for us than the high tender would have been.

your right...and we even save a little cap room this year this way. It was just risky to dangle a guy who was obviously a big part of our plans for next year out there for no more than a 7th round pick. The money's close so at the end of the day it works out OK, but it was an unnecessary risk IMO because if Denver or someone else threw closer to #2 money at him then we have taken our one position group that was more or less set and turned it into need.

Joshua

03-05-2009, 12:46 PM

I agree with Papabear. While it ultimately worked out, I'm not crazy about the process of how we got there. Essentially, the Texans allowed another team to dictate the terms of DA's contract. To me, that's not great business. While it may have worked out, Denver could have easily signed him for more (or put in a poison pill, etc.). As it is clear Smith and Kubiak thought DA is worth the money the second round tender would have required since they matched an offer worth basically that, they should have tendered him for a second and not put themselves in the position of losing a player they clearly wanted to keep.

barrett

03-05-2009, 03:41 PM

Let me get this straight. You guys have no problem with the deal, but just don't like how it happened?

You can tell its the offseason when we start inventing reasons to be upset.

papabear

03-05-2009, 04:00 PM

You can tell its the offseason when we start inventing reasons to be upset.

Ha! I'm getting the itch for football season to start back up again real bad.

kravix

03-05-2009, 04:06 PM

There could be many reasons for the way it went down the way it did. It doesnt bother me at all, the risk they took on the minimum tender seemed pretty calculated.

Perhaps, the team was hoping that no other team would even be interested for a 7th, giving the Texans one more year of development and not commiting to a non star player long term. DA could be replaced fairly easily in FA or the draft as his skills stand now. Maybe after next year it would be different.

Also, only Denver went after him. It isnt like half the league wanted to give up a 7th round pick for him.

Obviously the team thinks he is worth the contract and they got caught trying to keep him on the cheap. Like most player they probably have a threshold they would want to pay and would always prefer to stay under in able to keep and hire newer greater talent. Had the contract been for 6 over 3 the Texans may have let him go.

dadmg

03-05-2009, 04:20 PM

I'm happy. I figured we were unlikely to match, but I'm glad we did. That is all.

Joshua

03-05-2009, 04:22 PM

Let me get this straight. You guys have no problem with the deal, but just don't like how it happened?

I agree it's not a huge deal, but, yes, I' have a slight problem with how this went down. You have no problem with the Texans allowing other teams to dictate contract terms of players they clearly want to keep?

barrett

03-05-2009, 08:05 PM

I agree it's not a huge deal, but, yes, I' have a slight problem with how this went down. You have no problem with the Texans allowing other teams to dictate contract terms of players they clearly want to keep?

THey didn't allow other teams to dictate the contract terms. They made a $ 1 million offer. The Broncos outbid them. The Texans matched.

In the scenario you push for, we offer 1.5, and then are in a wide open URFA situation next year with no rights of first refusal. That means next year we'd be far more at risk of other teams dictating to us then we were this year. This year we had a the choice clearly on our side. Nothing dictated or forced. We had full control the whole time. That's what first refusal rights mean.

Joshua

03-06-2009, 08:47 AM

THey didn't allow other teams to dictate the contract terms. They made a $ 1 million offer. The Broncos outbid them. The Texans matched.

In the scenario you push for, we offer 1.5, and then are in a wide open URFA situation next year with no rights of first refusal. That means next year we'd be far more at risk of other teams dictating to us then we were this year. This year we had a the choice clearly on our side. Nothing dictated or forced. We had full control the whole time. That's what first refusal rights mean.

Of course the Broncos dictated the terms. DA was free to negotiate with any team of his choosing (as he did with the Broncos). For the Texans to keep him, they had to exactly match whatever offer DA was able to generate. How is this not allowing the Broncos to dictate the terms?

Not sure where you came up with my scenario either. My scenario would that the Texans tendered him at a 2nd rounder, thereby discouraging any teams from offering him a contract (or if they did, ensuring that the Texans are well compensated). Now, the Texans have the exclusive right to negotiate an extension with him own their own terms.

