On the Ward snafu:�
Citing �sources close to the negotiation�, which is to say someone on the Steelers� end of the table, Ed Bouchette wrote:
�The Steelers made Ward an offer that would make him the highest-paid
player in their history, a contract that may include their highest
signing bonus.�
Bouchette, like
Mike Prisuta of the Greensburg Trib, has swallowed ownership�s assertion
whole.� In fact, that all may be true
but, tracking Bouchette a bit farther, we can�t know it to be so:�
�No other contract details, including length and total, were provided.��
It overstates to say �no other� details were provided.� In fact, no details of any kind were provided.� Look at the close of the following excerpt:�
� The deal would include a signing bonus higher than the $8.1 million
quarterback Kordell Stewart received in 1999. Although quarterback Ben
Roethlisberger reportedly received a $9 million signing bonus as part of his
rookie contract, some analysts peg it closer to $7.8 million in what
technically would be a true signing bonus. But even if it were $9
million, the bonus the Steelers have offered Ward is close to it.�
Reading between the
lines, we find nothing at all; well, except a mainstream maven,� per usual, passing along pre-packaged
crapola.� Eat it if you want, or
consider this:
First it�s not
1999.� The cap rises at about 5% per
year.� If Bouchette does not know that,
Ward�s people do.� Compounded at 5%,
8.1M in 1999 dollars equates to 10.855M in 2005.� Of course, Stewart was a QB, (more or less), as is
Roethlisberger.� QB do get more than
players at other positions.� So, in
calculating a positional discount, we may consider the signing bonus WR Larry
Fitzgerald (drafted 1.03 in 2004) received against Roethlisberger�s (1.11);
that�s 7M/7.8M or 89%.� Then, if Kordell
Stewart is to be the measure of all things Steeler, Ward might claim the head
at the all-time PS buffet for the low, low price of: (10.85 x .89) = 9.77M
guaranteed.�
Of course, Kordell,
an emblem of great beginnings gone horribly wrong, is entirely irrelevant
here.� Deconstructing Ed, about like
swatting flies with an RPG,� his raising
Kordell raises the specter of the Steeler FO, again, tossing good money after
bad.� Cheap, stooge-like rhetoric which
ignores the fact that in 1999 Stewart was a two-time question mark while in
2005, Hines Ward is a 4-time Pro Bowl player.��
Ward�s negotiating
group isn�t interested in team history.�
Their standard is:�
�� His agents, Eugene Parker and Roosevelt Barnes, have taken a stance that Ward should be paid among the best wide receivers in the game, although they have not asked for him to be the highest paid.�
And, purportedly,
the PS FO sees Ward�s worth similarly:�
� The source told the Post-Gazette the offer also would put Ward among
a tier of receivers just below several of the highest paid in the league.�
As a matter of context, what is currently the �2nd
tier of compensation for WR was once the first.� That was
established prior to the 2003 campaign.�
Here are those deals:
|
|
Years |
Total ($M) |
Guaranteed |
Remarks |
|
Torry Holt |
7 |
42 |
11.5 |
As we�ll see in
the following table, the Rams did get value. |
|
L.
Coles |
7 |
35 |
13.5 |
Two years in DC,
then back to the Jets |
|
P.
Price |
7 |
36.5 |
10 |
Worthless as a #1 |
|
D.
Boston |
7 |
47 |
7.5 |
Has proven size
isn�t everything.� |
Of note:
- The average deal was 7
years/ 40.1M/10SB.� Presuming 5%
cap inflation per season, those numbers rise to 44.1M and 11.03.�
- That 10-11M guarantee,
of the essence to Ward, is congruent with the <inflation adjusted
Kordell-pack> of� 10.855M� noted previously.� However, it is considerably above the
figure Bouchette floated on behalf of the Rooney-men.� That was somewhere in the range between
8.1 and 9.0.� I guess.
Here is the essence of Ward�s grievance: under his current deal, he has pocketed 4 years salary at ~ 1.67M per, plus that initial signing bonus of 2.5M.� That�s 9.18M; nice money for most of us, but that sum is less than the average signing bonuses noted above.� As we�ll see, Ward has outperformed 3 of those 4 players.
