Alex Mack continued.....again.

j/c
When boiled down to the essentials, which in my mind are, would the Browns' be a better football team in 2014 with or, without Alex Mack; the answer is obvious. Is it necessary to state the obvious?

The deal gives the club breathing room to make whatever moves it decides are necessary.

Dont be surprised if they dont still draft a center in the 2nd or 3rd round and have him learn center and guard roles as mack's eventual replacement

Quote:

Dont be surprised if they dont still draft a center in the 2nd or 3rd round and have him learn center and guard roles as mack's eventual replacement

Drafting a backup center that high would be God awful.

More than a month ago I suggested that Mack needed to be signed before the draft or another player taken in the draft to lessen the team's exposure.

That player still needs to be added to the team. The difference being it can done with a late selection in this draft or acquired during cuts or drafted next year. Urgency to do something rash is less than it might have been yesterday.

From the previous thread .....

Thomas will still be the highest paid player. (overall) His contract pays him very nicely, most likely till the end of his career. He is 29 now, and his deal runs through the end of the 2018 season. (when he will be 34) It is likely that he will start to slow down as he gets older, but regardless, Thomas has made his big money. That's why his contract was structured the way it was. It paid him a bundle up front. That makes it possible to pay him less later on, when other good players will need larger contracts. I'm sure that one of the arguments Thomas and his agent used for justifying the large guarantees over the 1st 3 years.

It was kind of funny/sat to see Thomas, on one of the sites, talking about his contract though. He was so excited about the direction of the team under ....... Pat Shurmur. He was so sure that the team had found their QB in ....... Colt McCoy. He was sure that the best for the Browns was just around the corner.

Of course, then we changed owners, coaches, (X3) and GMs, (X3) over the next 4 seasons.

j/c

Farmer played this one right in my book. He gave Mack what he wanted and it didn't backfire on the Browns.

Quote:

j/c

Farmer played this one right in my book. He gave Mack what he wanted and it didn't backfire on the Browns.

That he did.

May all of his other moves this season work as well.

He's here for 2 years guaranteed - he's going to play hard especially if he will be a FA in 2016...or he can sign probably an extension and stay here?

But Centers can be developed. I hope we can draft some late round OGs and develop them into Centers.

Two that come to mind. Chris Elkins Youngstown State...Austen Bujnoch Cincinnati (injury drop)???

Late round or UDFA...bring them in and develop them. More than one...you would be surprised what you develop. Remember Skill set wise Center is the easiest of the OL positions. Mental n Intelligence can be developed over time.

jmho

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'm glad that bit of drama is over... At least for the next couple of years.

I still think it was a bad deal for the Browns.

I agree.

The fact that he can void the deal in two years makes it a bad deal for the Browns....it will be drama all over again in 2016.

It was a mutually beneficial deal for both Mack and the Browns. Mack has said that he is tired of turnover in the FO and, quite frankly, I don't blame him one bit. So he gets 2 more years to find out if these guys are any different while getting paid handsomely. It's a good deal for him because he now has the option to stay with a winner or bail on a loser.

The Browns get to keep a PB Center for at least 2 more years while they (hopefully) start to make some forward progress. Also, they now know what the market is for a center and what they can maybe offer/renegotiate Mack 2 years down the road, if he chooses to opt out.

And let's face it...if Pettine/Farmer are horrible enough for Mack to want to bail after 2 years, then shame on the Browns, not Mack.

The actual dollar amount of the deal is completely meaningless. It's not my money. It's not your money. The Browns have the cap space and need to spend it. They have A LOT of cap space the next few years. Why be bothered about locking up a PB player?

Doesn't make any sense to me why people view this as a bad deal.

I'm glad we are keeping a pro bowl caliber center but I can't help but feeling a tad bit violated.

The headlines I'm reading, "Everyone benefits" is not true. Mack benefited. The Jags lost nothing. The Browns got a huge hit in payroll.

I also agree with what former Browns OL Ross Tucker was quoted as saying, "The center position is not worth the close to $10 million a year that Mack will reportedly command over the first three years of this deal, whether he plays in Jacksonville or Cleveland." It goes back to the thought, just how much is one man's labor truly worth?

I think we over paid but what other choice did we have? Pick up some free agent on his last legs? Draft another rookie that will need some development?

Just leaves me in the same place I've been for a few years now..."I don't care. Just show me some W's". That's all.

Quote:

And let's face it...if Pettine/Farmer are horrible enough for Mack to want to bail after 2 years, then shame on the Browns, not Mack.

^ this! ^

Quote:

The Browns got a huge hit in payroll.

Thats how you keep pro bowl veterans in their prime.

Quote:

The headlines I'm reading, "Everyone benefits" is not true. Mack benefited. The Jags lost nothing. The Browns got a huge hit in payroll.

I don't know. It's not like we were going to get him signed for 5-6 mil a year. He is the highest paid center, but not by some obsene amount. In a couple of years, he probably won't be the highest paid.

It is what it is.

Quote:

In a couple of years, he probably won't be the highest paid.

There are ALREADY reports indicating Mike Pouncey was watching over this situation with I believe two years left on his current Dolphin contract. I suspect Alex Mack won't be the highest paid center for long.

I don't understand feeling violated.. This was a pretty good deal for both the Browns and Mack..

J/C

So with this out of the way, what's there to talk about? The draft is still 25 days, 7 hours and 21 minutes away!!!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'm glad that bit of drama is over... At least for the next couple of years.

I still think it was a bad deal for the Browns.

I agree.

The fact that he can void the deal in two years makes it a bad deal for the Browns....it will be drama all over again in 2016.

It was a mutually beneficial deal for both Mack and the Browns. Mack has said that he is tired of turnover in the FO and, quite frankly, I don't blame him one bit. So he gets 2 more years to find out if these guys are any different while getting paid handsomely. It's a good deal for him because he now has the option to stay with a winner or bail on a loser.

The Browns get to keep a PB Center for at least 2 more years while they (hopefully) start to make some forward progress. Also, they now know what the market is for a center and what they can maybe offer/renegotiate Mack 2 years down the road, if he chooses to opt out.

And let's face it...if Pettine/Farmer are horrible enough for Mack to want to bail after 2 years, then shame on the Browns, not Mack.

The actual dollar amount of the deal is completely meaningless. It's not my money. It's not your money. The Browns have the cap space and need to spend it. They have A LOT of cap space the next few years. Why be bothered about locking up a PB player?

Doesn't make any sense to me why people view this as a bad deal.

Quote:

J/C

So with this out of the way, what's there to talk about? The draft is still 25 days, 7 hours and 21 minutes away!!!

johnny football

I think we played the Mack situation 100% correctly. We have one of the best centers in football if not the best. We have enough holes to fill we didn't need another HUGE hole to fill if he left.If we finally have the right people in place, and I think we do, start to win some with some stability I think he may just want to stay after these 2 years. One can only hope. JMHO

Quote:

Quote:

The Browns got a huge hit in payroll.

Thats how you keep pro bowl veterans in their prime.

This is true; however, you usually don't have to do it twice.

Quote:

J/C

So with this out of the way, what's there to talk about? The draft is still 25 days, 7 hours and 21 minutes away!!!

We can debate past QB's strengths and weaknesses!

Cleveland Browns' Alex Mack: "There's no bad blood. Now that it's done, I'm excited'' | cleveland.com
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/04/alex_mack.html#incart_2box

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- On Friday afternoon, Browns center Alex Mack had no idea if he'd be flying south or turning the key in his Cleveland area front door again.

And now that he's headed back home, he couldn't be happier.

"It's been a long, hard road, but I'm here and I'm happy,'' Mack told cleveland.com in an exclusive phone interview Saturday. "I'm excited. I'm fired up. There's no bad blood. Now that it's done, I'm happy.''

Mack remained the property of the Browns for at least two years Friday when the club quickly matched the five-year, $42 milliom offer sheet from the Jaguars. The deal, which averages $8.4 million a year, makes Mack the highest paid center in the NFL and gives him the opportunity to become a free agent after two years.

The deal includes $26 million guaranteed overall, and $18 million over the first two seasons, after which Mack can void the deal and hit the market. If he sticks around for a third year, he'll make another $8 million guaranteed in 2016 and then have a chance to make $8 million in the final two seasons.

The Browns also can't trade him up until the start of 2017 and can't franchise or transition him after 2015 because of the timing of the opt-out clause.

"It really gave me a lot of options as a player which is something that's not typical, but I'm happy both ways (if it's a two-year deal or longer),'' he said. "I got a long-term deal, and we got a nice good contract that both sides are happy with. I'm excited (about being the highest paid center) and what can I promise is that I'll try my hardest day in and day out and I'll be the same person.''

Mack, 27, denied national reports that he badly wanted out of Cleveland.

"I don't believe I ever said that,'' he said "Seeing the options and trying to test free agency and see what else was out there was something that we wanted to do and we had a small opportunity to kind of get a little bit of that.''

But did he want out?

"No,'' he said. "Contracts are tough. It's the business side of things and as a player my job is to play football, something I'm good at. I have agents (Marvin Demoff and Tim Younger) to do the business side of things, and it's not always easy, but I'm happy with where I'm at.''

What will it take for him to stay after the first two seasons of the deal, during which he'll average $9 million a year.

"I'm 100% dedicated to working my absolute hardest to win games and that's what everyone wants,'' he said. "That's what I'd like to see, but that's two years from now.''

Mack, who received the transition tag at the start of free agency, said he remained hopeful throughout the ordeal that he could remain a Brown and receive fair market value.

"Yes, It's a process,'' he said. "All last season, a couple of times we'd go up and have successful talks and the No. 1 thing was to not being distracting. I wanted to devote my time to football.''

He said he harbors no ill-will toward the previous regime for failing to get the deal done before or during last season.

"Last year wasn't bad by any mean,'' he said. "Everything was handled very well and I'm 100% content. That's just the business side of things. It's tough. It's a battle and that's just what it is. In terms of my opinion, no. I'm good, I'm happy to be in Cleveland, let's move forward, let's go work hard and win games.''

He said he knows he might have to win back some of the fans, but he knows just how he'll do it.

"I'm going to be the same guy,'' he said. "I have a good attitude and I'm going to go all out for my team, that I can promise. I'm going to do my very best and that's as much as I can offer and I think that's what everyone wants to see. I like the city of Cleveland. I have a house there. I have friends. I've never had anything wrong with it.''

Does he expect to hear boos his first time out at FirstEnergy Field?

"I haven't actually thought about that,'' he said. "Hopefully not. But if that's what they want to do, I will still try my hardest.''

He acknowledgd that the constant upheaval here took its toll, but that he's optimistic about the future.

"When things change, it's a little different, but when the Brown came out and visited me here in California, they presented a really good front, a new coach, new GM, all of that,'' he said. "It's exciting to think about, because I know we have good player. Getting to know the coaches a little bit, you get excited about that. I'm excited to think about where the offense is going and what's in store this season.''

He also developed a newfound respect for owner Jimmy Haslam during that meeting in California.

"Mr. Haslam took a lot of heat firing the coach after one year and cleaning the building out, but it shows a lot of drive which is really respectful in my book,'' said Mack. "He took a lot of personal attack on that but he did that because he knew what he wanted and that was the sunny side of looking at the same thing.''

He acknowledged that he would've been happy to go to Jacksonville had the Browns not matched.

"I owe a great thanks to Jacksonville,'' he said. "They're a first-class organization. I can't speak highly enough of them. I was close to being there, and I was comfortable with either way that contract went. I must say I went out there with some expectations and they did a real good job of improving those, so they have good things going and I wish them the best -- except one game next year.''

He said he wasn't sweating out the Browns decision. "I knew it was a possibility they'd match and I had to be okay with either way it went,'' he said. "It's tough. I'm going to leave it at that.''

He declined to elaborate on the notion of two-and-through.

"One thing that football teaches you is to look at the short side of things,'' he said. "Now, I've got next year to worry about and that's what I'm going to do. You can't look too far into the future. That's a future problem and we'll deal with that later.''

He said he appreciated his new offensive line coach Andy Moeller making the trip to California last month along with Haslam and the others.

"I had a small opportunity to visit with him and talk a little bit,'' he said. "Of course I liked my line coach (George Warhop), but we're linemen. You get comfortable with people and you know what to expect. Moeller seems like a great guy. I haven't been around him that much, but from talking to the other guys, they're excited and looking forward to it.''

He's also heard good things from his teammates about Mike Pettine, Kyle Shanahan and the new schemes.

"I've been pretty quiet on just about every front, but the few things I have heard have been good,'' he said. "One thing I have to say about my teammates is that they're great guys. I've always been happy with the people that have been around Cleveland. They show up and work hard and that's what you want to of your teammates. It's a great environment and I'm looking forward to going back to it.''

Like quarterback Brian Hoyer, Mack is confident the Browns are poised to win this season

"Absolutely,' he said. "We have a great team, great players and I'm excited. We have six Pro Bowlers. That's fantastic. That's a lot to build on and with a couple of other pieces and parts, I think we can win.''

Mack, who will join his teammates in the offseason program here Monday, said he hopes to add more Pro Bowls to his resume, but that's not his primary focus.

"For now, I've got to show up, learn a new offense, put some facetime in and do the best I can,'' he said.

Ok, that was a good read, and I'm sure it's been discussed in the 20+ pages on the subject. But what's up with the report that said "Mack would prefer to play the contract in Jacksonville" ?

I assume that came from Mack, through his agent. Has that issue been addressed, because it sounds like he wanted out?

Thanks YTOWN, I have been waiting to get Mack's response to the match.

As usual he says all the right things and seems to be focused and ready to help us win some games.

I like that he reiterated that he never said he wanted out of Cleveland.... lets put that to rest.

Yeah he owes a great deal to Jville, frankly so do we... he got everybody off the snide and enabled this to be resolved.

j/c

When the Jaguars were formulating their free agent plan two months ago, a key component was 28-year old center Alex Mack, who didn't miss a snap and made two Pro Bowls during his five years with the Cleveland Browns.

But when the Browns placed Mack under the transition tag designation, meaning they could match any offer sheet, the Jaguars moved on. Temporarily.

Based on interviews over the past week, here is how and why the Jaguars pursued Mack, who signed a five-year, $42 million offer sheet with the Jaguars today that the Browns matched.

