The Lions have signed Stafford to a six-year deal with $41.7 million guaranteed. The St. Lose Rams are now on the clock.
Somehow, someway, I want this guy to come to Tampa.
A little context and description for the videoless: that’s a 288 lb., 6’5" man leaping out of a swimming pool. You have to watch it, then go try it yourself if you’ve got a pool handy.
I’m 6’ and 160 lbs., and almost fat free. I couldn’t even get my knees above the pool edge.
Just…facepalm.
Edited to add: For Stafford.
Details on the deal: $41.7 million guaranteed, up to $78 million with incentives. Is this a good time to mention that I saw ESPN’s graphics department call the Detriot GM “Martin Mayhem” the other day?
No kidding. That’s $9 million more than JaMarcus Russell got in guarantees, and he held out for two months…
It’s $0.7 million more than *anyone *has ever gotten in guarantees. Just nuts.
If they believe that he’s going to pan out and he’s got what it takes I suppose you feel compelled to make that move, however, they don’t need one home run, they need a bunch of doubles.
I see almost all of Stafford’s non-guaranteed money is based on playing time, not performance incentives. Is that normal? He’s guaranteed less than $8 million a year, but if he plays enough it jumps to $12 million. I suppose if he plays that much every year that shows he’s good, but I don’t know how that compares to other contracts. With incentives, I think he’s set to make almost as much as Tom Brady each year.
Wow, I bet a bunch of GMs are dropping loads in their trousers.
The whole pay scale is usually set by the first over all, and that is just crazy. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see some top order changes based on quick negotiations for who is cheapest.
I think if Curry is gone and Sanchez is still on the board the Browns will trade down.
That contract is nuts! I can’t believe they trumped the Jake Long and Matt Ryan deals from last year with the state of the economy as it is. I really expected those contracts to take a step back, or the Lions to sign a non-QB in a cost saving move. At this point it’s clear that the NFL needs to fix this in the next CBA. If this economy doesn’t reign in these contracts nothing will. The fact that Stafford got more money than Haynesworth is baffling on every level. I don’t blame the Lions, and he might be the right guy to draft, but the system is broken.
Off-hand I don’t know what Detroit’s salary cap picture is like, but at that kind of price I think I’d have to consider behaving like a small-market baseball team: contact a Michael Oher type and offer him the money he’d get as, say, the 8th overall pick. From both a financial and competitive standpoint, wouldn’t you rather have Oher at 25/5 as opposed to Stafford at 72/6? Of course, that would be much worse from a PR standpoint, which has got to loom large for any team coming off of the worst record in football.
I’m pretty sure the agents and players union would crush any deal like that. The agents know what they are doing and anyone you take a #1 overall is going to get paid on par with the position. If they’d drafted Oher or Andre Smith at #1 he’d be getting a deal like Jake Long got regardless of the “experts” ranking. Anything else would not get approved by either the league or the union.
Detroit’s cap situation was the best of any team in the league prior to free agency. They added a handful of middling players since then, but IIRC they were somewhere close to $50M under the cap. This won’t hurt them this year, but 3 years from now if Stafford is a bust or only a back-up they are screwed. Also, it’s insane that if he’s a Pro Bowl starter and Sanchez is as well at say the 9th pick 3 years from now, the team that drafts Sanchez will be in a infinitely better position than Detroit to add other pieces to win it all. Just a stupid system.
Of course Stafford was chosen because he has FORD in his last name. They could not be cheap with him because they did not want to cheapen the brand name.
There has to be some explanation for overpaying when seasons tickets have dropped 30 %.
I don’t see how they could. The player in question gets more money than he otherwise would have, and if he signs before the draft than his contract is his contract. There’s a rookie salary cap, but (AFAIK) no rookie salary floor.
On a sport show yesterday ,the ex player announcers ,said the distorted rookie contracts are are of the reasons for clubhouse grumbling. There is resentment. They made a 21 year old untested rookie ,the biggest earner on the team.
Stafford’s contract is ridiculous, but without a rookie salary cap what were the Lions supposed to do? Nobody wants a repeat of the Jamarcus Russell situation. If they hadn’t come to terms with him now, they would have had to come to terms with another player, and who’s to say they would have been able to sign that other player for less? If they let the clock expire on draft day without selecting anyone their front office ends up looking like they don’t know what they’re doing. They decided they needed a QB now and they’re paying a premium.
Peter King is a screaming idiot who gets access because he kisses ass and is always willing to report what people tell him to report. There is no more gullible NFL reporter.
Amazing job by the Lions. They take the consensus #1, and still screw it up. Millen lives.
Take another player, such as Jason Smith. But here’s an important draft fact that ESPN and/or Peter King will never have the integrity to cover: Part of the reason Stafford got such a huge contract was that Stafford and Jason Smith have the same agent, meaning that there was no way the Lions could play one off the other to get the best deal for themselves.
The players’ union couldn’t do anything about it. There’s no rule in the CBA that says the #1 pick has to sign for X amount. Of course, the agents might collude to prevent it, but I’m sure there’s at least one guy in the top 10 whose agent would break ranks in order to get his guy drafted #1 overall.
The rumors are coming faster and harder as the draft approaches that the Browns intend to take Sanchez and will deal away one or both of the current QBs.
I would not be happy.
Edit: Including Kiper changing his mock to that result today.
Some people say it’s a smoke screen to get people to trade up for him, but I’ve never bought the idea of selling up a guy to trade him away was all that logical. If you totally convince someone else that you want the guy, they trade up one spot ahead of you, not with you.
Although that could still be a shrewd plan if that’s what actually happens - someone trades to #4 for Sanchez and then Curry falls. (Please do something stupid, KC)