Also, by your logic, sounds like we're going to be in a bidding war for Owen Daniels next year. We should have tendered him for his 4th round pick and let someone sign him. Then we would have had "full control" to match any deal, keep OD and prevented his UFA next year. Texans really dropped the ball on that one.

barrett

03-06-2009, 09:11 AM

Joshua

03-06-2009, 09:30 AM

You aren't being dictated to if you have exclusive rights. You retain all the power and can do whatever you feel like at any point. It is just like regular Free Agency but with a safety net. Other teams make offers, only unlike URFA, we don't have to beat their offers, we just CHOOSE (notice we are not dictated to) whether or not we want to match.

By the way you mention after signing the higher tender we have the right to negotiate with him for a year on an extension. What do you think the extension would look like on a guy already making 1.5 million per year? On a young player you are trying to extend there will unquestionably be a raise involved.

So now you have jacked up the initial salary, payed him more in year one for the right to pay him even more in year 2 and 3 (or let him walk). Genius.

So please explain to me how tendering him high results in paying him less or even the same amount of money over a 3 year deal as what we got.

You're changing the discussion. All along, my complaint was not with the outcome. I agreed that the ultimate outcome was fine (I suspect if they had tendered him for a 2nd and worked out an extension, it would have been very close to this deal). However, there was no guarantee of this. What if Denver decided DA was the next Wes Welker and offered him 3 years, $9 million? What if they put in a $2 million bonus if he plays 6 games in Texas? By matching, the Texans clearly indicated he was a player they wanted to keep, but they very easily could have lost him.

Also, your definition of choice; i.e., choosing whether or not to match another team's offer, basically takes all practical meaning out of it. Assuming that most free agents go to the highest bidder (I think that, generally speaking, this is a safe assumption), then we even have control over every UFA. All we have to do is "choose" to offer more than the next team. By this logic, I can't conceive of any scenario whereby you couldn't assert the Texans controlled the player. Heck, the Texans controlled Albert Haynesworth by choosing not to offer $120 million. But such claims are pointless.

Finally, I notice you didn't address OD. Did you agree with the Texans tendering him for a 1st and a 3rd? If so, I'm curious why you would be in favor of this considering your arguments above. Why not just tender him for a 4th? By your logic, there is no downside in this. Would you advocate the lowest tender possible for all RFAs since we have the choice to match?

barrett

03-06-2009, 10:56 AM

You're changing the discussion. All along, my complaint was not with the outcome. I agreed that the ultimate outcome was fine (I suspect if they had tendered him for a 2nd and worked out an extension, it would have been very close to this deal). However, there was no guarantee of this. What if Denver decided DA was the next Wes Welker and offered him 3 years, $9 million? What if they put in a $2 million bonus if he plays 6 games in Texas? By matching, the Texans clearly indicated he was a player they wanted to keep, but they very easily could have lost him.

Also, your definition of choice; i.e., choosing whether or not to match another team's offer, basically takes all practical meaning out of it. Assuming that most free agents go to the highest bidder (I think that, generally speaking, this is a safe assumption), then we even have control over every UFA. All we have to do is "choose" to offer more than the next team. By this logic, I can't conceive of any scenario whereby you couldn't assert the Texans controlled the player. Heck, the Texans controlled Albert Haynesworth by choosing not to offer $120 million. But such claims are pointless.

Finally, I notice you didn't address OD. Did you agree with the Texans tendering him for a 1st and a 3rd? If so, I'm curious why you would be in favor of this considering your arguments above. Why not just tender him for a 4th? By your logic, there is no downside in this. Would you advocate the lowest tender possible for all RFAs since we have the choice to match?

What if, What if, What if?

Well, I guess it's good that our GM had a good feel for what his players were valued at and what other teams would offer. You can say he got lucky, but sometimes I'd rather be lucky than good. Bottom line is we got him for 3 years at 4.5. If we give him 1.5 for this year his extension will logically include a raise (like any extension for any young player), and we pay more. So no matter what you think, Rick Smith's way of doing things worked. Save your arm-chair GMing for an argument where you actually disagree with the outcome.

As for OD, you treat him differently because he is going to get paid more than the high tender. DA wasn't worth more than 1.5 to any other team, so there is no reason to start your offer at 1.5. But with Daniels he will get far more than that from someone when he does sign a longer deal. So it is fine to give him the higher tender since you are not jumping up his value by doing so.

Bottom line is I think giving DA a salary of 1.5 million through the tender inflates his value in your subsequent contract negotiations. Not to mention you can afford to lose DA if some team goes nuts.

OD will be paid far more so the 1.5 does not affect future negotiations, and you can't afford to lose him, so you tender him high. Seems like they were right on both counts and both situations worked out perfect for them.

cadams

03-06-2009, 01:28 PM

What if, What if, What if?

