In large part it first happened to this clue prior to the 1999 season when we had shed ourselves of plenty of talented veterans. The bill had come due and an 18M+ cap deficit forced us to make drastic moves. After years of signing bonuses spread over contracts we didn’t finish the dead money had piled up and bit us hard. Then in 2004, more dead money and restructured deals came back to bite us and force some moves and we tanked again.
Consider the eventual 2010 season to be a form of an opposite situation. Instead of terrible salary cap practices and failed contracts biting us and forcing us to cut good talent we face an army of moves that need to be made to keep what we already have. As I have argued recently on the 49ers official team message board, such obligations will make it hard for the team to make the moves fans would prefer this season and possibly even next year. Let me begin the run down.
Start with the Elephant in the room: ILB Willis. A rookie all-pro who set a team record (and according to team statisticians, a league record) in tackles on top of some decent pass rushing and a Defensive Rookie of The Year Award. In his second year not only was he still a team leading, pro bowling ILB but one who also made a highlight reel INT return of 86 yards. Yet he was paid 11th overall money and has made plenty of bonus cash those 2 years. This year his bonus money will end as will his guarantees and he balances it out with solid salary for a rookie deal. Another pro bowl or all pro bid and anything close to matching his ‘07 or ‘08 seasons and this kid will be electric. The need to give him an extension after three years? The current front office has prided itself in smart, pro-active deals for players who deserve them. We take care of those who produce. To be blunt: Willis deserves and should expect to be the highest paid ILB in the sport. That’s not a cheap deal. That involves probably 30M-35M in guarantees and 70M-80M for a 6 or 7 year deal.
Then let’s move to the other side of the ball and some big wigs. We can start with OT Staley. I believe he belongs at LT. He has the feet, work ethic, and ability to play LT and he lacks the extra power you’d like in a RT. His rookie year at RT he was out of place and did his best despite his experience and limitations run blocking. In 2008 he was in a good role but it was still year 1 against NFL elite backside rushers. But also add in our lack of a long-term solution at RT and lack of log-term depth and Staley is a player we need to keep. Like Willis, he almost demands a contract extension and pay increase but one much less over the top. Pay in the lower end of the top 10 can be expected for a guy who we want as a starting OT for the next 5+ seasons.
So that takes care of the big names? Right? Consider the effect of a successful season. The cheapest option, funny enough, is if Alex Smith breaks out and leads the team. He got so much in bonus money before hand and has produced so little, we can still let him hang on his 2010 salary of 4M and franchise him after a successful 2010. But if Hill is our leader, watch out. His bump was solid for a top backup but now he will want playoff QB money and at least a good 4 year deal. That’s a lot of big bonus money for what he did in 2008 and backpay for 2009 and his future potentiual for 2010. If Hill leads, he is going to be one of the guys next to Staley and Willis looking for a new deal.
Let’s dig deeper. Rachal had 2009 first round type talent, left early for family reasons. Was dominant as a rookie, could be a fringe pro bowl favorite at least this season with his style of glass-chewing play at RG. Much like Gore played up his circumstances to good reason, Rachal could call for an extension, even more so if Baas never gets one because Chilo will be a key cog in our depth. How many other offensive players to worry about? WR Morgan (rock bottom pay, easily asks for an extension if he breaks out and is a starter), TE Davis (could ask for a more economical deal long-term that is actually more expensive at first), WR Hill (3 years in and was very good in year 2. Could demand a better deal and more status or else a trade with a good 2009 campaign). Then defensively one must consider OLB Lawson (A strong 2009 and a decent pass rush and this cat should see a decent 5-year, 4M/year type of deal), CB Brown (could win a starting role if not a key nickel role when both Spencer and Harris could be lsot after 2009), DE McDonald (If he beats the ACL odds and is a key, explosive backup he will get a small to moderate extension).
The fact is that between an extra 5M in space for Willis, perhaps 3M for Staley and add that with 3M for Hill and a few other players and one thing is apparent: We could see a need for well over 20M to keep the same players let alone upgrade over them. A best case scenario sadly invovles some of these players failing. Perhaps Lawson not stepping up then his future spot and extension will probably go to Peppers or Suggs in a blockbuster (even more expensive) deal while Lawson plays out his last season as a backup and coverage LB. Or perhaps we get ‘lucky’ and McDonald is usurped by the rookie Jean Francois who produces big time to save us a little money, Staley comes in cheaper than expected, TE Davis accepts a bit of a paycut to get as long-term deal, and Morgan goes for an incremental and performance based deal that saves money off the top. Then you could argue for a solid 4M-8M swing in the other direction in LTBE contract values.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I understand your point and do not question the numbers. But as a matter of perspective, I would point out the following: at one point, the Colts had Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Dwight Freeney, Bob Sanders, Jeff Saturday all on the roster and under long-term deals — as well as a bunch of other guys who could probably move current 49er starters to the pine. Only Harrison has left. That team is still in tact five years later.
Somehow, Indy was able to find a way to pay all their guys good money for more than one or two years; why can’t SF?
If a guy like Jason Hill wants out and SF can’t afford to pay him, that’s probably a good thing — it likely means Crabtree and Morgan are lighting it up, and Jones is also proving his worth. (I know we’re all a bit focused on having a lot of depth at WR because of the injury bug the past several years, but I don’t recall SF worrying too much about depth when it had Rice and Taylor, and I don’t remember the Steelers worrying about depth when they had Swann and Stalworth.) The Niners’ issue right now is establishing enough bonafide stars (beyond Willis and Gore) that when one or two of them go down, a “good” player (like WR Mike Wilson in the ’80s) can step in and contribute while the other stars keep racking up the Ws.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Both Baas and Goldson are due for extensions too, correct?