*The Jaguars consider center the third-most important position on the offense after quarterback and left tackle and wanted to acquire an experienced player.

*The Jaguars’ three AFC South rivals – Indianapolis, Houston and Tennessee – all run a 3-4 defense and the Jaguars want a proven center to handle those nose tackles.

*They don’t have any in-house free agents upcoming save for receiver Cecil Shorts so they could afford to go above market value for Mack. Plus, the Jaguars hoped the Browns would opt to save some of their money for cornerback Joe Haden and receiver Josh Gordon.

*And they had nothing to lose. Because he was given the transition tag (and not the franchise tag), Mack was given a hall pass to shop himself and the Jaguars didn’t feel pursuing him would be a waste of time.

Before going after Mack, the Jaguars decided to address their other needs, signing running back Toby Gerhart, linebacker Dekoda Watson and defensive linemen Red Bryant, Chris Clemons and Ziggy Hood in a span of five days last month.

The Jaguars didn’t actively pursue the other veteran centers on the market because they felt good enough about Mike Brewster taking over the role.

But with Mack still available and talks with the Browns going nowhere, the Jaguars went to work late last week.

The team reached out to Mack’s agent, Marvin Demoff, to express their interest.

Citing the positive things he had heard about the Jaguars from those around the league (including his son, Kevin, executive VP of the St. Louis Rams), Demoff told the Jaguars he would pass along their interest to Mack.

A day later, and after an negotiating session with the Browns went nowhere, Demoff told the Jaguars that Mack was willing to travel to Jacksonville for a visit.

Last Friday and Saturday, Mack was in town and met with general manager Dave Caldwell and coach Gus Bradley.

Demoff did not accompany Mack to Jacksonville and there were no contract negotiations during Mack’s visit. In addition to dinner with Caldwell and Bradley, Mack met with other Jaguars coaches and took a physical exam.

If Mack left town and decided he wasn’t interested in the Jaguars, it would have only cost the team a plane ticket and dinner.

But Mack was interested.

On Monday, Demoff called the Jaguars to tell them Mack was so impressed with the visit that he wanted to play for the Jaguars.

Contract talks started and became serious quickly. The parameters of the deal were agreed upon Wednesday and Mack signed the contract on Friday. Cleveland took four hours to match.

http://members.jacksonville.com/opinion/...+Times-Union%29

Quote:

"For now, I've got to show up, learn a new offense, put some facetime in and do the best I can,'' he said.

I may have answered my own question, but to me it sounds like Mack isn't unhappy here, but he would have prefered to be elsewhere if it were his choice.

Quote:

Ok, that was a good read, and I'm sure it's been discussed in the 20+ pages on the subject. But what's up with the report that said "Mack would prefer to play the contract in Jacksonville" ?

I assume that came from Mack, through his agent. Has that issue been addressed, because it sounds like he wanted out?

ad nasuem.

No one has been able to produce a quote directly from Mack saying that.

You can believe he said it through his agent or you can believe it was solely agent speak to get the bets deal they could... your choice. To me its a non issue.

Yeah, I figured as much. I'd think that it came from Mack, and not his agent speaking on his behalf. You would have to be the best agent ever to start speaking for your player when it comes to destinations. I'll stick with, Mack is/was unhappy with all the turnover, likes it in C town, but would prefer to be elsewhere. I don't think it will affect his play.

It does seem like the white elephant and very curious to me.

Quote:

Ok, that was a good read, and I'm sure it's been discussed in the 20+ pages on the subject. But what's up with the report that said "Mack would prefer to play the contract in Jacksonville" ?

I assume that came from Mack, through his agent. Has that issue been addressed, because it sounds like he wanted out?

First of all, I'm pretty sure I haven't read anything that says he'd rather play in Jacksonville over Cleveland. Not one thing.

Well, let's look at this..

Has Mack been a distraction at any time during his career so far? No

Has Mack ever embarrassed the organization or city or Fans? No

Has Mack lived up to his 1st round selection? Yes

To anyones knowledge has Mack ever made a derogatory remark about Cleveland, the Browns, the city or the fans? No (please don't consider rumors only fact)

Has it ever been reported that Mack has been drunk in public, used drugs, beat his wife, been in a bar fight or otherwise done anything to warrant a suspension?
NO

I guess what I'm saying is, he's NOT EVER GIVEN US ONE REASON TO DOUBT HIS WORD or INTEGRITY.

Why start now?

He is one of the "Good Guys".. Why question his integrity because of some reports probably written by some media weenie without clear attribution to Mack

But, I'll stand corrected if you can show me a link to an article that QUOTES MACIK directly as saying he'd rather play in Jacksonville.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm glad that bit of drama is over... At least for the next couple of years.

I still think it was a bad deal for the Browns.

Can't agree with you, it's a great deal for both the team and player.

Like I said Mack was out for the most money he could make for him, and his family and he now has it. He is happy, the Browns are happy and his numbers will not hurt the team over the next two years. It's time for the fans to get on board with this and forget all the nonsense.

Quote:

Like I said Mack was out for the most money he could make for him, and his family and he now has it. He is happy, the Browns are happy and his numbers will not hurt the team over the next two years. It's time for the fans to get on board with this and forget all the nonsense.

where's the fun in that

Quote:

Like I said Mack was out for the most money he could make for him, and his family and he now has it. He is happy, the Browns are happy and his numbers will not hurt the team over the next two years. It's time for the fans to get on board with this and forget all the nonsense.

My stance is perhaps different..maybe both sides..I wouldn't have paid that much for a center..they are easier to find and work into a starter. That said I thought it was interesting that the Browns didn't bid for themselves and let jags set the market... O.k that he's back but if I'm Farmer I get a center somewhere in this draft..the kid from USC would be nice.

It is kinda cool that a player played an organization for once. It sucks that it is my team, but I appreciate the little guy beating corporate America.

I agree.

Quote:

j/c
When boiled down to the essentials, which in my mind are, would the Browns' be a better football team in 2014 with or, without Alex Mack; the answer is obvious. Is it necessary to state the obvious?

The deal gives the club breathing room to make whatever moves it decides are necessary.

Does it make the club better? Obvious? I don't know.

But, you are right that it gives them breathing room for two years with a steep price tag. It does allow them to use a draft selection for another player in this year's draft. So, that is beneficial, but the price tag is severe. To me, I don't think that the deal was a good one and that the trade off will eventually cause problems for the Browns.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'm glad that bit of drama is over... At least for the next couple of years.

I still think it was a bad deal for the Browns.

Can't agree with you, it's a great deal for both the team and player.

Okay. We'll have to agree to disagree about how great it is for the Browns. However, I will agree with you and say that it's a great deal for Alex Mack.

Well, but I'm glad he's staying. Lot of cash, but not insanely above marked value. Just natural progression of contract amounts in an age when dollars are worth less each year. If you or I were Mack, we'd try to get the most $$$ possible, too.
Mack and Thomas make a solid O-line foundation. It's up to Farmer / Haslam to provide three more decent O-line men, a QB, and a RB. We'll see.

j/c

One of the reasons Browns fans seem to have trouble with the amount of money being paid to Mack is simple: ground-breaking FA paydays always happen to other teams.

Since '99, we've had a history of letting our FA's leave to other teams for 'average +' FA money because they've almost never been league-leaders. In the meantime, there have been regular reports of other teams' FA's getting record paydays, while Browns fans have been forced to sit and whine about their team's substandard personnel.

I'm reminded of the old adage: "you get what you pay for." I'd also remind folks that "quality costs."

I'm happy to see the Browns lock down a pro bowl player and proven performer, instead of doing the usual Browns bush-league thing. In this case, letting this deal tank would have been 'penny-wise and pound-foolish.' That would TRULY deserve a "same ol' Browns" from me. Dollaz be damned- if Haslam isn't griping about the price, why should I?

I'm glad this is finally getting resolved... and with no new holes on Cleveland's roster.

.02

Exactly. I mean how many of these deals do teams do knowing full well, "Yeah we're just going to cut him after year three so he'll never see the back two of that contract." If I were a player, I'd want to have control of my own fate, myself.

jc

HAPPY HE'S BACK, the rest is water under the bridge. As far as I'm concerned it was all business.

Apparently Mack's happy he's back too...

Quote:

Mack “happy” to remain in Cleveland, says “no bad blood” with team

Posted by Mike Wilkening on April 12, 2014, 8:37 PM EDT

While the Browns matched the Jaguars’ five-year, $42 million offer sheet to Alex Mack, the two-time Pro Bowl center reportedly has no qualms about staying with Cleveland, the team with which he’s played his first five NFL seasons.

“I’m excited. I’m fired up,” Mack told Mary Kay Cabot of the Cleveland Plain Dealer for a story published Saturday. “There’s no bad blood. Now that it’s done, I’m happy.”

Mack also told the Plain Dealer that he was “happy to be in Cleveland” and told the paper he didn’t say he wanted to move on to another team.

“I don’t believe I ever said that,” Mack told the Plain Dealer. “Seeing the options and trying to test free agency and see what else was out there was something that we wanted to do and we had a small opportunity to kind of get a little bit of that.”

The Browns’ quick decision to match Mack’s offer sheet clearly indicates they don’t have any worries about Mack being unhappy back in Cleveland.

If he chooses, the 28-year-old Mack can get out of his new deal after the 2015 season. However, by then, he will be 30 years old, and his value on the open market could be less than it is now.

In short, it’s easy to see why he signed the offer sheet. And it’s also understandable why the Browns matched. In Mack and left tackle Joe Thomas, the Browns have two durable standout linemen.

PFT

Quote:

Well, but I'm glad he's staying.

I don't mind that he's going to be on the Browns - speaking of his football abilities only. Personally, I don't like his methods. Honestly, everyone needs to remember that he is only here because the Browns matched, not because he wanted to be here.

Quote:

Lot of cash, but not insanely above marked value. Just natural progression of contract amounts in an age when dollars are worth less each year.

It is insanely above market value. The next highest center is being paid around $7 million per year. It's a 35-45% premium ABOVE the top paid. I only use the range because I'm not sure of the exact dollar amount for the next highest paid center.

Quote:

If you or I were Mack, we'd try to get the most $$$ possible, too.

I don't mind him trying to get the most money possible. My problem is the Browns paying him what they seem willing to do. I simply don't think he's worth that amount of money. I would rather have good value for the money being spent.

Quote:

Mack and Thomas make a solid O-line foundation. It's up to Farmer / Haslam to provide three more decent O-line men, a QB, and a RB. We'll see.

True. Thomas and Mack do. Thomas & Richburg would. Thomas & Robinson would. Thomas & Matthews would. Thomas & any other quality lineman would.

I think we've got the RB with Ben Tate. We could very well have the QB in Hoyer (or whoever we draft - as long as that isn't Bridgewater).

And, we still need help on defense. You don't lose as many games as the Browns do last year after being ahead at the half because of offense. Sometimes the defense has to step up. Personally, I think that's why TJ Ward was allowed to walk and why D'Qwell Jackson was cut.

We have had two players so far worthy of a second contract in our history that had Pro-Bowl Status. Joe Thomas and Alex Mack. Violated??? How so.

Look we resigned to second contracts in perspective...DQ and Rubin. Rubin a rotational player but very good and I love him he is a good leader but he is putting a 6-8 mil hit on our Cap. I don't hear any words of violated? DQ we had to release cause he was going to give us a cap hit of like 9 mil. When it comes time for a WR who frankly I weigh up and down on my scale of judgment who would be worth more to this team...Mack who is involved on every play or Gordon who touches the ball 6-10 times a game if we are lucky. But you will everyone screaming here PAY THE MAN I'm sure. And think its justified. Cause guess what Gordon continues on his path I'm telling you right here and now we might lose him after a franchise tag year. Just not worth the money - where Mack is worth it. If - IF it becomes cumbersome to our cap. We can release him or ask him to renegotiate...you know how good teams do so every year as they fill up the cap with re-signed players ESPECIALLY a franchise QB...which we don't have. Even if we draft one we won't have to re-sign him till about 4 years. If he's the guy I hope we don't wait for the end of the contract

We were not violated. We didn't mull over the decision. We were glad to sign that contract and did sp within 2 hours. If it took days to weigh should we or shouldn't we then you can suspect we were put into a corner. WE WERE GLAD TO SIGN HIM...oh we won't go without a mid to late round investment into an OG probably that we will develop into a Center in case he leaves us after 2 seasons. But remember we were going to pay him 10 mil with the tag...and if we tagged him next year at least 12mil. So in that regard we benefit and if he sees stability after two seasons we might put an extension and make it cap friendly if we have a need. We are going to have to cough up a lot more for Haden - This is the price that we have really NEVER EXPERIENCED since 1999. It a sign of us getting better. No need for us to feel violated. After all we were the ones who let him ride till his contract ran out and he hit FA. Why we should sign Haden a.s.a.p.

JMHO

Quote:

j/c

One of the reasons Browns fans seem to have trouble with the amount of money being paid to Mack is simple: ground-breaking FA paydays always happen to other teams.

Since '99, we've had a history of letting our FA's leave to other teams for 'average +' FA money because they've almost never been league-leaders. In the meantime, there have been regular reports of other teams' FA's getting record paydays, while Browns fans have been forced to sit and whine about their team's substandard personnel.

I'm reminded of the old adage: "you get what you pay for." I'd also remind folks that "quality costs."

I'm happy to see the Browns lock down a pro bowl player and proven performer, instead of doing the usual Browns bush-league thing. In this case, letting this deal tank would have been 'penny-wise and pound-foolish.' That would TRULY deserve a "same ol' Browns" from me. Dollaz be damned- if Haslam isn't griping about the price, why should I?

I'm glad this is finally getting resolved... and with no new holes on Cleveland's roster.

.02

Those are fair points, especially the one '...if Haslam isn't griping about the price...'

The only good that I see out of it is that the Browns might save a draft selection out of it. But to pay a center LT money is crazy. At least to me it is.

But, I guess that the Browns are doing it because they have the cap space this year to do it and they're willing to overpay.

I also don't like the structure of the deal, where Mack can 'blackmail' the team in two years if they don't address his replacement before then.

Quote:

Exactly. I mean how many of these deals do teams do knowing full well, "Yeah we're just going to cut him after year three so he'll never see the back two of that contract." If I were a player, I'd want to have control of my own fate, myself.