Well, I guess it's good that our GM had a good feel for what his players were valued at and what other teams would offer. You can say he got lucky, but sometimes I'd rather be lucky than good. Bottom line is we got him for 3 years at 4.5. If we give him 1.5 for this year his extension will logically include a raise (like any extension for any young player), and we pay more. So no matter what you think, Rick Smith's way of doing things worked. Save your arm-chair GMing for an argument where you actually disagree with the outcome.

As for OD, you treat him differently because he is going to get paid more than the high tender. DA wasn't worth more than 1.5 to any other team, so there is no reason to start your offer at 1.5. But with Daniels he will get far more than that from someone when he does sign a longer deal. So it is fine to give him the higher tender since you are not jumping up his value by doing so.

Bottom line is I think giving DA a salary of 1.5 million through the tender inflates his value in your subsequent contract negotiations. Not to mention you can afford to lose DA if some team goes nuts.

OD will be paid far more so the 1.5 does not affect future negotiations, and you can't afford to lose him, so you tender him high. Seems like they were right on both counts and both situations worked out perfect for them.

You are wrong here. First of all, as a GM you have to take into account the "what ifs" that's part of the job. yes it worked out, but "what if" denver signed anderson to a contract with a poison pill as joshua discussed above? don't act like that isn't a valid point. it has happened before and will again. and if you want a guy around you don't subject yourself to that chance. denver could have signed anderson for less, and put a pill in there that would completely take the texans out of the market. now you are correct, it did not happen, but just because it worked out this time doesnt mean it was necessarily the best way to approach it.

they did the same thing with leach and it bit them. you seem to be overly confrontational when someone disagrees with you. if you don't like "armchair gms" then maybe a message board about a football team isn't where you need to be hanging out. "what ifs" and discussing what you think could be problems are as much a part of what these boards are for as anything else. now i am not bashing smith, i think he has done a pretty good job for the most part since being here, but he hasn't been perfect . . .especially in free agency and dealing with non-draft signings, but he is getting good players in here and they seem to be moving in the right direction.

kravix

03-06-2009, 01:43 PM

I like DA and all, but comparing his contract negotiations with OD is silly. One is the 3rd/4th reciever on the depth chart and the other is a pro bowl TE.

The process to ensure that you hold onto a pro bowl TE and to make sure both parties are happy with the compensation is completly different than giving a guy a 1M signing bonus and 1.5M/year and calling it a lunch break.

barrett

03-06-2009, 04:17 PM

You are wrong here. First of all, as a GM you have to take into account the "what ifs" that's part of the job. yes it worked out, but "what if" denver signed anderson to a contract with a poison pill as joshua discussed above? don't act like that isn't a valid point. it has happened before and will again. and if you want a guy around you don't subject yourself to that chance. denver could have signed anderson for less, and put a pill in there that would completely take the texans out of the market. now you are correct, it did not happen, but just because it worked out this time doesnt mean it was necessarily the best way to approach it.

they did the same thing with leach and it bit them. you seem to be overly confrontational when someone disagrees with you. if you don't like "armchair gms" then maybe a message board about a football team isn't where you need to be hanging out. "what ifs" and discussing what you think could be problems are as much a part of what these boards are for as anything else. now i am not bashing smith, i think he has done a pretty good job for the most part since being here, but he hasn't been perfect . . .especially in free agency and dealing with non-draft signings, but he is getting good players in here and they seem to be moving in the right direction.

A GM is paid to know what a player is worth. They are paid to know how a player is valued by other teams. Rick Smith apparently felt confident that he knew these things and that he could do it this way. And guess what he was right. And regarding poison pills, has anyone ever put one in a contract this small for a backup player? Has it ever happened? This is a serious question. Has anyone ever put a poison pill in a deal for less than 5 million dollars?

You guys are so sure that this was the wrong way to do things, but IT WORKED. Smith made a play and the result was a very reasonable contract under the circumstances. As I have pointed out, it is probably the cheapest way to possibly keep DA over the next 3 years. And nobody has disputed that.

Come back later and complain about one of the many decisions that didn't work. Complaining about one that did is just silly.

superbowlbound

03-06-2009, 05:03 PM

I think this argument is bordering on ridiculous. I think the line of reasoning with DA's tender went something like this: we like the kid. he fits in with what we're doing, but for the foreseeable future, he's going to be a role player, and one that can be fairly easily replaced at that. We're willing to pay him 2nd round tender money, and other teams MAY be interested, but with only 17 catches last year, we'll take our chances. If someone is willing to give him WR2 money, good for him. He's not going to have the opportunity to be that here, barring injuries. If the offer he signs is in the ballpark of what we think he's worth for his role here, we'll match it. If not, we'll go in another direction. We've got 2 tight ends that can play from the slot if need be, so we'll be fine.

I don't really see any problem with that. I get that if a guy's in your plans, you don't want to risk losing him for very little, but I think this scenario played out with the second-best possible outcome from the team's perspective. He gets his second round tender money, at a (likely) lower cap figure for 09 than his 7th round tender would have cost. Are we lucky it shook out this way, sure we are; but as many of you have already said, it wouldn't have been the end of the world if we didn't match the offer. I know it doesn't exactly sit well, what with the vonta leach debacle still ringing from last year, but the bottom line is that this wasn't really botched. everything worked out. period.

NBT

03-06-2009, 05:46 PM

The ultimate in this scenario is for DA to perform to the level laid down by Wes Welker. There are a lot of similarities. DA just hasn't had the chance to do it yet.

dadmg

03-06-2009, 06:28 PM

There's no question we needed to resign Anderson. For evidence, check this link http://jocklife.com/media-3

Pure goodness.

Keith

03-06-2009, 11:27 PM

Pure goodness.
Seconded.

Reminds me of my Andrea Kremer impression.

Here are Anderson's base salaries:
2009 $900,000
2010 $1,170,000
2011 $1,440,000

With the reported $1 million signing bonus, the total contract value comes to $4.51 million, and his 2009 cap value amounts to $1,233,333 (plus workout bonus, which I imagine would be the standard figure ~$6000 depending on how many days he showed. He made all of them in 2008 for $6,720).

TheMatrix31

03-07-2009, 04:26 AM

Seconded.

Reminds me of my Andrea Kremer impression.

Here are Anderson's base salaries:
2009 $900,000
2010 $1,170,000
2011 $1,440,000

With the reported $1 million signing bonus, the total contract value comes to $4.51 million, and his 2009 cap value amounts to $1,233,333 (plus workout bonus, which I imagine would be the standard figure ~$6000 depending on how many days he showed. He made all of them in 2008 for $6,720).

That's absolutely NOTHING for a guy who could potentially offer as much as DA does.

Keith

03-07-2009, 07:52 AM

The ultimate in this scenario is for DA to perform to the level laid down by Wes Welker. There are a lot of similarities. DA just hasn't had the chance to do it yet.

I think it's pretty easy for fans to look at both receivers and (passing first the skin color similarities) see some things that are comparable but just as easily dismiss them thinking there's NO way Anderson can achieve what Welker has accomplished.

To that I say, maybe. Welker has found himself a niche on a high-caliber team and exploited everything he's got. But I do think the comparisons for Anderson to Welker are valid.

To wit, the non-pads numbers first:
- Anderson's about 5'10" 194 (BMI around 27ish). He ran a 4.57 forty, has a 34" vertical, and ran a 6.88 cone drill.
- Welker's about 5'9" 185 (BMI around 27ish). He ran a 4.61 forty, has a 30" vertical, and ran a 7.06 cone drill.

The stats:
- A 7th round pick, Anderson was little used his first two years. In his third season, he caught 19 passes for 241 yards and 2 TDs.
- An undrafted player, Welker was little used (beyond returns) his first two years with the Dolphins. In his third season, he caught 29 passes for 434 yards and 0 TDs.

The comparisons are probably valid as much as they are eerily coincidental. But perhaps the biggest difference through three years was that the Dolphins used Welker's skills as a returner extensively whereas Anderson is rarely used as a returner. Welker is a nice returner, but is he special? He has only scored one TD in his entire career, spanning more than 350 kick and punt returns.

Welker played his 4th season in Miami and caught 67 balls for 687 yards and 1 TD. If everyone remains relatively healthy, there probably aren't enough passes to go around for Angry Dre, Walter, and Andre Davis for Anderson to catch that many in 2009.

But Welker persevered and found opportunity, and to date, Anderson has survived much longer than many (inluding myself) thought he would. Tough to bet against him continuing his ascent.