Rumor: Maclin agrees to 6 year deal UPDATED
by JasonB on Jun 19, 2009 10:36 AM EDT
in News
43 comments
[Note by JasonB, 06/19/09 1:04 PM EDT ] I emailed Andy Schwartz from Comcast Sportsnet to try to get some confirmation of this report and after checking into it he found that it was "not true." Sounds like we were right to be skeptical.
A site covering Missouri athletics is reporting that former Mizzou WR and Eagles' first round pick Jeremy Maclin will agree to a 6 year, $23 million deal.
Jeremy Maclin has agreed to a 6 year, 23 million dollar contract with the Philadelphia Eagles...23 mil. Sounds good to me
Last year's 19th overall pick, Jeff Otah, signed a 5 year $14 million deal as a rookie. If this report is to be believed, Maclin will average about a million and a half more per year over the life of the deal. Michael Griffin, who was the 19th overall pick in 2007, signed a 5 year $11.5 million deal. Seems like too many years and too much money to make sense.
So far there's been nothing from the Eagles or the local media on this, so we'll file this one in the "rumor" dept for now.
0 recs |
43 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Gotta say that this rumor has to be false… No way the 19th pick is getting a shade under $4 mil/year.
I’d love to see him signed early (that would be great news), but the length and amount of the contract is unrealistic.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 10:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Right...
When I said “No way the 19th pick is getting a shade under $4 mil/year,” I meant that it was a high figure, but I can see how it might read the other way.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say this rumor is legitimate
It doesn’t say anything about bonus money. Much of that might be incentives which would make it a fair deal. If Maclin performs as expected, $4 mil is not unrealistic, and if he gets injured or is a bust the birds might not owe him much.
"Seriously… F off." JasonB to a Denver fan after Dawk left.
by DownHillBradley on Jun 19, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and you could argue that LT is a more valuable position than WR.
by cavortingEagle on Jun 19, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't Otah play RT?
fightlockdown.com
by The Legend on Jun 19, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We were looking at him to play LT no?
Doesn’t matter too much, when I’m GM, I’d pay more for any tackle than I would for a WR…
by cavortingEagle on Jun 19, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what's desean's contract?
hopefully the coaches like what they see & think the contract is worth it
by sports00fan00 on Jun 19, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I found 4 years ~$3 million
http://eaglescap.com/Players/DeSeanJackson.html
If that is right is was because he was drafted late in the second round. I think his deal will be redone, but at least it’s only 4 years.
"Seriously… F off." JasonB to a Denver fan after Dawk left.
by DownHillBradley on Jun 19, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh boy...
That’s trouble. Maybe we use some of that extra cap space to give Jackson a nice signing bonus and lock him up long-term? If I’m Jackson and I’m making less than a third of what Maclin is likely to get… I think I’m a little annoyed.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we should compare Maclin to Bunkley
http://eaglescap.com/Players/BrodrickBunkley.html
He was the last player the Eagles traded up for in the first round. His contact says he makes $13 mil over six years. However, if you read the fine print he has other escalators in 2010-11 that could make those years alone worth $13 mil.
If that is right
Then we might have a problem, but I suspect Desean has some clauses that are not being publicized at this time.
"Seriously… F off." JasonB to a Denver fan after Dawk left.
by DownHillBradley on Jun 19, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
contact >>>contract*
"Seriously… F off." JasonB to a Denver fan after Dawk left.
by DownHillBradley on Jun 19, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think we traded up to get Bunkley. I think he fell to us at 14. Either way, the rookies’ salaries are “slotted,” meaning that there’s really little wiggle room on negotiating…
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, "slotted" is the wrong term...
Each team is assigned a “rookie pool” of money by the NFL that each team has to stay within. Here’s a link to the NFL rookie pools this year…
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/04/28/2009-rookie-pool-numbers/
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I keep hearing "slotted" but didn't know what it refered to
http://nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=3219
found this article
CBA sets the maximum number of years for a rookie contract. Rookies drafted among the first 16 picks of the first round may sign up to a six-year contract, and those in the bottom half of the first round may sign for a maximum of five years.
I’m not sure if this is referring to the new CBA or the old, but if it is referring to the current CBA, it would imply that this rumor is false…
"Seriously… F off." JasonB to a Denver fan after Dawk left.
by DownHillBradley on Jun 19, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Slotting refers to when each player makes a little more than the player picked behind him and a little less than the player picked ahead.
by JasonB on Jun 19, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d808c2409&template=with-video&confirm=true
Thats what I though, but why did Joe Flacco get 5 years $30mil and the player picked ahead of him got 5 years $15 mil?
Is it based on the position you play?
"Seriously… F off." JasonB to a Denver fan after Dawk left.
by DownHillBradley on Jun 19, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s mostly just a guideline. Teams can sign a guy to pretty much whatever deal they want.
by JasonB on Jun 19, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No slotting.