I don't disagree. If he wanted to maximize his money, he could sign only 1-year contracts and become a free agent EVERY year.

I'll add, he could have a 'player option' for a second year if he wanted so he could eliminate the 'tag' issue.

Quote:

Mack also told the Plain Dealer that he was “happy to be in Cleveland” and told the paper he didn’t say he wanted to move on to another team.

That's laughable. He signed the offer sheet from Jacksonville!

Yeah, you can say, but that was only to see what his value on the market was. You might be able to claim that if his agent hadn't said that they could work a deal where the Browns wouldn't match it. Mack never correct those statements by his agent.

Nah, I don't believe a word that comes from Mack's mouth. Not a word.

Too much doublespeak for my liking.

Are you sure the Browns didn't make an offer of some kind? Actually, now that I think about it, I haven't really heard either way?

Quote:

Quote:

Mack also told the Plain Dealer that he was “happy to be in Cleveland” and told the paper he didn’t say he wanted to move on to another team.

That's laughable. He signed the offer sheet from Jacksonville!

Yeah, you can say, but that was only to see what his value on the market was. You might be able to claim that if his agent hadn't said that they could work a deal where the Browns wouldn't match it. Mack never correct those statements by his agent.

Nah, I don't believe a word that comes from Mack's mouth. Not a word.

Too much doublespeak for my liking.

What has Mack ever done that would make you doubt him?

Quote:

Quote:

j/c

One of the reasons Browns fans seem to have trouble with the amount of money being paid to Mack is simple: ground-breaking FA paydays always happen to other teams.

Since '99, we've had a history of letting our FA's leave to other teams for 'average +' FA money because they've almost never been league-leaders. In the meantime, there have been regular reports of other teams' FA's getting record paydays, while Browns fans have been forced to sit and whine about their team's substandard personnel.

I'm reminded of the old adage: "you get what you pay for." I'd also remind folks that "quality costs."

I'm happy to see the Browns lock down a pro bowl player and proven performer, instead of doing the usual Browns bush-league thing. In this case, letting this deal tank would have been 'penny-wise and pound-foolish.' That would TRULY deserve a "same ol' Browns" from me. Dollaz be damned- if Haslam isn't griping about the price, why should I?

I'm glad this is finally getting resolved... and with no new holes on Cleveland's roster.

.02

Those are fair points, especially the one '...if Haslam isn't griping about the price...'

The only good that I see out of it is that the Browns might save a draft selection out of it. But to pay a center LT money is crazy. At least to me it is.

But, I guess that the Browns are doing it because they have the cap space this year to do it and they're willing to overpay.

I also don't like the structure of the deal, where Mack can 'blackmail' the team in two years if they don't address his replacement before then.

Mack will be 30 by the time he can opt out. By that point the 8 mil guaranteed might be the best offer for him.

And if were not winning by then I don't blame anyone currently on the team now that wants to leave.

Quote:

Are you sure the Browns didn't make an offer of some kind? Actually, now that I think about it, I haven't really heard either way?

Offer? Not necessarily but Demoff did talk to us right before he accepted the invite to Jax.

Quote:

A day later, and after a negotiating session with the Browns went nowhere, Demoff told the Jaguars that Mack was willing to travel to Jacksonville for a visit.

Now does that mean Demoff gave us one last chance or did he want numbers to take to Jax? WHO CARES.

Mack did exactly what every single one of us shoulda done.

We're talking 2 teams that have sucked and in our case constant damn regime changes. He's basically saying to us---If a new HC and FO happens in the next 2 years, I'm opting out and you're not tagging me. SMART MOVE.

He's saying to Jax---If this team moves to London I'm OUT and you're not tagging me either.

Now. We've got TWO YEARS to prove to him we're going somewhere. And guess what. We'll re-ink Haden and Cameron. Gordon also. Now all we need is a damn QB so many wanna shy away from because these guys are now getting picked apart to the size and width of their ass cracks.

GET A DAMN QB. And Mack will stay and enjoy our Playoff runs.

Quote:

Quote:

Mack also told the Plain Dealer that he was “happy to be in Cleveland” and told the paper he didn’t say he wanted to move on to another team.

That's laughable. He signed the offer sheet from Jacksonville!

Yeah, you can say, but that was only to see what his value on the market was. You might be able to claim that if his agent hadn't said that they could work a deal where the Browns wouldn't match it. Mack never correct those statements by his agent.

Nah, I don't believe a word that comes from Mack's mouth. Not a word.

Too much doublespeak for my liking.

You do know what "Agent Speak" is, right?

I have no way of knowing for sure whether or not Mack truly wants to be here, or if he wants to move on to another team, but let's not forget that the only way Mack could get another team to make an offer is to make them think that he was ready to leave Cleveland. It is his agent's job to get him the best offer, so of course he is going to try to make another team think that he is anxious to leave, and that they could structure a deal that the Browns might not match.

What was his agent supposed to say? "Oh well, no matter what another team offers, the Browns are certain to match, so there really is no sense in going through all of the work of putting an offer together." Really? What would that gain him?

I was actually kind of surprised at the offer the Jags put together, because I saw no way the Browns wouldn't match. The deal wasn't that far out of line for a top player at his position.

Quote:

Quote:

Like I said Mack was out for the most money he could make for him, and his family and he now has it. He is happy, the Browns are happy and his numbers will not hurt the team over the next two years. It's time for the fans to get on board with this and forget all the nonsense.

where's the fun in that

Less drama is more fun for me. I never did like Drama Queens

Quote:

O.k that he's back but if I'm Farmer I get a center somewhere in this draft..the kid from USC would be nice.

I would prefer to fill one of our many other holes in this draft and look for another center in NEXT years draft. That still gives a kid one year to learn before starting. If you draft one this year he is going to sit for at least two years which would cover half of his four year contract..

What could the Jags have done differently?

.

National Football Post
By Joel Corry
April 12, 2014 7:00 AM

Transition player Alex Mack signed a five-year, $42 million offer sheet with the Jacksonville Jaguars, which the Cleveland Browns quickly matched even though Mack reportedly wanted out of town. A provision allowing Mack to void his contract after the 2015 season and a no trade clause were included in the offer sheet. Mack’s new deal is at the top of the center market, which was necessary to make it worth his while to potentially make a commitment for an extended period of time.

The six-year, $49.116 million contract Ryan Kalil signed with the Carolina Panthers in 2011 as their franchise player has been the standard for center compensation. Kalil’s deal contains $28 million in guarantees and has $30.75 million in the first three years. Mack has fully guaranteed $10 million and $8 million salaries in 2014 and 2015 for a total of $18 million in the first two years. His $18 million only trails Kalil’s $20.75 million over two years and the $19.512 million Nick Mangold received during the first two years of the seven-year, $54.075 million contract extension he signed in 2010. Mack’s $8 million 2016 salary is guaranteed only for injury at signing. It becomes fully guaranteed if he is still under contract on April 5, 2016, which will be moot if he exercises his right to void his deal after the 2015 season.

The 2011 collective bargaining agreement prohibiting poison pills with offer sheets limited Jacksonville’s creativity in structuring a deal that would have made it virtually impossible for Cleveland to match. Poison pills were outlawed because of the Steve Hutchinson-Nate Burleson ordeal in 2006. The Minnesota Vikings signed Hutchison, who was the Seattle Seahawks’ transition player, to a seven-year, $49 million offer sheet with a provision that guaranteed his entire contract if he wasn’t the highest paid offensive lineman on the team at any point during his contract. Seattle didn’t match the offer because left tackle Walter Jones had a higher salary. The Seahawks retaliated by signing Minnesota restricted free agent wide receiver Nate Burleson to a backloaded seven-year, $49 million offer sheet that became fully guaranteed if he played at least five games in the state of Minnesota in any season of the contract or his average salary was greater than that of the highest paid running back on the team.

..
View photo
.Alex MackMack has started 80 of a possible 80 regular season games since entering the NFL in 2009.

The Browns have $29.6 million of salary cap room while the Jaguars are $25.1 million under the cap. Since Mack’s transition tag is already counting on Cleveland’s cap, Jacksonville wasn’t able to put together an offer sheet utilizing an abundance of 2014 cap room that couldn’t be matched. In order to discourage the Browns from matching the offer sheet, Jacksonville should have considered guaranteeing all five years or portions of the last two years, 2017 and 2018, without offsets.

An offensive lineman deal with over $40 million in guarantees would have been unprecedented. Currently, Trent Williams’ $36.75 million guaranteed in his six-year, $60 million rookie contract is the most guaranteed money ever for an offensive lineman. This would have required the Jaguars to trust Mack because offer sheets that aren’t matched can be renegotiated before the end of the season in the first contract year as long as there isn’t a salary reduction. Mack and the Jaguars could have re-worked the deal to eliminate his ability to void and any guarantees in later years so that it would have been more consistent with the marketplace.

If Mack was really looking to get out of Cleveland as soon as possible, the offer sheet should have contained a fully guaranteed 2014 salary equal to his $10.039 million transition tag that he could void at his discretion before the start of the 2015 league year. This would have ensured that Mack would have become an unrestricted free agent when free agency began next year. His actual voidable provision after the 2015 season operates in this manner. Another alternative for Mack would have been to get a clause that prohibited the Browns from using a franchise or transition designation on him in 2015 for signing his transition tag tender.

Outside of these concepts, there wasn’t much Jacksonville could have done to make it difficult for Cleveland to keep Mack for the short term. Even though Jacksonville wasn’t successful with Mack, the fan base will likely be pleased at the team’s aggressive efforts to upgrade the roster.

Mack will have an interesting choice after the 2015 season because he would be forgoing $24 million over the remaining three years of his contract to become an unrestricted free agent. Miami Dolphins center Mike Pouncey will attempt to leverage Mack’s pact into a better contract when negotiating his next deal. Outside of Pouncey, it’s hard to envision any other player potentially advancing salaries for centers before Mack has to make his decision on voiding.

Follow me on Twitter: @corryjoel

Joel Corry is a former sports agent who helped found Premier Sports & Entertainment, a sports management firm that represents professional athletes and coaches. Prior to his tenure at Premier, Joel worked for Management Plus Enterprises, which represented Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon and Ronnie Lott. You can email Joel at jccorry@gmail.com.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/could-jags-done-differently-110048329--nfl.html

I think maybe Mack did want to be in Cleveland.. there are things that could have been done differently..

We may have paid a premium for Mack. But I'm ok with that as it leaves us one less position to upgrade. We have enough holes to fix. Saving a few bucks only to fall back a year while we break-in another center wouldn't have made sense to me. We could have done it at the cost of losing continuity on the OL right at the time we need it more than ever.

can Mack agree to a trade?
if so would u take jags 1st for him (YES)

Quote:

can Mack agree to a trade?
if so would u take jags 1st for him (YES)

That's simply something that would never happen in "the real world".

No there can be no trade for at least 1 year even if Mack was ok with it because the contract can't be renegotiated for at least 1 year per league rules and that contract has a no trade clause in it.

j/c

The Browns gave Mack the ability to go out and find out his worth. To sign any offer sheet he saw as a fit and fair deal so they had the opportunity to match. He did so.

There has never been anything shown that would cause anyone to have any legitimate reason to question Mack's statements about being here and being happy to be here.

There are players who have earned the right to be questioned, but Mack isn't one of them. To use a business dealing in which Mack got the best deal possible for himself and his family as some excuse to question Mack's character and honesty is nothing short of absurd.

Signing an offer sheet that he thought was fair was his only way of achieving a long term deal. And that's exactly what he did.

The only way a trade would of ever work, I believe, is if Mack had signed the Transition tag, then worked out a deal with Jax while we recieved compensation, which then would negate the Transition tag salary..

That's usually how its done for Franchise tags if I recall.

And at most we may have gotten their 2nd round pick. Plus some more. Asking for the 3rd overall pick for a Center isn't even silly. Its.. ya know..

Quote:

j/c

The Browns gave Mack the ability to go out and find out his worth. To sign any offer sheet he saw as a fit and fair deal so they had the opportunity to match. He did so.

There has never been anything shown that would cause anyone to have any legitimate reason to question Mack's statements about being here and being happy to be here.

There are players who have earned the right to be questioned, but Mack isn't one of them. To use a business dealing in which Mack got the best deal possible for himself and his family as some excuse to question Mack's character and honesty is nothing short of absurd.

Signing an offer sheet that he thought was fair was his only way of achieving a long term deal. And that's exactly what he did.

I agree he did what was best for him and so would have I .

Quote:

The only way a trade would of ever work, I believe, is if Mack had signed the Transition tag, then worked out a deal with Jax while we recieved compensation, which then would negate the Transition tag salary..

That's usually how its done for Franchise tags if I recall.

And at most we may have gotten their 2nd round pick. Plus some more. Asking for the 3rd overall pick for a Center isn't even silly. Its.. ya know..

yea I know what was I thinking

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

j/c

One of the reasons Browns fans seem to have trouble with the amount of money being paid to Mack is simple: ground-breaking FA paydays always happen to other teams.

Since '99, we've had a history of letting our FA's leave to other teams for 'average +' FA money because they've almost never been league-leaders. In the meantime, there have been regular reports of other teams' FA's getting record paydays, while Browns fans have been forced to sit and whine about their team's substandard personnel.

I'm reminded of the old adage: "you get what you pay for." I'd also remind folks that "quality costs."

I'm happy to see the Browns lock down a pro bowl player and proven performer, instead of doing the usual Browns bush-league thing. In this case, letting this deal tank would have been 'penny-wise and pound-foolish.' That would TRULY deserve a "same ol' Browns" from me. Dollaz be damned- if Haslam isn't griping about the price, why should I?

I'm glad this is finally getting resolved... and with no new holes on Cleveland's roster.

.02

Those are fair points, especially the one '...if Haslam isn't griping about the price...'

The only good that I see out of it is that the Browns might save a draft selection out of it. But to pay a center LT money is crazy. At least to me it is.

But, I guess that the Browns are doing it because they have the cap space this year to do it and they're willing to overpay.

I also don't like the structure of the deal, where Mack can 'blackmail' the team in two years if they don't address his replacement before then.

Mack will be 30 by the time he can opt out. By that point the 8 mil guaranteed might be the best offer for him.

