Zac Allen and Byron Murphy are free agents

[Stout]

So what should they do? Pay them both $16m per to stay?

Overpaying to keep average to good players seems like a suboptimal way to build a team.

So is letting talented players walk before their 2nd contract. I don't know how much I'd pay each of them. I'll pose you a counter question, though: If they're gone, and you don't want to sign FAs (which you have stated would be pointless this year), pray tell how is a team without much talent supposed to acquire enough talent? Seeking only to add in the draft while subsequently losing your best drafted players without then bolstering in FA seems like a suboptimal (and very Cardinals) way to build a team.

 

[kerouac9]

Sure. It's the market value for one team. Not all teams.

This is hilarious. Market value is the strike price for the asset. It's literally what it means. It doesn't matter what other people are willing to pay.

 

[BritCard]

Technically right is the best kind of right.

So nobody is overpaid? Everyone is getting paid their market value right?

Just so we are clear.

 

[BritCard]

So is letting talented players walk before their 2nd contract. I don't know how much I'd pay each of them. I'll pose you a counter question, though: If they're gone, and you don't want to sign FAs (which you have stated would be pointless this year), pray tell how is a team without much talent supposed to acquire enough talent? Seeking only to add in the draft while subsequently losing your best drafted players without then bolstering in FA seems like a suboptimal (and very Cardinals) way to build a team.

Well if we are replacing FA's I was expecting to sign then I don't see any issue with signing replacements this year.

But we also shouldn't pay more than the established market says they are worth right?

 

[RON_IN_OC]

This is hilarious. Market value is the strike price for the asset. It's literally what it means. It doesn't matter what other people are willing to pay.

Have to agree here...Works the same in real estate. Market Value is what one person is willing to pay, not what a collective is offering. Now, you can have an "average" market value, based on recent comparisons, however when one person comes in and offers/pays more than that average, they just reset the market.

You can argue terms and not just overall price, when determining market value, too...but I don't think that's part of the discussion in this thread. It seems to just be based on $$$$.

 

[PJ1]

It's exactly how it works and they aren't waiting on them. They will be looking at other free agents including replacements and using that themselves to counter the other sides demands. This has all been going on for weeks already.

The likelihood is they will go because it only take 1 desperate team out of 32 to offer more than market value. It's why free agents have a reputation for getting overpaid. Word was that the team offered Kirk $13m to stay last year, no way they could pay what the Jags did. But it's not certain, players do test the market and remain.

Their agent already knows what interest there is and what money he can get. If neither re-sign before the 15th then it's likely they don't stay.

Further I am not blaming the new regime. Bidwill saying they were negotiating with Allen is a joke. That ship had sailed. The time to negotiate was BEFORE their last season under contract. They were too busy extending an incompetent coach and GM and signing a QB to a huge contract before it was necessary. Allen and Murphy are both playmakers and aren’t old by any means. They started worrying about them a year too late.

 

[Stout]

Well if we are replacing FA's I was expecting to sign then I don't see any issue with signing replacements this year.

But we also shouldn't pay more than the established market says they are worth right?

I'm less worried about this argument over established market value and more worried about player retention and adding talent to the roster. Less losing of talent + more acquiring of talent = best case scenario. I would much rather overpay a bit to retain our solid talent and core players than overpay for FAs, which is more of a dicey situation.

 

[BritCard]

Have to agree here...Works the same in real estate. Market Value is what one person is willing to pay, not what a collective is offering. Now, you can have an "average" market value, based on recent comparisons, however when one person comes in and offers/pays more than that average, they just reset the market.

You can argue terms and not just overall price, when determining market value, too...but I don't think that's part of the discussion in this thread. It seems to just be based on $$$$.

I know what market value means. Also players are overpaid. This forum, including K9's own posts are littered with the term.

It was very clear what I was talking about.

 

[MadCardDisease]

I know what market value means. Also players are overpaid. This forum, including K9's own posts are littered with the term.

It was very clear what I was talking about.

I think you are just confusing Market Value and ultimately how a FA performs on a signed contract. That's two totally different things.

 

[PJ1]

I think you are just confusing Market Value and ultimately how a FA performs on a signed contract. That's two totally different things.

Bingo!

 

[BritCard]

I think you are just confusing Market Value and ultimately how a FA performs on a signed contract. That's two totally different things.

I'm not. There are players every year that we know at signing are very unlikely to be value for what they are paid.

We should know, we have had our fair share. There are whole threads on here about Keim overpaying for someone and never once did anyone say he paid "market value".

If you live on a street where all the properties are worth $500k and somebody pays $2m for one of them for their own unique reasons does it reset the market value for every house or did one guy just overpay? Everyone else in the world will only pay $500k and there's only 1 guy willing to pay $2m and he just bought one.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

I know what market value means. Also players are overpaid. This forum, including K9's own posts are littered with the term.

It was very clear what I was talking about.

2 pages of comments in this thread tells me it may not have been as clear to others, as you think. No dig on you or anyone else...everyone seems to be seeing market value differently, or as @MadCardDisease stated, maybe confusing contract performance with contract $.

