Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Well, there are assumptions here about a future CBA that we simply can't really prepare for: if 24 owners see nothing wrong with punishing the Redskins for spending like they are the only team in the league, then they can impose whatever consequences for large contracts they want to against us.
With that said, I don't believe the agreement that they will eventually come to with the players association in 2012 is going to include a salary cap. Maybe some form of a luxury tax, which wouldn't be an issue for this franchise.
The crux of my argument, and it was poorly stated, was: even though any signing bonus we would pay to the 4th overall pick becomes a sunk cost at the point it is spent, we can't assume that the team would act rationally in the face of facing a potential sunk cost. I think it's a very safe assumption that, if the pick is poor, we will lose games over what we would have had if we had just never used the pick at all. (This, is of course, if we assume the level of the replacement player to be equal to Jason Campbell).
Basically, I should have just stated that I am rejecting the premise it's just money and a pick that we would be spending on the high-volatility selection. If the selection was poor for any reason, either poor player evaluation or poor evaluation of environment conditions, it's not just a pick or money that's sunk (in a rational world, it would be), it's also many football games.
The practical figure of guaranteed money for a quarterback is far beyond what the actual figure is. If the actual figure is $25 million, his salaries for three or four years are also guaranteed. If you look at Russell, it's hard to see any other rational move for the Raiders than to cut ties with him. But the Raiders are going to throw $13 million more at the problem, plus the salary of a new quarterback coach, to not have to eat the $45 million or whatever they've already sunk into one of the worst QB prospects of the decade.
Without getting into all the reasons that the Redskins have a greater chance of succeeding with a QB at No. 4 overall this year than the Raiders had at No. 1 in 2007 (a very poor QB draft to this point), I think the above very clearly is a case of contract risk. Large contracts and irrational decision making have gone together since the beginning of the free agency era. There's no real reason to suggest that the new brain trust is above that influence.
But, of course, if you guess right on a great quarterback, then the contract is, in some ways, a value. But the problem is that you're guessing at all. You really do have to know, to justify the pick, and a No. 1 or No. 2 ranking on the big board constitutes knowledge (as opposed to hope) to me.
|
Getting down to it, you're basically talking about risk on the player itself, not the contract or the money. There is no such thing as contract "value" in this uncapped era, and I don't buy that a front office's decision making would be any different for a QB investment vs a LT investment; if the QB is guaranteed the first 3 or 4 years of salary, so is the LT. And it's putting the cart way before the horse to concern ourselves about potential contract decisions over a draft selection we haven't even picked yet. At some point, we reach the point of diminishing returns with discussing this minutae, and as one other person said, paralysis by analysis.
It's really not much more complicated than this: Okung is safer, but a QB has a higher ceiling in terms of the potential impact on future win/loss record. Money isn't an issue, they'll both command a large amount, and neither poses any salary cap impact.
For me, I'll get behind whatever Shanahan decides. If he sees that elite QB prospect and he gets him, I can never fault someone for daring to be great. If he doesn't see said prospect and takes Okung, I'll be comfortable knowing we just filled one of the most important positions on the field for years to come.