Initially,
Ward�s C$2 was equitable for both parties but at some point, possibly year 3,
Ward had exceeded all expectations.� Had
the PS FO then moved to bump his rate, well, we wouldn�t be where we are
now.� They didn�t; self-limiting, the PS
FO claims a policy of� not
re-negotiating deals until the final campaign.�
It�s worth noting that there have been exceptions, Earl Holmes and Tommy
Maddox foremost.� Setting that
contradiction aside, the PS FO�s refusal to deal from the opener to the finale
of any season is an additional, crippling, and self-imposed restraint.�
None
of that explains why, if Ward�s camp is to be believed, the PS have made just
one offer this spring, and been unresponsive to Ward�s counter.� That does not describe a high priority
negotiation, though the FO has claimed that Ward�s final deal is of the
utmost.� Passing the unfathomable, it is
a matter of record that the PS FO is now (as standard here) hamstrung cap-wise,
mainly due to a series of prior, doomed C$3 deals.� Which brings us to this:
�� Ward and his agents have
countered in negotiations that the four-time Pro Bowler should be paid relative
to where he ranks among NFL receivers and not based on what the Steelers have
paid their players in the past.��
Fair enough if, but
only if, one imagines that players should be compensated for past performance;
certainly, that�s the basis for �where he ranks among NFL receivers.�� Of course, at some point, performance does
decline.� Long time readers will recall
that the term <Contract 3 (C$3)> was born here, circa 2000-01.� For others, well, reference the sharply
downward trajectories traced by Levon Kirkland, Jason Gildon and Dewayne
Washington.�
The short form is that any player�s future compensation must be based on their projected future contribution, not past performance, however meritorious.� Still, Ward�s claim does rest on his record, as it must.� Commencing from where he is (or, where we imagine him to be), it�s fair to say that, at least over the past couple seasons, Hines has been vastly under-compensated.� Further, as the following array indicates, he has been as vastly under-estimated by too many fans here in Steeler Nation.�
Ward v. the
(mainly) big money WR, per The Football Outsiders rankings, 4-year term:��
|
DPAR rank> |
2004 |
2003 |
2002 |
2001 |
Total |
|
Marvin Harrison |
12 |
�9 |
1 |
1 |
23 |
|
Torry Holt |
�7 |
�1 |
9 |
7 |
24 |
|
Terrell Owens |
10 |
22 |
7 |
4 |
43 |
|
Derrick Mason |
23 |
�3 |
14 |
3 |
43 |
|
Hines Ward |
�9 |
�6 |
4 |
26 |
45 |
|
Isaac Bruce |
12 |
12 |
17 |
13 |
54 |
|
Randy Moss |
22 |
�2 |
22 |
18 |
64 |
|
Spike Burress |
28 |
51 |
�7 |
21 |
107 |
|
Lavern. Coles |
73 |
17 |
�3 |
20 |
113 |
|
Darrell Jackson |
29 |
�5 |
62 |
32 |
128 |
|
David Boston |
Not rated (i) |
20 |
67 |
10 |
97* (3 yrs) |
|
Moose Mohammad |
2 |
48 |
44 |
71 |
165 |
|
Peerless Price |
83 |
82 |
15 |
41 |
221 |
|
Eric Moulds |
45 |
54 |
55 |
70 |
224 |
There it is.� On a performance basis, Ward resides between
Owens, Mason and Bruce.� Here are a few
items worth noting:
�
Per
Bouchette, the top 5 2004 sal hits for WR belonged to: Randy Moss, Marvin
Harrison, Terrell Owens, Eric Moulds and Isaac Bruce.� Ward has outperformed three, underperformed two.� As noted, he�s bracketed between Owens and
Bruce.� Last season, both were worth +7M
in cap cash.�
�
All
three are older players:� Bruce will be
33 this season, Owens 32 and Mason 31.�
Ward will be 29, 2-4 years younger.�
Therefore, in projecting Ward�s performance over the next 4 seasons, we
might average out that troika�s output from year 2-4 above.� Which is to say, Ward�s performance, C$3 or
no, does figure to remain stable.�
�
If
rank stability is a factor, and it should be, it is worth noting that Ward is
one of four players with 3 or more top 10 finishes over those 4 seasons.� The others are:� Torry Holt (4),� Marvin
Harrison (3) and Terrell Owens (3).� It
may be worth noting that Harrison is in the +30 age group too.�
Various cavils may