And if were not winning by then I don't blame anyone currently on the team now that wants to leave.

Another fair point. Do you really think though, at 28, that he's worth $10 million?

I could easily just say "Is anyone worth 10 Million?" Because it's a game afterall.. But screw that, sports salaries are what they are, the fact that we can talk about a "couple million extra" makes my brain hurt sometimes.. But whatevs...

I think the fact that we have all this cap room makes it almost a moot point. We're not ganna fill up another 20 mil anytime soon... And by the time we do, he won't be the highest paid Center anymore... Especially if he reups for the 8mil...

Quote:

can Mack agree to a trade?
if so would u take jags 1st for him (YES)

His contract has a "NO TRADE" Clause..

I suppose he could agree to one

Quote:

Quote:

can Mack agree to a trade?
if so would u take jags 1st for him (YES)

That's simply something that would never happen in "the real world".

Sonny Weaver Jr. could pull it off.

Quote:

It is insanely above market value. The next highest center is being paid around $7 million per year. It's a 35-45% premium ABOVE the top paid. I only use the range because I'm not sure of the exact dollar amount for the next highest paid center.

Not sure where your numbers are coming from but here's the list of the highest avg. salary for centers: link

Mack: 8.4 mil
Kalil : 8.186
Mangold: 7.725
Unger: 6.458

Kalil and Mangold are both in the 4th year of their deals. Macks deal is only 2.6% and 8.7% higher respecitvely. Unger is in the 3 year of his deal.

J/C

Im glad this deal is done. Mack is worth keeping around, the last thing we need is to have our OL regress.

To me this also says that Jimmy H is more interested in winning than saving a couple million bucks.

Mack got paid, we get to keep our PB center without having to cut or trade anyone, everyone wins.

Quote:

Quote:

It is insanely above market value. The next highest center is being paid around $7 million per year. It's a 35-45% premium ABOVE the top paid. I only use the range because I'm not sure of the exact dollar amount for the next highest paid center.

Not sure where your numbers are coming from but here's the list of the highest avg. salary for centers: link

Mack: 8.4 mil
Kalil : 8.186
Mangold: 7.725
Unger: 6.458

Kalil and Mangold are both in the 4th year of their deals. Macks deal is only 2.6% and 8.7% higher respecitvely. Unger is in the 3 year of his deal.

214dawg...excellent work digging out the facts.

Too many times we blurt out what we believe is something factual, without taking the time to verify. It takes someone willing to invest the time to find the facts and set us strait.

Based on the facts, with this contract, Mack is being paid fair market value for a center considered one of the top centers in the NFL.

Quote:

Quote:

It is insanely above market value. The next highest center is being paid around $7 million per year. It's a 35-45% premium ABOVE the top paid. I only use the range because I'm not sure of the exact dollar amount for the next highest paid center.

Not sure where your numbers are coming from but here's the list of the highest avg. salary for centers: link

Mack: 8.4 mil
Kalil : 8.186
Mangold: 7.725
Unger: 6.458

Kalil and Mangold are both in the 4th year of their deals. Macks deal is only 2.6% and 8.7% higher respecitvely. Unger is in the 3 year of his deal.

214, I don't know where you got your numbers for Mack either.

First two years are guaranteed at 18 million (9 per year) Then in the 3rd year it drops to 8 million if he stays!

His number is taking the average value of the contract just like the other players. We don't know how those were structured but it isn't uncommon for a contract to be front loaded a bit. Chances are good those guys made a bit more in the first year or two of their contracts.

Alex Mack - 4/11/2014: Signed a five-year, $42 million contract. The deal contains $26 million guaranteed -- each of Mack's first three base salaries -- and a no-trade clause.
2014: $10 million
2015: $8 million
2016: $8 million (Player Option)
2017-2018: $8 million
2019: Free Agent

Ryan Kalil - 8/19/2011: Signed a six-year, $49 million contract. The deal contains $28 million guaranteed, including an $18 million signing bonus. Kalil is eligible for an annual $250,000 workout bonus in years two through six.
2014: $855,000 (+ $3.895 million "signing" bonus)
2015: $5.366 million
2016: $7.5 million
2017: Free Agent

Nick Mangold - 8/23/2010: Signed an eight-year, $57.4 million contract. The deal contains $25 million guaranteed -- $22.5 million of which is guaranteed for injury -- including a $6.373 million signing bonus and a second-year option bonus of $9.725 million. An annual $500,000 workout bonus is available in years four through eight. Mangold was paid a $3 million roster bonus and additional $3 million "signing" bonus in the 2013 offseason.
2014: $2.97 million (+ $650,000 reporting bonus)
2015: $4.8 million (+ $2 million reporting bonus)
2016: $5.6 million (+ $2.4 million reporting bonus)
2017: $6.075 million (+ $2.4 million reporting bonus)
2018: Free Agent

Max Unger - 7/29/2009: Signed a five-year, $25.5 million contract. The deal contains $12 million guaranteed -- a $5.5 million signing bonus and all of Unger's first two base salaries.
2014: $5 million
2015: $4.5 million
2016: $4.25 million (+ $250,000 roster bonus)
2017: Free Agent

Numbers from Rotoworld

Mack would make $10 million this season, then $8 million in each of the next four seasons. The first three seasons, all $26 million worth, are guaranteed, meaning Mack has received the highest guarantee of any free agent this offseason.

Adam Schefter

He must love the attention. Every time I read something from him it has no merit. I'm not a big fan of paying a center this much, with this many crap stipulations (no trade, opt out etc.) but 40% above the top paid Center?

The only difference between Mack, Kalil, and Mangold is that Mack's money is guaranteed salary where as Kalil and Mangold got their guaranteed money in the form of bonuses.

Quote:

I'm glad we are keeping a pro bowl caliber center but I can't help but feeling a tad bit violated.

The headlines I'm reading, "Everyone benefits" is not true. Mack benefited. The Jags lost nothing. The Browns got a huge hit in payroll.

I also agree with what former Browns OL Ross Tucker was quoted as saying, "The center position is not worth the close to $10 million a year that Mack will reportedly command over the first three years of this deal, whether he plays in Jacksonville or Cleveland." It goes back to the thought, just how much is one man's labor truly worth?

I think we over paid but what other choice did we have? Pick up some free agent on his last legs? Draft another rookie that will need some development?

Just leaves me in the same place I've been for a few years now..."I don't care. Just show me some W's". That's all.

+1 +1

I think it's probably best to not look at Mack's deal as anything other than a two-year $18 million fully guaranteed contract.

Here's Mangold numbers:

Contract: 7 yr(s) / $54,075,000 Signing Bonus $9,725,000 Average Salary $7,725,000 Guaranteed: $16,097,600

2011: salary $2,260,000 + signing bonus $9,725,000 = $11,985,000

2012: salary $2,233,000

2013: salary $2,510,000 + workout bonus $500,000 + roster bonus $3,000,000 = $6,010,000

2014: salary $2,970,000 + workout bonus $500,000 + roster bonus $650,000 = $4,120,000

2015: salary $4,800,000 + workout bonus $500,000 + roster bonus $2,000,000 = $7,300,000

2016: salary $5,600,000 + workout bonus $500,000 + roster bonus $2,400,000 = $8,500,000

2017: salary $6,075,000 + workout bonus $500,000 + roster bonus $2,400,000 = $8,975,000

Plus Mangold can make another $100,000 a year in some kind of incentive.

I will try to get Kalil's numbers put up.

Quote:

I think it's probably best to not look at Mack's deal as anything other than a two-year $18 million fully guaranteed contract.

Even if we do that it still isn't a bad deal IMO. We had to start paying somebody sooner or later, so I would rather see it spent on a proven talent rather than simply bump everybody on the team X% to meet the CBA requirements.

Some people simply don't get it as of yet. Four years ago people were complaining about signing rookies to huge contracts and wanted to see proven players make the money. Now we are at the point that proven players are starting to cash in on the big money and people still complain.

There is a salary cap and teams have to on average spend 89% of that allotment. The rookies aren't getting the money anymore, so it has to be spent somewhere.

I hate to see what happens if we ever have to sign a good QB...

Quote:

I hate to see what happens if we ever have to sign a good QB...

If we're smart, we'll pay the man

Quote:

He must love the attention. Every time I read something from him it has no merit. I'm not a big fan of paying a center this much, with this many crap stipulations (no trade, opt out etc.) but 40% above the top paid Center?

How do you come up with 40% above any other Center?

Even if we look at Mack's deal as a 2 year deal worth $18 million, then it wold only be worth an average of $9 million.

Kalil's contract is worth an average of $8.167 million.

Mack makes about $834,000 more than Kalil. (If we look at Mack's deal as a 2 year deal .... it's less if we look at it as a 5 year deal) That is roughly 10% higher than Kalil's deal.

As far as loving attention ..... what makes you necessarily think that? He is one of the best in the NFL at his position, and he had an opportunity to offer his services to anyone in the NFL. He went for the best deal he could find. The Browns chose to match that deal.

In all honesty, Mack could have decided to play under the tag, for more money this year, and at a higher annual salary than any Center ever. He then could have done this whole process again next year, either as, again, the highest paid Center ever again ....... or as a highly sought after free agent again. If he were interested in the attention, that certainly would have brought a whole lot more his way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about it. I think it's a bit high given the position he plays, but the team has the cap room and it's one less hole to fill.

I'm not looking forward to them going through this all over again in two years, when there's likely to be a lot less money to go around after they've (hopefully) extended Haden, Gordon and anyone else who might merit it.

I've seen that 40% number floated before on this thread and I didn't know how it was arrived at either..

I'd love to know also

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?"

It's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison with Ryan Kalil's contract because he's already restructured it twice. I don't think that average total money is an accurate means of assessment unless you can say with certainty that a player will play out the entire life of the deal.

Mack's deal calls for him to get all of his guaranteed money in the first 3 years where as Kalil and Mangold got most of their guaranteed money in the first year in the form of a signing bonus.

I'm a little late to the party as I was out of town all weekend, but I'm glad this is done. Super glad that Mack is staying around!

The money is meaningless - that will work itself out.

Quote:

I could easily just say "Is anyone worth 10 Million?" Because it's a game afterall.. But screw that, sports salaries are what they are, the fact that we can talk about a "couple million extra" makes my brain hurt sometimes.. But whatevs...

I think the fact that we have all this cap room makes it almost a moot point. We're not ganna fill up another 20 mil anytime soon... And by the time we do, he won't be the highest paid Center anymore... Especially if he reups for the 8mil...

If you asked me, no player is worth $10 million. I think that they should all be given a base salary with large performance bonuses. I wouldn't be upset if every player had one-year deals either, but I wouldn't mind keeping multi-year deals either.

Each position could be set so that performances look at specific attributes of the position.

Quote:

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?" "

Mock me any way you want, but anyone that thinks this was really a good deal for the Browns are fooling themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/center/limit-25/

Mack's deal just blew them out of the water.

Quote:

Quote:

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?" "

Mock me any way you want, but anyone that thinks this was really a good deal for the Browns are fooling themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/center/limit-25/

Mack's deal just blew them out of the water.

Where does that figure in signing bonus money? does it even account for it at all? If it doesn't, then the comparison is worthless.

Ryan Khalil makes less than a bunch of guys on rookie contracts. ok bro lol

Just clicking....

Are we seriously arguing over the Browns KEEPING talent for once? The fact is we managed to keep one of the game's best centres for the next two years. We had loads of cap room and we used some of it. And, for that matter, still HAVE loads of cap room.

He's a probowler....he's worth it. Glad we finally made a commitment to KEEP talent for once rather than go for cheap, 2nd grade replacements.

Quote:

Quote:

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?" "

Mock me any way you want, but anyone that thinks this was really a good deal for the Browns are fooling themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/center/limit-25/

Mack's deal just blew them out of the water.

Why are you only looking at base salary? That site has many options but you chose to limit it to just a base salary comparison? Why and how is that meaningful in anyway? Not mocking... seriously don't understand what you are doing..

+ 1

My only argument to keeping him was that he might of not wanted to play here. I've been convinced otherwise and that he was just shopping himself, capitalizing on as much $ he can get as opposed to just wanting out of Cleveland.

He's here, I'm happy, I think Alex is happy, the Browns are happy and now we can focus our attention at the guard and right tackle spot on our journey to have a stellar, top-ranked o-line. As stated several times by several different people - we still got plenty of cap to address our other young talent and soon to be drafted rookies.

Quote:

2011: salary $2,260,000 + signing bonus $9,725,000 = $11,985,000

Without going in to contract details, Didn't Mangold make about 3 mil more than what Mack will in his first year? If so than I don't see what it matters. These Centers are making just about, if not more, than Mack will in their 1st yrs. Not sure what the uproar is?

Not included are any signing bonuses or roster bonuses for Showing up bonuses. For a guy who states "FACT" he sure does miss a lot of them.

But anyway you look at it the Fact is - Mack is the highest paid center in the NFL. You either justify it or you don't. No doubt if we were in a bind with Cap Space we would not have signed the contract. But it was a good time and place to do so. We made a statement that we will mean business regarding the LOS and signing our young players who make out. Note we did not sign Ward as we (Farmer/Pettine) decided he was not worth the FA Market type of $$$. Mack did.
jmho

serious question. Does that stuff get counted as salary or not?

Quote:

If you asked me, no player is worth $10 million.

I didn't see that he did ask you

Quote:

I think that they should all be given a base salary with large performance bonuses. I wouldn't be upset if every player had one-year deals either, but I wouldn't mind keeping multi-year deals either.

Then...there's the real world.

Listen, I get where you're coming from, but comparing what isn't possible to what is pulls things out of context and reason.

Tone from the general media (don't get me started down that road) prior to the Jags contract suggested he wasn't as good as he'd hoped he was. After word of the contract coming together started to leak out the tone shifted to something akin to Mack being an elite center.

As always...the truth is somewhere in-between.

Hell, even on these boards talk about Mack has gone from terribly under-rated to terribly over-rated and back again. Reality is that he's a very good center. Is he the best? Doubt anyone could win a debate taking that stance. Does he then deserve to be the highest paid center in the game?

Trying to correlate being the highest paid to being the best at a given position warps reality. Every year new players who don't quite stack up to others get contracts which put them at the top of the food chain...but quite often only for a year or two before some player does the same to them. Mack is one of those players.

