Matthew Stafford's Contract Only Includes $17 Million Guaranteed
by Sean Yuille on May 19, 2009 11:45 AM EDT
in News
51 comments
As soon as news came out that Matthew Stafford agreed to a deal with the Lions, we found out that nearly $42 million of his contract was guaranteed. That figure was a record for guaranteed money, and as you can imagine, many were upset that he got such a big contract. Well, as it turns out, Stafford is only absolutely guaranteed to receive around $17 million. Chances are he will end up receiving most of the originally-reported $42 million, but there are incentives he has to achieve and an option for the 2014 season that has to be picked up by the Lions in order for that to happen. Technically, the money he could end up getting isn't actually guaranteed, but again, it is unlikely that he won't end up gettting it.
Why is there such a difference in what was originally reported compared to what we now know? Well, AdamJT13 put together a thorough breakdown of Stafford's contract that reveals just how complex an NFL contract is. Stafford's base salary over the years will change based on whether or not the Lions exercise his 2014 option and whether or not Stafford hits performance and playing time incentives. The qualifiers based on playing time don't have to be achieved in the first year. The performance-related incentives in the contract can change how much money Stafford makes, but it appears that the playing time qualifiers are more related to the $42 million figure.
This is all pretty complicated, but to put it in layman's terms, these qualifiers and the 2014 option basically protect the Lions in case Stafford turns out to be the bust of all busts. For Stafford to only receive $17 million, he would have to never meet his playing time incentives, not have his option picked up for the 2014 season, and be cut in 2013 (if I'm understanding this correctly). Busts at the quarterback position usually get a chance to play before they are actually declared a bust, which is why the guaranteed number has been reported to be $42 million. It would be surprising if Stafford didn't meet his playing time qualifiers, and I doubt the Lions will not pick up his 2014 option (they have to make a decision on the option in 2010).
Bust or not, down the road, chances are that Matthew Stafford will have received close to or all of the $42 million in his contract that is supposedly guaranteed. The thing is, it isn't really guaranteed. AdamJT13 believes that Tom Condon, Stafford's agent, wants to toot his own horn, so to speak, by leading everyone to believe there is nearly $42 million guaranteed in his client's deal. In reality, though, Stafford is only guaranteed to receive about $17 million. He probably will receive much more than that, but it is not truthful to say that Stafford is absolutely guaranteed to get $42 million out of his deal with the Lions.
0 recs |
51 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
this is sad...
ONLY 17 Million? Is it sad to think that we no longer consider that alot for these players? Especially unproven ones?
by madpoopz on May 19, 2009 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So if the Lions have to decide on the 2014 option in 2010
Then there is a good chance that we don’t see him in a game before we decide that he is a bust or not. Interesting.
This makes me hope he plays a couple games this year.
by ATL Lion on May 19, 2009 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Do we know when in 2010 they have to decide
Is it before the season or sometime during the season? I am guessing before the season but I really dont have any idea. I am positive we will see Stafford at some point during this season and if we don’t there is no way they are not going to pick up the option, IMO.
by qbdoyle1 on May 19, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would they have to make a decision in 2010?
They will have to make a decision whether or not to cut him at the end of the 2013 season…..or else pick up the option for 2014 and beyond. I didn’t see anything that makes me believe they have to make a decision in 2010 or even play him at all this season.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ATL is right...
What it looks like they’ll have the option to do is cut him before the start of the 2013 season if he’s a complete bust, thus avoiding the salary cap hit for that season. The option for 2014 has to be decided upon sometime during/before/after the 2010 season, although I didn’t see in the post when exactly they would have to decide. Regardless of whether or not they pick up the option for 2014, it sounds like they’re on the hook for the money associated with the extension either way (at least thru the 2012 season). What I didn’t see, is if they pick up the option for 2014, do they forfeit their ability to cut him after the 2012 season without penalty against the cap?
by Mushy on May 19, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Options have to be decided on in advance
If the option is picked up, the bonus money gets prorated into the base salary for the years in between 2010 and 2014.
Pride of Detroit, SB Nation's Lions Blog
by Sean Yuille on May 19, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks ATL
I missed that tidbit. I think that is really strange that they would have to decide before the end of 2010 whether or not they will pick up the option in 2014. I thought an option was a clause that was in place so that the team had the option to not pick up the extension….and it seems pretty stupid to have to make that decision in Stafford’s first year when they will not know if he will boom or bust.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I gather from that
Is that it is a guaranteed fact that Stafford will play during his first season, and I think that is BS. How can the team evaluate him solely based on his performace in practice? That clause forces them to throw him into the mix whether he is ready or not, if they want to evaluate his performance in a real game situation before making any monetary decision.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea when it is
That’s a good question, though.
