folz Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 The financial numbers of Fred Jackson's contract extension are in. His base salaries over the four years are $500,000 this year, $1.195 million in 2010, $1.625 million in 2011 and $1.830 million in 2012. He received a signing bonus of $1.1 million and is scheduled to get another $650,000 bonus for making the 53-man roster. He is due a $250,000 reporting bonus in 2010 and gets workout bonuses of $50,000 each year of the deal. With other incentives the total value of the extension is $7.5 million. http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/200...w-contract.html So according to those numbers, if Fred were to play out this contract, broken down into years it looks like (not counting undisclosed incentives): Year 1: $2,300,000 (including signing bonus, roster bonus, and workout bonus) Year 2: $1,925,000 (including bonuses) Year 3: $1,675,000 (including bonuses) Year 4: $1,880,000 (including bonuses) Total= $7,780,000 or an average of $1,945,000 per year, but he'll get 4 and 1/4 million dollars over the first two years (not counting incentives which could push that higher). That seems fair and should take care of Fred and his family for life if he manages his money well.
nucci Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 He did agree to the contract and signed it. He did not have to. Why are some not happy when Jackson obviously is?
scribo Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 Freddy got hosed. And I now completely understand why he said he was surprised the process didn't go smoothly. The Bills should have gotten this deal done long ago with Freddy being amicable to such low numbers. I think he could have played his ass off this year and commanded $5+ million/year in 2010. Any which way, I am very happy Freddy will be a Bill for at least four more years.
Thurman#1 Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 The Bills screwed him, IMO. And we continue to either underpay or overpay. A solid back-up RB who worked his ass off, always produced, and is counted on to start three important games, is worth more than 1.9 million, and the going rate seems to be 2.5. The Bills gave Drayton Florence 3.3 mil a year to be a back-up CB. I'm sorry to report that that is impossible. We can not possibly have screwed him. After all, he came to work every day. He acted professionally. He never held out. Look at Lee Evans. Look at Stroud. It's well-known on these boards that if you just show up and do your job, the Bills will reward you. Everybody says so.
VOR Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 If Freddy outplays his contract, it's his right to pull a Peters (ahem) and demand more money/force a trade. Why even have contracts anymore?
SKOOBY Posted May 16, 2009 Author Posted May 16, 2009 Take away the $1.5 M they didn't have to pay him the first year (via that tender) and add that back into the 4 years, then look at the yearly average.
Captain Quint Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 i highly doubt Fred Jackson is one bit upset about officially being a millionaire. especially after all these years and the road hes traveled. good for him. and good for the bills. they got a RB who seems to be in his prime. the only thing Fred has going against him is his age. and anyone complaining that the bills overpay for some people and underpay some others... yeah, no sh--. every team has 50+ deals to make. there are ALWAYS going to be underpaid and overpaid players on EVERY team, so get over it. the fact that they clearly did not overpay for Jackson is a good thing. Freddie got his. we should all be happy. Both Freddie and the Bills are. Bingo. Shave off a couple of years and he's probably worth more, but for a 28yr old backup RB, the deal seems fair to me. We signed Rhodes (a 30yr old, UDFA who had 9 TD's last year) $2.55M for 2yrs. Those two actually had pretty similar stats last year, too: Rhodes: Rushing-152 for 538 yds, 6TDs Receiving-45 for 302, 3TDs Jackson: Rushing-130 for 571yds, 3TDs Receiving-37 for 317, 0TDs Although Jackson will probably be the starter on day 1, its not set in stone. It really wouldn't surprise me if Rhodes splits time with Jackson all season as the 1st back off the bench, similar to how the Giants did it with Ward & Bradshaw.
spartacus Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 I think the Bills have his rights, basically, for two seasons. Next year he would be the restricted kind where they had to tender him at a first or second or third, etc, and could match any offer or get that draft pick they tendered in return. Just because you have him, doesn't mean you have to take advantage of him. The spirit of Stew Barber lives on at OBD. It's management against the players - and we play to win!! no wonder Dick thinks "it's hard to win in the NFL" when your front office is confused as to who the opponent is.
nucci Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 He did not have to sign the contract. He could have played on a 1 year deal and become an UFA next year. Why is everyone so upset? Jackson seems happy with the deal.
Thurman#1 Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 He did not have to sign the contract. He could have played on a 1 year deal and become an UFA next year. Why is everyone so upset? Jackson seems happy with the deal. And as a UFA, he would almost certainly have been tendered for yet another year. That's two years at a low salary. For a 28 year old RB. And RBs often start going downhill at 30, though they usually have more NFL wear on them than Freddy does.