The Browns are afforded the ability to play by different guidelines than other teams right now because of the cap-flexibility the previous regime developed. We can afford to allow someone like Mack to set the market and go with it because of the space. He wins, we win...everyone wins.

So where's the problem?

There isn't one.

I like Mack. I've both defended him and been critical of him. For a while he caught undeserved heat, then more recently has caught undeserved praise. His durability has been a huge positive. He's better in the pass-game than he is the run-game where he's never gotten much push. He's not the first really good center to not be exceedingly physical. He isn't the best in the league when isolated on a defender. So does any of that create a problem if he's going to temporarily be paid more than any Center in the game?

Not one bit.

Whatever sins Banner committed in terms of failing to build his organization didn't correlate to how he was structuring the financials and the cap. If we were the Steelers or the Cowboys and had Mack in this situation we'd be in one sticky wicket right now. But we're not. This deal doesn't tie our hands at all. It's a couple of million out of a billionaires pocket, and he's fine with it. I am too.

We have enough problems and holes on this team. It's worth an extra couple million to not have to think about spending a draft pick on an unproven center.

Quote:

It's worth an extra couple million to not have to think about spending a draft pick on an unproven center.

No they do not not in that format that was shown...What was shown was simply the Salary for those centers in those calendar years. Now Mack's contract is very unique, I think it is all or the vast majority is in straight up Salary.

There is no signing bonus. Lets say there is a signing bonus of 16 mil. I believe Khalil was close to that. It is now broken up to 4 years, so that each season you would add 4 mil to the salary and that is the CAP HIT FOR THE TEAM. Even though the player got that 16mil at the signing of the contract the team gets the hit to their cap spread out 4 years so its not one big shot. But of course if they trade him or release him they would have to "ACCOUNT" for whatever was left on their cap. But in that chart there are no bonuses accounted in those numbers...just salary. Again the way Mack contract was laid out - its all Salary even though a portion of it is Guaranteed. There is no 3 mil Salary and then you figure another 4 mil cause of the signing bonus so the cap hit is 7 mil. That site only shows the salary not the actual cap hit.

Maybe it's just me and what I've seen here and our history of signing FA's to huge contracts like this.

But I have a bad feeling about this signing. I hope I'm wrong.

jc

Sorry if it was posted, but here is a nine minute video with Alex on coming back:

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-brow...uation-1.480663

Quote:

Maybe it's just me

Well, rest easy, it is just you

Quote:

jc

Sorry if it was posted, but here is a nine minute video with Alex on coming back:

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-brow...uation-1.480663

Mack is a smart, articulate young man. Glad he's sticking around.. I get the sense that if we're winning, he'll stay.. If not and we run though another coach, kiss him good bye

Quote:

Quote:

jc

Sorry if it was posted, but here is a nine minute video with Alex on coming back:

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-brow...uation-1.480663

Mack is a smart, articulate young man. Glad he's sticking around.. I get the sense that if we're winning, he'll stay.. If not and we run though another coach, kiss him good bye

Who could blame him? Not this Bobcat.

Good lord, I thought I had broad shoulders, Mack's shoulders are like a mountain.

You didn;t ask me, but I am going to try and give a general primer as far as the NFL contract system works, at least as far as I understand it.

There are various levels of payments in NFL contracts, and a variety of ways that a player can get paid.

1 is salary. This is the money that a player is paid per year in their weekly game check. They are paid during the season, 1/17th of their salary, each week during the season. Salary costs 100% against that season's salary cap. If a player is fined their fine comes out of their game check. If they are suspended without pay, or fined a week's salary, they lose a game check. Bonuses and other monies are not counted in this regard.

2 is any bonus money. (excluding signing bonuses) These can be workout bonuses, roster bonuses, and so on. They are paid only if the player fulfills the stipulation, and these bonuses count 100% against the salary cap of the year in which the bonus is paid. They are paid when stipulated in the contract. A workout bonus would be paid when a player reports to work out ..... a roster bonus would be paid when the player makes the final roster ....a Pro Bowl bonus is paid when a player makes the Pro Bowl, and so on..

3 is a signing bonus. A signing bonus is guaranteed money, but not all guaranteed money is a signing bonus. A player is paid a signing bonus in order to give him a large financial incentive to sign his deal, but one that the team can spread over the live of the player's contract. If a player signs a 5 year deal with a $10 million bonus, then $2 million ($10 million/5 years) will count against each year of the cap until it is all accounted for, If the player does not finish out his contract, then any leftover bonus money not previously accounted for against the cap becomes due. Depending on the time of the year it can all become due against one season's cap, or can be split over 2 seasons. A team with a tight cap will often use a bonus to sign/keep a player, because using that $10 million signing bonus, they can pay a lower 1st year salary to fit the deal under their cap (1st year salary of say $1 million, plus $2 million in signing bonus allocation) while the player gets the 1st year cash ($11 million in this case) that he wants.

4 is guaranteed money. Maybe a team doesn't need to worry overmuch about the cap right away, but they want to level out the money due a player, while still maintaining future flexibility. They can do this by guaranteeing years (or partial years) of a contract. We all know that NFL contracts without guarantees are essentially worthless down the road. An NFL team can cut a player down the road without penalty if there is no guaranteed money involved. (except for any part of the signing bonus that hasn't yet been allocated) Using guarantees, a player can get the huge deal their egos desire, even if everyone in the NFL knows that they are never going to see anything past years 2-3. Using Mack as an example, we guarantee to pay him years 1 and 2, unless he quits. His salary will cost 100% against the salary cap, unless we renegotiate his deal. (which seems unlikely in this case) This means that we will pay Mack his total salary this year and next, and then wait to see whether he decides to stay in year 3, or not. If he decides to stay, then his year 3 salary also becomes guaranteed. Guaranteed money of this type counts 100% against the cap of the year in which payment is guaranteed. In some contracts teams use an "offset", which says that, in the event that the player is no longer on the team for any reason, and he signs with another team, then whatever money he receives from that other team is deducted from what the original team owes him. Brandon Weeden is an example of this. The Browns had guaranteed his entire 2014, and part of his 2015 season. They had offset language, so when he signed with the Cowboys, whatever they agreed to pay him can deducted from what we owed him. I am not 100% certain what happens if the Cowboys cut him though ... whether that guarantee for the portion of the salary they agreed to pay him slides to them, or not.

Players are also paid for post-season play. This is a set amount, and is not based on their contract. Most players make quite a bit less for post-season play than they do during the regular season. Players on the 53 man roster, and veterans on IR get paid for the post-season, even if they never play.

That's a start, anyway. (as I understand it anyway)

Quote:

Just clicking....

Are we seriously arguing over the Browns KEEPING talent for once? The fact is we managed to keep one of the game's best centres for the next two years. We had loads of cap room and we used some of it. And, for that matter, still HAVE loads of cap room.

He's a probowler....he's worth it. Glad we finally made a commitment to KEEP talent for once rather than go for cheap, 2nd grade replacements.

Like-minded, I am.

We need 1 more stud on the OL and we are set..

NRTU

One thing many people are not realizing is we are just starting the mandatory spending of Cap $$ and factoring in that the Rookies under the new CBA are not getting 60 million dollar contracts ala Jamarcus Russel.

So we are just starting to hit the period where the proven vets, especially probowlers, are going to see the average contracts for the position to rise.

Mack's agent with Jacksonville did a good job to achieve the increased salary and tried to price it to where possibly the Browns wouldn't match. They knew it was a slim chance but they had nothing to lose.

In a few years with the increase in Cap every year and with the mandatory spending of cap dollars Mack's contract is going to be in line. All of the other top paid centers were signed a few years ago. The next good center (Pouncey??) hitting Free Agency will be using Macks contract as a starting spot in his negotiations.

Quote:

Some people simply don't get it as of yet. Four years ago people were complaining about signing rookies to huge contracts and wanted to see proven players make the money. Now we are at the point that proven players are starting to cash in on the big money and people still complain.

There is a salary cap and teams have to on average spend 89% of that allotment. The rookies aren't getting the money anymore, so it has to be spent somewhere.

That's a very simple and accurate way to describe it. Rookie contracts went down and veteran contracts, especially those in their prime will go up. It's not rocket science but some people simply haven't wrapped their minds around the concept yet.

Quote:

Quote:

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?" "

Mock me any way you want, but anyone that thinks this was really a good deal for the Browns are fooling themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/center/limit-25/

Mack's deal just blew them out of the water.

I am not mocking you. I just think you don't understand the new pay structure. You, or to be exact, the article is comparing dollars, but Mack might be the first center to cash in off a rookie contract at the position under the new rules..

Give it a few years and he will be right in line with all the top centers with veteran experience.

I suppose a team could just decide they are going with a center on a rookie contract and let him loose after 3-4 years.....and it could come to that. These are uncharted waters, but as of today or the next year, I don't see any real problem. We have a solid center who can help us win games.

Do you want to win more games or do you want to count other peoples beans?

I find it amusing that so many on here are not liking how this played out, whereas listening to multiple shows on nfl radio the talking heads say we are the blueprint on how to use the transition tag and how more teams will be doing this in the future.

I like the deal and am happy to keep Alex.

tbh this contract will probably cost the Steeler's Pouncey after next year. So not only do we get an all-pro center, we'll make the Steelers lose theirs or make an even bigger pay day for theirs.

j/c:

I like the deal. Contracts go up. That is a fact. Comparing his to others is short-sighted.

I say keep the good players and let others walk.

I am very happy that we decided to keep Mack and let Ward walk. The new FO just gained more trust from me.

j/c

The nfl is probably headed towards what nascar is now dealing with: too expensive.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?" "

Mock me any way you want, but anyone that thinks this was really a good deal for the Browns are fooling themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/center/limit-25/

Mack's deal just blew them out of the water.

Why are you only looking at base salary? That site has many options but you chose to limit it to just a base salary comparison? Why and how is that meaningful in anyway? Not mocking... seriously don't understand what you are doing..

Use whatever metric you want. I just listed salaries by position (in this instance, center).

But, let's say that you take the total numbers of the contracts, he still is higher than them all this year. Is he worth it?

Look at the cap hit metric then.

Maybe you want to look at the guaranteed money owed.

Want to look at the average salary metric? He still comes out on top.

He doesn't come out on top with the length of the contract (which we all know won't be the full 5 years) because it's only guaranteed in the first 3 years (with his option to void at any point after the 2015 season). No trade and no tag clauses. So, the team is on the hook for $18 million for two seasons, minimum and possibly on the hook for the full amount whether his level of play trails off or not. The team cannot void the contract at all and he can void it anytime after year 2.

By no means do I consider myself a cap or contract guru. So, I'm asking... when you say the team can't void the contract you are not saying that he can't be released, are you? Also, if he were to opt-in and play here in year 3 of the contract after that season isn't the cost on our cap negligible?

Quote:

j/c

The nfl is probably headed towards what nascar is now dealing with: too expensive.

I don't think so Arch.

The NFL will reach it's point, but it's price elasticity is far greater than NASCAR.

NASCAR is nearing or at the point of diminished returns.

A big part is you only have 1-2 races a year at a track. You don't get the true diehards buying season tickets and club seats.

I think that he can only void the contract after 2 years. If he doesn't then the rest of the contract is enforced (from what I understand, not having actually seen the contract).

Then if he doesn't void the contract, he is guaranteed $8 million in year 3 but no guarantee in year 4 or 5. Again from what I have read, not seeing the actual contract.

So I do not believe as you said that he can void the contract any time after year 3. And I do believe that the team can cut him and void the contract without paying him a dime after year 3 should his level of play trail off.

Quote:

So, the team is on the hook for $18 million for two seasons, minimum and possibly on the hook for the full amount whether his level of play trails off or not. The team cannot void the contract at all and he can void it anytime after year 2.

Again, no idea where you get your information.

link 1 link 2
Mack has a player option for 2016, which he has to decide before April 5, 2016 when the $8 mil becomes guaranteed. This is the only time Mack can "void" the contract.

On the Browns side, Mack's contract is guaranteed in 2016 for injury only. So if Macks play drops off he can be cut and won't have anything coming to him. He could also be cut before 2017 or 2018 with no dead money.

Quote:

Quote:

j/c

The nfl is probably headed towards what nascar is now dealing with: too expensive.

I don't think so Arch.

The NFL will reach it's point, but it's price elasticity is far greater than NASCAR.

NASCAR is nearing or at the point of diminished returns.

A big part is you only have 1-2 races a year at a track. You don't get the true diehards buying season tickets and club seats.

Nascar has reached the point of diminishing returns. MIS has torn down grandstands, Bristol used to be the hardest ticket in motorsports - now, walk up on race day - buy a ticket, or 20.

I will give you that "die hards" in nascar can still only reasonably attend a few tracks per year.

But, I am seeing empty seats at all nascar tracks..........and I'm seeing empty seats at most nfl stadiums. I do think the nfl is pricing itself out of attendance. Attendance. At this point - let's talk cleveland - tickets still get sold - but people don't show up. That's probably true for each nfl team.

Players salaries are skyrocketing, concessions increase constantly, .......and many people are saying "hell, I can watch the game at home, not drive 50 miles, or 500 miles, not pay for parking, I can get a 12 pack for what a single beer costs at the stadium, I don't have to deal with traffic, or drunken fans, my bathroom is open and available and within 15 feet of me......" etc etc.

I love going to games, just as I loved going to races - but it's not about me - it's about the cost value. Nascar lost it - and I think the nfl is headed that way, soon. In their pursuit of getting bigger and bigger - they forgot what got them to this point - the paying fan.

Maybe they can make it all up in t.v. revenue, I don't know - but stadiums are getting emptier and emptier - teams are hitting cities for more money for new stadiiums - etc.

Most of the NFL's revenue is via TV/Radio so them not having fans in attendance won't really hurt them that badly or as drastically as NASCAR. You also have to look at demographics. Nascar is performing badly because it's not breaking down into any new markets, while the NFL is trying to explore a lot of them.

Quote:

Most of the NFL's revenue is via TV/Radio so them not having fans in attendance won't really hurt them that badly or as drastically as NASCAR. You also have to look at demographics. Nascar is performing badly because it's not breaking down into any new markets, while the NFL is trying to explore a lot of them.

