Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
I basically agree. Particularly with the "if a player jumps at the offer deal you have paid to much." At the same time, I would suggest your example of setting the price based on next best option does have a caveat. This type of benchmarking only works for players of relatively comparable talent - after factoring proven abilities versus potential. If the gap in adjusted talent between a targeted player and the next best option is such that the next best option is a significant downgrade, the offer has to reflect the "talent premium." Teams have the choice of paying the talent premium or accepting significantly lesser quality play at a position.
For example, as you say, T. Mays is available. If he were truly the only "next best option" (I don't believe he is, not by a long shot), the Redskins would be faced with signing a player with potential talent to be a regular, solid starter who appears to have some market demand (Johnson) versus a player who has demonstratively proved he cannot hold a starting job with little to no market demand (Mays). If those are truly the only two options, then any offer to the Johnson must reflect the talent gap and market demand for such a player or the willingness to accept significantly sub-par play.
It's still a choice - what price is too much for the gap in talent? How important is it to improve the position? Can we be successful enough in other areas to overcome the talent gap resulting from a refusal to pay for the talent gap?
IMHO, based on the salaries currently be paid to safeties, the "next-best-option" after Johnson will cost in the $2M/year range - which appears to be the going rate for Joe Average starters. So, if McC thinks Johnson can be a solid starter in the NFL, an offer of $2-3M seems to me to be the reasonable price point.
I like the guy and, from all I have been reading, I think he would be a significant upgrade from anything currently on the roster. While I really hope that something can be worked out, I have confidence that Scot McC is not going to overpay for him given the way he has conducted his FA acquisition so far.
|
Yes agree one hundred percent, we are saying the exact same thing. The value you place on a player is a function of their skill set and the scarcity of similar skill sets.
And you don't deviate from that valuation, you patiently apply it to all negotiations.