OT: Gronkowski inks 6- year 54 million deal

**BcRaven** · 06-08-2012, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by TheJoeFlaccoShow

It is only 7 million a year, it buys out the last 2 years of his rookie deal and then adds 6 years to that.
8 years $56 million, with only $13 guaranteed. Highway robbery for the Pats.
I mean he only put up elite number 1 WR numbers last year, and the greatest single season from the TE position the NFL has ever seen....more than 1300 yds and 17 TD's. That is a good season for a $13-15 million wide receiver and the Pats just got that or close to it for half, of course smack in the prime years of 23-31.
I am fairly conservative with money, but I would have rolled the dice for at least 1 more year and maybe even the last 2 Gronk had left on his deal. He likely left a TON of money on the table, and signed for way too long at 6 years with the 2 he still has left. He could have signed for 4 extra and be a FA at 29 instead of 31, that is a huge 2 years.
I hate the Pats. Damn them.

Actually, according to ESPN, it is 6 years for $53 million/with 16.5 mil. guaranteed : http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/...lion-extension
Either way I think he was wise to take it. You might have "rolled the dice", but this is football not baseball, and a greater possibility of injury. Gronk was scheduled to make $500,000+ for each of the next two seasons. That is a great risk for a guy in this collision sport. Now he's guaranteed $16.5 million and will never have to worry where his next meal is coming from. BTW what is "only" about 7 million a year? ... Bc

**Haloti92** · 06-09-2012, 12:16 AM

I think the deal (as mentioned) does not include the 2 years left on his previous contract. So the 6 year extension plus those two remaining years makes him locked up for 8 years (assuming the Pats exercise the option after 2015). His base salaries for this year and next apparently are the same as they were in the previous contract, low, at around $550k-$650k per. He gets $8M right now for signing the extension (from what I read). As for total guaranteed money I have seen differing amounts (and there is an amount guaranteed for injury only, so maybe this is why), but it still is less than Gates got in guaranteed.

In short, the Pats got a great deal (steal), but I think a lot of Gronk's success comes from being a Pat, and he realizes this. Even though Gronk put up stats similar to an elite WR, he is still a TE, even if a mutant prototype; not all/many teams can take full advantage of such players. He also ended last year injured enough to require surgery. The guy who is really disappointed about this deal is Welker; there is no chance he gets a significant payday now, imo.

**arnie_uk** · 06-09-2012, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by TheJoeFlaccoShow

It is only 7 million a year, it buys out the last 2 years of his rookie deal and then adds 6 years to that.

8 years $56 million, with only $13 guaranteed. Highway robbery for the Pats.

I mean he only put up elite number 1 WR numbers last year, and the greatest single season from the TE position the NFL has ever seen....more than 1300 yds and 17 TD's. That is a good season for a $13-15 million wide receiver and the Pats just got that or close to it for half, of course smack in the prime years of 23-31.

I am fairly conservative with money, but I would have rolled the dice for at least 1 more year and maybe even the last 2 Gronk had left on his deal. He likely left a TON of money on the table, and signed for way too long at 6 years with the 2 he still has left. He could have signed for 4 extra and be a FA at 29 instead of 31, that is a huge 2 years.

I hate the Pats. Damn them.

I think this was actually a true extension, his final two years weren't touched, and the new deal was added to the end of it.

**TheJoeFlaccoShow** · 06-09-2012, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by arnie_uk

I think this was actually a true extension, his final two years weren't touched, and the new deal was added to the end of it.

Right, but even though the last 2 years aren't touched it still works out over 8 years not 6. He is under contract for the next 8 years, and will get about 57 million over that time.

**TheJoeFlaccoShow** · 06-09-2012, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

Actually, according to ESPN, it is 6 years for $53 million/with 16.5 mil. guaranteed : http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/...lion-extension
Either way I think he was wise to take it. You might have "rolled the dice", but this is football not baseball, and a greater possibility of injury. Gronk was scheduled to make $500,000+ for each of the next two seasons. That is a great risk for a guy in this collision sport. Now he's guaranteed $16.5 million and will never have to worry where his next meal is coming from. BTW what is "only" about 7 million a year? ... Bc

"Only" 7 million a year refers to the going rate for a skill player on offense who puts up 1300 yards and 17 TD's, which is double that.