Most of nascars money comes from media, and sponsors. The butts in the seat really only helped the track owner.

Do you remember CART?

Do you remember IRL?

CART is gone - no one showed up to watch the races. Sponsorship money disappeared, and so did the media money. IRL thought they won, and they decided to bring in the CART fans by having more road races/street races. Have races in Japan, Mexiceo, Grow the brand, right?

IRL is in dire straights now as well. Nascar is headed down the same path.

Money. Too much for not enough. I see the nfl headed down the same path - pricing themselves out of existence. Might take 10 years, but it will probably happen. They do have a plus in that there are only 32 teams - 16 games a year. But, we hear talk about bad teams, and even some established teams, threatening to move if they don't get this, or that, etc.

Problem is, where do they move to? Everyone says "L.A." Huge market.

Huge market that doesn't care anymore than Jacksonville.

Ah, I hope I'm wrong. I love the Browns. But I just can't afford to go to 3 games a year anymore. I'll catch them on t.v. - until it becomes a pay per view thing (and it will, IMO)

Thought this would go here ......

Browns' moves -- hiring Farmer, handling Mack -- good for change - CBSSports.com
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/pat-...good-for-change

The Browns have taken their fair share of criticism, but 2014 has been very positive, and three factors have played a major role in the uptick.

1. Hiring Ray Farmer: Installing Farmer as GM and vice president of player personnel puts a solid football man at the top, and his actions speak volumes about the direction of this team. Farmer has put good football people like Bill Kuharich around him and decisions this offseason will translate to better results in the fall.

2. Using the transition tag on Alex Mack: The decision to use a transition tag instead of a franchise tag was a very good move. The transition tag is seldom used, though more teams should consider it for the reasons Farmer used it.

The Browns let the market set Mack's value and let another club negotiate for them. When the NFL eliminated "poison pills" from transition tags it made it much tougher for agents and competing clubs to write a contract the home team couldn't match.

For the Browns, Mack was not signable to a long-term deal and while the franchise tag would have prevented him from leaving Cleveland for this season, using that tag for a second year wasn't realistic. It would have cost the Browns more than $12 million to franchise tag him in 2015, or $4 million more than the contract they now have in place for Mack, thanks to the Jacksonville Jaguars.

The Browns likely will need the franchise or transition tag next year on cornerback Joe Haden or even nose tackle Phil Taylor (if Haden's deal is done in time). Also, if the Browns were repeatedly tagging Mack they would be stuck when emerging star WR Josh Gordon needs a new deal before his rookie deal expires after 2015. They most certainly will want a tag available for him.

Farmer looked at top players coming up for extensions and knew getting Mack signed was critical, so he used the Jaguars to get it done.

When teams like the Raiders let quality young players go in free agency we heard the player "doesn't want to be here." The Browns heard the same about Mack but employed the transition tag instead letting him go. Now they have Mack, who turns 29 in November, under contract for two seasons. And I believe Mack will think long and hard about voiding his contract heading into the 2016 season as a 31-year-old center with $8 million guaranteed on the table.

3. Not engaging in QB pro day chase: The Browns need a quarterback, but their predraft process is not driven by chasing young candidates around at their pro day workouts. The Browns aren't buying the dog-and-pony shows run by agents and QB gurus. Farmer and his evaluators are working out candidates on their own terms, giving them a better where to take the guy they want with two first-round picks and the ability to wait until a later round on a QB.

Let me just say I am just as high on the Farmer promotion as I was BEFORE they did it, and once they announced it, BUT he still has a long way to go to prove himself.

Quote:

By no means do I consider myself a cap or contract guru. So, I'm asking... when you say the team can't void the contract you are not saying that he can't be released, are you? Also, if he were to opt-in and play here in year 3 of the contract after that season isn't the cost on our cap negligible?

Yes, only Mack can void the contract after year 2. He has that option, the team doesn't.

As I understand it, the contract is fully guaranteed for the first three years. That is, if he opts to stay. The thing about that third year is that he has to has to execute the option by April 5th, 2016. I'm not clear if that's when free agency starts in 2016 or not but it would seem that it is well into free agency which started March 11 this year. If he doesn't execute the option, he will automatically stay with the Browns. He maintains the option to void the remaining contract years in the final two years of the contract as well.

So, he will get to decide (not the team) whether he stays here 2 years or up to 5 years. The Browns are only assured that he is here for two - and they pay him very well to do it.

The final years, he will have salaries of $8 million each season. Hardly negligible because he is the one with the option, not the team. I don't think that the dates for the league year have been set for 2017 or 2018 yet so they don't know yet the dates by which he must execute the options.

Quote:

I think that he can only void the contract after 2 years. If he doesn't then the rest of the contract is enforced (from what I understand, not having actually seen the contract).

Not having seen the contract either, but from the information gleaned, he has the option from the year 2016 through 2018. If he executes it in 2016, then 2017 and 2018 don't matter. If he doesn't and then plays for the Browns in year 3, he can then execute the option in year 4 (in 2017) and void the final two years. He can do so in 2018 if he hasn't done so in 2016 or 2017 and void the final year. If he executes the option in any of the years 2016 through 2018, he becomes a free agent when the free agency period starts or whenever he executes the option (up to April 5 in 2016 - which would seem to be well into free agency).

Quote:

Then if he doesn't void the contract, he is guaranteed $8 million in year 3 but no guarantee in year 4 or 5. Again from what I have read, not seeing the actual contract.

He's not guaranteed anything in year's 4 and 5 because he may execute the option in year 3. If he doesn't execute the option and plays for the Browns, he will get paid $42 million by the club over that 5 year span (averaging $8.4 million over that span) if he doesn't execute the option.

Quote:

So I do not believe as you said that he can void the contract any time after year 3. And I do believe that the team can cut him and void the contract without paying him a dime after year 3 should his level of play trail off.

Okay, well, I hope your right. I don't think that you are but that's not how I understand the contract to be structured.

Quote:

Quote:

So, the team is on the hook for $18 million for two seasons, minimum and possibly on the hook for the full amount whether his level of play trails off or not. The team cannot void the contract at all and he can void it anytime after year 2.

Again, no idea where you get your information.

link 1 link 2
Mack has a player option for 2016, which he has to decide before April 5, 2016 when the $8 mil becomes guaranteed. This is the only time Mack can "void" the contract.

On the Browns side, Mack's contract is guaranteed in 2016 for injury only. So if Macks play drops off he can be cut and won't have anything coming to him. He could also be cut before 2017 or 2018 with no dead money.

Okay. I must have misunderstood the contract details. (I'm not good at them.

) So, he decides to execute the option in 2016, then he earns $8 million. He gets paid for that 2016 season only if he plays or if he gets injured (presumably only if it's an NFL injury suffered on the field). If his play falls off and the team cuts him after 2016, he gets nothing more.

So then, he gets $18 million fully guaranteed and $8 million more guaranteed for 2016 if he plays or gets hurt playing (or otherwise in conjunction with team-related activities). In 2017, the team can cut him without paying him anything more?

Okay, that's better, but still a bad deal.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?" "

Mock me any way you want, but anyone that thinks this was really a good deal for the Browns are fooling themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/center/limit-25/

Mack's deal just blew them out of the water.

Why are you only looking at base salary? That site has many options but you chose to limit it to just a base salary comparison? Why and how is that meaningful in anyway? Not mocking... seriously don't understand what you are doing..

Use whatever metric you want. I just listed salaries by position (in this instance, center).

But, let's say that you take the total numbers of the contracts, he still is higher than them all this year. Is he worth it?

Look at the cap hit metric then.

Maybe you want to look at the guaranteed money owed.

Want to look at the average salary metric? He still comes out on top.

He doesn't come out on top with the length of the contract (which we all know won't be the full 5 years) because it's only guaranteed in the first 3 years (with his option to void at any point after the 2015 season). No trade and no tag clauses. So, the team is on the hook for $18 million for two seasons, minimum and possibly on the hook for the full amount whether his level of play trails off or not. The team cannot void the contract at all and he can void it anytime after year 2.

All I'll say is that you are trying way too hard at not liking this deal.

Quote:

All I'll say is that you are trying way too hard at not liking this deal.

It appears that I'm wrong about some of the terms of the deal, but I still think that the deal is a bad one.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I was mocking Anarchy for saying that, you misinterpreted the context of what I wrote. To be fair it wasn't very clear, but it sounded good in my head.

What it should have said was "But Anarchy saying that his deal is 40% more than any other center?" "

Mock me any way you want, but anyone that thinks this was really a good deal for the Browns are fooling themselves.

http://www.spotrac.com/rankings/nfl/center/limit-25/

Mack's deal just blew them out of the water.

Why are you only looking at base salary? That site has many options but you chose to limit it to just a base salary comparison? Why and how is that meaningful in anyway? Not mocking... seriously don't understand what you are doing..

Use whatever metric you want. I just listed salaries by position (in this instance, center).

But, let's say that you take the total numbers of the contracts, he still is higher than them all this year. Is he worth it?

Look at the cap hit metric then.

Maybe you want to look at the guaranteed money owed.

Want to look at the average salary metric? He still comes out on top.

He doesn't come out on top with the length of the contract (which we all know won't be the full 5 years) because it's only guaranteed in the first 3 years (with his option to void at any point after the 2015 season). No trade and no tag clauses. So, the team is on the hook for $18 million for two seasons, minimum and possibly on the hook for the full amount whether his level of play trails off or not. The team cannot void the contract at all and he can void it anytime after year 2.

All I'll say is that you are trying way too hard at not liking this deal.

no kidding... I wish all of our contracts looked like this with team options. Time to get the other players locked up.

If a player signs a 5 year deal with a $10 million bonus, then $2 million ($10 million/5 years) will count against each year of the cap until it is all accounted for,

Correct me if I'm wrong - I thought the new CBA had the Cap Spread of the signing bonus cut down to 4 years not 5.

That is why in an article describing Klahil's contract the signing bonus was just shy of 16mil and they wrote that 3.86 (something like that) would be added to his salary to show the cap hit.

Use to be 5. Pretty sure on this but not 100% sure

Quote:

Let me just say I am just as high on the Farmer promotion as I was BEFORE they did it, and once they announced it, BUT he still has a long way to go to prove himself.

I like Farmer thus far. I think he has made some good moves. I liked that he replaced Ward w/Whitner. I think Dansby is a bit of an upgrade over DQ. I like that he really wanted Mack and wisely let Ward walk.

I am iffy about the Tate and Hawkins' moves.

I do like the Burleson signing.

Keeping Mack is huge.

I do not like that he didn't secure a guard or two in free agency. There were three decent guys available who would have been good in our zone blocking scheme.

I guess how he handles this upcoming draft, and especially the QB situation, will go a long way in telling us what we have in Farmer. Hopefully, this Farmer will have a bountiful harvest.

I think he's done a good job of getting guys we know were upgrades.

I can't look at any of the guys he brought in and say they aren't upgrades over what we have??

- Hawkins - Bess
- Whitner - Ward (maybe a wash, maybe)
- Dansby - Jackson
- Tate - Baker??
- That Fullback - no one
- McQuinstan - Pinkston?

and some special teams guys.

At the risk of sounding like Braylon Edwards (his 'they don't like me cuz I went to Michigan comment lol)...

The only reason Whitner is considered an upgrade over Ward by our fans is because he played at Ohio State.

Whitner is a downgrade. Not a HUGE downgrade, but a noticeable downgrade, IMO.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong - I thought the new CBA had the Cap Spread of the signing bonus cut down to 4 years not 5.

Still 5 years as far as I know.

Kalil restructured base salary into signing bonus so maybe that's what you're thinking of.

Do not agree at all, but I think we've been down this road a few times. Wards coverage skills are below league average. Whitner is an upgrade, but we'll agree to disagree.

Not a huge upgrade but one none the less.

We'll have to talk about Whitner after we see him play a bit.. but at first glance, worst case, it's a wash. I don't see it as downgrading.. And I liked Ward and wanted us to keep him.

Pretty much every expert I've read about our offseason seems to agree, swapping Ward for Whitner improved us in the passing game but might have cost us a little in the run game...

Quote:

Pretty much every expert I've read about our offseason seems to agree, swapping Ward for Whitner improved us in the passing game but might have cost us a little in the run game...

However the swap of Dansby for Jackson may have improved our run defense.

With our beefy front seven, I'll take it... I'll sacrifice putting more pressure on the front seven to handle the run to help the backend be more stable against the pass. It's no secret, the pass game is what our defense allowed offenses to attack us with. Keep in mind, Dansby will help stuff the run game.

I liked TJ too, wish him all the best - but we're better off with Hitner. Still have an extremely physical safety and he'll be able to cover and help the cornerbacks and linebackers in coverage. Maybe with the coverage holding up in the backend - our front seven will be able to blitzkrieg QB's and we can have sick sack numbers...

jmo

I agree. Wish we could have put Dansby beside Jackson but alas, that was not financially viable.

Quote:

I agree. Wish we could have put Dansby beside Jackson but alas, that was not financially viable.

I wonder if they didn't try to do just that by reworking DQ's deal? Maybe that's why things went south so quickly.. Dunno

Seems I recall that being the case, and the two sides couldn't agree on the adjustment.

Either way it doesn't matter.

Quote:

If a player signs a 5 year deal with a $10 million bonus, then $2 million ($10 million/5 years) will count against each year of the cap until it is all accounted for,

Correct me if I'm wrong - I thought the new CBA had the Cap Spread of the signing bonus cut down to 4 years not 5.

That is why in an article describing Klahil's contract the signing bonus was just shy of 16mil and they wrote that 3.86 (something like that) would be added to his salary to show the cap hit.

Use to be 5. Pretty sure on this but not 100% sure

I believe you are right.

It figures that I got hung up on the simplest detail. lol

So what was your wonderlic score

Quote:

So what was your wonderlic score

Evidently, a 2.

Quote:

Quote:

So what was your wonderlic score

Evidently, a 2.

Well, there's an upside, then... the Titans might take you first overall to be their QB (Vince Young joke)

Actually he got a big fat 0 because he missed spelled his name. He wrote RTownBrownsFan.

