Jason Peters' 2008 season

by Ron From NM on Dec 27, 2008 12:49 PM EST in Opinion Comment 70 comments

So I get back from Vegas and pull up my favorite Buffalo Bills website (thanks, Brian!) and see a lot of comments about Jason Peters - specifically regarding whether the Bills should trade him away. Most people seem to be irritated by Peters' (irritating) attitude. Some appear to be unimpressed by Peters' abilities and others don't seem to think that LT is really all that important... or that Kirk Chambers is a fine replacement.

After Sunday's game I will have a week off to break down the Denver and New England games. Once I've done that I will have the offensive line stats for the season.

Peters, by virtue of not playing last week and being ruled out for this week, is already finished for the season. Here's how his numbers shake out:

Peters was in for 435 televised (The San Diego game was truncated) pass plays. He had 10 good pass plays, 404 decent ones, 21 bad ones and 14 killed pass plays. That comes out to a respectable 74.5%. Bear in mind that my grading system makes it virtually impossible for a lineman to do much better than 75%. A good pass play is one in which the lineman does more than simply keep a defender away from the QB - throw him down, dwarf toss him out of a passing lane, etc. Many of the good pass plays I record are on screens when the lineman has a chance to get downfield and really take it to a defensive player. Peters was beaten on 21 of 435 (4.8%) pass plays. This led to the killing of 14 of 435 (3.2%) pass plays. There is definitely room for improvement inasmuch as 4.8% is a bigger number than 0.0%. We're talking about 1.6 bad pass plays per game over Peters' (effectively) 13 game season. The Bills, by the way, averaged 33.5 passes in those 13 games.

Peters was in for 305 televised run plays. He had 95 good run plays, 179 decent ones, 31 bad ones and 4 killed run plays. That grades out at a very good 79.2%. I won't put him in the 'elite' category until he crosses the 80% threshold for the season... which I think he would have done with a little room to spare had he not held out. To my mind, what stands out even more than the high grade is the low number of killed plays - 4, or just 1.3% of run plays. Remember, in my grading system it's easier to stand out (or stick out, in the case of Preston/Fowler) while run blocking than pass blocking; run blocking offensive linemen can push defenders off the line, wrestle them down, cut them in space, etc. Run blocking also affords more opportunities to screw up - a quick release by the QB won't save a lineman from a black mark on a missed run block.

For the season, Peters killed 9.5 drives. I don't have the total number of drives yet so I can't give an overall precentage. The Bills ran 141 drives in the 13 games Peters played, meaning he killed 6.7% of those offensive drives. (His season drive killing percentage will be slightly lower as the Bills should have 8-12 drives on Sunday.) By way of comparison, the QBs killed 34.5 (24.5%) drives in those same 13 games. Lynch killed 8.5 (6.0%) drives over that same period. 24 (17%) of the drives in those games were not killed - meaning they ended with a TD.

Poll

If you were GM would you even consider trading Peters?

Yes. I don't like him and he might bring a 1st and 3rd rounder.

76 votes

No. It's madness to trade away good linemen.

170 votes

I believe some team will offer Buffalo a Herschel Walker type deal that the Bills will have to take. Incidentally, have you seen my meds?

30 votes

276 votes | Poll has closed

1 recs | Comment 70 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ah, crap...

I thought I put this as a fanpost. I didn’t mean to clutter up the front page.

by Ron From NM on Dec 27, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ron

good work. I think its fair to say Peters is a franchise LT. He’s 26. He’s a stud. He gets beat, he allowed some big plays, but give him a full training camp and a big contract and I think we will have a Pro Bowler for a decade at LT don’t yah think? Anyhow, it would be assinine to trade a guy who was an undrafted FA and we developed. Too much pride to trade that away IMO. Give him a 7 year deal and let’s slowly but surely get the cornerstones of our offense like Edwards, Lynch, Evans, Peters to be around for 4-5 years at least and build a perennial contender in the AFC east

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Dec 27, 2008 1:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ron,

In the case of the last Loseman fumble (wow that feel good to type), does Peters get any credit for killing that drive since he clean missed the blitzer that caused the fumble?

I voted for option C, mostly because I think it was me that brought up the Walker trade as an example. To be clear, I don’t believe we will get such an offer. But if it were to happen, I would seriously consider it. We should know very soon if Peters is serious about getting a deal done with the Bills. If he is not, screw him….start chumming the waters!!!!

"If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."

by Joe P. on Dec 27, 2008 1:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes, Peters had a bad play, killed play and killed drive when he watched the DB run past him en route to Losman’s blindside. Incidentally, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if LTs generally have a higher percentage of killed plays than RTs for right handed QBs simply because the QB can see the RT’s guy coming.

