DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum THE CASE TO DUMP ANDERSON

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

i honestly think that if anderson signs a 3 year deal he's more tradable than with the tag...

---

Bingo...3 year deal is very tradeable for both

1st year..Phil is planning on keeping him to see if he's the real deal

2nd year if he's the real deal good if not we trade him, that team is gonna playing him and see if he works out for them.

3rd year...team he's playing for now knows what they got and can resign him or dump him with only one year left on his contract, remember NFL contracts are not guarnteed.

I wonder if the hold up is a signing bounus $$$$....& what it would do to our cap space in year 2-3 if we keep him and are we front loading his signing bounus incase we trade him. ? not to sure how that works, but I do know we need to work it out that if we trade him we dont owe him any bonus money that will tie our hands up from pursuring someone else if need be.

---

Quote:

---

If there's an open competition, I can't see how Quinn wouldn't win. Hell, it even rhymes. Win with Quinn.

---

Quote:

---

"Talks have been a little more frequent in recent days," Savage said in an e-mail response. "It seems that the three-year deal is becoming more the focus. We've had pretty good dialogue and will continue over the [NFL scouting] combine."

---

Quote:

---

Savage said he didn't know what the free-agent market would be for Anderson, but acknowledged "quarterback is a premium position." As for Anderson's dropoff in production over the last five games of the season and into the Pro Bowl, Savage said: "If you watch as much tape as our people here, we feel like Derek has an upside and he'll improve that aspect of his game. But at the same time, his greatest strength is that he's not scared to whistle the ball around anywhere on the field. . . . [We'll] try to minimize the risk and do a better job of managing him through certain situations next year."

---

Let me guess...........more smoke? *L*

The guy has upside and it would be wise to see if he can improve before we allow him to go to another team. I'm liking Savage more and more.


Btw...........I didn't see any comments or quotes in the article that indicated that teams don't want DA. That is something that a poster said and others ran with. There is no real proof of that in the article.

Quote:

---

Actually, thats what I said, not another poster.

---

Quote:

---

And without delving too deeply into the thread, I think I'm the only one who ran with it...

---

Quote:

---

Not trying to stir the pot here,.......well,.....maybe I am , but doesn't a three yr. contract make it easier to trade DA also?

---

Maybe but I'd hate to get rid of him unless someone is dumb enought to take him giving us thier 1st and 3rd.

Sure we have Quinn but just for argument sake what if Quinn doesn't turn out to be the player we hope and we will be back to square one at the QB position.

Keep them both, lets play it out and see which one becomes our franchise QB through playing.

Quote:

---

I wonder if the hold up is a signing bounus $$$$....& what it would do to our cap space in year 2-3 if we keep him and are we front loading his signing bounus incase we trade him. ? not to sure how that works, but I do know we need to work it out that if we trade him we dont owe him any bonus money that will tie our hands up from pursuring someone else if need be.

---

Quote:

---

You can't front load bonus money. Bonus money is spread out evenly across the contract.

---

Quote:

---

Not trying to stir the pot here,.......well,.....maybe I am , but doesn't a three yr. contract make it easier to trade DA also?

---

Ok, hehehe. I've seen this a couple (or more) times. While it's true that a shorter deal makes Anderson more tradeable, that's a positive byproduct of the primary reason behind the short-termed deal.

A) Anderson had a decent year, but he ended the year on a downward trend, leaving many unanswered questions.

B) The Browns had just invested a 1st round pick as well as other picks in order to secure Brady Quinn to be the QB of the future.

C) In an absolute worst-case scenario, Anderson is a restricted free agent who's salary/cap hit is $2.6 million (approx).

These three facts mean that the Browns hold most of the cards. While Anderson is deserving of a raise, as well as some respect not only for what he did, but what he might do in the future, he hasn't proven enough to this organization to merit a huge new deal. The organization doesn't have to gamble on such a deal because of the presence of Quinn.

Now, even if Quinn didn't exist, Anderson left enough questions unanswered that giving him a very big, long-range deal would be a big risk, one that isn't honestly deserved at this point in time. Being such a young player with question marks surrounding him means a moderate raise is deserved, but not a big one. Sure, the agents wanted a big deal. Why? Because a really big, long-term deal guarantees that Anderson is the starter due to the money invested as well as the length. The Browns don't have to go that route, so they don't have to cave to the demands of the agents. The end result is that the agents are caving, because SOME money on a short-term deal is better than the highest tender.

I'll explain further.

Scenario #1:

Anderson goes out and lays an egg, loses his job to Quinn, and rides the bench. By agreeing to the short-term deal, Anderson (and his agents ) have lined their pockets with some nice jack, jack that Anderson deserved for having a solid, if roller-coasterlike year. His deal isn't so huge that he's immediately going to be cut, as the Browns would possibly want a veteran backup in case Quinn falls on his face and hasn't nailed down the job going into 2009. Being traded is rather meaningless, as the money Anderson received from the SB is still his, and he can't lose that if he (and his contract) are traded.