be dismissed, easily:
�
Ward is a possession receiver:� Well,
aside from the fact that possession is a good thing, the fact is that a number
of top ranked WR, Marvin Harrison and Derrick Mason foremost, do fall into that
category too. �
�
Ward is a #2 WR:� Not true of Ward IMO, but
that is true of Isaac Bruce.� For the
past 5 seasons, Torry Holt has led the Rams in most receiving categories.� In that term, the Rams have been in one SB
and contended for a couple others.�
Paying their #2 WR top five scratch hasn�t materially diminished their
chances.��
�
Ward�s
numbers are inflated because he, disproportional to all receivers this side of
Randy Moss, is the target of a high % of his squad�s PA:� Well, not really; here are the numbers over
the past four years, with a sum of all target ops and a final percentage of all
pass attempts.� (note: culled from
Outsiders and pro football reference):
|
Target, #passes,
total and % of total |
2004 |
2003 |
2002 |
2001 |
Total |
% |
|
Randy Moss |
�86(i) |
171 |
183 |
153 |
593 |
31.0%* |
|
Hines Ward |
107 |
156 |
160 |
144 |
567 |
29.8% |
|
Terrell Owens |
126 (i) |
145 |
159 |
154 |
584 |
28.9% |
|
Marvin Harrison |
139 |
142 |
204 |
164 |
649 |
28.8% |
|
Derrick Mason |
153 |
132 |
125 |
113 |
523 |
25.0% |
Ward�s percentage
is slightly higher than most comers but since the PS are a running team, his
chances overall (generally) are fewer, even as compared to Moss and Owens,
players who have missed portions of one campaign or another.� Then too, a difference of one percentage
point is trivial.� Considering that NFL
teams fling it 450-630 times per season, we�re talking 5 to 6 chances, either
way.��
The Football
Outsiders rankings posted previously consider only those plays when the ball
comes to the WR noted.� They do not
factor:� blocking, carrying out fakes,
or commanding coverage.� Certainly in
the first two, Ward does excel.�
Arguably, other receivers, especially the physical freaks (Owens, Moss
etal) do make greater demands on opponents� coverage schemes.� Still, even in that worst case, Ward is at
the top of class in 2 of those 3 items outside the ranking.� Since he�s secure in those ranks too, it�s
clear enough, that on a performance basis, Hines Ward has earned elite
compensation.�
Will he get
it?� Well, maybe but there is precedent
against that.� As noted previously,
Ward�s performance is roughly on par with that of Terrell Owens and Derrick
Mason.� However, there is a vast
difference in those packages.� Excluding
the (insane) deal Indy struck with Harrison, Owens is at the top of the
compensation heap.� Mason, who is
certainly comparable on field to Ward, is not.���
|
|
Years |
Total ($M) |
Guaranteed |
Remarks |
|
Owens |
7 |
47 |
13.5 |
Philly provided Owens
2.5M in signing bonus and 11M in two roster bonuses, one paid last season,
one to come in 2006. |
|
Mason |
5 |
20 |
7 |
Mason got a 7M
signing bonus |
Quite obviously,
compensation is not tied consistently to performance.� Consider that table above, or Eric Moulds, top 5 in cap, but
middling in performance.� The
differential between Owens and Mason reflects the world in which we live.� Maybe you own a home which, in Pittsburgh is
worth a quarter mill.� In, say, Northern
Virginia that�s a 600K crib; 750K in Seattle; 1.2 in Santa Cruz, Cali; and so
on.� So it is in the NFL; guys like
Price, Moulds and Mohammad have been, on average, #2 type WR but their
compensation is otherwise.�
Arguably, Ward is entitled
to no more than Mason.� Certainly, that
would be a discount for service.�
However, that�s a non-starter; in point of fact, the Steelers already
have cashed their discount at the House of Hines, years 3 and 4 of Pro Bowl
performance.� Maybe, the parties could
split the difference between Owens and Mason: 6 years/33.5 and 10.25.� That may approach reality (say, Chad
Johnson�s deal) but although well above the balloon Bouchette boosted for the
PS FO, it is below the 2nd tier WR standard tabulated previously.
