http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5384774 Jay Glazer / FOXSports.com Posted: 8 minutes ago The No. 1 free agent on the open market is now off the market. FOXSports.com has learned that the Seattle Seahawks have agreed to terms with Pro-Bowl running back Shaun Alexander on a whopping eight-year, $62 million deal that includes in excess a total of $15 million in the first year in bonuses (signing and roster) and salary. The Alexander deal is not contingent upon a new CBA getting done as the Seahawks have the necessary cap space to make such a move. However, the contract still has to get approved by the NFL front office and Alexander needs to sign the contract.
He'll be 29 next season. Eight years for a guy nearly hitting the age where RBs tend to drop off is a pretty risky move by Seattle. Then again, he has been a phenomenal player. Over the last 5 seasons, he's averaged about 1,700 yards and 20 TDs a season (includes rushing and receiving).
The eight years is just for prorating over time. he will get cut at some point prior. The 15 up front is amazing.
Exactly, there's probably a total of around 20 Mill or so garanteed - with 15 of it up front, leaving little left to prorate over the "7" years left on the contract. My money says it's a 3 year deal made to look pretty.
well if they sign him to a 2 year deal worth 62 mil > they've gotta pay him right away if it's in an 8 year time span, they have quite a few years to pay him...instead of all at once.. that's what i'm sayin
I said they wouldn't have given him the same 62 mill. for a two year deal. If they gave him a 2-year deal, it would've for something like 15 mill. How would giving him 6 more years and 47 million more dollars be saving money? Do you really think Seattle would've agreed to give 62 mill over 2 years??
yeah i know what you mean.. but if you have a 2 year deal with 15 million as compared to a 8 year deal worth 62 million..wouldn't you be NOT saving as much money then? maybe i'm just too tired tonight...
Goddamnit, did you just use a double negative? I still have no clue what you're talking about. You said a longer contract saves money [as opposed to a smaller contract]. So, how is giving 62 million saving more money than giving 15 million? Granted, the 62m is over 8 years, you'll still be paying him that money, unless you cut him. If you cut him, you'll still have to pay the 20m or so that was guaranteed, wouldn't you?
yeah you would...but i'm saying... if its an 8 year deal...about 8 million per year would be something like... 6 million then 6.3 million, etc... 8th year (when he's retired) would be 9.something and if it was a 2 year deal with 8 million per year... 8 million, 8 million...idk it's hard to explain...i just thought you saved more money when you had longer contracts because you pay more money towards the END of the contract as opposed to paying in the beginning