If Peters won’t sign a reasonable (to both sides) long term deal then Buffalo should make him play out his current contract.

by Ron From NM on Dec 27, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely should be reasonable to both sides

If the Bills have to make him play out his current contract, then we would have a very unhappy player in the locker room for how many years? I am not sure he would be as gracious as Loseman. Then after that we would let him walk, but unlike JP, we would get no value for a very valuable player. Why? Peters trade value will not get much higher, if at all, than it is right now. If worst comes to worst, do we really want to play it like you said?

"If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."

by Joe P. on Dec 27, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Peters has seen that the front office is as good as it’s word. He has to know that the Bills will hold him to his contract even if he sits out. They know that Peters can’t afford to waste two years pouting if he can’t come to a long term arrangement with OBD. He knows he needs to make his money now so I think, perhaps optimitically, that he’ll sign a reasonable deal. Like others have said, he’ll be the highest paid lineman on the team for several years and possibly the highest paid in the league for a week or two.

by Ron From NM on Dec 27, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like Joe P., I voted for the same thing, not because I believe it will happen, but because I would be open to the possibility of getting good assets for him.

by thefourwinds on Dec 27, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I still can’t understand those of you who would want to trade him. We have an established, youngish, improving and Pro Bowl caliber LT, and some of you want to trade him because he held out for more money. Do you all not remember how difficult it has been trying to find quality linemen here in Buffalo, especially at LT??? And we finally get a great one, and some of you want to trade him away and create yet another giant hole. I dont’ want to waste a first round pick on a LT that may or may not pan out. We know Peters is good, and will probably continue to get better. Drafting a LT in the top 10 is an expensive move, and one that isn’t guaranteed to work out.

I’m all for getting as many draft picks as possible, but trading away a cornerstone offensive lineman is crazy and will just continue setting us back further.

by Kurupt on Dec 27, 2008 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't want to trade him, but never say never!

I would be happy if he gets a deal done with the Bills, but there is a limit to the amount of money the Bills will pay him. Do we have the first clue how much he is asking for? Is he trying to get a reasonable deal or the biggest deal of any LT in the history of the NFL? Will he ask for more than the Bills will pay to force a trade? I just have my doubts about his attitude and motivation to be a Bill. Do we really want a player if he doesn’t want to be here? I have said before that only the coaches know what kind of attitude and work ethic he brings to practice on a daily basis. Peters true self will be revealed soon.

"If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."

by Joe P. on Dec 27, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m guessing Peters will want to set the bar for LT deals. We’ll see if he gets it. My guess is that he does, just based on the near-geometric rate of increase in player salaries over the past 10 years.

by Ron From NM on Dec 27, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If Peters isn't the highest LT he will certainly be making more than 7 Million a year.

That would make him the highest paid Offensive Lineman on the Bills. He will not sign a contract that doesn’t make him number 1 on his own team.

by MattRichWarren on Dec 27, 2008 4:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As well he shouldn’t since he is the best lineman on the team.

If everyone wants to save money on the o-line, how about cutting Langston Walker?

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Dec 27, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't want to "save money" on the O-line

And, I agree Peters should be the Bills highest paid lineman. The question is, will that be enough for him?

"If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."

by Joe P. on Dec 27, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How about cutting Sockery?

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it makes sense to trade him. are we going to find another player just as good to replace him? doubt it. paying peters will show the nfl that the bills are serious about retaining talent and not acting as a minor league team able to develop talent and then ship it off to the big leagues. let me state that as long as peters and his agent don’t ask for a ridiculous deal I think it should get done.

by gatornation on Dec 27, 2008 4:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I voted for C, and my thoughts on why are below

If someone offered us 7-8 picks for Peters, I would have to SERIOUSLY consider it IF, and I repeat IF 2 things were as so:
1- Bell was at the point ready to step in and take over as our LT, or Chambers was close to Peters level now.
2- That we would have at least get two round 2 picks, those are the best for talent/value along with the 3rd.

If Bell or Chambers was ready to go, and we could get 2- 2nd rounders, I would make the deal in a heart beat.

Anyhow, as it stands, no one is crazy enough to offer a Herschel or Ricky Williams deal to us. There are 2 things about Peters that scare me right now.
1- He is starting to show signs of being injury prone, yes he is 26, but this makes 2 seasons in a row now he has NOT completed the whole campaign, that to me is very worrying.
2- Will he get lazy after getting his big deal? Or how soon will he starting whining he needs more money after he has signed this new contract?

