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

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by papabear

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]

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]

Originally Posted by painekiller

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]

Originally Posted by papabear

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]

Originally Posted by barrett

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by barrett

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]

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]

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

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by barrett

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[superbowlbound]

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.