Post Article: Redskins & RGIII 5th year option

[Smoot Point]

Washington Post Article: As NFL draft dominates discussion, Robert Griffin III and Ryan Tannehill contract decisions loom

The article cites an anonymous source saying "he expects the Redskins to exercise Griffin’s option year following the draft"... I apologize if this has been posted before... However, I'm curious about what the forum subscribers have to say... What do you say?

Allow me to provide some background on the 5th year option (for the few who might need it):

1) Teams have until May to decide whether to pick up a 5th year option...
2) The 5th year option is a team option, not a player option. It is guaranteed only for injury, so any weeks that a player misses for injury in the 5th year would be fully guaranteed.
3) The player can be cut before March (official beginning of next season) and 5th year option isn't guaranteed.
4) The player's contract can be re-negotiated/extended in January, during team re-signing period.
5) The guaranteed money equals that of a current year transition tag... so you get next year's contract at current year's transition tag numbers. QB transition tag this year is ~$16M and RGIII would play next year at ~$16M if his 5th year option is exercised, even if transition tag for next season goes up.

A few risks/drawbacks that I've heard identified are:

1) RGIII plays well enough to warrant keeping after March 2016, but:
a) not quite well enough for $16M
b) gets injured for most/all of 2016 season after March 2016...
2) You lose potential high 3rd round compensatory pick in 2016 if RGIII isn't worth $16M & is cut
3) You tie up $16M after March 2016 that could be used to sign other players

Here are my thoughts:

RGIII isn't concerned about the Redskins not picking up his 5th year option because he would have far more leverage going into 2016 if the Redskins didn't pick up his option. It's totally in the teams favor to exercise the option. It's totally in the player's favor to renegotiate a new contract based on QB franchise tag numbers than based on last year QB transition tag numbers.

If you are concerned about what compensatory picks you "might/might not" receive in 2016, just trade him for an equivalent pick now (which would be a high 4th round pick).

If you think he isn't going to be a part of your team in 2016, you are better off finding a QB who you feel will be part of your team now and building around that player in 2015. Get what you can for him now and move on...

I think it's a no-brainer to take the 5th year option on RGIII, if you think there is a chance he'll be your starter in 2016 and beyond. You lose too much leverage in contract negotiations by going with 2016 & 2017 franchise tag numbers. Agents will tell the team they will have to fork out $20M in 2016 & $24M (120% of previous FT year) in 2017 in order to keep the player on a franchise tag, so the Agent will have justification for a guarantee of $44M over the first 2 years of the contract for a high profile QB. Teams will add years and move guaranteed money to the back of the contract during negotiations, but the agent will start at those higher numbers. If you have the 5th year option, they can only justify $16M + $20M over first 2 years ($36M) during January 2016 negotiations.

This is why Russell Willson will likely get around $44M guaranteed over the 1st 2 years of his deal. It really depends on where the guaranteed money lands. He'll certainly get at minimum $20M in guaranteed money over the 1st year, it's just the leverage a player has in the 1st year over the leverage the team has. If the team is forced to franchise, they pay out around $20M in that year anyway. The team can then give the player a fully guaranteed 1st year contract + signing bonus of $20M and spread the bonus over the life of the contract in order to save cap... However, reports are that Wilson will get $126M with $62M guaranteed (which I think is absurd, but it isn't my money)... It all depends on where the money lands in the life of the contract.

Anyway, I only bring up Russell Wilson to discuss how contract negotiations will work. RGIII & team have to have a really great year before we talk about contract extensions & such... However, the 5th year option is a discussion that has to happen before May, and not exercising that option has pretty a significant impact on future years.

Sorry for being overly wordy... Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

SmootPoint

 

[MikeSr619]

My thoughts on this:

1 - there is no way the Skins pick up the 16 mil option due to his lack of health, decline in play, and the new GM doesn't seem to be "that guy" to make that mistake.
2 - I think Griffin already knows this and is not upset with it. I think he knows this year is all about him proving himself to the team and the NFL
3 - If he doesn't "blow up" this year I think his days as a starter ANYWHERE are over. This is it for him and if he doesn't pull another 2012 season out of his ass he can pretty much kiss it goodbye.

Now, IF he does blow up and has a spectacular season I can see him getting a mid to upper second tier QB type of deal. I think if he proves he can make it an entire season, leads us back to the divisional title and in to the playoffs he will have earned a 2nd tier contract.

 

[Smoot Point]

I'd like to make an addendum to my post above... My thoughts that the Redskins should exercise the 5th year option has less to do with RGIII or his performance. It has everything to do with the nature of the 5th year option and the value that it has to teams and their negotiations with players... Obviously, if I thought RGIII sucked, I wouldn't think they should exercise the 5th year option and I would think they should cut/trade him now. However, there is a chance he blows up and I think it's a no-brainer from that stand point that the 5th year option should be exercised.

Also, I don't know what Scot M thinks of RGIII or Jay Gruden... I don't even really know what Gruden thinks of RGIII (though I can speculate). I'm only saying what I think should happen.