Look at the recent contracts of Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson. They got triple the guaranteed money Gronk got and are making double the yearly average.

For similar production.

**GOTA** · 06-09-2012, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

And to think, he went 1 pick ahead of Sergio Kindle... and there were rumors he was off the ravens board entirely... Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda...

Back injuries are tricky. If the Ravens weren't 100% convinced that he would be medically able to play then I understand why they took him off their board. They weren't the only ones either.

**arnie_uk** · 06-09-2012, 01:22 PM

not how i would call it, to me it doesnt start till the current one ends. his new contract is 6yr 54 mil, not 8 years, not 57 mil.

Originally Posted by TheJoeFlaccoShow

Right, but even though the last 2 years aren't touched it still works out over 8 years not 6. He is under contract for the next 8 years, and will get about 57 million over that time.

**BcRaven** · 06-09-2012, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by TheJoeFlaccoShow

"Only" 7 million a year refers to the going rate for a skill player on offense who puts up 1300 yards and 17 TD's, which is double that.
Look at the recent contracts of Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson. They got triple the guaranteed money Gronk got and are making double the yearly average.
For similar production.

Man, fans are funny. 99% of us won't even make $7 million in our working lifetimes, but you're "upset" that he won't be making double that. AND if he did, guess who will pay for it (?) ... Bc

**Corey** · 06-09-2012, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by TheJoeFlaccoShow

"Only" 7 million a year refers to the going rate for a skill player on offense who puts up 1300 yards and 17 TD's, which is double that.

Look at the recent contracts of Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson. They got triple the guaranteed money Gronk got and are making double the yearly average.

For similar production.

But you also have to consider the situations of the players. Gronk is playing on a 2nd round rookie contract. The Pats had no incentive at all to pay him now and he had every incentive to take what he could get.

CJ and Fitzgerald both carried cap numbers upwards of 20 million dollars when they got their new deals. Arizona and Detroit HAD to get those deals worked out. And they gave up a bit more than maybe the should have.

**BleedPurple92** · 06-09-2012, 03:36 PM

23 and already the best at his position...... Its a no brainer..

Look for Graham from the saints to be next, only bad thing is, he is an odd guy lol. He spends weekends with pornstars in Vages, and dances like he's crazy.. Lmao not necessarily horrible things, but he's an odd guy for sure.

**PalladinInNC** · 06-09-2012, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by BleedPurple92

23 and already the best at his position...... Its a no brainer..

Look for Graham from the saints to be next, only bad thing is, he is an odd guy lol. He spends weekends with pornstars in Vages, and dances like he's crazy.. Lmao not necessarily horrible things, but he's an odd guy for sure.

Sorry, but I'll take Graham over Gronk (originally I wanted the Ravens to draft Graham when he was available a few years ago). Gronk was too much of a risk with his back. If his back can hold up for the next two years then I'll admit we were all wrong. Graham doesn't have the health issues Gronk has and he is a heck of a player too!

**jonboy79** · 06-10-2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by PalladinInNC

Sorry, but I'll take Graham over Gronk (originally I wanted the Ravens to draft Graham when he was available a few years ago). Gronk was too much of a risk with his back. If his back can hold up for the next two years then I'll admit we were all wrong. Graham doesn't have the health issues Gronk has and he is a heck of a player too!

While they may be in the same ballpark as receiving options, in the rest of a TE's game they couldn't be furhter apart. Gronk is one of the VERY BEST blockers at TE in all of football, and Graham has zero technique or effort in the blocking game. Gronk is in a league with blocker first TE's like Manumaleuna, and Grahm is behind WR's like Ward and Mark Clayton...

And I'd only call them in the same ballpark, I'd say that Gronk, is IMO, the better receiving option as well.