To me those are worrying points, but for now, its a case of who cares, since we have him under contract for another 2 years no matter what. But it will be interesting to see how things go on Tuesday after the season is over. My money is on the Bills arranging for meetings with Peters and Parker sometime in early Jan to hammer out a new deal.

Now if only this gopher could play DE, we would be doing better, I mean, who couldn't play better than the corpse brothers Kelsay and Denney?

by WABillsfan on Dec 27, 2008 6:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well said

Let’s hope it plays out that way and we can put it behind us.

"If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."

by Joe P. on Dec 27, 2008 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

7 or 8 picks???

Are you kidding? I can think of only two examples where teams gave away the farm for a player. The first was the infamous Walker deal which doomed Minny’s Super Bowl chances. The second was the awful Pothead Williams deal (7 picks, I believe) that doomed the Saints for a decade. With that as a track record what GM would be stupid enough to fork over 7-8 picks for a player? (Bear in mind that Donahoe isn’t a GM anymore.) For that matter, what team is just a LT away from winning it all?

I see three options:

1. Give Peters an extension during the offseason that both sides see as reasonable. He’ll be at the OTAs and camp and should be a better player next season.
2. Don’t give Peters an extension in the offseason. He’ll certainly boycott OTAs and camp, and possibly the regular season. I think he’s more likely to play during the season to keep his 2011 free agency value high.
3. Look down, take careful aim and fire. This is otherwise known as the ‘trade’ option.

by Ron From NM on Dec 27, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hence why I pointed out the Herschel and Williams deals, it won't happen

And as far as I am concerned Peters value is highest with us, and it would take that sort of thing for me to be willing to let him go. There is no way anyone would do so, so thus it is a fantasy.

As it stands, Millen, Donahoe, and Dikta are no longer GMs, thus we will never see such a deal, besides, who in their right mind thinks Chambers or Bell is ready to step up? So that won’t happen, and I have no inclination to go through the mess we did the past 10 years looking for a solid LT. For me it would take that type of deal to let Peters go.

I think Peters is signed to a contract extension with new guranteed money tossed in by Feb at the latest this spring.

Now if only this gopher could play DE, we would be doing better, I mean, who couldn't play better than the corpse brothers Kelsay and Denney?

by WABillsfan on Dec 27, 2008 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to humor all of the trade Peters guys

Lets say that the Lions new regime is unwilling to blow yet another high draft pick and tell the Bills FO that they would be willing to swap the #1 overall pick and their 2nd rounder for Peters and the Bills 3rd rounder. Would you take it?

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Dec 27, 2008 10:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just to humor you

Throw in Calvin Johnson and you got a deal :-)

"If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."

by Joe P. on Dec 27, 2008 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't take a 1st and 2nd rounder for Peters

You’d have to spend the 1st rounder on what you’d hope would pan out as a LT replacement for Peters. Basically, you’d get a second rounder in exchange for a complete unknown at LT.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and right there

is why trading him is such a bad idea….

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

exactly

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Dec 28, 2008 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

It is why that specific trade is a bad idea. I notice nobody wants to touch the Calvin Johnson caveat.

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because the Lions wouldn’t include him.

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Dec 28, 2008 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then I wouldn't make the trade

Ron was kind enough to explain why your little “trap” was a bad idea. Next time come up with a fair trade. One that includes a good vet player at a position of need.

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One that includes a good vet player at a position of need.

Yeah, but you simply aren’t going to get that. Look at the recent blockbuster type of deals. Jared Allen pulled in a bounty of draft picks, which Peters could probably come close to getting. Like Eric said, you could probably get a solid 1st and 3rd and some later stuff from this and next draft tossed in, or some similiar package of picks. Or you could go the Shaun Rogers route and get a pretty good player, but one who wouldn’t compare to Peters as well as a couple of early to mid round type picks. You aren’t going to even come close to getting the type of offer you are talking about.

by kaisertown on Dec 28, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but you simply aren’t going to get that……from the Lions

fixed

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good post

But that is the point. Everyone laughed at KC for doing that trade. The Vikes got the better end of it because Allen wanted out. I don’t want to be put in that position with Peters in another year.

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thats fair. I don’t think anyone would be crazy for wanting to trade Peters for a Jared Allen type deal. Personally, I wouldn’t do it, but it isn’t crazy either.

by kaisertown on Dec 28, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone should still be laughing at KC for that deal. They have NINE sacks on the season! The NFL record for fewest in a season is 13! They are going to destroy it because they foolishly got rid of their best player for a couple of draft picks.

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

trap???

