Thread: Sports Network: "Forte on a slippery slope"

The world of contract negotiations

Possible strategies for disgruntled players hit with the franchise tag


Originally Published: June 4, 2012
By Andrew Brandt | ESPN.com


The NFL's offseason is longer than its season, with the first meaningful snap after the Super Bowl coming seven months later in September. From a front-office perspective, the offseason -- when teams are assembled and renovated -- is busier than the season. I always chuckled when people asked, "What do you do in the offseason?"

I always referred to the offseason as "me time," with players more concerned about their personal situations than the team. Football becomes a business with issues that can be a bit messy.

Rumbles of discontent may come in different decibels, usually pointing to recent contracts around the league of similarly situated players. And players will sometimes say, "It's not about the money," which, of course, means, it's all about the money. Speaking of which...

The Agent Playbook

From my perspective, the agent's strategy of pursuing more money for the player is quite scripted, with their usual game plan as follows:

1. Express feelings of disappointment about the current contract.

2. Absent a team response, suggest that a trade may be beneficial for both sides.

3. Absent a team response, seek permission to survey teams for a possible trade (which some agents do anyway without permission).

4. Absent a team response, express the possibility and/or probability that the player may skip offseason workouts, minicamps, OTAs and perhaps even training camp, which, of course, would breach his contract.

Every team in the NFL faces these situations, some more publicly than others. The agent/player objective is to create angst in the team offices to cause a reaction. In 2010, Darrelle Revis' holdout clearly rattled the Jets as it played out in front of a national audience on HBO.

My sense is that teams should not engage discontented players, although some teams do fire back, as Chargers general manager AJ Smith did with Vincent Jackson in recent years. Most teams simply let disgruntled player comments go without response -- the Patriots' Bill Belichick is a master at this -- serving to further frustrate the player.

Contractually, when faced with player discontent, the team can (1) do nothing; (2) rip up the existing contract and replace it with a new one to the player's liking; or (3) something in between. In my time in Green Bay, I negotiated the "something in between" a few times, adding money that was "earnable" -- per-game roster bonuses, workout bonuses, incentives, etc. -- rather than guarantees. It was neither what the player nor the team desired, but it was a workable compromise.

This year's disgruntled may include Revis, Matt Forte, Ray Rice, Drew Brees and Mike Wallace. One name removed from the list was Osi Umenyiora, who received the "in between" from the Giants, an approximate $3 million bump to his 2012 salary with a contractual promise that he will not receive the franchise tag in 2013.

Revis, as noted, went through a contract dispute two short summers ago, but watched the cornerback market pass him by with this year's free-agent deals for Brandon Carr and Cortland Finnegan. He is now floating some clouds of dissatisfaction for the Jets to hear. His situation illustrates why front offices sometimes feel, in regard to early contract adjustments, that no good deed goes unpunished.

With players under contract such as Revis, teams are more fortified by the new CBA. Along with higher daily fines for missing training camp, the CBA now allows "forfeitable breaches" of previously paid bonus money if the player holds out. For a player who has received considerable bonuses such as Revis, forfeiture could be quite expensive.

Tagged or tendered players such as Brees, Forte, Rice and Wallace are unsigned and not subject to penalties. They sit and hope for what every player wants, a long-term contract with top-of-market average per year (APY) and guarantees. On a more emotional level, they want the respect of being taken care of by their team.

In these situations, decisions can never be made in a vacuum. It is never about just one player; it is about the entire locker room. Whatever happens between teams and players becomes a way of doing business. Fans, media and, most importantly, teammates are watching.

I think both of these articles provide some insight into the struggle between the Bears and Matt Forte over a new contract.

In the first as the author points out unquestionably Matt Forte's number of touches will decline this year and in future years as well. The changes in the Bears roster have made it very clear that they're about to become a more pass oriented team than they ever have in the past. Given a QB/WR combo like Cutler and Marshall that just makes good sense. Regardless of his production last season pretty much proved who the most important cog in the Bears offense is.