 

[Harry]

I agree the Cards should have tried to extend these players a year ago. That said the Cards never considered tagging Murphy. His injury history and the presence of good FAs & a deep draft pool make him expendable. Allen is trickier. His numbers would not justify a big contract like a tag would occasion. The problem comes in due to projections. Allen has definitely grown year to year. His ceiling is now higher than initially projected. He could develop into a top tier DT. So do you pay on performance or potential. It always seems some team is certain they can steer an athlete to their max skill level and they’re willing to pay for it. So if the Cards believe that they can develop him, they will have to pay top dollar. I’m not confident the new upper echelon knows Allen well enough to pay the price of maintaining him. Nonetheless, finding a top tier DT is rare. If he leaves, the DL is extremely thin.

 

[BritCard]

2 pages of comments in this thread tells me it may not have been as clear to others, as you think. No dig on you or anyone else...everyone seems to be seeing market value differently, or as @MadCardDisease stated, maybe confusing contract performance with contract $.

Oh it was clear. Some people just like to be the Ackshually guy for cheap "wins".

I said "The likelihood is they will go because it only take 1 desperate team out of 32 to offer more than market value. It's why free agents have a reputation for getting overpaid. "

Seems pretty clear no?

 

[jf-08]

These threads are becoming unreadable.

 

[MadCardDisease]

I agree the Cards should have tried to extend these players a year ago. That said the Cards never considered tagging Murphy. His injury history and the presence of good FAs & a deep draft pool make him expendable. Allen is trickier. His numbers would not justify a big contract like a tag would occasion. The problem comes in due to projections. Allen has definitely grown year to year. His ceiling is now higher than initially projected. He could develop into a top tier DT. So do you pay on performance or potential. It always seems some team is certain they can steer an athlete to their max skill level and they’re willing to pay for it. So if the Cards believe that they can develop him, they will have to pay top dollar. I’m not confident the new upper echelon knows Allen well enough to pay the price of maintaining him. Nonetheless, finding a top tier DT is rare. If he leaves, the DL is extremely thin.

I guess the question is if the new regime sees him as a DT. Allen might not fit the mold of what they are looking for if he is to play inside. At 280lbs will he hold up inside? All of the Eagles DTs were 305lbs plus.

 

[Chopper0080]

These threads are becoming unreadable.

Yeah...all I see is "you are ignoring content by this member".

 

[bankybruce]

Yeah...all I see is "you are ignoring content by this member".

Blink twice if you can read this!

 

[QuebecCard]

After last season, Murphy needs a deal that allows him to reset his value in the market.

According to Spotrac, Allen's market value approximates -

• 3 yrs, $27,909,525
• Avg. Salary: $9,303,175

 

[Totally_Red]

It will be interesting to see what Hargrave gets and if Philly can keep him.

After last season, Murphy needs a deal that allows him to reset his value in the market.

According to Spotrac, Allen's market value approximates -

• 3 yrs, $27,909,525
• Avg. Salary: $9,303,175

I think he (Allen) gets 12-14 million per on a 4 year deal, hopefully from the Cardinals.

 

[CardsFan88]

I guess we either re-sign them to competitive deals or Monti's NE roots of collecting compensatory picks, at least in year one of a rebuild wins out. That is if he doesn't offset it with other signings.

Of course, it could be we want to target scheme players with contracts instead of holdovers.

Be interesting to see how it plays out. New regime. New rules. New direction. Exciting times. Hopefully, I/we like the moves more than I/we hate them.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Zach Allen is getting Kirk level Market value IMO. Top 20 at his position. Maybe top 10 to 15.

Nothing like rebuilding the rebuild of the rebuild. It's the #birdcity way.

I wish we could finally do a bit of projection and sign these guys a year or two early before they reach their peak instead of letting them get to FA where we then convince ourselves that they weren't worth it.

 

[BritCard]

Just to be clear incase he does sign elsewhere. What do people want to pay Zach Allen to stay?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Zach Allen is getting Kirk level Market value IMO. Top 20 at his position. Maybe top 10 to 15.

Just to be clear incase he does sign elsewhere. What do people want to pay Zach Allen to stay?

My comment just above yours will (more than likely) be the starting point for Zach.

Grady Jarrett got 49.5mm with 34.4mm fully guarantee. 16mm per year
DJ Reader got 53mm with 22.5mm fully guaranteed. 13mm per year

My guess is it falls somewhere in there (with the over being a higher probability) for a player of Zach's caliber, in this market, at his age (25).

I think the cap is Jonathon Allen. 72mm total. 33mm guaranteed (I bet Zach gets more). 18mm per year.

My gut says 16 to 18mm per year with 35 to 40mm guaranteed.

 

[BritCard]

My comment just above yours will (more than likely) be the starting point for Zach.

Grady Jarrett got 49.5mm with 34.4mm fully guarantee. 16mm per year
DJ Reader got 53mm with 22.5mm fully guaranteed. 13mm per year

My guess is it falls somewhere in there (with the over being a higher probability) for a player of Zach's caliber, in this market, at his age (25).

I think the cap is Jonathon Allen. 72mm total. 33mm guaranteed (I bet Zach gets more). 18mm per year.

My gut says 16 to 18mm per year with 35 to 40mm guaranteed.

Jonathan Allen had 17 sacks total over 4 years when he got that deal. Zach has 11. I struggle to see him in that bracket.

But yes $15m is probably achievable. You'd be ok with $15m per?

No concerns about him only really being good with JJ Watt next to him? That all his production only came with JJ taking double teams?