Results 37 to 41 of 41
-
-
Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?
Cox is highly unlikely to get tendered, given his position. It's likely he will just be given a contract around the league minimum, which he would almost certainly accept.
Reed and Harewood are the ones that are a little hard to predict at this point. Harewood has value from a depth standpoint, but he really has done precious little to warrant any type of tender in his first 3 years. He was put on IR and didn't play a regular season snap in his first two seasons, and after bombing badly in a starting role to start the season, was inactive for most of the 2nd half of the year. It's a tricky situation, because giving a tender to a guy who is going to be inactive again in 2013 makes no sense. If he does end up playing a role and playing decently, someone else is going to badly overpay for him, making him basically a one-year rental. He's 50/50 at this point as to whether he even gets a tender.
Same with David Reed, who is darn good as a special teams gunner, but offers no value from scrimmage. A $1.33 tender for a gunner is a totally justifiable if that guy has a role from scrimmage (#5 cornerback or #4 wide receiver). Reed is the #6 or 7 or maybe even #8 wide receiver on the roster right now, so he is not even guaranteed to make the team. Tendering him for $1.33 million takes away some available cap space (about $800k) to use towards another player, so it's hard to see them using that money on him.
I think the wisest course of action is to offer Harewood and Reed a contract that is the veteran minimum for a player with 3 years of NFL service. If they take it, great. If not, then it's time to part ways with them. Keep in mind that the $1.6 million extra towards our cap that they would cost us in 2013 would be the equivalent of the cap # assigned to Corey Graham last year. You can get a decent free agent for a first year cap # of 1.6 million. The odds of Harewood and Reed at this point ever having a lasting value to the Raven organization is minimal, so I think the contractual commitment to them should be minimal as well.
-
03-07-2013, 04:01 PM #39
-
Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?
Good point.
Cox isn't worth $1.33 million, but you don't want to risk losing him either. Why not just offer the guy $3.6 million over the next 4 years with three years of guaranteed money and a small signing bonus? He'd be a fool to turn that down. From the Raven standpoint, it would be a way of securing a reliable player for the next four years. Yes, he'd cost a bit more than the $450k or so you'd pay an undrafted rookie to come and snap for you, but you wouldn't have any worries about that position for the next four years.
Thoughts?
-
03-07-2013, 05:58 PM #41
Re: Should we use RFA tenders on Reed, Harewood, and Cox?
As JB had alluded to, I had proposed the following deal in the prior RFA thread:
They could also do like they did with his predeceasor (Matt Katula) and give him say a 5-year deal with basically minimum salaries and a $600K bonus. That would mean he'd make close ($600K + $630K base = $1.23M) to the RFA tender amount, but would make his 2013 cap number $750K, so there'd still be a decent amount of Cap savings from the $1.3M RFA tender.
Also, understanding that his replacement, even if a rookie (and untested), would be making at least $405K.
Bookmarks