To close, a couple
notes on the essence.��
�
Guaranteed
money is the sticking point.� Ward is
looking for makeup; that comes in the form of cash regardless of performance,
i.e. guaranteed money.� All data
tabulated previously suggests this is an 8-figure number.�
�
Harrison�s
note, 22M guaranteed between now and 2006, is beyond the pall.� However, 13M is by no means unprecedented
(Owens, Coles).� As noted, the average 2nd
tier toss is now ~ 11M in current cap cash.�
�
There
are two means to guarantee: signing bonus, which amortizes over the full term
of the deal or roster bonus, which counts only in the year tendered.�
�
Typically,
signing bonus turns to dead money at the backend of any deal.� For instance, the 2005 PS carry about 2.75M
dead due to the 2002 Gildon deal.� Next
year, they�ll hoist a mill courtesy of the Bus.�
�
In
contrast, roster bonuses, counting all at once, carry no dead component.� It�s worth noting that Philadelphia, top cap
managers in the NFL, tendered to Owens 11 of that guaranteed 13.5 in the form
of roster bonuses.� Of course, Philly
typically enters any off-season 10-20M below the cap.� They�ve got room but the Steelers do not.�
At present, the PS
FO has nothing to give in the way of roster bonus.� That is because they are hard against it now; there�s no 4-6M to
give.� As for signing scratch, well,, to
stay within this season�s cap, the FO would have to convert a portion of Hines�
2005 salary to SB.� The maximum to
constitute the amortized portion is:�
1.67M less the 8- year vet minimum salary.� Give or take, that�s 1.2M; factored by 7 years, there�s your
Kordell-esque 8.4M SB.� Again, that�s
the logo on Bouchette�s blimp.�
Best guess?� That�s the bonus offer because that�s all
the FA has to give.� Quite obviously,
it�s not enough.� Conceivably, the
parties may agree to a split: (roughly that) signing bonus now, with a roster
bonus due two years out.�� That does
match the structure of both the Harrison and Owen deals.�� In that case, the up end may approach
13-15M guaranteed.� Doable, if the PS
work to open cap space circa 2006; however, their propensity to offset cost now
(via re-structuring 3/5 O-linemen, Aaron Smith, James Farrior and Joey Porter)
makes that a dubious proposition.�
I do not,
generally, favor C$3 deals but, as was true for Rod Woodson, Hines Ward is an
exception.� Citing Philadelphia
(again!), it is true that they let Hugh Douglas, Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor
walk, rather than offering that 3rd deal.� That kind of thing has been instrumental in creating the cap
bulge the Eagles now wield.� However,
there are exceptions, even in Philly where they�ve provided Brian Dawkins� C$3.�
In my opinion, Ward is, similarly, a leader and a signature player.�
The DPAR table
above suggests Ward will continue to perform well into his 3rd deal;
other WR have done so.� There is no WR
in football better suited for the run-first Pittsburgh Steelers.� A top 5 receiver, Ward also is acknowledged
as the best blocker among all players at the position.� In contrast, consider numero uno WR Marvin
Harrison.� An ideal fit for the Indy
Colts but here?� Well, the first time he
down-blocked some LB or DE would be the last time.���
Last but far from
least, Ward is demonstrably the top clutch performer on this PS aggregate of
not-so-clutch performers.� For a team
with championship aspirations, that should count.� The FO should sign Ward to a market deal.� They should have done so long ago.� While that may take a split bonus along the
lines outlined above, this is doable, or ought be, and it is the right thing to
do.�
Make it so.�
��