Tales from an Uninformed Armchair GM (The Sproles Story)
As I touched on in last week's column, Darren Sproles is a restricted free agent this offseason but his situation is a bit more complicated than most of the other 200+ players who were slapped with restricted free agency this offseason due to the uncapped year. To retain Sproles services for the 09 season the Chargers used their franchise tag on him (when he was an unrestricted free agent) signing him to a one year contract paying him $6.63 mil. This was a bit of a gamble in the hopes that Sproles would once again be able to capture his playoff magic and help carry the team to the super bowl...unfortunately the gamble did not pay off as the Chargers were jettisoned from the payoffs in the AFC divisional series with Sproles only gaining 110 total yards and no TD's (which is about 1/3 of his production last season).
The situation
Since all signs point to 2010 being an uncapped year, which according to the current CBA extends a players restricted free agency window by two additional years, Sproles is now classified as a restricted free agent. This gives the Chargers certain rights to the contract offers in which Sproles can receive from other teams. If the Chargers decide to tender an offer to Sproles it will give them the right to match any offer sheet that another team may be willing to offer Sproles and if the Chargers decide not to match the offer they may entitled to draft pick(s) in compensation for their loss.
To Tender or not to Tender
This is where the Sproles situation gets complicated. The NFL rules regarding restricted free agents states that any compensatory tender offered to a player must be at least a 10% increase over the player's salary the previous season. This means that any tender offered to Sproles must be worth at least $7.29 mil, which is not exactly a bargain for a KR specialist/third-down back. While offering a tender to Sproles would give the Chargers the opportunity to match any offer another teams gives to Sproles and/or gives them a draft pick(s) in compensation for their loss, this does present a substantial risk if another team does not make an offer, Sproles cannot come to a long-term agreement with another team (no teams feel like his is an every down back and therefore will not pay him feature back money), or Sproles decides he is better off taking the $7.29 mil guaranteed for on years worth of work instead of a long-term non guaranteed contract.
There is one other option, the Chargers could offer Sproles a right of first refusal tender, in which Sproles would be guaranteed a $1.176 million dollar salary in 2010. The Bolts wouldn't get any compensation if another team signed him to an offer sheet, but they would be able match the offer and keep him if it made sense. This would allow Sproles to shop himself around the league and see if he can get starters money, if that happens the Chargers will probably let him walk out the door and not get any compensation for him. However, if teams are only willing to pay him as a third-down back this would give the Chargers the right to match any offer.
Let's Talk Numbers
So now we have the question of value, how much (in terms of years and money) is a 27 year old third-down back/kick returner worth. There are really not a lot of great recent examples out there of a third-down back / kick return specialist entering into their 2nd contract. Really the best two examples I could find are Devin Hester and Andre' Davis (who are both more of a 3rd option type receivers). Never the less like Sproles both players contributions come primarily in the kicking game. Here is a look at both of their contracts:
Hester (2008) - 4 years, 40.975 mil, $15 mil guaranteed, $18.939 in incentives and roster bonuses - Hester contract seems huge at first but when you really dig into it you can see that its really structured to give the Bears the option to cut him at any point and really not suffer much of a cap hit. Alot of Hester's money is locked up in roster bonuses (around $15 mil) and pushed towards the back end of the contract. Also you have to remember this contract was signed right when Hester's value was at his peak (right after the Bears went to the Super Bowl). My guess is that the Bears somewhat regret handing out this kind of cash to a player who really only helps them on 10 to 15 downs a game.
Davis (2008) - 4 years, $16 mil, $8 mil gauntleted - this contract seems about the right fit for Sproles. In 2007, the season before Davis signed this contract he put up very similar numbers to Sproles (in 2009) both on offence and the Kicking game (30.3 yards per KR with 3 TDs and 583 yards receiving with 3 TDs).
In the end I would feel comfortable singing Sproles to a 3 year 12 million dollar contract with $6 million of it guaranteed. This would keep Sproles a Charger until he hits the age of 30 (a killer year for RBs) and pay him competitively with players in a similar position.
Recommendations
I think the safest and best option for the Chargers is to tender Sproles with the right of first refusal tender. Even though they will not get a draft pick in return for his departure it does give them the ability to gauge the market for Sproles without having to negotiate with him and in the end they have the right to match any offer. If teams do not see Sproles as a every-down back and are only willing to offer him a contract in the 3 year $12 million dollar range then I think the Chargers have to match that anything more I think they have to let him walk.
1 recs |
47 comments
|
Comments
I assume the right to refusal tender
Means that a 2011 comp pick wouldnt be issued if Sproles was signed away because he would depart as a RFA?
If thats the case I dont really see the point for the tender, I doubt Sproles wouldnt bring any offer he received back to the Chargers for consideration. Basically I think he’ll go UFA, and then we’ll see where he lands.
Id agree the Chargers want a deal like 3year/12mil, but someone else will pay more.
Hester’s also their #1 or #2 WR.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
Plus the RoF tender
Could easily make for a tempting poison pill. If the Chargers used the RoF tender, then Oakland could submit a offer to Sproles, 5 years 25mil (backloaded, incentive laced); but inserts a clause whereby the whole contract is guaranteed if he doesnt play at least two games in Oakland in 2010.
Clauses are lot more rigid than you may think. You can’t really stick in any clause you want.
Also, I don’t think Sproles is required to take the highest offer. Basically, the Chargers get to match any offer that he actually accepts. If he sees a goofy looking offer like that, he’ll probably just ignore it.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Feb 19, 2010 8:36 AM PST up reply actions
You can use the clause
That the player has to play 5 games in the host state, I know that for a fact. Because its been done before.
right but that assumes that Sproles will accept an odd ball offer like that.
