Chiefs aren’t willing to use tag as starting point for Eric Berry deal

Getty Images

As explained last night, it’s easy to calculate long-term deals based on the franchise tag. This year, however, it’s harder to get the deals done.

Per a league source, that’s the issue keeping the Chiefs and safety Eric Berry from negotiating a multi-year contract. With a fully-guaranteed salary of $10.8 million for 2016, Berry would be entitled to $12.96 million under the tag in 2017. That’s $23.76 fully-guaranteed at signing over the first two years at a minimum for Berry, who won an ESPY last night as the best comeback player in sports following his bout with cancer in late 2014 and early 2015.

Already, Berry’s franchise tag makes him the highest-paid safety in football. A long-term deal based on the tag would drive the average to $11.88 million over the first two years. Currently, Vikings safety Harrison Smith has the highest average on a multi-year deal at $10.25 million.

So the Chiefs aren’t willing to do that, and Berry isn’t willing to do a deal based on different metrics. As a result, he’ll likely play for $10.8 million this year and either get $12.96 million in 2017 or have the market set his value.

Of course, the problem with having the market set a guy’s value is that there’s a chance someone else will be giving him that value.

19 responses to “Chiefs aren’t willing to use tag as starting point for Eric Berry deal

  1. Of course if he gets hurt or sick again he may regret not signing a long term deal. I can see why he would choose to do this but I agree with the Chiefs that he’s not worth $12.96 million a year.

  2. bondlake says:
    Jul 14, 2016 9:10 AM
    This is America, EB.

    Take your chances.

    You might regret doing so.
    ——–
    America was built by people who took their chances…and never regretted doing so. The ones who think about the risk probably aren’t All-Pro Safeties in the NFL.

  3. As good as he is it is hard to justify paying a safety much higher of a percentage of the cap. It’s about allocation, there’s only so much to go around

  4. lks311 says:
    Jul 14, 2016 9:32 AM
    bondlake says:
    Jul 14, 2016 9:10 AM
    This is America, EB.

    Take your chances.

    You might regret doing so.
    ——–
    America was built by people who took their chances…and never regretted doing so. The ones who think about the risk probably aren’t All-Pro Safeties in the NFL.

    ——–

    lks311:

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

    Perhaps you are too wet behind the ears to understand this.

  5. It’s only the starting point of a negotiation if the FO is willing to spend that much over 2 years. If not, this is what happens.

  6. I’ve been saying for a long time here that it is nonsense that there is any defined starting point for negotiations.

    By definition, negotiations involve two or more parties (in the case of pro sports, team and player). The negotiations start wherever the two parties make their first bids and offers. There is nothing that requires a player to ask for $X or a team to offer $Y. It is not to the player’s or team’s credit that either side bids or offers a certain amount, just like it’s not to my credit if I pay $6 for lunch or $35. It’s just a number I felt was right for me that day.

    This makes no sense:

    “Of course, the problem with having the market set a guy’s value is that there’s a chance someone else will be giving him that value.”

    If a team wants to keep a player, the team will pay him enough to keep him. If the player signs elsewhere, then obviously the team thought the player wasn’t worth what the other team offered him. It’s good for any team not to pay more than it thinks a player is worth.

  7. I love EB, I also think he is one of the three best at at his position. But that is a lot for a corner.

    But then again with the cap continuing to rise it’s not absurd to ask what he’s asking.

  8. Why does Mike Florio continue to insist that two years of franchise tag salaries is the “starting point” for a long-term deal? The entire idea behind a LONG TERM deal is that a player sacrifices some of the potential max he could earn in a given season for long-term guarantees of some sort. The money the player could earn under the franchise tag is the CEILING for the first two seasons, not the floor or what it “should” be, because that would be what the player would get if he went year-to-year.

    The risk is largely on the player when he goes year-to-year; teams would be fine going that route if they could get it, because while players would earn more money when playing well the value lost when players suffer large declines or major injuries is far worse. Therefore, it is in the player’s benefit to sign a long-term deal, and something needs to be given up in order for the player to lock in a greater amount of guaranteed money long term than he would earn in a single season.

  9. Players maximize their earnings by signing one-year deals. But, they take a lot of risk (injury, skill, etc.) to do that.

    Tired of seeing players like who try to maximize their revenue, and avoid risk (Revis comes to mind).

    Tired of the whining about the franchise tag. I am surprised that some players aren’t welcoming it, realizing they can get a lot of guaranteed money for two years, and then still hit a big contract. I don’t think JPP complained about the franchise tag after July 4, 2015!

  10. bondlake:

    you think Trump took chances? Gates took chances? How’d rolling the dice work for Flacco? Is it possible that it could backfire? Of course it is. But if you’re scared to bet on yourself, you’re seriously limiting your own potential.

  11. nflviewer says:
    Jul 14, 2016 10:05 AM
    I’ve been saying for a long time here that it is nonsense that there is any defined starting point for negotiations.
    ————————————————————–

    That whole long post was really cute. Just wrong. There is a “starting point” for every negotiation. Because both sides in ANY negotiation are coming in with a goal. For the team, that may be to pay the lower end of the current average for the position, for the player it might be setting a new annual money average. The key, is finding the happy ground where both parties can be comfortable.

    By demanding the franchise tag be part of the CBA, the NFL has basically instituted it’s own starting point for negotiations. Because a player can go the Tag route, or become a FA in which case, if the player is good, somebody will over pay. See Osweiler, Brock.

    The beauty of the situation, is the fact that the owners did this one to themselves.

  12. Chiefs should take care of great players/team leaders like Eric Berry.

    We took care of Justin Houston, and bad luck strikes in his knee injury. Same thing with Jamal Charles.

    In the meantime – they overpay Alex Smith, who is mediocre, and have no legit backup QB with Chase Daniel leaving.

    It really sux to be a Chiefs fan.

  13. The franchise tag by necessity is the starting point for negotiations. It’s a horrible device that’s against everything a capitalistic nation stands for but if teams are going to use it then players are going to use the tag as a starting point for negotiations. If a team believes I’m worth $11 million this season why would I accept a contract that averages less than that amount? Especially if next the team franchises me again I get a 20% raise. Logically the very least a long term contract should average is $11 million. Guarantees of course will need to be negotiated but the player would likely insist the guarantees at the very least equal to 2 years worth of the tag.

  14. Time to get out of that crap hole, Eric.

    Don’t worry Joey, he will still be a Chief when they sweep your team again this year.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.