Lessons learned from the Alex Mack offer sheet

Posted by Mike Florio on April 16, 2014, 9:42 AM EDT
Cincinnati Bengals v Cleveland Browns
Getty Images
In extending an offer sheet to center Alex Mack, the Jaguars apparently relied on Mack’s supposedly intense desire to leave Cleveland — and the Browns potential willingness to let him walk because of it.

Now that the offer has been matched, Mack says he never wanted to leave. Even if he created a very strong impression to others that he did.

Ultimately, Mack didn’t really want to leave. Or getting $18 million guaranteed changed his mind. Or the Browns didn’t care one way or the other.

The offer signed by Mack and matched in Cleveland pays out $18 million fully guaranteed over two years and, if not voided by the player, another $8 million fully guaranteed in year three. League insiders have now digested the terms, and it has sparked a few ideas about how a team could use a device like this in the future in a way that would deter a match.

The most obvious reaction was that the offer didn’t force the Browns to pay enough money. The Browns are guaranteed to have Mack for two years at $18 million, or for three at $26 million. Absent a long-term deal, Mack would have made $10 million in 2014 under the transition tag. If tagged again in 2015 (transition or franchise), Mack would have made $22 million over two years. If not tagged, he would have hit the open market next year.

It’s unclear what it would have taken to get the Browns to pass, but in hindsight the offer sheet made it a lot cheaper for the Browns to keep Mack for the next two years. And if Mack is telling the truth about wanting to stay in Cleveland, he won’t void the deal after two years — and they’ll keep him for three years at only $4 million more than it would have cost to keep him for two years under the tag.

The pay-as-you-go nature of the offer, which has become more prevalent as teams pay more attention to the minimum cash spending requirements of the 2011 CBA, also made it more likely that the Browns would match the offer. By using structure with much of the total compensation over the first two or three years shifted to a signing bonus payable in full within a day or two after the contract becomes official, a team with offseason cash-flow issues and/or concerns about satisfying the minimum spending requirements in future years could be less likely to match.

The best approach, despite the potential for hard feelings among teams and not-so-subtle disapproval from the league at large, would have been to park a huge roster bonus in Year Two, and for Mack to make it clear to the Browns that he would not restructure the deal to give the team cap relief come 2015. Implicit in the situation would have been a willingness by Mack to convert the roster bonus to a cap-friendly signing bonus next year.

Ultimately, the Jaguars chose a path less likely to ruffle feathers, hopeful that Mack truly wanted out of Cleveland and that the Browns would factor that desire into their assessment of the situation. If/when a similar situation arises in the future, the team that tries to lure the player away should be less willing to bank on non-financial considerations and more inclined to craft an offer that the player’s current team can’t not refuse.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/16/lessons-learned-from-the-mack-offer-sheet/

Quote:

And if Mack is telling the truth about wanting to stay in Cleveland, he won’t void the deal after two years

not necessarily true at all. in 2 years, he might still be considered a top center in the NFL and the rising cap (or the view of that position or both) may make the top center pricetag a lot higher than $8mil/year. So, he may opt-out to sign a bigger deal (whether or not he wants to stay). Not to mention that he'd be able to get more guaranteed money with a new deal.

The league has disallowed poison pills. Now with talk about how to get around this type of tag the league needs to step in and tell teams they can't offer up a contract they can't live with...the team who signs the player can't renegotiate the contract the following year in some wink wink deal.

If you are going to try to stick a team with a large roster bonus the following year, then you will have to live with those terms as well.

People talk about owner collusion...I'd say such a deal as described in the article would meet that standard between player and team. There is nothing fair about that.

Good article.

With all of the noise of Mack wanting out of Cleveland, I really expected a roster bonus that would have made life difficult for the Browns. However, if Mack were to go to Jax, and has a horrible time in his 1st year, (in this example) then there's nothing that prevents him from using that same tactic to force his way out of there the same way. Let' face it, Jacksonville isn't a grand and glorious destination for football players lately. Maybe a player could use that tactic only to take advantage of 2 bad team, and to get into complete free agency the following year no matter what team he signs with.

This type of deal requires a lot of trust between team and players/agent ...... and I don't know that this much trust exists anywhere.

A wink wink deal would rarely happen because who is going to walk away from 3-5 million in guaranteed money? No NFL GM will risk their job on one of those if the player doesn't fulfill his side of the bargain.

I do like what Gus Bradley did last year. When Haslam/Banner said that other teams around the league were getting better as the season went on, while we got worse in regards to the Chud firing. In my mind they were pointing directly to what Jacksonville was doing.

Despite their record, they were getting better each week. I think Gus Bradley is going to be a good coach. I was not surprised to see that Mack was impressed with him.

Quote:

I do like what Gus Bradley did last year. When Haslam/Banner said that other teams around the league were getting better as the season went on, while we got worse in regards to the Chud firing. In my mind they were pointing directly to what Jacksonville was doing.

Despite their record, they were getting better each week. I think Gus Bradley is going to be a good coach. I was not surprised to see that Mack was impressed with him.

Yeah, and maybe 90 out of 100 players do exactly as they have *wink wink* agreed to do. However, let's say, for example, that Alex Mack's goal was to play for the Patriots. There is no way he was going to get free of the Browns this year, and even next year he might have a tag applied to him. It's doubtful, but who knows? To ensure that he can be a free agent, and gets to play for his preferred team, he finds team B, who is willing to play the game with him. He agrees to a deal where he'll get a $20 million roster bonus in year 2, with the understanding that he'll convert that to a signing bonus. Team 1 cannot match. Team 2 gets the player. He plays out year 1, and then decides to not convert the bonus, thus forcing his way out of this team as well, and clearing his path to playing for his preferred team. (The Patriots, in this example) Maybe his agent even, discretely, talks to someone with the Patriots, and expresses the player's interest. (just to gauge interest for the following year saying "what if .....?) I know that would be against some rules .... probably .... but done quietly .......

I am sure that players who are free agents don't just decide on day 1 of free agency where they are going to play, I am sure that all kinds of hushed deals take place, and the NFL as a whole just looks the other way, because they all do it.

Quote:

Quote:

And if Mack is telling the truth about wanting to stay in Cleveland, he won’t void the deal after two years

not necessarily true at all. in 2 years, he might still be considered a top center in the NFL and the rising cap (or the view of that position or both) may make the top center pricetag a lot higher than $8mil/year. So, he may opt-out to sign a bigger deal (whether or not he wants to stay). Not to mention that he'd be able to get more guaranteed money with a new deal.

I'd say it's almost guaranteed that he opts out. Now, that may be so that he can sign a new deal with Cleveland. I think it's best to look at Mack's deal a two separate contracts: a two-year fully guaranteed $18 million deal, followed by a three-year $34 million deal with $8 million guaranteed. If he thinks that, two years from now, anyone will give him a deal that's better (read: more guaranteed money) then opting out is a no-brainer. Barring injury, I think it's almost a given that he'll be able to command more than $8 million guaranteed.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And if Mack is telling the truth about wanting to stay in Cleveland, he won’t void the deal after two years

not necessarily true at all. in 2 years, he might still be considered a top center in the NFL and the rising cap (or the view of that position or both) may make the top center pricetag a lot higher than $8mil/year. So, he may opt-out to sign a bigger deal (whether or not he wants to stay). Not to mention that he'd be able to get more guaranteed money with a new deal.

I'd say it's almost guaranteed that he opts out. Now, that may be so that he can sign a new deal with Cleveland. I think it's best to look at Mack's deal a two separate contracts: a two-year fully guaranteed $18 million deal, followed by a three-year $34 million deal with $8 million guaranteed. If he thinks that, two years from now, anyone will give him a deal that's better (read: more guaranteed money) then opting out is a no-brainer. Barring injury, I think it's almost a given that he'll be able to command more than $8 million guaranteed.

Sorry guys, I think you are both way off on this...

After two years, he will get $8M guaranteed with his option year...He may get more money on a new contract, but the guaranteed money is not there...In years 4 and 5, if the team keeps him, that is also $8M guaranteed for that year...

Now even though current contracts are at $8M per year and lower (making Mack the highest paid center currently) guaranteed money is not even in the same ball park as Mack...

Currently Kalil will make over $10M in 2016 if they keep him, his contract gets worse as they go..guarantees after 2015 fall to $2.58M in the form of bonus money.

Mack on the other hand has $8M guaranteed in year 3, which works for him and the team, IF the team chooses to pay him in 2017 he is guaranteed $8M again same in 2018...

This contract is Mack friendly in year 3 and team friendly in years 4 and 5, Also friendly to Mack because if the Browns decide to decline years 4 and 5, he automatically becomes a free agent to sign another contract (with guaranteed bonus this time) at the age of 31.

If something happens to Mack in the interim, the Browns owe ZERO after year 3.

All other centers currently signed are owed future money beyond their 3rd year, but it is all below $3M

Eh, I say that we worry about what will happen in two years - in two years, lol....but, if we're going to speculate, I'd guess that a LARGE part of what will decide whether or not he opts out is how this franchise is doing and what the people at the top show themselves to be.

If we're still firing everything under the sun every season and switching schemes and reversing directions and low-balling the snot out of players and are generally the definition of dysfunctional..... he's gone. Period.

If, however, we have gained some stability and have moved toward being on the upswing as a franchise, take care of our own and perhaps are even winning as many or more than we're losing.... then I think that it won't be very hard at all to convince him to stick around for the rest of the contract; maybe even accept a new longer term deal.

Beyond the money, we have to become a company that guys WANT to work for.... and that takes good people at the top, stability, and winning.

Where are you getting that years 4 and/or 5 of Mack's contract would be guaranteed? My understanding is that year 1 & 2 is guaranteed. Option year 3 is guaranteed if he chooses to stay. He only gets to opt out once so if he decides to stay he's on the hook for years 4 and 5. NEITHER of those years are guaranteed so the browns could cut Mack after year 3 with no additional money to pay.

JC

This offer sheet formula that just happened with Mack goes a lot smoother when you have more cap space than any other team.

In the future, teams looking to emulate what the Browns did with the transition tag & Mack (which was well thought out) will have to take that factor into consideration, obviously.

I think this is why so little teams showed interest in Mack....no way where they going to hand out a offer sheet so blatantly overpriced that the Browns would pass on and they'd have to consume, plus anything reasonable would be doing the Browns' work for them because they could match almost anything "fair market" value.

If Mack was a FA in 2015, the outcome of this ordeal may have been different.

Quote:

Where are you getting that years 4 and/or 5 of Mack's contract would be guaranteed? My understanding is that year 1 & 2 is guaranteed. Option year 3 is guaranteed if he chooses to stay. He only gets to opt out once so if he decides to stay he's on the hook for years 4 and 5. NEITHER of those years are guaranteed so the browns could cut Mack after year 3 with no additional money to pay.

What I said was if the Browns choose to keep him in years 4 and 5, that money is guaranteed. It isn't in the form of bonuses. As soon as he is on the roster for the beginning of the year, that money becomes guaranteed for that year.

Ok, now I'm more confused. Why are those 2 posters "way off"? I think they are pretty much on the mark. Not sure why Mack having his 4th/5th year salaries guaranteed IF the Browns decide to keep him for each of those years matters.

Quote:

Quote:

Where are you getting that years 4 and/or 5 of Mack's contract would be guaranteed? My understanding is that year 1 & 2 is guaranteed. Option year 3 is guaranteed if he chooses to stay. He only gets to opt out once so if he decides to stay he's on the hook for years 4 and 5. NEITHER of those years are guaranteed so the browns could cut Mack after year 3 with no additional money to pay.

What I said was if the Browns choose to keep him in years 4 and 5, that money is guaranteed. It isn't in the form of bonuses. As soon as he is on the roster for the beginning of the year, that money becomes guaranteed for that year.

Link, please

My understanding is that years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed.. Just 1 and 2 and if he chooses to stay, then 3 is guaranteed.

Quote:

My understanding is that years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed.. Just 1 and 2 and if he chooses to stay, then 3 is guaranteed.

No no, I obviously made this confusing...The $8M is guaranteed money if the Browns keep him in years 4 and/or 5...The $8M is not made up of bonuses that he needs to earn.

It is in the form of salary if he is on the roster day one.

Quote:

Quote:

My understanding is that years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed.. Just 1 and 2 and if he chooses to stay, then 3 is guaranteed.

No no, I obviously made this confusing...The $8M is guaranteed money if the Browns keep him in years 4 and/or 5...The $8M is not made up of bonuses that he needs to earn.

It is in the form of salary if he is on the roster day one.

To take it further, I simply don't think it is a given that at the age of 31 it is a given that more than $8M guaranteed would be available in a new contract.

in response the last 8-10 posts

1. if we change coaches again I'm pretty sure he'll be gone...safe to say.

2. This year many things lined up well for him. There were many teams with big time cap room. Now the NFL has mandatory % of the cap that has to be used and I think its on a average thing so that some teams will have to over spend what they want.

my point is very key will be the overall cap room of the league in 2016...things might be tight so that if Mack does opt out...no way he gets 8 mil for Center. I remember for about 3-4 years OGs were getting mega contracts then a few were misses and it did not turn out to be sound investments and poof a lot less money and the good OGs are signing with their teams.

Just like us...other teams will be fighting the cap probably in 3-4 years. We will be asking Alex to re-negotiate probably. Along with others we paid well while we had the money.

Alex is good, Center is important to the OL - but Skill set Physically to be a good Center is not RARE. Many teams will draft mid round centers and after a couple of years some smart and efficient ones will rise to the top. Right now its a very good and important move for us, on many levels. 3-4 years from now it might not be that good. Time will tell.

jmho

Quote:

Quote:

My understanding is that years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed.. Just 1 and 2 and if he chooses to stay, then 3 is guaranteed.

No no, I obviously made this confusing...The $8M is guaranteed money if the Browns keep him in years 4 and/or 5...The $8M is not made up of bonuses that he needs to earn.

It is in the form of salary if he is on the roster day one.

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

Furthermore, his year 3 salary is not guaranteed until April 5th (or maybe 6th), which is also the date that he must decide if he's going to stay with the team or opt out and become a free agent. He can be cut prior to that date without any further payment obligation by the Browns.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My understanding is that years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed.. Just 1 and 2 and if he chooses to stay, then 3 is guaranteed.

No no, I obviously made this confusing...The $8M is guaranteed money if the Browns keep him in years 4 and/or 5...The $8M is not made up of bonuses that he needs to earn.