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 8:42 AM PST up reply actions
Are you implying
he would rather play on a 1.7mil tender? A basically turn over all his contract leverage.
Or wait for another contract offer
Its not like he says no to team because of a poison pill they will turn thier nose up and run away. Thats also assuming that he will only have one offer to choose from.
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions
Or that he'd want to play in Oakland after playing in San Diego.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Feb 19, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
its a bit of a CYA...lets say
No teams are willing to give Sproles starter type money but another team is willing to offer Sproles a shot at being it’s every down back but is only willing to give him a contract that the Chargers would be comfortable with (3 year 12 mil range) with a ton of incentives based upon yards and carries, then the Chargers would have the right to match it and keep him here.
Also the Chargers can always match any offer and trade him to the team that originally put in an offer sheet for the equivalent pick they would have received if Sproles left via FA. I think you’re putting way too much value into the compensatory pick the Chargers would get for him. The Charger got a 4th rounder for Turner so I would imagine they would only get a 5th or 6th rounder for Sproles who won’t get nearly the money Turner did.
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
Except
He’s not going to get more carries elsewhere, esp now that we have no true RB.
Id rather have the 4th round comp then nothing. And its not like the Chargers cant negotiate with him as a UFA.
if a team is willing to let him compete as an every down back
he will get more carries elsewhere…did you even read my post or did you just decide to try and disagree with it off the bat?
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
I read it
But I just think its ironic that you say he wants to go to a team to get more carries (be a every down back, if there’s even such thing anymore); when WE happen to be the most RB starved team in the league maybe.
but he knows he will not be an everydown back here
why else would the Bolts be trying to trade for one?
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
No team in the right mind would be willing to offer sproles
starter money straight off the bat, he has never proven that he can start and you can see from this years tape that he can’t run up the middle…however, there is a very realistic possibility that some teams may be willing to let him compete as their every down back and offer him a low base salary with big reachable incentives for an every down back (ie 200 carries, 900 yards ect…) that would pay him like an every down back if he performs like one.
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
No
He could have 3 offers around that without any weird clauses. But he can only sign one contract man. Dont pretend he can sign with 3 different teams, and then see which one the Chargers want to match.
You are proposing that he take 6mil guaranteed over 3 year, and thats less than he made in 09. So really thats almost a non option as far as Im concerned.
No what I'm saying is that he will have multiple offers to choose from
ones without poison pills. Teams not only have to put in competitive contracts against the Chargers but against other teams that may be bidding for his services as well.
Also he can always decline a contract because of the poison pill and see what the offering team comes back with. Offering him a contract for $25 mil is a poison pill in itself against the Chargers.
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
Not if its a back loaded 5 year deal its not. What we can agree on is that he’s not coming back to play on a 1.7mil tender right?
Yes
unless there is no market for him…
why would he take a back loaded 5 year deal when at the age of 27 he is not likely to see the end of it?
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Feb 19, 2010 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
Then it isn't really backloaded is it
If its got a nice signing bonus.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Well
NFL contracts are usually around 50-65% signing bonus. So a longer deal would mean more money upfront, but not a higher percentage of the overall contract.
Your math still seems fuzzy
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
The bigger the signing bonus
The more front loaded the contract.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Not necesarily
At a certain point the signing bonus will be high enough that the contract is too front loaded to be viable for the team offering him. Backloaded implies that the important money is in the back end.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
but
you keep forgetting about the backloaded poison pill.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Feb 19, 2010 9:06 PM PST up reply actions
you, sir
are ridiickalus
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
FYI...March 4th is the tender deadline for RFAs
Feb 25th for Franchise designations.
right around the corner.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Feb 19, 2010 8:45 AM PST reply actions
Why not change Norv’s entire offensive philosophy even though it’s been working for him for 20 years?
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Feb 19, 2010 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree.
With all this talk that backs like LDT are dinosaurs, and specialist blockers like LoNeal are too, why not just go with the Hester/Tolbert combo with Sproles behind them?
The combo allows you to run, catch or block. Norv likes balance and and match up exploitations, right?
All you need is a line the does both run and pass equally well.
"Live to love and love to live"!
1. There’s a reason Hester gets as few carries as he does
2. There’s a reason Tolbert was drafted/developed as a FB and not a TB
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Feb 19, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
I was referring to a couple plays I think I remember seeing this year.
The Chargers had Manu and Gates in, with VJ as the only receiver, and both Sproles and , I think Tolbert in, in a running formation. They shifted Gates wide right with Sproles into the right slot and Tolbert into the left slot. VJ went deep, the backs went sideline, and Gates got the pass wide open in the middle for a big chunk.
With good line blocking, it would probably give you a good result as a running play too.
I know Norv wants to sell the run, and you have to be effective at it to do so, but it seems to me that most of our pieces are already on the team. The Oline just needs to get better.
"Live to love and love to live"!
That's only
One play put of the hundreds called this season. I agree that we have most of the pieces, but a good running threat isn’t going to be found in anything we’ve currently got.
by Its Mikey!! on Feb 19, 2010 10:14 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
My bad
Not “we.” I meant to say the Chargers have most of the pieces.
by Its Mikey!! on Feb 19, 2010 10:28 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I remember reading a study from some professor
saying that fans are more likely to say ‘we’ when the team is winning and ‘they’ when the team is losing. After a win you’ll hear a lot of “we kicked their butts!” or "we’re going all the way baby! This is our year!‘. After loses you’ll hear a lot of “they got out played” or “they are a bunch of choke artists”. After the end to this season I can see why you’d want to correct that “we”!
by Natrone Bomb on Feb 19, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions





