Pride of Detroit, SB Nation's Lions Blog
by Sean Yuille on May 19, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guess my 35 % playing was RIGHT after all
but hey what do i know 8 for 8
im not being a jerk or an a.ss im just saying EVERY post ive had ,most say im making stuff up (like this 35% playing time ) see im just getting info quicker
this makes me 8-8
by ralphgoblue on May 19, 2009 1:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nobody refuted that statement Ralph
Well, I should say I agreed with you on that…..I saw that during the draft as well.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You said nothing of the sort
Here is the context of what your comment was (http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2009/4/30/861009/steps-unfamilar-to-lions-fans#15097695):
Somebody said this: “Stafford has to play 33% of the games or he can leave after 3 yrs with his full signing bonus”
That is completely untrue. Stafford could ride the bench for three years and that doesn’t mean he can leave. And as the article I linked to talked about, Stafford didn’t even have a signing bonus.
I responded saying that I doubt any contract would have a clause like that (where someone could leave if they don’t play a certain percentage of games).
Ralph then chimed in with this:
“I saw it on NFL network about the contract being games played incentives
Lions didnt want to pay 41.7 million signing bonus over 2 yrs ( mostly because if Stafford sits the 1st yr — it would be 41.7 bonus for 1yr ) so they made it over 3 yrs and his agent added the games , played ..
im trying to find his contract online ..u can usually find a guys contract… must not be signed yet..
Dont ALOT of NFL players have "similiar" contracts ,i know they release guys before they have to pay bonuses,like Hall got realesed by Raiders game before he was due 7 million for playing 8 games"
Aside from the fact that there is no signing bonus, let alone one that is worth $41.7 million, you said nothing about 35%, so you’re not correct at all.
I responded by saying this:
“Incentives and an out clause after 3 years are two much different things
His contract is worth a minimum of $72 million. He can earn $6 million incentives. I don’t doubt games played is an incentive of some sort, but if he doesn’t reach the incentive it doesn’t mean he can leave."
None of your posts are correct, and yes, you are making stuff up.
Pride of Detroit, SB Nation's Lions Blog
by Sean Yuille on May 19, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was another thread where this topic was discussed somewhere too Sean
I was in on the conversation somewhere…..I remember talking about the 35% playing time incentive.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's an a.ss?
Does teh a stand for something?
Oh, I get it. You are trying to swear but get around the censors. You are so clever…
by ATL Lion on May 19, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well written post Sean, but.........
I still find it a little astonishing how much attention is paid to how much a player’s contract is. Yeah, I know all about the salary cap but I’m sure Mayhew, Lewand, and Schwartz know a lot more about the salary cap and the Lion’s in particular, than me or anyone else here for that matter.
The bottom line will be how he performs when he gets his opportunity. It will be better for everyone if what he is paid is not an issue down the road.
Personally, I don’t get worked up over what other people are paid unless they are politicians who vote on their own pay or CEOs who get their fellow CEOs on the board to agree to some ridiculous salary and bonus while they drive the company into bankruptcy.
by NorthLeft12 on May 19, 2009 2:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the complaints about his contract are directed more at the NFL than Lewand
It’s more about the ridiculous contracts rookies get, not specific things the Lions do.
Pride of Detroit, SB Nation's Lions Blog
by Sean Yuille on May 19, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming the cap continues
We as fans do have some interest in how much we spend on 1 player. Sinking so much money into one guy means less available for other people.
I think the discussion changes if it is “Stafford or Curry” versus “Stafford or Curry and 3 other players”
by ATL Lion on May 20, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The new pictures are up on the Lion's site.
Stafford doesn’t use the laces when he throws(not in those two pics anyways), then I looked back and found that Daunte does use them, any advantage or disadvantage for Stafford?
by BIGWalt2990 on May 19, 2009 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just preference
There are more and more qb’s that are throwing without the laces. It is preference but some say you can get a tighter spiral and have a better grip on the ball. That is interesting though because I have never really seen Stafford throw like that
by qbdoyle1 on May 19, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
**This is going to come directly from my own experience and opinion** Typically a QB....
Is taught to use the laces to strengthen their grip on the ball……my brother was a QB in HS. Also, I have thrown alot of footballs around with my brother and I can’t throw a tight spiral without using the laces. Some coaches teach a higher grip, but I think it is what is most comfortable for the most part. I will do some research on this BigWalt, and get back to you…..thanks for the subject.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
If not for the fact that I was 6’2" 230 lbs and one of the 2 biggest guys on our Class DD football team in HS, I would have tried to play QB, because I could throw the ball over 50 yards in the air. My brother and I used to play catch with him on the 50 yard line and me in the endzone…..but he was 170lbs and 6’0" tall and much faster than I was.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may have missed your calling.