Scenario #2:
Anderson has another year like he did this year, where he did some good things as well as some bad. He still has the chance to keep his job because the contractual demands aren't so high that his salary is out of line with his production. If he can't win the job, he's an expensive, but excellent, backup.

Scenario #3:
Anderson goes out and earns a legitimate pro-bowl birth (anyone thinking he had a truly pro-bowl season this year is fooling themselves) in 2008. The agents say that Anderson is deserving of a bigger contract, and they are probably right. Savage moves some monies around, alters the contract going forward, and Anderson gets the deal his agents wanted him to have this season.

The only real reason the agents would want to accept the Tender and not negotiate a workable deal right now is because they believe Anderson would get a big deal after 2008. Sure, he could get the franchise tag, estimating some $10 million (or more) in salary, but that's the kind of signing bonus money he'd get right now by signing the deal, PLUS his 2008 salary. So all they'd really be doing is delaying his big payday, because the Browns wouldn't let him walk away. Even if the two sides couldn't come to an agreement, the most Anderson could get is the Franchise Tag, and because Quinn exists, Anderson couldn't threaten a holdout.

So.....if Anderson goes ahead and becomes a legitimate starter by improving on the things he's lacking right now, he's going to get that big new contract that he wants regardless of whether or not he signs the 3-year deal now. If he flops this year and hasn't signed that 3-year deal, he just cost himself around $10-$12 million dollars.

When I first discussed this a few months back, I assumed that Anderson would either falter completely, or continue to improve. His erratic play created a middling-situation here that has earned him a raise, but not put himself or the Browns in a very awkward position. If I were the agents, I'd have also pushed for a longer deal just to see if Savage would bite. He didn't. No harm, no foul. Now the situation is such that a deal is inevitable, unless the agents are willing to REALLY raise the stakes, accept the tender, and hope that Anderson blows up next year, forcing the Browns to give him a blockbuster deal. I can't see that happening considering the apparent value of Anderson in this market.

I'd been of the original opinion that Savage would ultimately just slap the high tender on him and be done with it, but with the way the market has set Anderson's value, based primarily on his final grades and evaluations, I can't see a scenario where the agents would play so hard that we'd be force to tender him and call it a day. The market has, in essence, guaranteed Anderson a nice raise and some job security, without creating animosity between himself and the organization. One other positive byproduct of all this? Quinn has to stay hungry and EARN his right to QB this team, while at the same time not be looking at a pro-bowl QB that just emerged in front of him who just earned a 6-year $70 million dollar contract, ultimately relegating Quinn to trade-bait status.

Not a bad deal for everyone involved

Quote:

---

But at the same time, his greatest strength is that he's not scared to whistle the ball around anywhere on the field. . .

---

Quote:

---

Accuracy can be taught, honed and adjusted with specialists. Every single one of us, if we worked on it, could be accurate at throwing a ball. It's all down to body mechanics.

---

Quote:

---

Sounds like Anderson's caving on the length of the deal. I'm suspecting lukewarm interest at best has been gauged from other NFL teams looking for a QB.

---

Quote:

---

A 3 year contract works in our favor, we're not stuck in a long term if he turns out to be a 1 hit wonder, and a 3 year contract also would be easier to trade with if we went that route.

No matter what I see this as a win for the Browns, as we get him signed and can see if he repeats and improves, without a heavy or long term investment if he doesn't work out.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds like Anderson's caving on the length of the deal. I'm suspecting lukewarm interest at best has been gauged from other NFL teams looking for a QB.

---

Wait a moment,,, I thought that teams were NOT allowed to approach the agents or players prior to the first day of the signing date... IF I have that correct, how can you suspect that interest is lukewarm... I mean, IF I am right that is..

Of course, I don't believe for a second that people don't talk a little off the record before they are allowed to.. but I would also think that nobody is tipping thier hand to much either...

Just a guess however..

---

Quote:

---

The only problem that I have is, what if he does turn out to be a one hit wonder? Sure, we can still trade him. But what's his value going to be then compared to now?

---

Quote:

---

The only problem that I have is, what if he does turn out to be a one hit wonder? Sure, we can still trade him. But what's his value going to be then compared to now? Right now, we can get a solid return for him. If and when Brady beats him out and DA is relegated to the bench, that is going to drop his value for us.

---

I get the side of the arguement that wants to get the most in return for DA's services. It's a "buy low, sell high" mentality. No problem. However, to twist a bad cliche, it's my opinion that such a thought may be putting the cart before the horse. Let me explain.....

In a league that suffers from a severe shortage of quality QB's, what's more important to the Browns as an organization: Getting a higher return on Anderson than what we paid for him, or ensuring that we make the right decision when it comes to QB for the future of the team?

