Lombardi on Wilfork situation

[R_T26]

Sunday at the Post | National Football Post

" Jason La Canfora of NFL.com reported that he expects the Patriots to franchise DT Vince Wolfork if they don’t get a long deal — which I expect will happen right before the Feb. 25 deadline. Wilfork isn’t going anywhere, Pats fans."

decipher this. does he mean lombardi expects the franchise tag before Feb 25, or a long term deal will be struck right before the 25th?

 

[billdog3484]

Sunday at the Post | National Football Post

" Jason La Canfora of NFL.com reported that he expects the Patriots to franchise DT Vince Wolfork if they don’t get a long deal — which I expect will happen right before the Feb. 25 deadline. Wilfork isn’t going anywhere, Pats fans."

decipher this. does he mean lombardi expects the franchise tag before Feb 25, or a long term deal will be struck right before the 25th?

to me, sounds like we are going to franchise him. he probably sees haynesworth's deal as something he should get close to

 

[Mossed]

I don't see Vince wanting quite Haynesworth money but probably somewhere close by. Haynesworth on average has a salary of ~14M. He doesn't get after the passer as well so I could see his camp wanting around 12M per year over 5 years or so.

I cant see the pats paying much over 9M a year though, so the tag 7M makes sense. It should give him a little extra incentive to sign, or else I can only see a holdout / trade happening.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Vince would probably say,...
ADC What the hell is going on out here!?, Vince Lombardi, Sound Bite

It's in Vince's interest to get the long term deal done, if they intend to franchise him with the looming work stoppage ( and no paychecks in 2011)
but I'm not the one representing him.
Will he get more money and is he better off if he signs a long term contract now or takes his chances with a franchise tag, no ball in 2011 and whatever happens after that?? Answer is likely different for everyone...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If he isn't going anywhere he might be hinting at the exclusive tag because he believes their intent is to retain this player whether they can get a deal done this season or not and end up paying him incrementally (like Seattle once did with Walter Jones who was tagged three times in a row). It's sometimes cheaper in the short and even long run than inking a long term deal because of the Haynesworth debaucle...In this case it holds his rights at least through 2011-12 at reasonable rates compared to what he likely wants in a long term deal. Which as he ponders that reality may lead Vince to see the light and take a more reasonable offer that at least guarantees him 3+ times the 2010 tag tender if the contract offer numbers we're hearing are remotely on the mark.

If they exclusive tag him he and his agent can't shop him and talk to anyone about what they might be willing to pay him even if only he wasn't tagged...

That's what the Colts did with Freeney although eventually they got a long term deal hammered out before the July deadline for doing so with a franchise tagged player.

 

[patriotscpfc]

I don't see Vince wanting quite Haynesworth money but probably somewhere close by. Haynesworth on average has a salary of ~14M. He doesn't get after the passer as well so I could see his camp wanting around 12M per year over 5 years or so.

I cant see the pats paying much over 9M a year though, so the tag 7M makes sense. It should give him a little extra incentive to sign, or else I can only see a holdout / trade happening.

The day he becomes a 3 down player, he can get $12m a year.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Why would you sign him to a long term deal for 10M per year if you can get him for 7M this year on the franchise, 8.5M the next and then be in the same situation you are now? IE with him trying to get 10M per year?

Plus you don't take any injury risk.

If someone is willing to give up 2 #1s for him, sayonara big Vince!:rocker:

I'd take one #1 and a third (to help make up for that debacle Burgess).:singing:

 

[RobertWeathers]

Why would you sign him to a long term deal for 10M per year if you can get him for 7M this year on the franchise, 8.5M the next and then be in the same situation you are now? IE with him trying to get 10M per year?

Plus you don't take any injury risk.

If someone is willing to give up 2 #1s for him, sayonara big Vince!:rocker:

I'd take one #1 and a third (to help make up for that debacle Burgess).:singing:

Business-wise, what you say makes perfect sense.

Problem is the player wants a long-term deal and it seems may hold out and not play at all. Additionally, by franchising him you are tying up cap dollars that could be used for other purposes (but since they most likely will not be a cap, that point may be irrelevant.)

 

[Brady2Welker]

Business-wise, what you say makes perfect sense.

Problem is the player wants a long-term deal and it seems may hold out and not play at all. Additionally, by franchising him you are tying up cap dollars that could be used for other purposes (but since they most likely will not be a cap, that point may be irrelevant.)

Unless he holds out, the caproom will be used on him anyway either by a long deal or the franchise, so we're back at square 1 of him at least getting payed.


And for someone of his build, in his prime, sitting out a Year [or two] because of contact disputes will screw him.

 

[condon84]

Wilfork will be franchised. He'll probably sit out spring, training camp, and some games until the Pats promise him that he won't be franchised next year. Same deal Asante had.

 

[Kontradiction]

1. Vince Wilfork franchised for 2010.

2. Randy Moss' contract expires after 2010, turns down Pats' decreased contract offer.

3. Wilfork gets 3-4 years at $9 million per year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wilfork will be franchised. He'll probably sit out spring, training camp, and some games until the Pats promise him that he won't be franchised next year. Same deal Asante had.