Magox Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 The Bills screwed him, IMO. And we continue to either underpay or overpay. A solid back-up RB who worked his ass off, always produced, and is counted on to start three important games, is worth more than 1.9 million, and the going rate seems to be 2.5. The Bills gave Drayton Florence 3.3 mil a year to be a back-up CB. are you serious? you are criticizing the Bills for signing him to a contract that you consider below his market value?
VOR Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 He did not have to sign the contract. He could have played on a 1 year deal and become an UFA next year. Why is everyone so upset? Jackson seems happy with the deal. He would have been an RFA next year.
VOR Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 are you serious? you are criticizing the Bills for signing him to a contract that you consider below his market value? His gripe is that the Bills "insulted" FJ with a below market contract. Because paying him more would have ensured his happiness and would have prevented him from asking for money more in the future.
Captain Quint Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 are you serious? you are criticizing the Bills for signing him to a contract that you consider below his market value? Key words.
Art in PNS Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 The financial numbers of Fred Jackson's contract extension are in. His base salaries over the four years are $500,000 this year, $1.195 million in 2010, $1.625 million in 2011 and $1.830 million in 2012. He received a signing bonus of $1.1 million and is scheduled to get another $650,000 bonus for making the 53-man roster. He is due a $250,000 reporting bonus in 2010 and gets workout bonuses of $50,000 each year of the deal. With other incentives the total value of the extension is $7.5 million. http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/200...w-contract.html Looks to me at his age this is a REAL 4 year deal. He stands to collect all of the money due him unless he falters. This year he gets right at 2.3 Mill, so he has a nest for himself and his family no matter what and a little over the 2 mill every one expected. Next year a bargain at 1.5 Mill , then year three of his contract 1.7 and year 4 about 1.8 . Neither year 3 nor 4 is at an exorbinant level forcing us to cut him for cap reasons and a renegotiation could easily be done in year three if he defies logic and history of running backs in their mid thirties.
Magox Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 His gripe is that the Bills "insulted" FJ with a below market contract. Because paying him more would have ensured his happiness and would have prevented him from asking for money more in the future. $1.95 Million a year is an insult for a backup running back who has had less than 200 career rushes? The argument of paying him more to ensure that he doesn't ask for more money is a flawed logic. I understand that the Jason Peters debacle has traumatized many on this board, but what some are failing to realize is that situation was going to get ugly no matter what would of happened. Peters signed that contract for just north of $3 Million a year, even if the Bills would of offered him $5 or $6 Million a year, which at that point would of been more than a fair deal, he still would of held out, because he became an "elite" LT and "elite" LT's make a lot more than what he was making, so a restructuring of a new contract was a forgone conclusion. As long as Freddy Jackson stays as the backup rb, he won't be asking for a new contract. The only way he will ask for the Bills to restructure his contract is if he becomes the starting rb and has success. Even if he does become the starting RB at some point in his career and let's just say the Bills would of payed him a "fair" contract value, let's say at $2.5 Million a year, I can assure you, he still would be looking to restructure his contract. The difference of $500,000 a year is not going to make him want to restructure a contract in the future. The Bills FO in my view has had a very good offseason so far.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 The Bills screwed him, IMO. And we continue to either underpay or overpay. A solid back-up RB who worked his ass off, always produced, and is counted on to start three important games, is worth more than 1.9 million, and the going rate seems to be 2.5. The Bills gave Drayton Florence 3.3 mil a year to be a back-up CB. I have been trying my best not to bash the FO the last few weeks, but you nailed it... and you know the kid will not see most of that money...I am glad FJ signed, but I would have told them to stick it. It's a great deal for the Bills. Man, why don't both of you just find a new team to follow already? It's every team's job to sign talent at the best price possible. No one put a gun to Freddy's head and told him to sign. I'm sure you can find players on every NFL team that are over or under paid. That's just life. That's why they invented averages. It's not an sign of evil or incompetence. Ponderous! PTR
PromoTheRobot Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 Key words. Kelly is the arbiter of what's fair in the NFL. Didn't you know that? PTR
nucci Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 And as a UFA, he would almost certainly have been tendered for yet another year. That's two years at a low salary. For a 28 year old RB. And RBs often start going downhill at 30, though they usually have more NFL wear on them than Freddy does. I may be wrong. Another poster said he would be a RFA next year. If he would have been an UFA, the only tender would be a franchise tag, which is not a low salary.
Rockinon Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 The real bottom line is how Freddie Jackson feels about his contract. If he is happy, it doesn't really matter what the rest of us think.
Recommended Posts