Unlike the scenario's I laid out regarding Anderson and his contract details, trying to get a clear reading on what his trade value would be is tougher. I know we'd all love to get a 1st and a 3rd for him, but I'm not at all convinced that's realistic. I think he's worth a #1 to some team, but I don't know that for sure. We have to remember that Anderson, despite a good season, still has holes in his game, and he pretty much faltered down the stretch. Some of that is to be expected due to the weather and his short experience in the league, but some of it are his demons rearing their ugly heads.

So let's say Anderson loses the job to Quinn. If Quinn has blown him away, that really doesn't reflect badly on Anderson. His trade value will still be high. With a modest 3-year deal, we don't have to dump him. We simply have the luxury of having one of the leagues most dynamic backups (jeez, did I really just say that?!?!). Now, if he comes out and his rating is in the mid-70's or so, yes, his value will have gone down, but he'll still have trade value, even if it's no longer a 1st rounder.

But in the end, I'll pose this same question again: What's more important for the long-term success of the team? Is it getting the most in return for Anderson, or ensuring that we have the best QB leading the team? My opinion is that if it costs us the charted value of a 1st or 2nd round pick, that's well worth it to KNOW we've chosen the right guy. Remember, the other X-factor is that if Anderson pans out, Quinn becomes trade-bait, and that draft pick will come back to us. The only real downside is not getting as much for Anderson, but the tradeoff is knowing we picked the right guy.

And BrownsFanInGeorgia, thanks

Quote:

---

There's ways to gauge interest without sitting down and discussing specifics.

---

Quote:

---

Its really being made a lot more diffucult that it truely is ... At the end of the day hears what it boils down to ....

---

Well now that you put it that way..........it's still not simple *L* There are just a few dynamics at work here, but the inclusion of the Quinn-factor makes it much more advantageous for us, thus making it (somewhat) simple.

Quote:

---

Opie obviously feels that TRYING TO LOCK him up for 3 years on OUR TERMS gives us more value than whatever he's worth in a trade ... we all have our personal opinions on that value but their irrelivent at this point ...

---

As I said before, it's putting the cart before the horse.

Signing DA isn't about trade value. Signing DA is about MAKING SURE we have the right guy at QB in a couple of years.

Truth be told, we have TWO QB prospects, neither of whom are actually proven. Anderson is the more proven of the two, but locking him up to a 3-year gives us flexibility. Locking him up to a 6-year means he's the starter for good, which means we have no flexibility other than to trade Quinn.

This 3-year desire is about buying time and finding out which guy is the right one. That's the smart move.

Now having said that, of COURSE Opie see's his 3-year value as being more than what we could get in trade. But why? Because you don't let a potential starting QB get away. Now if a team offered us TWO #1 draft picks, Opie might stop and think about it (as would I *L*), but for now, the most important decision is to find the right QB. Getting draft picks IS putting the cart before the horse.

Quote:

---

cause when we sign him for 3 years he's more than likely going to get a decent SB and that will make him UNTRADEABLE THIS YEAR .... U guys can dream all U want .. but thats the reality ...

---

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen one poster talk about trading Anderson THIS YEAR. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.......

Quote:

---

the fact that DA's agent is considering a 3 year deal tells me that theirs not much a market for DA at the current time ...

---

Horsefeathers!

If they don't cave and agree to a shorter deal, Savage SLAPS the tender on Anderson and he more than likely plays for $2.6 mil. If they agree to a 3-year deal, he gets his $12-$14 million SB, and he plays for that $2 mil IN SALARY this season.

Market value my webbed foot "Market Value" is a term that has ZERO play here, because you have to be an unrestricted free agent to HAVE market value come into the picture. No matter what Anderson does, he's going to be a Brown. The ONLY way he's not a Brown is if the agents force the tender, and some sucker team gives Anderson a HUGE (and undeserved) deal, AND gives away a 1st and a 3rd. He's a good prospect........the best one available IF he's available for free........but he's not a free agent. The agents know the odds are long that they'd get a taker for the 1st and a 3rd, so this is about getting money NOW.

Quote:

---

If DA gets beat out by BQ his VALUE DECREASES QUITE A BIT my friend .. Vers must not have gotten to U with the oxygen yet .. *L* ...

imagine if your the GM of say the Bears ... and its next year at this time and Opie calls U and says last year U said DA was worth a 2nd to U ... OK we'll take that now .. would Opie hear U laughing before the phone hung up or would he just ehar the dial tone??? *LOL* ..

---

What's this "oxygen" you speak of?