Except Wilfork probably can't afford to sit out any games. What's he going to do, hold out for 2/3rds of 2010 then lose another year to lockout in 2011? Because I'm sure that, once 2012 rolls around, teams will be lining up to sign a 30 year old who has played 6 games (and been to 0 TCs) in 2 years who has historically had weight issues.

Wilfork's trying to play hardball, but the Pats know that they have all of the leverage, so they're not letting him. Then Wilfork will be forced to settle for the slap-in-the-face $7 million (oh the horror)

 

[bucky]

I don't see Vince wanting quite Haynesworth money but probably somewhere close by. Haynesworth on average has a salary of ~14M. He doesn't get after the passer as well so I could see his camp wanting around 12M per year over 5 years or so.

I cant see the pats paying much over 9M a year though, so the tag 7M makes sense. It should give him a little extra incentive to sign, or else I can only see a holdout / trade happening.

Haynesworth's real deal - if you subtract all the fake years - is 4 years @ $12 mil/yr with about $30+ mil guaranteed.

Haynesworth is also ridiculously overpaid. I think a realistic deal for Vince would be about 70% of what Haynesworth got: 4 years at $8.5 mil/yr with $22 mil guaranteed.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Except Wilfork probably can't afford to sit out any games. What's he going to do, hold out for 2/3rds of 2010 then lose another year to lockout in 2011? Because I'm sure that, once 2012 rolls around, teams will be lining up to sign a 30 year old who has played 6 games (and been to 0 TCs) in 2 years who has historically had weight issues.

Wilfork's trying to play hardball, but the Pats know that they have all of the leverage, so they're not letting him. Then Wilfork will be forced to settle for the slap-in-the-face $7 million (oh the horror)

He could sit out as long as he was/is smart w/ his money. However w/ a $7m dollar 2010, I would question his judgment.

 

[BradyFTW!]

He could sit out as long as he was/is smart w/ his money. However w/ a $7m dollar 2010, I would question his judgment.

Vince has made about $18M, to date, playing for the Patriots. Take out taxes and his agent's cut, and that's a sizable chunk of cash, but it's not so big that he can just turn his nose up at another 7 million.

 

[carolinatony]

I have no idea what with happen like the rest of you but I do see a bad issue here and could hurt us in the long run.....or maybe not.

Players will feel the Pats are cheap and won't try to find a middle ground with their own players. Its happening with too many of our players.

 

[condon84]

Except Wilfork probably can't afford to sit out any games. What's he going to do, hold out for 2/3rds of 2010 then lose another year to lockout in 2011? Because I'm sure that, once 2012 rolls around, teams will be lining up to sign a 30 year old who has played 6 games (and been to 0 TCs) in 2 years who has historically had weight issues.

Wilfork's trying to play hardball, but the Pats know that they have all of the leverage, so they're not letting him. Then Wilfork will be forced to settle for the slap-in-the-face $7 million (oh the horror)

It's not a guarantee that 2011 is a lockout.

I for one think that there's not going to be a full season lockout. Too much money at stake for both sides and too many smart people involved that knows what's at stake. Both sides are going to play hardball, but ultimately, they'll get a deal done.

Besides, you guys are looking at this through your eyes, the fans. Try to look at it through Vince's eyes. He just played out his contract without any type of holdout and was a good soldier. Wouldn't you want to be treated fairly?

 

[Aßßynormal]

It's not a guarantee that 2011 is a lockout.

I for one think that there's not going to be a full season lockout. Too much money at stake for both sides and too many smart people involved that knows what's at stake. Both sides are going to play hardball, but ultimately, they'll get a deal done.

Besides, you guys are looking at this through your eyes, the fans. Try to look at it through Vince's eyes. He just played out his contract without any type of holdout and was a good soldier. Wouldn't you want to be treated fairly?

"fair's got nothing to do with it"

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's not a guarantee that 2011 is a lockout.

I for one think that there's not going to be a full season lockout. Too much money at stake for both sides and too many smart people involved that knows what's at stake. Both sides are going to play hardball, but ultimately, they'll get a deal done.

Besides, you guys are looking at this through your eyes, the fans. Try to look at it through Vince's eyes. He just played out his contract without any type of holdout and was a good soldier. Wouldn't you want to be treated fairly?

Yes, I would want that. Now look at it through the Patriots' eyes: would you want to pay a Haynesworth-esque contract to a guy who's nearing 30, shows up to TC increasingly overweight every year, is a two-down player, and who has a family history of major helath issues? Fair is a relative term, and without knowing how much Wilfork wants, we can only speculate either way.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Vince has made about $18M, to date, playing for the Patriots. Take out taxes and his agent's cut, and that's a sizable chunk of cash, but it's not so big that he can just turn his nose up at another 7 million.

I wasn't clear. By passing up 7m IMO Vince would be a complete fool, but if he managed his money properly could live comfortably by going to Sams Club every now and then. ;-)