 

[McD5]

Zero chance of picking up the 5th year option. Actually, less than zero if that's even possible.

And here are a few reasons why.

A few risks/drawbacks that I've heard identified are:

1) RGIII plays well enough to warrant keeping after March 2016, but:
a) not quite well enough for $16M
b) gets injured for most/all of 2016 season after March 2016...
2) You lose potential high 3rd round compensatory pick in 2016 if RGIII isn't worth $16M & is cut
3) You tie up $16M after March 2016 that could be used to sign other players


The only risk of not extending him would be roughly $4 million dollars. That would be the extra cost of franchising him next season.

 

[Win4us]

Yeah, Mac Daddy's gonna set the presedence with RG & contracts I believe. Basically letting EVERYONE know you perform...you get payed and not until then.

My guess is Bob's gonna have to pull a lights out year from his ass to even be considered.

 

[Ax]

I'm on record as stating there is no need to pick up the option. Robert will either earn another contract with us, or he won't. Simple as that.

I don't believe he needs to repeat 2012 to earn another contract either. If he does mirror 2012, he will warrant a large contract. And we'll give him one.

If he stays healthy and turns in a year that fits nicely somewhere in between 2012 and 2014, he will get a good contract offer from us, loaded with incentives to pay him more, the better he performs. And I believe he'll take it. If he shows no improvement from the last 2 years, he's history.

I'm also on record saying that I believe he WILL claim the QB job here, for years to come. I still see great things for him, here, as a Washington Redskin.

 

[Smoot Point]

McD5,

I think your risks/drawbacks are "pretty close" to mine.

Great minds...

OK, and adding to the general discussion:

@salarycap101 tweeted about 3 hours ago the following:

Baffles me when suggested it's risky 2 pick up RG3's 5th yr option. Rarely is an inj-guar paid. #Redskins can term b4 March to avoid 5th yr.

Teams want to control a player's rights for as long as they can, particularly if there's no downside to doing so.

Cheers,

SmootPoint

 

[Smoot Point]

Another thing to consider... If you don't pick up 5th year option, you potentially setup a scenario where you have to work new contracts with Trent Williams, Ryan Kerrigan, Kenan Robinson, Alfred Morris & RGIII in 2016... You might not have Franchise Tag available for RGIII.

 

[riggins44]

Will be interesting to see Luck's and Wilson's deals. Wilson isn't eligible for 5th year option since he wasn't a first round pick.

 

[MikeSr619]

But if you give Griffin 16 mil out the gate doesn't it limit negotiations with the others?

 

[Miles Monroe]

I don't think we'll pick up the option, nor should we. Guess I'm odd man out here... I don't think Robert has to play lights out to get another contract with us. The entire team sucked. Robert, in my opinion, has to play well within the system, and not loose games for us. He has to show vastly improved decision making on the field to get a new deal. I don't think he even needs to lead us to a playoff game to stay with us. Of course, if we don't upgrade the O line, we'll still be chasing our tails, and will likely loose a player that still may develop into a long term answer.

 

[micks113]

No they shouldn't extend him. He is in the unfortunate position of having to earn his next contract. Given the schedule, he will likely/might have a decent record going into the bye, maybe if everything turns just right, be 5-2 or 6-1. Where would that leave us with what to do with him? Keep him right? Then after the bye he tanks or gets hurt. The early performance may just carry over and warrant a new contract. But at what value? Certainly not "franchise tag" worthy. Therein lies the rub, Horatio.

 

[Miles Monroe]

Therein lies the rub, Horatio.

I can think of much worse rubs to deal with. Like when you.... never mind

 

[fansince62]

not to worry! Colt McCoy is the field general we have been waiting for!

oh yea.....griffin...where's the risk? he can be cut before Mar 2016. the option isn't guaranteed. the real risk here is he is injured and can't play in 2016. if you believe that probability is high...why stick with him at all? it's a smart move by the team.

 

[Smoot Point]

I feel the need to reiterate that the 5th year option is a TEAM option... Not a player option. RGIII would still have to earn his money, but he would be negotiating a new contract at current year transition tag rates, not next year franchise tag rates.

 

[fansince62]

so.....in my mind you are correct to frame the problem as a risk decision BY THE TEAM. a couple line items that may be missing:

- folks like to philosophize about Griffin "earning" his keep as the rock bottom criterion for some extension + eventual resigning vehicle. but no one has established a standard for what that might be other than "blow it up". win/loss record is obviously HIGHLY correlated with how offense/defense and special teams play. I do not consider that a very good standard for separating out griffin's component of the overall team performance.

- it's obvious that the team...right or wrong...is still using potential as a variable (though weighting it less as more performance data is collected) coupled to some idea of the probability of finding a suitable replacement.

- let's work on the assumption that McL has set some internal criteria and that these were developed collaboratively with Gruden and other FO types. as you mention...we don't know what these are. we know vaguely what they might be (e.g., faster decision making, some target QB rating, some target offensive team statistics relative to the rest of the NFL, some target QB stats relative to other starting NFL QBs, etc., etc.).