It is in the form of salary if he is on the roster day one.

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

Furthermore, his year 3 salary is not guaranteed until April 5th (or maybe 6th), which is also the date that he must decide if he's going to stay with the team or opt out and become a free agent. He can be cut prior to that date without any further payment obligation by the Browns.

Correct...I am not arguing that at all..

What I am saying is if the Browns want to keep Mack in years 4 or 5, they will have to pay him $8M guaranteed in those years, or he is immediately a free agent on day one of that league year.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My understanding is that years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed.. Just 1 and 2 and if he chooses to stay, then 3 is guaranteed.

No no, I obviously made this confusing...The $8M is guaranteed money if the Browns keep him in years 4 and/or 5...The $8M is not made up of bonuses that he needs to earn.

It is in the form of salary if he is on the roster day one.

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

Furthermore, his year 3 salary is not guaranteed until April 5th (or maybe 6th), which is also the date that he must decide if he's going to stay with the team or opt out and become a free agent. He can be cut prior to that date without any further payment obligation by the Browns.

Correct...I am not arguing that at all..

What I am saying is if the Browns want to keep Mack in years 4 or 5, they will have to pay him $8M guaranteed in those years, or he is immediately a free agent on day one of that league year.

I don't think the entire year is guaranteed. They could cut him after week 1 and would only owe him his game checks up to that point.

I could be wrong but I think that is how the contracts run in the NFL.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My understanding is that years 4 and 5 are not guaranteed.. Just 1 and 2 and if he chooses to stay, then 3 is guaranteed.

No no, I obviously made this confusing...The $8M is guaranteed money if the Browns keep him in years 4 and/or 5...The $8M is not made up of bonuses that he needs to earn.

It is in the form of salary if he is on the roster day one.

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

Furthermore, his year 3 salary is not guaranteed until April 5th (or maybe 6th), which is also the date that he must decide if he's going to stay with the team or opt out and become a free agent. He can be cut prior to that date without any further payment obligation by the Browns.

Correct...I am not arguing that at all..

What I am saying is if the Browns want to keep Mack in years 4 or 5, they will have to pay him $8M guaranteed in those years, or he is immediately a free agent on day one of that league year.

And what I'm saying is that you are wrong.

Isn't there a provision for veteran players with at least 4 years of service in the NFL that their full salary becomes fully guaranteed for the year the day of their first league game (or some date around then)? I think that is what Irsh was referring to.

Sort of. If a 4+ year vet player is on a team's roster for the first game of the season and is later released, he can elect to draw a payment equal to that entire year's salary. It's voluntary and can only be done once in the player's career. So it's not guaranteed salary, per se, but he can get paid the same amount that he would've had he been on the roster for the whole season.

That sounds different than what the other poster said, as he said the start of the league year, not the regular season.

Quote:

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

I"m not sure of that. It could be, and I think it is, if he starts in year 4 and then they cut him, he's getting the full amount for that year 8 Million... At least I think that's what I read... Damn, now I gotta find that. $##$^%(&%$^$

Quote:

Quote:

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

I"m not sure of that. It could be, and I think it is, if he starts in year 4 and then they cut him, he's getting the full amount for that year 8 Million... At least I think that's what I read... Damn, now I gotta find that. $##$^%(&%$^$

Quote:

If a 4+ year vet player is on a team's roster for the first game of the season and is later released, he can elect to draw a payment equal to that entire year's salary. It's voluntary and can only be done once in the player's career. So it's not guaranteed salary, per se, but he can get paid the same amount that he would've had he been on the roster for the whole season.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

I"m not sure of that. It could be, and I think it is, if he starts in year 4 and then they cut him, he's getting the full amount for that year 8 Million... At least I think that's what I read... Damn, now I gotta find that. $##$^%(&%$^$

Quote:

If a 4+ year vet player is on a team's roster for the first game of the season and is later released, he can elect to draw a payment equal to that entire year's salary. It's voluntary and can only be done once in the player's career. So it's not guaranteed salary, per se, but he can get paid the same amount that he would've had he been on the roster for the whole season.

Not sure where that's from, but it sound official,, so if that's the case, I'll stand corrected..

Years 1 and 2 are guaranteed, unless Mack goes insane and winds up in prison. (or something equally stupid)

Year 3 is technically a player option worth $8 million. If Mack exercises his option to stay with the team, then that $8 million becomes guaranteed. It is also Mack's potential "out", as the timing of his out makes it impossible for the Browns to tag him again. I blieve that hsi deal also forbids such a tag anyway.

Once year 3 passes, there are no further guarantees. Mack has years 4 and 5, with specified salaries, but there are no guarantees on those salaries. If Mack goes to training camp, but is cut before the season starts, his salary is on no way guaranteed. His contract at that point would be the same as most NFL players' contracts.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

I"m not sure of that. It could be, and I think it is, if he starts in year 4 and then they cut him, he's getting the full amount for that year 8 Million... At least I think that's what I read... Damn, now I gotta find that. $##$^%(&%$^$

Quote:

If a 4+ year vet player is on a team's roster for the first game of the season and is later released, he can elect to draw a payment equal to that entire year's salary. It's voluntary and can only be done once in the player's career. So it's not guaranteed salary, per se, but he can get paid the same amount that he would've had he been on the roster for the whole season.

Not sure where that's from, but it sound official,, so if that's the case, I'll stand corrected..

It's from the post I made directly prior to yours

But if you Google "NFL termination pay" you'll find plenty of info.

Quote:

Quote:

And if Mack is telling the truth about wanting to stay in Cleveland, he won’t void the deal after two years

not necessarily true at all. in 2 years, he might still be considered a top center in the NFL and the rising cap (or the view of that position or both) may make the top center pricetag a lot higher than $8mil/year. So, he may opt-out to sign a bigger deal (whether or not he wants to stay). Not to mention that he'd be able to get more guaranteed money with a new deal.

like I said before Mack was looking out for himself and his family. He made sure he could also do so in the future. Would he prefer to retire a Brown.... yes..... but he has to put his needs and his family's first and every one of us would do the same thing. I am thrilled that he is still a Cleveland Brown but I am also thrilled that he has taken care of his family and put them first. he is one smart cookie

If you take an objective look at this, both sides did what they had to do in order to get the best for their own interest.

Drama aside, Mack finds out his market value, and the Browns match the deal.

I think it is a good deal for both teams. Mack is secured for the next couple of years to figure out the Pettine tenure, and can go elsewhere is another coaching change, and the assorted chaos continues.

And I've said.. If 2 seasons from now, Mack isn't convinced we're going in the right direction..

We probably aren't..

And I won't blame him for leaving.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If the Browns were to cut Mack at any point in year 4 or 5, they would not owe him a cent beyond what they'd paid him up to that point.

I"m not sure of that. It could be, and I think it is, if he starts in year 4 and then they cut him, he's getting the full amount for that year 8 Million... At least I think that's what I read... Damn, now I gotta find that. $##$^%(&%$^$

Quote:

If a 4+ year vet player is on a team's roster for the first game of the season and is later released, he can elect to draw a payment equal to that entire year's salary. It's voluntary and can only be done once in the player's career. So it's not guaranteed salary, per se, but he can get paid the same amount that he would've had he been on the roster for the whole season.

This is absolutely correct and what I was talking about yesterday. This comes directly from the CBA. Mack will never get another contract once he turns 31 that will show $8M in salary. He only gets one opportunity to exercise this in his career. so years 4 or 5 would be the one time he uses it...Again, if the Browns have him on the roster day one.

But the money makes sense for the Browns to exercise those final 2 years if his skill set doesn't diminish and in offensive linemen show less of a drop off historically than other positions.

I will be surprised if Mack isn't here for the full 5 years. The only way he won't be is a) if his agent talks him into thinking he will get more than $24M after year 2 of this contract expires or he has an injury in any given year that diminishes his skill set dramatically.

Quote:

And I've said.. If 2 seasons from now, Mack isn't convinced we're going in the right direction..

We probably aren't..

And I won't blame him for leaving.

That's pretty much how I feel.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000...r-unique-ordeal

If Alex Mack was looking for a metaphor -- for his fresh start with the Browns, the deep freeze the franchise applied to his fleeting Floridian flirtation or both -- the Pro Bowl center was confronted with an obvious one Tuesday morning when he peeked out the bedroom window of his suburban Cleveland home and saw white where there should have been green.

The overnight springtime snowfall surprised Mack, who'd worn shorts and flip-flops to the Browns' training facility the previous afternoon, his first workday since the team matched the five-year, $42 million offer sheet he'd signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Clearly, regrettably, the transition-tag deal carried no requirement that Cleveland also match Jacksonville's weather. "Wouldn't that be nice?" joked Mack, who nonetheless put an entirely positive spin on his return to the franchise that selected him in the first round of the 2009 NFL Draft.

The only disappointment Mack expressed in the wake of his new deal was that his first foray into faux free agency played out so deliberately. A little more than a month ago, when he and I dined with veteran free-agent lineman Will Svitek at a bustling Manhattan Beach pub, Mack spoke excitedly of the impending start of the league year, which was a little more than 12 hours away. "I've never been in this position before, and it's exhilarating to contemplate how it will play out," Mack said at the time, between bites of a massive burger. "I could be on a plane tomorrow afternoon. We'll see."

As it turned out, Mack spent the day holed up in his beach pad watching old movies and fiddling around with his Xbox One, pursuits that went uninterrupted by calls from suitors. He and agent Marvin Demoff soon realized that the seldom-applied transition tag, which tendered Mack a one-year salary of $10.039 million and afforded the Browns the right to match any offer, complicated his situation, adding a strategically nuanced layer to any potential courtship.

"That night we were out, I was expecting everything to happen fast, and that it would all be over maybe five days from then," Mack said Wednesday evening. "It obviously took much longer than that. After a couple of days, it was very obvious that I was in a special category. I was more difficult to sign because (of the prospect that the Browns might match), and so I was kind of tabled for a while."

Eventually, the Jaguars took a swing, hosting Mack on a visit that both sides described in glowing terms. "Jacksonville did a really good job," Mack said. "It's a really cool city and a nice facility. The coaches were great. The players I met were really nice. The vibe was great. I thought, 'Absolutely, let's do a deal.' "

The challenge for Demoff and Jags general manager Dave Caldwell was to structure a contract that worked for both sides while sufficiently repelling the Browns, which was not an easy task. In belated response to the Vikings' infamous poaching of Seahawks guard Steve Hutchinson via a "poison pill" provision eight years ago, the transition-tag rules were amended following the 2011 lockout to eliminate such devices.
Free-Agent Tracker
Follow all the developments on the NFL's open market with our up-to-the-minute tracking of 2014's free agents. More...

The best the Jags could do was to include $26 million of fully guaranteed salary over the first three seasons while inserting a clause allowing Mack to void the deal after two years (and denying the team the possibility of retaining him via the franchise or transition tags). The Jags believed Mack wanted to play for them and hoped the Browns would not try to keep him against his will.

It didn't play out that way: The Browns, who had five days to match, exercised the option after five hours, with new Cleveland general manager Ray Farmer phoning Mack to deliver the news. Had the Browns allowed Mack to leave, Farmer would have been heavily criticized for the move, given that he could have easily avoided the predicament by franchising the center, rather than using the transition tag. By guaranteeing Mack a one-year, franchise-tag salary of $11.6 million, the Browns could have essentially taken him off the market, as any team signing him to an offer sheet that the Browns decided not to match would have had to surrender a pair of first-round draft picks.

If Mack truly wanted out of Cleveland, he did an excellent job of concealing his sentiments.

"I never wanted to burn bridges," he said. "That was really important to me, from last offseason on, when we started talking about (a possible long-term extension). Nothing about this is personal. Whatever the path of my career, I'm determined to leave positive impressions and be one of the good guys."

Throughout the Jags' courtship, Mack said he carefully weighed the two situations, furthering his reputation as an obsessive list-maker.

"When I wrote out the pros and cons on a sheet of paper -- which I do all the time, anyway -- there were a lot of positives in both columns," he said. "And I knew throughout the process that I had to be happy with either outcome."
'ATL Podcast'
The Around The League team hits all the NFL's hottest topics in its award-winning podcast. Join the conversation. Listen

Having surpassed the Carolina Panthers' Ryan Kalil as the NFL's highest-paid center, and having afforded himself a shot at unrestricted free agency in two years, Mack can't be too broken up about his fate. His Browns teammates sure aren't. Said All-Pro offensive tackle Joe Thomas: "I'm happy to have all the contract stuff behind us and excited to have big Mack back."

Everyone's certainly in a better mental place than they were three-and-a-half months ago, when, in the immediate aftermath of the Browns' season-ending defeat to the Steelers in Pittsburgh, Mack and his teammates learned of first-year coach Rob Chudzinski's impending firing on the bus ride home.

"That was a very surreal moment," Mack said. "It's an interesting game; things change all the time. People are traded, things move around. It's just part of what life is."

However, life in Cleveland -- home of the Factory of Sadness -- has been inordinately tumultuous since the Browns drafted the brainy ex-Cal star with the 21st overall selection in 2009. There have been defeats (at least 11 in each of Mack's five seasons), regime changes (Randy Lerner/Eric Mangini to Lerner/Mike Holmgren/Tom Heckert to Jimmy Haslam/Joe Banner/Mike Lombardi to Haslam/Farmer) and coaching casualties (Mike Pettine will be Mack's fourth head coach in six seasons).

Yet Mack, who has taken each of the Browns' 4,998 offensive snaps since 2009, is putting his head down and hoping for the best.

Last season, the Browns' promising start gave Mack and his teammates a glimpse of what life around town might be like if the team were to start winning consistently.

"That'd be awesome," he said. "You felt a little bit of it last year, but then we had a couple of injuries, lost some tight games and it got out of hand. If we start really getting up there, this city will go nuts.

"I'm fired up. It's exciting to think about where the Browns are going. We've got six Pro Bowlers. We can be good."

The upshot: After a month's worth of list-making limbo, Mack seems convinced that a metaphorical thaw has arrived.

"Things are warming up," he said. "No, literally, the snow has melted."

And if the Browns finally provide some heartwarming moments to the Factory of Sadness? Well, wouldn't that be nice?