How come we had to use "clever" negotiations to pay Willis more money?

Does anyone know. I would think the reason for the 30% rule is so we don't have to pay players so much and to keep contracts from getting out of hand. And Willis is a class act, so why did we have to go outside the box to pay him more money than we had to? Why didn't we just pay him the max? He should have been happy to take it.

Does anyone know why we had to use the loophole to pay him more than the max? Or am I just not understanding the deal fully? Either way I am happy he is signed, I just wanted to know the reasoning.

30% rule for uncapped years. You cannot increase a players salary more than 30% in consecutive years so we had to put the $ in bonus's and crap.

the 30% rule will likely only be in place for this year. It's a result of the uncapped year. The owners wanted reasonable protection against an uncapped season. So players wouldn't force outlandish contracts upon owners the 30% rule was put in place for an uncapped year. Since Willis is in the last year of his contract and no new cba until next year at the earliest, the club wanted to lock Willis up before he even had a chance to test the free agent market. I applaud the organization for doing what it needed to do to lock up Willis to a contract that he deserves. I think it would have been rather insulting to offer him the kind of contract a guy like Karlos Dansby got.

[ Edited by jonnydellfan on May 8, 2010 at 20:24:40 ]

Originally posted by matt49er:
30% rule for uncapped years. You cannot increase a players salary more than 30% in consecutive years so we had to put the $ in bonus's and crap.

so if it was a normal capped year do you think he would have received more money, the same, or less?

who cares, as long as we got him locked up.

Originally posted by DaDivaRecieva15:
who cares, as long as we got him locked up.

Just wondering, managing the payroll is the most important thing in making a good football team, just wanted to know why we couldn't have just giving him the max with the %30 rule and saved the cash for other players

he gets most of his bonus money(15.5M in 2010 and 4.8M in 2011) thats over 20M of his 29M guaranteed.

a Win Win situation for us.

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
he gets most of his bonus money(15.5M in 2010 and 4.8M in 2011) thats over 20M of his 29M guaranteed.

a Win Win situation for us.

ok I didn't know he was getting so much in 2010, so it sounds like it leaves future cap flexibility so its good.

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
he gets most of his bonus money(15.5M in 2010 and 4.8M in 2011) thats over 20M of his 29M guaranteed.

a Win Win situation for us.

I f**king love paraag marathe. No homo.

Same with Nate andlewis. If he doesn't perform they are free to be cut and you don't lose much if any vap space.

Originally posted by philmo:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
he gets most of his bonus money(15.5M in 2010 and 4.8M in 2011) thats over 20M of his 29M guaranteed.

a Win Win situation for us.

ok I didn't know he was getting so much in 2010, so it sounds like it leaves future cap flexibility so its good.

sorta... what it does is spread that 20.3 mil over the next 6 years equally, so 3.833 mil is added to his base salary in terms of cap space. It's not the same as frontloading a contract.

The 30% rule is ONLY for base salaries. We wanted to pay Willis $11 Mill this season instead of $900,000. Which means we had to get around that rule by putting all kinds of bonuses and incentives. We are not being cheap by doing this, actually Parag just gave the rest of the NFL a blueprint on how to front load their players contracts as well.

Originally posted by flynhayn15:
The 30% rule is ONLY for base salaries. We wanted to pay Willis $11 Mill this season instead of $900,000. Which means we had to get around that rule by putting all kinds of bonuses and incentives. We are not being cheap by doing this, actually Parag just gave the rest of the NFL a blueprint on how to front load their players contracts as well.

Exactly, nice work Mr. Marathe!

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by philmo:
Does anyone know. I would think the reason for the 30% rule is so we don't have to pay players so much and to keep contracts from getting out of hand. And Willis is a class act, so why did we have to go outside the box to pay him more money than we had to? Why didn't we just pay him the max? He should have been happy to take it.

Does anyone know why we had to use the loophole to pay him more than the max? Or am I just not understanding the deal fully? Either way I am happy he is signed, I just wanted to know the reasoning.

So let me get this right ......

You're complaining that we signed Willis to a long term contract?

haha if willis was allowed to walk and not retained for the rest of his football days as a niner, i would have no hope for this team as to ever seeing the playoffs again!!! hell i'd go root for the bucs maybe ill get lucky and eddi d will buy the team finally.

[ Edited by TheGoldDiggerrrr on May 8, 2010 at 22:59:16 ]

Originally posted by jonnydellfan:
the 30% rule will likely only be in place for this year. It's a result of the uncapped year. The owners wanted reasonable protection against an uncapped season. So players wouldn't force outlandish contracts upon owners the 30% rule was put in place for an uncapped year. Since Willis is in the last year of his contract and no new cba until next year at the earliest, the club wanted to lock Willis up before he even had a chance to test the free agent market. I applaud the organization for doing what it needed to do to lock up Willis to a contract that he deserves. I think it would have been rather insulting to offer him the kind of contract a guy like Karlos Dansby got.

Willis had two years left on his rookie deal, He wasn't in the last year if his deal. They just wanted to lock him up earlier rather then let him reach the last year of his deal.

Originally posted by jonnydellfan:
the 30% rule will likely only be in place for this year. It's a result of the uncapped year. The owners wanted reasonable protection against an uncapped season. So players wouldn't force outlandish contracts upon owners the 30% rule was put in place for an uncapped year. Since Willis is in the last year of his contract and no new cba until next year at the earliest, the club wanted to lock Willis up before he even had a chance to test the free agent market. I applaud the organization for doing what it needed to do to lock up Willis to a contract that he deserves. I think it would have been rather insulting to offer him the kind of contract a guy like Karlos Dansby got.

Willis had two years, 2010 + 2011, before his contract expired.