- the decision to keep or eject Griffin will also depend on other factors: the probability or finding a capable replacement (some on this board assume that is already here in the form of McCoy or Cousins - at least for the short-term; others laugh at this notion); the team's cap situation; as others note the contract situation for other players...etc...etc.

I know, getting pedantic here. trying to draw out the notion that "risk" here actually encompasses several kinds of risk that extend beyond how Griffin performs. if we narrow the aperture to just financial risk, then in my mind that is quite low given the out of cutting Griffin by next Mar. how the various kinds of risk combine to shape team decision-making is a different problem. we also don't know what the team's tolerance for risk is either. are they conservative vis Griffin's future or willing to gamble? that heavily influences the decision process.

anywho....in my mind they have already made their decision. the only contingency I can see on the horizon is whether Mariotta is there when the commish calls out "now on the clock...the Washington Redskins".

 

[micks113]

My post was trying to point out the likelihood of using a franchise tag on a player that is not worth it. To me its a moot point. I don't think there is team leverage there. What the Redskins need to do is let it play out then negotiate a contract that matches his worth based on on the field performance. If another team wants to pay more then they can have him. But what we can't do is give him long term contract for 8-8 play. And I think that decision is all about performance, not financial. Its only financial if he is "franchise tag" worthy. Than we would all be happy as we win in the playoffs. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Om]

I'm going to separate Robert's play from the final record in 2015. It's quite possible Robert could show huge improvement, exhibiting clear signs of starting to master and execute an NFL passing game, as well as show physical burst indicating he's healthy again ... and the team still end up 8-8. Lots of moving parts on this franchise's hopeful turnaround will affect final record (Gruden, Barry, injuries, the Scot Effect, etc.). Too many to make the long-term Griffin decision based on wins and losses alone.

Just one man's opinion.

I'm thinking we're going to know a lot earlier than the end of the season, by the way. We're going to get an inkling early in camp as guys like Keim start to pass along the "insider" buzz from Ashburn. We'll get a chance to start evaluating for ourselves in preseason, even knowing how little of the offense is actually being run, because we'll be able to get a first impression of his timing, footwork, decision-making, confidence level. And by as early as week 3 or four of the regular season, we're going to have a pretty good sense of where he is, mentally and physically, under live fire versus last year.

All of which, happily for us message board types, points to a very large window of opportunity to beat this option year/franchise tag thing into a pulp for the bulk of 2015.

 

[fansince62]

OM...not sure on the early situational awareness part of the equation...but agree otherwise. lot going on right now what with short-term transitions (defense) and longer-term overhaul to fit McL's vision.

it's up to Griffin to convince management and ownership by performing. it's up to the team to figure out all the probabilities, courses-of-action, etc.

 

[micks113]

I'm going to separate Robert's play from the final record in 2015. It's quite possible Robert could show huge improvement, exhibiting clear signs of starting to master and execute an NFL passing game, as well as show physical burst indicating he's healthy again ... and the team still end up 8-8. Lots of moving parts on this franchise's hopeful turnaround will affect final record (Gruden, Barry, injuries, the Scot Effect, etc.). Too many to make the long-term Griffin decision based on wins and losses alone.

Just one man's opinion.

I'm thinking we're going to know a lot earlier than the end of the season, by the way. We're going to get an inkling early in camp as guys like Keim start to pass along the "insider" buzz from Ashburn. We'll get a chance to start evaluating for ourselves in preseason, even knowing how little of the offense is actually being run, because we'll be able to get a first impression of his timing, footwork, decision-making, confidence level. And by as early as week 3 or four of the regular season, we're going to have a pretty good sense of where he is, mentally and physically, under live fire versus last year.

All of which, happily for us message board types, points to a very large window of opportunity to beat this option year/franchise tag thing into a pulp for the bulk of 2015.

Yes there are numerous factors going into the W-L record. Too many fans got caught up in that last year, choosing their own favorites to blame for the debacle. For me, I choose to ignore the coaching changes and front office changes for the upcoming season on the record. I don't want to get into the "apologist" statements we saw posted after last year (not saying you posted them).

Here's all I need to look at this year to render a judgement on RGIII. Notwithstanding the role the defense played in all the losses, we simply will not be a winner if this team cannot score more than 16 points a game. In fact, we need to be in the 28 point per game range to even be competitive. Based on that premise alone, who on the offense is going to rise to the occasion? Whose performance will translate into more points, either from the passing game or the running game? We all know the answer to that. The burden falls squarely on the quarterback. Regardless of how the line plays, and apparently, the coaches don't see eye to eye with the fans on that topic.

So I can't help but focus on Robert's performance as it will translate into the W-L record. If he can score 28+ points and we still lose, he gets a pass. Anything less, and well, Robert will take the fall. (of course I'm assuming he does not get injured and he does not get benched.)