by BIGWalt2990 on May 19, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
I’m more the size of a short DT now, at 6’2" 295lbs…..but 230 is my playing wieght if I got back into shape. I dislocated my elbow on my right arm while playing DT in HS too….I tore all of the ligaments and stretched the tendons. If I could have had surgery back then, maybe it would have saved my arm, but I can’t throw a ball like I used to anymore. I also was scouted to play professional baseball, because I could throw the ball 85 mph as a freshman and I was a good hitter. After the injury, I can barely throw 65mph.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So I became a private pilot
Because I couldn’t play baseball (my first true love). I wanted to be a commercial pilot, but money stopped that from happening……maybe someday I will go back and get my commercial license. Yes, I am multi-talented…..:o)
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry.....
Off topic…..and I could write a book.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo Baby
According to Phil Simms, who has been studying the mechanics of throwing a football since his retirement (becoming an expert on the subject), it is ok to throw the ball with or without the laces, but it helps to put spin on the ball if you use the laces when grippinf the ball.
This is a great article…..IMHO:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119707054348217657.html
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I will look for another article, just because of the comment
that “Some of the drills Mr. Simms has come up with to teach these principles are unorthodox. So much so that a few coaches have refused to let their young quarterbacks train with him for fear he’ll ruin them”.
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a book written by Joe Theisman and Brian Tarcy
Teh book says there is no right way to throw a football and that many pro QB’s have thrown successfully without the laces.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UbZ0LSlfXXYC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=Should+QB’s+throw+without+using+the+laces+on+a+football%3F&source=bl&ots=kq6_gFc1lR&sig=42IDmDKdyU0QmDv5o73qzwbZ9Hk&hl=en&ei=SxMTSrDUBOCEmQfIy4TnAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
http://books.google.com/books?id=UbZ0LSlfXXYC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=Should+QB’s+throw+without+using+the+laces+on+a+football3F&source=bl&ots=kq6_gFc1lR&sig=42IDmDKdyU0QmDv5o73qzwbZ9Hk&hl=en&ei=SxMTSrDUBOCEmQfIy4TnAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
by KDawg on May 19, 2009 4:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well this makes me happy.
I mean think about it, if he DOES end up with the $42 million guaranteed then he would’ve proven worth that much based on performance.
So if it does boil down to $42 million that means he’s absolutely not a bust.
by Wadeledge on May 19, 2009 7:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good write up Sean
At least we know we have a back-up in case he is an utter failure, which I hope doesn’t happen.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on May 19, 2009 8:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Stafford’s contract was already broken down on FO about a week before adamJT did it by a former Redskins cap analyst for their new Under The Cap series.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2009/under-cap-matt-stafford
http://sacrificethebody.blogspot.com/
Sacrifice the Body - Examining the NHL through statistical analysis, reasoned thought, and blind conjecture.
by IAmJoe on May 20, 2009 4:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Great Link IAJ! Thanks for the insight.
Although I am a little surprised that such detail on a person’s private contract is available to the public. Sorry, I find that a bit creepy.
I may owe ralphgoblue an apology. If you are out there, I’m sorry I doubted you………in that one instance.
by NorthLeft12 on May 20, 2009 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too bad the contract wasn't
on the NFLPA website where he said it was.
by KDawg on May 20, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it is now....
I’ll have to check that out.
by KDawg on May 20, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
17 or 42 they need Stafford to be Successful
In the end if 17 million is all he would get that is good if he’s a bust. But man the Lions need him to payoff on the field. That’s the most important part of all this. With Megatron and a new young tight end I think he has a chance. But please, please Detroit let Culpepper play this season. Won’t do the kid any good to go out and get beat up in year 1.
by fantasy-info on May 20, 2009 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I AM The RETARDED GIANT
And I will STOMP you all into submiss….OHHHH, OWWW AHHH, Shit!! Just stuck another fork in my head. OWWWW. Gotta go. Be Back. Diper check/
by dylan415 on May 20, 2009 8:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hey, while you're here
What si the main site?
by ATL Lion on May 21, 2009 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
The person that answers is the real retarded giant.
by KDawg on May 22, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just like how I totally nullified his argument and got no response. You’re still OK in my book dergru.
by BIGWalt2990 on May 26, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pride Of Detroit
Related FanShots on Pride Of Detroit
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