I was looking to see if anybody would be willing to trade Peters for the #1 overall pick (more or less).
Basically:
Peters (a known commondity pro-bowl LT)
for

overall pick (unkown lots of money)

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Dec 28, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I just didn't feel that the offer you made was a fair one

Maybe “trap” was a bad choice of words. It seems to me like you most of you want to argue how valuable Peters is…how rare a Pro Bowl LT is…but then when we talk about trades….you devalue him so as to make the trade look like a bad idea.

Again, I really don’t want to have to trade Peters, so I am looking for an offer we can’t refuse before I would trade him.

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When you ask for the Lions to give up their entire first day of draft choices and a stud-in-the-making WR like Johnson, that isn’t devaluing Peters, that is asking for the moon.

The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.

by sireric on Dec 28, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

You took at step to the left of fair, so I took a step to the right.

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

haha

and the Lions wouldn’t touch it either….

They just drafted a Tackle in round 1 this past year anyhow….

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But Pro Bowl LTs are so hard to find

He could be a bust? Or, they could move him or Peters to RT

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, why would we consider a trade then? The subject line you just wrote is exactly why the Bills won’t unless he becomes a major headache next offseason…

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is why I asked for Calvin Johnson also

"If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."

by Joe P. on Dec 28, 2008 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What's Peters worth?

I’d guess now (could have been cheaper if they did it in-season) something fair for both sides would be in the neighborhood of 30 million guaranteed, over 5 years, for a total of about 65 – 70 million. The guaranteed money is the biggie. The rest of the money just makes the agent look good, and I think it’s safe to assume that Parker will want that.

by krytime on Dec 28, 2008 12:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm guessing that Buffalo will want a 7 year deal...

…so they don’t have to worry about Peters pulling the same crap again 2 years down the line. Money-wise that 7 year deal will have to eclipse the $49 million Dock got. I can’t see Buffalo paying more than $8 or $9 million a year, putting the total value (including signing bonus, workout incentives, OTA attendance bonus, camp attendance bonus, playing time benchmarks, etc) between $56-$63 million.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Michael Roos: 6 yr $43M
David Diehl: 6 yr $31M
Flozell Adams: 6 yr $44M

signed this offseason…

Peters will get more than those guys. 6 or 7 years at probably $8M or so per season. Only a few guys average over $8M per season…

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you guys are too low.

Chris Brown is speculating that Greer will get 8 a year as a FA. He’s nowhere near the top of his position. Lee Evans is getting 10 a year, and he might be in the top ten at his position. Peters is going to demand astronomical money.

by krytime on Dec 28, 2008 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

but why would he blow away any other contract a player at his position has ever received? Maybe he’ll get something like 6 for $60, but I really can’t see anything more than that.

Evans’ contract is inflated for what he is. Really inflated. With Peters already under contract, I think it’d be easier to sign him that a guy who was a FA…

And Greer getting $8m per season would be ridiculous anyways…

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Blow away?

Like the goal posts today?

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah those are crazy!!!

I assume you are watching NFL Network, like I am. They just ran a Curse of Doug Flutie piece. ARGH!!

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, I saw it on PFT.com

I put a fanpost up about it, Lindell and Edwards with a poll question.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For the record

and feel free to hold me to this over the long haul…

Here is what I believe more than anything else:

Jason Peters will cause the Buffalo Bills more harm, be more of a distraction, and be more of a general pain in the a$$ than he ever will be a benefit to the team.

That is my opinion. I believe it will bear out. It doesn’t mean I think he should be traded. It doesn’t mean I think any GM out there is dumb enough to give up enough to make it worth trading him (although I really am curious to see how much could be gotten for him). What it means is what I said: he will be more of a pain in the a$$ to the team than he will be a benefit over the long haul.

by thefourwinds on Dec 28, 2008 1:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Peters signs a 7 year deal with Buffalo this offseason (for whatever amount of money) I think he now knows better than to squawk until he’s at least 2 years away from the end of the deal. Although he’s made it abundantly clear that he’s not happy with his current contract once he deigned to report he’s done what he’s been asked to do….without causing waves a la TO. I’m not defending the guy. His selfishness hurt the team. With that said, he played well enough the last half of the season to get a Pro Bowl nod.

Buffalo might need to be careful in how they structure Peters’ deal. With his history I’d rather see the team go with a 100% guaranteed contract than any kind of signing bonus. 5 years from now he’ll have forgotten all about the bonus and just be looking at his paycheck, which will look more like $4-$5 million per year after a huge signing bonus. Buffalo could be a trend-setter—no bonuses, just guarantees (insured against injury).