Looking at it from that perspective he'll be asked to do less than he has in the past which should actually help him to extend his career by a couple of years. This alone makes it more likely that he'll actually collect on his entire contract than a few others with deals that virtually assure that they'll be renegotiated in favor of the team or the player will become a cap casualty. So the question is does Matt realize and understand that his importance to the team is diminishing and that as much as anything reduces what they will offer.

Every pass to Marshall, Jeffery or Davis that otherwise would have gone to him and every carry Bush makes means fewer touches and less total yardage for him. It's unfortunate that the trend in how the Bears offense is structured is moving away from him just at the time when he's due for a new deal but that is the reality of it. You can't pay him for the past and his future production will diminish simply from being used less. Maybe it would help if he looked at that as an advantage as opposed to a detraction. Like I pointed out he may collect on that 4th year of his deal if the cost is still reasonable where others may not.

LeSean McCoy isn't going to be playing under a deal with almost a $12 mil cap hit in 2015. Once some of these guys hit those final years of their contracts after the guarantees have been paid they become awfully vulnerable if they're productivity drops and they're perceived to be on the backside of their careers. If they get cut they don't make $8 mil in that 4th year. They end up like quite a few former starting QB's, signing a one or two year deal for around $2 mil and may never see a long term offer again. They become role players.

Andrew Brandt who has had his share of experience with contract negotiations from both sides of the table offers his insights on the path that agents will usually take and he also provides a glimpse of how that Bears might break the impasse with Matt Forte. The Bears are never going to give in to the guarantees he's after but maybe they could satisfy him and their need to manage their risk by adding performance based incentives that sweeten the deal provided Forte stay healthy and productive.

I guess if it were me that's the way I would approach it. The Bears fear his knees will become a problem but Forte doesn't. So if they add some bonus dollars in the later years of the deal maybe the come to an agreement. If Matt plays up to those levels he gets a significant bonus but if the Bears are right and his productivity slips due to knee problems they're protected. The only stumbling block is negotiating what's reasonable as far as the expectations those bonuses will be based on.

Maybe this is the direction they need to move towards in order to get a deal done.

I think they've drawn their line in the sand as far as guaranteed money goes. If there's any wiggle room it's gonna need to come in the form of incentives or other earned dollars tacked on at the end.

I still think the knee thing is bullshit and dirty pool but in reality it's only an excuse or propaganda to keep fan sentiment on the Bears side. The bottom line is there's only so much they can pay and not be in trouble getting other deals done and it wouldn't make any difference whether he was AP of CJ either. That cap bank only has so many dollars in it and as Umenyiora said you can't afford to pay everybody top dollar.

Originally Posted by motownbear

this is another contract that can go to the oline. We just have too much money invested in running backs imo. If we didnt sign Bush however i would be on the sign forte asap bandwagon. Even though Bush imo isnt as good as Forte in the new nfl he is good enough. And if Bell can stop fumbling he has some energy to make something happen at the position. But now that there are no olineman worthwhile anyways Im with the bears to not over pay him. We still have a hefty Cutler contract coming up

I agree regarding the oline FA's market not having much left to pick from. I've been thinking about how we draft a dline guy high every year, and an army of safeties. Would it be crazy to draft a fairly high oline guy every year or so? Even if it was a 2nd or 3rd round high-quality prospect to let Tice coach up? You would never have to pay top dollar for oline FA's.

With 5 positions represented on the oline, and with backups, that's 9 or 10 players we invest in there. It's a significant percentage of your team - numbers wise. And the entire offense relies on that line as the foundation - so that your expensive skill players can truly play to their FULL potential.

You'd have your own stream of young/talented players coming into the system. I'll bet you could have one of the better olines in the NFL if you followed this - and you would never be in a crisis mode where the whole oline was substandard.

(I just decided I'm going to start a thread on this idea :-)