I did say that his value would go down, but it wouldn't go down drastically. It really depends on WHY Quinn beat him out. If Quinn is all that you say he is, then Anderson's value nearly stays the same, as he'd have been beaten out by a pro-bowl player That'd make Anderson.........and his VERY TRADEABLE TWO-YEAR (remaining) contract.............a still-valuable comodity. He'd still only be 25, and he'd be healthy. Now if Anderson laid an egg, that's a horse of a different color (sans the feathers *L*).

Gotta run to work.

Quote:

---

I'll trade accuracy for consistency. He can be a 57% passer for the rest of his career if he'll learn how to see the field well enough not to throw into double and triple coverages. 20 INT's in 15 starts is simply unnaceptable. That number must be cut down.

---

How does 3,739 yards 56.7% completion rate with 26 TDs and 28 INTs in 16 starts sound compared to Derek's 3,787 yards 56.5% completion rate with 29 TDs and 19 INTs in 15 starts? These stats compare two QBs first years as starters. Even though stats are for losers the first loser is Payton Manning, so I'd say IMHO that his 19 (not 20) INTs in 15 games are completely acceptable. Sure, he might've thrown 20 or 21 had he started 16 games, but he also might've thrown 31 or 32 TDs as well. You're right, the number needs to come down but it's no indicator of overall performance or team performance. I'll take that 10-6 record, especially considering he didn't start the first game. It took Manning five years before his INTs dipped below 19/year for good, in fact he threw over 19 INTs in of three his first five season and only tossed 29 or more TDs in 2 of his first six. Stats truly are for losers and the only thing that matters here IMO is that they get an acceptable deal done so the the team can move forward and concentrate on D. And another WR.

Quote:

---

Amazing .. so your saying that DA's agent is negotiating a deal with DA's current team after a year in witch he went to the Pro Bowl and has that leverage to try and get a 5 - 7 year deal WITHOUT TALKING TO ANY OF THE OTHER 31 TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE TO GAUGE INTEREST in hos client?????

---

Quote:

---

As I said before, it's putting the cart before the horse.

---

Quote:

---

Truth be told, we have TWO QB prospects, neither of whom are actually proven. Anderson is the more proven of the two, but locking him up to a 3-year gives us flexibility.

---

Quote:

---

This 3-year desire is about buying time and finding out which guy is the right one. That's the smart move.

---

Thats your opinion ... my opinion is No one is willing to give us what we want for DA so were doing the next best thing ... we'll know more about this IF HE SIGNS and the details come out ...

and in 3 years when BQ has sent DA packing and we evaluate this U will say it is STUPID AND A BAD MOVE .. just like your doing with the Frye pick now ...

Quote:

---

Now having said that, of COURSE Opie see's his 3-year value as being more than what we could get in trade. But why? Because you don't let a potential starting QB get away. Now if a team offered us TWO #1 draft picks, Opie might stop and think about it (as would I *L*), but for now, the most important decision is to find the right QB. Getting draft picks IS putting the cart before the horse.

---

and thats where we disagree .. like i said in my initial post to U ... we all have OUR OPINIONS on what DA is REALLY WORTH to us but that means squat .. the only ones that really matter are Opie and RAC .. IMO if they offered a 1st rnd pick we'd be all over it in a heartbeat ...

BUT at the same time U just ADMITTED what I said in MY ORIGINAL PREMISE TO U ... U just input the VALUE U DEEM DA TO HAVE BASED ON OPIE wanting the right QB moving forward ... I disagree with U on the reasoning ..

theres a reason DA's side went from 5 - 7 years to possibly 3 years .. and its not cause they love Opie or the Browns ..

Quote:

---

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen one poster talk about trading Anderson THIS YEAR. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.......

---

Quote:

---

If they don't cave and agree to a shorter deal, Savage SLAPS the tender on Anderson and he more than likely plays for $2.6 mil. If they agree to a 3-year deal, he gets his $12-$14 million SB, and he plays for that $2 mil IN SALARY this season.

---

*LOL* ... 12 - 14 in SB?? If Opie does that hes an IDIOT ... no way this guy gets 12 - 14 in SB .. NO WAY IN HELL .... and if thats the deal .. there *LOL* as they continue to negotiate for more .. cause their giddy ....

where the hell did u get that figure from???

I know u like short posts .. so I'll just summarize quickly the rest ..

MARKET VALUE means everything ... RFA have MARKET VALUE ... the R just is a MAJOR FACTOR IN DETERMING IT ....

and in this case it gives us the hammer ....

and this is not just about $$$$$ NOW ... MOST RFA'S take the one year tender and then go UNRESTRICTED or get FRANCHISED the following year ..... why do MOST RFA'S do that if it all about $$$$ NOW ...

I will say if he gets 12 mill in SB ... your theory holds water .. but NO WAY IN HELL THAT HAPPENS .... *LOL* ...

Pa I still thiink your NUTS ... I still don't see this as making sense for DA unless Opie offers him STUPID SB money .. and if he does that .. hes NUTS ....