Originally posted by MadDog49er:
This is brought to you by....The Truth Hurts!!!!
According to Andrew Brandt's article on the National Football Post, I am right. Both sides made concessions, and both sides won battles on this contract. Brandt knows his stuff. He is a former salary cap administrator for an NFL team, and his breakdown was excellent.
Here is the pasted information at the conclusion. Many others have attached the link throughout this thread:
The Wait: The offer on the table for Parker and Crabtree of a couple days ago was:
Five years, $20M, $16M guaranteed.
The final deal is:
Six years, $32M ($28M over the first five), $17M guaranteed.
Analysis: Many have speculated that Crabtree took the same deal he was being offered for weeks, if not months, by the team. Parker and Crabtree may have made $8M over the next five years with their trip to San Francisco yesterday.
Hopefully the above data points out the strengths and weaknesses of this deal from both sides. It was a win for the team on some things and a win for the player on others, a deal that neither side feels great about. That usually means it is a good deal for both sides.
This was quite a saga, with a final face-to-face meeting spurred by a chance meeting between 49ers president and owner Jed York and MC Hammer at a social function. Only in the NFL
I'm sorry I have not been able to respond to some that have been claiming "victory" the last couple days, and have attempted to attack my position that both sides would win.
I guess, once again, these individuals who hope for nothing more for me to be wrong..... are wrong, and I....am right. What a shocker!!!
P.S. Eric Heitmann is still a good football player!!!!
Andrew Brandt's article "Wensdays Whys" SAY NOTHING about the true details of the deal so he doesn't know - so he can't give analysis. It's nothing CLOSE to what was quoted in PFW. His only reference is:
My sense here from talking to some key people is that this deal is a hybrid between a true five-year deal and a true six-year deal. Crabtree has performance standards to meet well beyond the minimum allowable, but those standards only have to be met in two of the first four years of the contract to void the sixth year. Additionally, Crabtree will receive a better package than a traditional five-year contract. We’ll have the numbers on the deal soon.
As to reports that the sixth-year salary, if not voided, is $4M, that may be true, but it is the pre-escalator number. Whether it’s a result of positive or negative performance over the coming years, it’s extremely unlikely Crabtree will be playing for the 49ers in 2014 for a $4M salary.
MD - you have repeatedly criticized MM as a reliable source for information, but here you site Andrew Brandt as a "reliable source" of information?
It's clear from his article that he doesn't understand the following:
1) Crabtree's performance standards will be almost impossible to meet (2 probowls AND 80% of snaps on a run-oriented offense) - period end of story. So his categorization as this being a "hybrid" deal is ludicrous when you look at the details - which he either obviously blew threw and just focused on the "numbers" like everyone else.
2)So how can he say Crabtree will receive a "better package" on the deal since he hasn't seen the details? Is he making this assumption based on "discretionary compensation", incentives - and clearly the only escalator is $4mil. Clearly discretionary compensation AKA non-guaranteed bonus option couldn't possibly be a positive and certainly not a better package that other rooks have.
3)Finally, assuming that the 6th year isn't a $4mil dollar deal tells me that the 49ers don't want to take a huge salary hit if Crabtree busts like other 1st round WRs and it would quite easy to unload that salary if he doesn't perform. Yes that year MAY be voidable IF he performs but again, if he holds out, conditional bonus triggers.
Your boy Brandt is trying to spin this one for his friend Parker when clearly it's a loss when he states BS like:
My sense is that Parker, Crabtree and special adviser Deion Sanders had settled on this date for a while to get a deal done. For whatever reasons they had, their date in mind was following Week 4 of the NFL season. There was not much to lose by waiting as they felt the structure of the deal would minimize the damage of missing four game checks.
Parker was strategic in bringing the player to the meeting. It’s always more difficult for management to take a hard line with an agent when the player is present. Whatever deal Crabtree received, it would have been worse had he not also be there, albeit before the nuts and bolts were ironed out.
Brandt really screws up here. Praising Sanders for keeping CT out of training camp, thus keeping him from attaining ANY chance at reaching or contributing to escalators for this season? Placing him way behind his team and missing a prime opportunity to play on a play-off team? CT loses more than money here - time is much more important. No?
An please stop the lies. Parker didn't recommend to bring CT, York ASKED to meet face to face. This wasn't the genius of Parker. Maddog, your bot Brandt is really trying to put cherry red lipstick on a pig here.
Hint: It still looks like a pig.
Brandt's poor attempt to paint CT/Parker as "winners" here in this skeleton of an article with little facts about the CT deal ITSELF, even in relation to the team in which he plays falls wells short of what we've been reading from Maiocco in the past. If you're going to ping MM for taking a side, don't think that your "reference" for clearly biased, poor journalistic source would go unnoticed here.
Last but not least, if this was such a win-win, and a better deal, why is Parker a NO-SHOW at his client's press conference? Usually agents want their faces around when their players have hauled in a "better package" than everyone else. Is that the genius of Parker again? Much too smart to make an appearance after landing such a "win-win" deal?
Hint: Still looks like a pig.
[ Edited by NinerGM on Oct 8, 2009 at 09:21:17 ]