Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


19 Feb 2009

UPDATED: Asomugha Re-signed

The Raiders are, apparently, finalizing a contract at the moment with cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha that would pay Asomugha $26 million in guaranteed money over the first two years.

Hat tip to PFT through SI.com.

UPDATED: The deal is three years, $45.3 million. The first two years and $28 million are all guaranteed, and in the third year, Asomugha makes either $16.875 million or the average of the salaries of the top five quarterbacks -- not cornerbacks -- in football. He gets whichever is higher. If the Raiders don't exercise that third option, he becomes a free agent and the Raiders won't have the ability to franchise him.

Wow. Although it doesn't seem like it at first because of the $45.3 million figure, Asomugha's likely going to become the highest-paid defensive player in NFL history by the time his contract is done.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 19 Feb 2009

25 comments, Last at 22 Feb 2009, 4:51pm by Alex51

Comments

1
by Unverified Telamon (not verified) :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 3:02pm

Skeletor claims another soul.

2
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 3:26pm

So, how many hit dice does a lich that used to be a level 93 cornerback have? And how many XP will Larry Fitzgerald get for killing it in the 2010 season (or, for Raiderjoe, Superbowl XLIV)?

3
by CNB (not verified) :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 3:31pm

Not just Nnamdi (3 years, $40M with $26M guaranteed, per David White at the SF Chronicle). Lechler is now signed as well: 4 years, $16M ($9M guaranteed). I must say, as a fan, I didn't expect to keep both, much less without using the franchise tag at all.

Recession? What recession?

4
by CNB (not verified) :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 3:41pm

Hate to reply to myself, but I just had another thought. While the spending does seem rather ridiculous, what I'd heard was that Oakland didn't have the cap room to keep Asomugha; therefore, I see this not only as a positive move to keep two of the team's best players, it must also mean that Davis has got to trim some of the dead weight off of the payroll. If this means that any or all of Walker, Harris, Sands, or Kelly will no longer be on the team, I'll be happy. Curry may also get cut.

5
by Zergling (not verified) :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 4:18pm

At first i read that as he resigned rather than play for Oakland again.

6
by BucNasty :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 4:35pm

So he gave them the hometown discount?

7
by ChicagoRaider (not verified) :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 4:57pm

Given all the other ways the Raiders have spent money, I must say "well done." You could take many other players the Raiders have, and get less into that $15 million. I would not trade Nnamdi for JaMarcus Russell and $5 million.

8
by Karl Cuba :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 4:58pm

They may as well have given him 10% of the franchise for three years play. Though if he'd left town the value of the Raiders would have sunk faster than the Dow Jones/FTSE/NIKKEI/take your bloody pick we're all screwed.

9
by MilkmanDanimal :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 5:28pm

Wow. That's just . . . wow. So he's semi-franchised in year three, except as a QB instead of a CB. That's just one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in a contract.

10
by bravehoptoad :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 5:44pm

I kinda have a feeling this means that Asomugha gets to leave in year three and finally become a free agent. The Raiders can't use the franchise tag on him anymore.

Good on the Raiders, re-signing two of their best players.

11
by Temo :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 5:53pm

Looks like everyone here loves the deal.

Honestly, from a financial/business standpoint it would have been more profitable to franchise him, then trade him for a couple of round 2 picks plus a some Day 2 picks.

Of course, that's contingent on being able to draft well enough to get value out of those picks, and these are the Raiders we're talking about. Then again, the Raiders haven't been TERRIBLE with their draft picks.

There's no way he provides enough franchise value-- either in wins or actual money-- to make this signing worth it for the team.

12
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 6:20pm

Check my screen-name and you will be forced to adjust for a bias, but isn't this a bad move for the Raiders?

I mean. Is it really worth it to spend this boatload of money for the right to have the other side of the field exploited because you can't afford decent players anywhere else? You shut down one third of the field thus keeping the other two thirds wide open. Wouldn't it be better to spend all that money on players who could improve the overall talent on the team?

It seems totally pointless to be stretching this far for an elite player, when he won't matter much because the rest of your team is in ruins.

For the record, I would feel the same way about Bailey if he was a FA.

13
by MilkmanDanimal :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 6:31pm

Most definitely. Wasn't there some FO analysis on the impact Nate Clements had in the 49ers secondary? One excellent CB can't do that much overall. Sure, if you need one more cog to go over the top, you definitely want it, but the Raiders are so awful that they have loads of needs. That major chunk of change could be much better spent on a range of players who could provide help in lots of places.

The only bright side I can see is at least the Raiders are spending boatloads of money on a good player for a change.

15
by dmstorm22 (not verified) :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 7:54pm

Your point makes sense, and the Raiders know this. That's why a week ago, they resigned (or maybe just extended) Chris Johnson, who came on at the end of the year when he took over after DeAngelo Hall was cut. He played pretty well, and he knows he has to becuase he will see alot of action. Of course, either way, it helps to have a CB who can just completely take one player out of the game. Imagine what would've happened in these playoffs if anyone had a corner who could just take Fitz out of the game. Nnamdi has that ability.

As a Raider fan, I question where this money is coming from, and I certainly am praying that they cut the wasted money that gave out like fliers last year to Walker and Kelly. However, I love the fact that they are spending on good players for once. They aren't that far off from being a competitive .500 team. All they need is some receivers, pass protection (their line is quite good in run-blocking, especially the much-maligned Gallery), and consistency from their defense.

18
by Key19 :: Fri, 02/20/2009 - 2:00am

And then when Clements pretty much single-handedly allows T.O. to have his ONLY good game of the entire year, the 49ers defense just simply crumbles.

I'd rather have two above average corners than one phenom corner and a total slouch on the other side. Unless they get someone good on the other side, this deal will be a waste of a resource.

On a side note, it would've been sweet to see Nnamdi go somewhere like Denver or Green Bay. Nnamdi + Champ? I know Champ is on the decline, but still. And the thought of Woodson + Harris + Nnamdi? Intense.

17
by tuluse :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 9:57pm

It's only a bad deal if the cap space used is actually preventing the Raiders from acquiring talent. It's generally a good idea to keep talented players on your team.

14
by Purds :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 7:52pm

So, does Kelvin Hayden for 5 years $43 sound a little more reasonable from the Colts? Colts pay 60% of Oakland's cost -- is Hayden 60% as good?

16
by BucNasty :: Thu, 02/19/2009 - 8:20pm

I hope Albert Haynesworth doesn't use this as the base for his contract negotiations. Well, unless someone else snags him.

19
by BigDerf :: Fri, 02/20/2009 - 5:05am

That clause for the third year basically guarantees that after this contract is up he is going to get an even more ridiculous contract.

http://www.youtube.com/BennyAndThePothead

20
by mawbrew :: Fri, 02/20/2009 - 2:39pm

Yikes. That is a huge jump for cornerback contracts. Is Al counting on the cap going away after this year?

21
by Joseph :: Fri, 02/20/2009 - 4:46pm

Having read the other comments, I agree with both views.
1. It probably is overpaying for a player who cannot help you as much in the win column.
2. Having said that, he is HANDS DOWN the best CB in the NFL, and the only safeties that compare are Reed & Polumalu (sp?). Rating this signing (and Lechler's), you have to say that the Raiders spent well in resigning two of their best players. Good to see them spend that kind of dough on widely acknowledged top-shelf players.

22
by Raiderjoe :: Fri, 02/20/2009 - 7:11pm

Great signing and contract by Raiders. Al Davis still has it. Gong to be great seaosn. Asomugha can shut down entite side of one side of the field. this makes Qbs ghave to throw ball to other side of field and viola Chris Johnson is there to spoil things anyway. This makes it very hard for ahy team to throw passes vs Raiders. Now Raiders focus on beffing up defensive line to stop run better. If do that (and will) Raiders defense goin g to vaught up to top of rankings. Top 3 defense in 2009 is predcition.

23
by James-London :: Fri, 02/20/2009 - 9:27pm

Chris Johnson is a "Viola"? Awesome. Raiderjoe is in midseason form. I never new string instruments could take away one side of the field...

Seriously, while a CB isn't going to ensure wins, especially if the other one and the nickelback are bad, re-signing your best player (and the best player at his position in the league) is a good thing.

Phil Simms is a Cretin.

24
by ernie cohen (not verified) :: Sun, 02/22/2009 - 9:24am

Are they idiots? Why didn't they just tag him this year and next year (at least) and the third year if desired? They didn't use a tag this year, and they get an extra one next year (with no one worth using it on). If they tagged him for three years, it would have saved them at least $10M, right?

25
by Alex51 :: Sun, 02/22/2009 - 4:51pm

Well, first of all, yes, they are idiots. Second, they probably didn't tag him because that might have set up a nasty training camp holdout that could have lasted into the regular season. So, it would arguably be worth it to get him to agree to a deal and prevent any of those issues from coming up. Third, I'm not sure tagging him for three years would really save them much money. They would've had to spend at least $42 million over the next three years if they had tagged him the whole time.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options