Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
As with any other position, you decide what your next best option is and set a value on the player based on that. Taylor Mays is out there, no sign that he's a great player, but if the cost on Jeron Johnson gets to a certain point you simply pass and try Mays.
Nothing is black and white, that's where teams get into trouble and overpay. If after reading what I wrote above you're finding yourself thinking "but Jeron Johnson has promise to be an answer, Mays doesn't," then your thinking is still stuck in the Cerrato days of locking onto one player and overpaying to get him.
The approach should be the same as what McC has been doing, negotiate slowly. If the player gets your offer and immediately jumps to take it, you've offered too much. The offer should be one that he has to sleep on it and shop around. Then when he takes it, you know its a good deal. And if he doesn't take it then you move onto the next target. No paying A money for C players.
We passed on right tackles for this reason and for this reason landed two defensive lineman and a corner at favorable contracts.
Make a push for Johnson but be OK with it if he passes. There are other fish in the sea.
|
I basically agree. Particularly with the "if a player jumps at the offer deal you have paid to much." At the same time, I would suggest your example of setting the price based on next best option does have a caveat. This type of benchmarking only works for players of relatively comparable talent - after factoring proven abilities versus potential. If the gap in adjusted talent between a targeted player and the next best option is such that the next best option is a significant downgrade, the offer has to reflect the "talent premium." Teams have the choice of paying the talent premium or accepting significantly lesser quality play at a position.
For example, as you say, T. Mays is available. If he were truly the only "next best option" (I don't believe he is, not by a long shot), the Redskins would be faced with signing a player with potential talent to be a regular, solid starter who appears to have some market demand (Johnson) versus a player who has demonstratively proved he cannot hold a starting job with little to no market demand (Mays). If those are truly the only two options, then any offer to the Johnson must reflect the talent gap and market demand for such a player or the willingness to accept significantly sub-par play.
It's still a choice - what price is too much for the gap in talent? How important is it to improve the position? Can we be successful enough in other areas to overcome the talent gap resulting from a refusal to pay for the talent gap?
IMHO, based on the salaries currently be paid to safeties, the "next-best-option" after Johnson will cost in the $2M/year range - which appears to be the going rate for Joe Average starters. So, if McC thinks Johnson can be a solid starter in the NFL, an offer of $2-3M seems to me to be the reasonable price point.
I like the guy and, from all I have been reading, I think he would be a significant upgrade from anything currently on the roster. While I really hope that something can be worked out, I have confidence that Scot McC is not going to overpay for him given the way he has conducted his FA acquisition so far.