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a bad idea

Why would Peters agree to a guaranteed contract that saves the team in case he gets injured? He’ll want his big bonus instead of a guaranteed 7th year if he avoids injury for that along. Wouldn’t you think? Plus, how would the team be insured against Peters getting hurt and not returning to his previous form?? He’d be “healthy”, so I’m not sure how they’d be able to get out of those guarantees at that point….

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The insurance would be from an outside company like the way baseball teams get certain contracts insured.

by kaisertown on Dec 28, 2008 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, the Jets did it with Curtis Martin

Martin got paid no matter what. If he couldn’t play due to injury the team got cash from the insurance company. With the way contracts are escalating I’m kind of surprised we haven’t seen more of it.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot to add that I don’t know about the salary cap ramifications…. My guess is that a team wouldn’t get the cap space back.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So it’d be a fully guaranteed 7 year, $77M deal (or whatever) with no bonuses? So, a guaranteed $11M per season for the life of it? In this financial crunch, no insurance company is going to cover that, IMO….

Plus, with the cash to cap in place, we’d be able to amortize much of hte bonus earlier and keep a lower salary down the line…

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the problem

Take the same $77 million and give Peters a $30 million bonus. You’re left with an average of about $7 million a year. 5 years from now Peters will have forgotten all about the $30 million bonus and be pissed that he’s only (!) making about $7 million a year. Making it a guaranteed $11 million a year may keep him happier longer. Besides, even if he gets unhappy the team hasn’t handed him $30 million up front.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

11 mil a year?

thats almost 10% of your alloted salary cap in ONE player……….thats just crazy…..

12/19/08 - Thank you KLJ for coming into my life.

by norcaliangelsfan on Dec 28, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It is now....

It won’t be in a couple of years…

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t do it either, I was just trying to clear up the concept of the insurance. And companies would definitely cover it. Baseball teams constantly insure larger salaries. I would guess that 5-10% of MLB salaries of players who make more than 2 mil per year are covered for career ending injuries, death, non-baseball injuries etc… That is just the nature of gauranteed contracts.

by kaisertown on Dec 28, 2008 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball?

Those guaranteed contracts are resulting in scrubs like Kevin Brown and Mike Hampton getting the full amount of those $100M deals they signed despite missing season after season….

Does baseball really have insured contracts? IF so, what exactly is that helping if the contracts are still being fully paid? When AJ Burnett’s arm comes flying off this year, he’s still going to get his $82.5M, just like Carl Pavano got his $45M or whatever despite playing in about 15 games over 4 years…..Dang guaranteed contracts….

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball contracts are guaranteed in full regardless of what happens. Even when a player dies, he still gets paid (or at least his wife or kids or parents or whoever still gets paid). Once a player signs an MLB contract, there is no possible way for him to not get paid unless he does something which can legally void a contract like go to prison or something ridiculous. Baseball teams pay an outside insurance company to reduce risk. It’s the same way that you insure your car and whatever else. So if AJ Burnett or whoever is insured suddenly suffers a career ending injury, the insurance company pays his salary and not the team.

by kaisertown on Dec 28, 2008 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but would insurance companies really want to get involved with the extremely high risk sport of football???

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m sure it wouldn’t be cheap to get a contract insured, but they could definitely find somebody to do it.

by kaisertown on Dec 28, 2008 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But do insurance companies want to take on those risks during these financial times?

by Kurupt on Dec 28, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They still do it for baseball teams, so why not? Insurance companies will still insure people who have multiple DUIs and Doctors who have lost malpractice cases (the rates are probably ridiculous). Insurance companies simply calculate risk and charge accordingly, there is almost nothing that a big company won’t insure for the right rate.

by kaisertown on Dec 29, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are no guaranteed contracts in football.

That’s why guys want huge signing bonuses.

Also, something to consider, is the way the current CBA is playing out. If I remember reading correctly, 2010 will be an uncapped year. That sounds great to the players and all, but I also do remember reading that FA will be restricted greatly. Teams will be able to spend whatever they want, but I don’t think they’ll be able to sign FA at will.

by krytime on Dec 28, 2008 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

There aren't now but there could be

All it would take is a clause that the player gets paid even if he gets cut.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That sounds good and all, but it hasn't happened yet, so I don't think it will.

Unless of course, the players fight for that in the next CBA. But to get that, they surely would have to make some major flipping concessions somewhere else.

by krytime on Dec 28, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m thinking the high end players wouldn’t like it because their enormous signing bonuses (that they could conveniently forget about 2 or 3 seasons later) would be history. I think the majority of the players (those making less than $1 million a year) would be just fine with it because they’ll never see that kind of money….and they’re the guys who currently get screwed (i.e. cut) out of money when their team needs a roster spot for one of the big name guys.

by Ron From NM on Dec 28, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs