Given the argument made by Josina Anderson of ESPN.com — an argument which carries the fairly obvious fingerprints of Beckham’s agent, Zeke Sandhu — based on the total value of the contract at signing, it becomes difficult if not impossible for Sandhu to sell a “new money” analysis of the eventual package. The entire “new money” fiction is premised on pretending that the remaining year(s) on the current contract don’t exist; by making the case now that Beckham’s contract should be valued based not on new money coming from new years but the dollars to be paid from the moment it is signed, it will disingenuous at best to pump up the new contract by ignoring what Beckham already was due to make in 2018.
In other words, whatever Beckham gets will (or at least should) be assessed based on the total value of the deal from signing, factoring in the reality that Beckham already is due to make $8.459 million. This necessarily will drive down the perceived value of the contract.
For example, Steelers receiver Antonio Brown is the highest-paid receiver based on a “new money” analysis, given that his 2017 extension has a new-money average of $17 million per year. As noted at the time the deal was signed, however, the contract also has a total value at signing of only $14.54 million per year, given that Brown had one year left on his contract at $4.71 million when he inked the four-year extension.
That’s why Anderson’s analysis has focused on Chiefs receiver Sammy Watkins and his $16 million per year deal. Watkins signed as a free agent, so there was no “new money” to be considered. He gets a straight $16 million per year from signing, and that’s more than any other receiver currently will make.
So Beckham wants, at a minimum, a deal worth more than $16 million per year at signing. If the Giants insist on a five-year extension, he’ll need more than $17.5 million per year in new money to get past $16 million per year at signing. And if Beckham still remains intent on getting $20 million per year, he’d need to average $22.3 million per year in “new money” on a five-year extension to get there.
Maybe the value in this apparent effort by Sandu to ignore “new money” before the deal is done will prompt reporters to begin to ignore “new money” after a contract is signed, since it really is a made-up way to make contracts seem worth more than they are. The chances of reporters actually applying such candor to the numbers, however, is roughly equivalent to the chances that they’ll explain that the bloated amounts of “guaranteed” cited in the original accounts of the value of the deal aren’t truly guaranteed.