The One Year Contract Strategy

[RSkinGM]

Maybe y'all already get this and I'm slow on the uptake . I'm beginning to realize that this is a real strategy. You get the vets on the cheap, relatively anyway. The have to work their butts off cause they want a contract somewhere the next year. If we love 'em , we can try to resign them or let them walk and maybe get compensation in the form of draft picks . They are valuable but highly replaceable .

I'm beginning to think we're on to something here !😎

 

[offbyone]

I can't agree.   It worked for the Patriots because they had Brady.

Replacing a significant number of starters every year is not team building.  It does not build culture.

You can't just resign them.  Look at Darby.  

Mccain is a good player.  If we had signed him for 3 years I would have been happy.  But now we will likely have to cut another decent player, Everette, in order to keep a one year player.  

It is a strategy that can work for a short term bid, but not one that builds long term perennial winning.

[lavar703]

1 hour ago, RSkinGM said:

Maybe y'all already get this and I'm slow on the uptake . I'm beginning to realize that this is a real strategy. You get the vets on the cheap, relatively anyway. The have to work their butts off cause they want a contract somewhere the next year. If we love 'em , we can try to resign them or let them walk and maybe get compensation in the form of draft picks . They are valuable but highly replaceable .

I'm beginning to think we're on to something here !😎

 

When you sign a bunch of starters to one year contracts you don’t end up with compensation picks because you have to dip into free agency which wipes those picks out. I’m not a fan of it at all. 

[ripsean21]

I love it because if the player isn’t a perfect match you can allow him to walk. Per example we brought in Darby and we’re able to upgrade in Jackson because we weren’t locked into Darby. There are examples where it can burn you. But it’s allowed us to supplement spots until a drafted player or a hand pick FA is brought in. Where we will start to win is now players on defense are going to want to come here for prove it deals if their market isn’t what they wanted and it will only help us in the comp game as we let them get big deals elsewhere and we continue to keep out drafted players in town. 
 

im not a guy who’s going to say I agree with every move I don’t. But I love what we’re doing and have been doing previously. I hope they continue. We’re going to eventually jump for the right QB and we’re going to be a legit contender. And if we continue to do the good scouting work when we identify our guy and put him on a deep roster we can keep the strength of the defense together for the most part while the QB is cheap and also throwing to probably the fastest most exciting group of pass catchers we’ve had in basicall my lifetime. P

[RSkinGM]

3 hours ago, lavar703 said:

When you sign a bunch of starters to one year contracts you don’t end up with compensation picks because you have to dip into free agency which wipes those picks out. I’m not a fan of it at all. 

Not necessarily. Replace them with draft picks or sign vets after the draft that don't count like McCain and Leno . Even if you're right - at worst it's a break even .

[e16bball]

For me, it kinda depends on where you are in the life cycle of an organization. 

I absolutely hate it for a rebuilding team. What good is a one-year fix for a team that isn’t going to earn anything of value in that one year window? The nice thing about being bad, or even just mediocre, and being in a situation where you (in theory at least) have a lot of cap/roster flexibility, is that you can gamble on guys you believe in. So if you like a guy, jump in with two feet and get yourself some long-term upside with a longer deal that would be quite team-favorable if it works out — instead of giving a one-year deal for a season that doesn’t matter, being able to say “oh hey, we were right, that guy is good,” and then being able to watch him walk to the highest bidder when he hits FA again the next year. 

The only caveat to that is if there is a gaping hole that will actively affect your rebuild that you can fill short-term with a veteran. Like our LT position last offseason, where my concern was that relying on Christian/Charles would jeopardize the potential for Haskins to make a step forward. I would have signed a veteran OT on a short-term deal just to be safe, rather than sorry. 

On a good, established team? I’m more open to the idea. When you’re trying to put together a championship team, shoring up every weakness. And presumably, when you’ve got enough good players to be on that level, you’re always in a bit of a precarious position from a cap standpoint. So finding guys who can fit in for a season and immediately contribute has actual real value. Plus, when your core is already established and you have a couple years of solid depth accumulation, you really can activate the comp pick machine and start letting more guys to than you have to bring in. So those one-year guys become grist for the mill. 

For this team? I think we’re sort of squarely in the middle of “rebuilding” and “established contender.” We’ve got a good roster, but our depth is still lacking and we’re certainly not in a position to say that we only have a few holes we need to fill long-term. So I don’t hate it — but I also don’t really love it. Leno makes sense for one year, because he’s absolutely got a long-term replacement (Cosmi) on the roster already, but I’m not sure McCray does. So if you want him, maybe go lock him down for a bit.