JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. Bottomline on free agent LB contracts

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Rep Power

    Bottomline on free agent LB contracts

    Here's an updated look at the Rams LB acquisitions and initial targets contracts

    Hartwell --- (Falcons) --- 6 years, $26.24 million ($8 mil bonus) --- $4.373 mil avg.
    Bell --- (Chiefs) --- 7 years, $35 million ($11 mil bonus) --- $5 mil avg.
    Pierce (Giants) --- 6 years, $26 million ($6.5 mil bonus) --- $4.3 mil avg.
    Coakley (Rams) --- 5 years, $14.5 million ($3.0 mil bonus) --- $2.9 mil avg.
    Claiborne (Rams) --- 3 years, $10.5 million (3.6 mil bonus) --- $3.5 mil avg.

    And of course, the real kicker...
    Guaranteed money

    Hartwell - $4.373 mil per year
    Bell - $1.57 mil per year
    Claiborne - $1.2 mil per year
    Pierce - $1.08 mil per year
    Coakley - $.6 mil per year

  2. #2
    general counsel Guest

    Re: Bottomline on free agent LB contracts

    I would love to hear from the group on peoples view of relative value, but it looks to me like the chiefs really paid top dollar for a guy who missed most of the year last year. Now, if the chiefs bring back willie lanier and raise buck buchanon from the dead, i think they are on their way defensively.

    general counsel

  3. #3
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Rep Power

    Re: Bottomline on free agent LB contracts

    Chiefs had to do what they did, attempt to shore up the defense with the money they had and the talent that was available. Just like the Rams. What most "experts" fail to realize about the Coakley deal was that the Rams improved ST's and D at the same time with a limited amount of money spent.

  4. #4
    ramhard's Avatar
    ramhard is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Rep Power

    This is great, but might be a better way of looking at GM

    I like your analysis of guranteed money, but rather than looking at average per year (which depends on contract length), what you might want to look at is what the cost would be if the person were cut or released after 2 or 3 years. So that would be the bonus money plus salary for the first 2 or 3 years. I think this is a better sign of monetary commitment. Especially given the importance of dead money etc. Unfortunately I don't now the salaries for the first 2 and 3 years to be able to calculate this. But for example we know all of Hartwell's is guaranteed so his 2 and 3 year figures would be the same, while C. Clairborne's 3 year figure is the total for his contract, and I'm guessing DC will get about 2.6 per year after the first year of 3 +1 of bonus. So after guessing on 1st and subsequent year salaries. I appears that the Rams got CC and DC for less than EH, about the same as if they had just signed KB, and about 2/3 of AP. So there is not doubt that fiscally the signings made sense, but that works only if CC and DC play well. Buying cheap mediocre players doesn't make sense. They don't have to be Pro Bowl for the monetary signing to make sense, but they have to be solid starters that drastically improve the run defense. Looking at the numbers I think the only real question is should the Rams have tried to get Pierce/Coakley rather than Claiborne/Coakley.

    EH 2: $26.24 3: $26.24
    KB: 2: $15.1 3: $18.2
    AP: 2: $10.7 3: $13.9

    CC 2: $7.5 3: $10.5
    DC 2: $6.6 3: $9.2

    Rams' totals for LB's

    2: $14.1 3: $19.7
    Last edited by ramhard; -03-21-2005 at 04:09 PM.

  5. #5
    theodus69 Guest

    Re: Bottomline on free agent LB contracts

    TX makes a good point. We also got 2 backers for the price of one.And this should help out cellar teams( special). They looked like they got off the short bus last couple of years! :tongue:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts