Jump to content

Vilma Signs 5 yr deal with the Saints!


IBleedGangGreen12

Recommended Posts

Why not?

The JETS could not get a 2nd... so they took a shot at it with the clause... the clause did not hurt the JETS... it was simply a way to have a slight chance at an upgrade...

That is like saying you will never see performance or playing time clauses because they are usually hit... or missed... because of shenanigans...

on the field is 100% different than off the field clauses

we can go on and on

lets just say if you see it again, a conditional draft pick with a trigger of a team extending thier own guy before FA you are right and I am wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Saints requested that or is that your guess? :P

Or did the FO not think to put it in the contract? I'm guessing the latter.

My point is that it's a guess. Your take on it is an even bigger guess ("Oh, they would have done the deal anyway without the extra condition in there."). Not-great MLB'ers with serious health issues as to long-term viability just don't garner non-conditional 2nd-round compensation.

This was apparently the best deal around (from all teams) for Jonathan Vilma in early 2008. I wish it was more. It wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tannenbaum was hardly schooled.

All the 2nd round clause was just insurance on the Jets part that if Jonathan Vilma was so good that the Saints couldn't risk him hitting the open market, that we'd be well compensated for it. I don't think for a minute that the Jets ever counted on receiving that draft pick.

I will say though, giving 17 million guaranteed to someone with a known knee condition seems like a bad deal from the Saints end. He's one bad tackle away from never being the same again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or was Mike T just schooled?

Are you serious? He got us a 3rd round draft choice (with an outside shot of a 2nd) for an undersized LB who was coming off of season-ending knee surgery for a chronic knee problem he had dating back to his college days, who only had one good season to date, who the entire league knew was worthless to us now that we played a 3-4, who only had one year left on his contract, and who wasn't even running yet as of the trade (he wasn't cleared to run until July).

After reading all that, and after considering we only traded a 3rd and a 5th for a healthy, 350+ pound, multiple time pro bowler and all-pro in Kris Jenkins, you're going to say Mike T got schooled getting a 3rd for Vilma?

Riiiight...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait till we find out the Jets did this with Philly.

figures it happens 3 days later, right ?

I think the lito deal having an on the field clause attached to the extension clause pretty much proves what I was trying to say.

let me clarify for you and ecurb

let me first say we are discussing 2 contracts, probably 60 pages long each, none of us has even read, so this is kinda folly in the first place, but here I go anyway

my point was that GM's around the NFL saw what happened, saw that the clause as it was written could be easily circumvented and wouldn't do that again.

what happened was an evolution, not an extinction

I was wrong in predicting an extintion, but I was right in predicting you won't see a conditional based only on an extension clause (so far anyway, give it a week)

the clause is basically a way to say, "if he plays well for you, we get more for him" the devil is in the details, of course in how do you define "plays well" ?

well enough for you to extend him

well enough to play in 85% of the games

well enough to make the pro-bowl

well enough to start

well enough to be top 10 in some stat

what we saw in the eagles deal is the eagles wanting a measure of protection against tanny playing footsy with the rules, and tanny wanting protection against lito getting hurt

the lito deal makes a lot more sense than the vilma deal

if there is a trade with a conditional pick based ONLY on a player getting extended before the FA period begins, I'll eat my crow with a fork

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

figures it happens 3 days later, right ?

I think the lito deal having an on the field clause attached to the extension clause pretty much proves what I was trying to say.

let me clarify for you and ecurb

let me first say we are discussing 2 contracts, probably 60 pages long each, none of us has even read, so this is kinda folly in the first place, but here I go anyway

my point was that GM's around the NFL saw what happened, saw that the clause as it was written could be easily circumvented and wouldn't do that again.

what happened was an evolution, not an extinction

I was wrong in predicting an extintion, but I was right in predicting you won't see a conditional based only on an extension clause (so far anyway, give it a week)

the clause is basically a way to say, "if he plays well for you, we get more for him" the devil is in the details, of course in how do you define "plays well" ?

well enough for you to extend him

well enough to play in 85% of the games

well enough to make the pro-bowl

well enough to start

well enough to be top 10 in some stat

what we saw in the eagles deal is the eagles wanting a measure of protection against tanny playing footsy with the rules, and tanny wanting protection against lito getting hurt

the lito deal makes a lot more sense than the vilma deal

if there is a trade with a conditional pick based ONLY on a player getting extended before the FA period begins, I'll eat my crow with a fork

:cheers:

Then you're not familiar with the in's & out's of the Vilma trade. Vilma had the same thing in his trade agreement. It was not only based on the extension, but Vilma's playing time as well. That's the reason we got upgraded from our 4th to their 3rd this year: based on his playing time. Otherwise, I think we would have ended up with their 4th rounder last year & nothing this year.

I'm going to guess that if we extend Sheppard and he plays under 85% of the snaps that they get more than if we don't extend him.

Actually, this seems like the exact same type of trade arrangement. Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you're not familiar with the in's & out's of the Vilma trade. Vilma had the same thing in his trade agreement. It was not only based on the extension, but Vilma's playing time as well. That's the reason we got upgraded from our 4th to their 3rd this year: based on his playing time. Otherwise, I think we would have ended up with their 4th rounder last year & nothing this year.

I'm going to guess that if we extend Sheppard and he plays under 85% of the snaps that they get more than if we don't extend him.

Actually, this seems like the exact same type of trade arrangement. Exactly.

I has no idea there were playing time considerations

lol, I'll take it medium rare with a side of steak fries and a heineken

eating_crow.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you figure it wouldnt have been a deal breaker? Of course it would have... that would essentially mean they are renting him for the pick OR they can buy him for a 2nd... which the JETs could not get to begin with... why the hell would the saints agree to rent him?

We did with Favre didn't we ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...