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

[barrett]

Originally Posted by Joshua

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]

Originally Posted by barrett

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]

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.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

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]

Originally Posted by Joshua

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]

Originally Posted by barrett

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.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by cadams

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.

[kravix]

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.