May 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I didn’t mean to imply that we can’t pay all of those guys but rather simply, the costs will be there.
Let me first address the Colts. The Colts have two very good things going for them. First is that Manning and Freeney are all-pros. You’re not gambling when you sign them. When you lock them up, you’re simply going with the best in the game. Meanwhile guys like Clark, Sanders, Wayne, etc. are all the same. Multi-time pro bowlers who are key players for the club. Meanwhile, they balance it out because they can rely on those talents in a personnel system that rotates elsewhere. Indy simply doesn’t spend big money on the OL. While they have Saturday locked down because he’s a leader, key in making reads and you want to keep that C-QB duo going, they’ve let OTs and OGs come and go frequently. Their OGs are often ’small’ mid rounders with quick feet and they go for value at the OT role. They also routinely go for cheap DTs and pile up on late round coverage OLBs. Really, they find solid, unassuming bargains and go with that. Exactly the same way DEN built a top running game out of ‘undersized’ late round linemen and ‘imperfect, slow’ RBs who vision and cutting ability were maximized.
That said, we don’t have those types of players. Willis, sure we can lock him down because he’s a franchise type player. Throw the wallet at him. Staley? We can go long term with him because we really lack the depth to afford not to. But we don’t have the QB or RB or the WR to make those types of deals to. In fact, what we do have is Smith and Clements.
Mostly this was in response to those talking about signing players left and right with our current cap money. We extend 2-3 players and then pass the rest onwards. Otherwise if we over-invest now, we won’t have the space next season. So before people think we can pay for a Peppers or Suggs easily, it pays to keep in mind that as we improve as a team, more players will succeed and want more money and better deals.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Ok - I didn’t see the thread on the 49er Message Board so this is only responding to your article and your recent comment. I don’t see a problem. I’ll always go with developing your own draft picks and keeping them when they prove themselves and appear to fit your long term schemes. We should (and do) use FA to bring in experienced players that fill gaps (M. Smith, Spikes) until we can develop. I don’t think we’re at the level where we go after the big names unless they’ll be around for many years like Clements and J. Smith. Even then, you want a critical cog as opposed to just a big name. In other words, the strategy has been and will be to bring in the middle level guys that don’t break the bank and go away after a couple or three years.
You identified only 2 moves that absolutely have to be made in the short term - Staley and Willis and no one disagrees. There are also lots of potential keepers that look like they’ll make it. Lawson and Davis have only 2 years left so we need to decide soon. Neither one has proved they’re worth a major redo. The other wild card with these 2 guys is how some of the others like Pascoe and Brooks develop with playing time.
From that same class I’d make a move to try to get T. Brown locked up for another 3 years before he gets to number 2. Harris (age) and Spencer (injury) could disappear in a heart beat and I see Brown’s rise as inevitable. Right now we don’t have much else on the horizon.
For guys like Rachal and Morgan we have another year to sit on them before a move gets made. You can throw in J. Hill into this category unless he gets a good dose of playing time this year and forces our hand.
Where I see all this working out is that we have a bunch of mid to high salary guys who are either going to play out their contracts in the next two years like Harris, Spikes and M.Smith and not return and some others like Battle, Ulbrich, Sims and Roman that are either gone or kept for only 1 more year. Throw in Spencer if he doesn’t return to form and stay healthy and you’re talking about $15-20mm in salary and cap space. Most of these guys are being replaced by younger, cheaper guys.
We also have something like $11mm of dead money going away after this year assuming that I understand A. Smith’s rework. All in all, I think we’re in great shape vis a vis the cap if we have one going forward. We don’t have that overhang in the form of excessive bonuses that caused the past problems and we have a healthy mix of veterans and young guys.
May 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Modesto,
The only response I have overall is that from reading what you wrote, you overvalue what ’savings’ their might be. Keep in mind what other deals involve Clements’ cap value sky rockets once his salary jump up to a real starting CB’s value after year 3. DE Smith this season is soaking up over 10M+ in overall cap space, most of it in a huge lump sum bonus, but next year his cap number will remain high as he gets more normal level salaries. Plus, we don’t have the ‘youth’ movement you may be anticipating. Sure, losing Spencer and Harris will save us probably somewhere around 5M-6M. Then Brown gets an extension, chop a chunk of that out and then our backups will be…? Who exactly? Clements and Brown would be all we have. We’d easily lose lots of the savings going forth and getting veterans to help our depth chart. Spikes is ahrdly a big money player and when he’s done we’re probably fishing for an even bigger fish to replace him.
We let Baas go, we’re even worse off for OG depth and it’s more expensive to sign a FA than to extend a current player. Almost all of the guys conveniently being tossed aside for your savings…we don’t have 3rd and 4th string guys anywhere near their capability stepping in. Even if we went CB, OG, ILB with our top 3 picks next season to fill the holes, that’s a gamble.
As for Rachal and Morgan, I beg to differ. Gore only played 1 great season and he got a deal after 2 years, why? Because 3rd round money is a pittance compared to what he deserves. If Morgan puts up numbers like he could and I believe Rachal really will be our most interesting OL and get some pro bowl votes, not only does Morgan deserve non-minimal-late round rookie money but Rachal is another family medical story.