No, there is no “slotting” in the NFL – That’s why Flacco made more than players selected before him.. The NBA has slotting, in which (as JasonB said) the salaries get lower and lower with each pick. That’s why above, I corrected myself and said that “slotting” was the wrong term.
The NFL does it differently – Each team is assigned a “rookie salary pool,” which they have to stay within for all of their picks.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
JasonB / Bye, Dawk :(
Thanks for taking the time to help me understand the way rookie signings work.
"Seriously… F off." JasonB to a Denver fan after Dawk left.
by DownHillBradley on Jun 19, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If true, its good
I’d like to see them all signed early. Get them focused on learning the system, and not stressing out about signing.
It might be a little high- but don’t forget: A) he’s a receiver, and B) he really is a 10th overall pick- we just got lucky and got him at 19.
by bdawk4ever on Jun 19, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
he really is a 10th overall pick- we just got lucky and got him at 19
Try pitching that one to Joe Banner.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he really is a 19th overall pick.
by cavortingEagle on Jun 19, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
No, he was projected to get picked at 10 or so, so he really is a 10th overall pick
by bdawk4ever on Jun 19, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
?!
Too bad for him. He really isn’t a 10th overall pick.
This isn’t Monty Python (1, 2, 5…)
by cavortingEagle on Jun 19, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
19 is 19, buddy. alex smith, tim couch, and david carr all played like 5th rounders, but they still got paid 1st pick money.
by awd777 on Jun 19, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using this logic...
The Raiders draft suddenly makes sense. They could pay their first two picks the equivalent of a low first rounder and a UDFA. Think of the SAVINGS!
by Aphilfan on Jun 19, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have any other first round picks signed yet?
by SJPhillyVT on Jun 19, 2009 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Two have signed
Stafford and Sanchez have contracts. I couldn’t find anyone else that has agreed.
by Aphilfan on Jun 19, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah right I remember Stafford’s ridiculous contract now. It gets more insane every year. Didn’t know about Sanchez though.
by SJPhillyVT on Jun 19, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the nfl does need a rookie cap. unproven players are getting paid more than multi-probowl vets. it’s crazy.
by awd777 on Jun 19, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the time being, it actually works in the Eagles’ favor. Having a Top 5 pick these days is a really dicey proposition for teams. If you hit (see Matt Ryan, Jake Long) it’s great, but you can just as easily miss (Alex Smith, David Carr, Tim Couch) in which case you’re stuck with a cap-killing stiff for years, and it can REALLY set your franchise back for a long time.
The longer it stays the way it is, the longer it will take to even the playing field between teams like the Lions, Bengals, Browns, etc and teams like the Eagles, Pats, Steelers, Giants, etc., and I’m not in any rush to level the playing field.
by Bye, Dawk :( on Jun 19, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hear here
I think teams are catching on — what, with all the speculation about moving into the 20s this year since that was the “meat” of the draft in terms of cost-effectiveness — and I would not be surprised to see some sort of mechanism in place for rookie deals.
Honestly, except for guaranteed deals, the NBA has it all figured out, salary-wise. Or you could say the NFL has it all figured out except for rookie slotting.
Still waiting for the Eagles to Bring It Home For Jerome
by D3Keith on Jun 19, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just a thought
i honestly don’t know the numbers, I’m just trying to think of reasons, if this rumor is legit, why the birds would give him so much money
Where do they stand with regards to the spending floor concerning the cap. Did the re-working of 5 Alive’s deal put us above the minimum spending floor for the year? If not, could they be giving Maclin money in his contract to get them above the floor the rest of the way?
Apologies if this idea is completely off base. I don’t know where to look up the numbers
"That collision, I didn't feel nothing, because he was pretty much defenseless. It was like running through a cardboard box. Seriously. Cardboard box" -Sheldon Brown after lighting up Reggie Bush
by Beast of the East on Jun 19, 2009 12:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe...
Maybe they gave him that contract because they see he has a lot of potential and they don’t want him to bitch after a few years about not getting paid enough, if he ends up putting big numbers. This way they have him locked up for 6 years at a modest contract, instead of signing him for 3 years, watching him blow up and then have to give him a huge deal then.
Again, all speculation.
by Team Serbia on Jun 19, 2009 12:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha
well, if none of the other 1st draft picks have signed, maybe the Eagles are signing him a little high because they have cap room and want to create signing difficulties for all the other teams ;)
by Whack8888 on Jun 19, 2009 1:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wish we signed Maclin this early ...
… Ah well.
Though post-McNabb, think its top priority?
Still waiting for the Eagles to Bring It Home For Jerome
by D3Keith on Jun 19, 2009 10:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Bleeding Green Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
