Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

11 Feb 2013

Eagles, Vick Agree on Restructured One-Year Deal

The Eagles and Michael Vick have worked on a restructured one-year contract that will apparently keep Vick in Philadelphia as Chip Kelly's first starting quarterback. Vick had been set to make $15.5 million in the third season of a six-year, $100 million contract. Adam Schefter on Twitter said Vick could make "up to" $10 million in 2013.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 11 Feb 2013

16 comments, Last at 13 Feb 2013, 3:30pm by Theo

Comments

1
by DisplacedPackerFan :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 1:41pm

So he could still make more than Aaron Rodgers ($9.75 mil for 2013). I'm guessing he only gets there with playoff appearances, in which case I'm fine with it. I've actually been curious what Kelly would do, after they paid Vick the roster bonus I figured they would keep him but not pay him the $15 mil. I'm still interested in seeing how Kelly will translate to the NFL. Sure we got a taste with NE consulting with him, but that is still Belichick running the show, and while he has changed the offensive and defensive personality of the Pats several times, and does a fairly good job of fitting the offense to the personnel he has, he didn't have everything that Kelly used (and I'm not sure any NFL team ever will).

But with rookie contracts keeping young players cheap for 3-5 years I could see things changing. If you trust a system enough that you feel you can plug just about anyone it, you can afford to lose QB's and just draft another one that will be sitting in the pipeline. It's also why I don't think it's completely crazy to pay a back-up $7 mil if you have a starter under a rookie contract because you sill only have $8 - $9 mill invested in the position.

Of course the new TV money will start growing the cap in 2014 so FA dynamics are going to see another change.

2
by commissionerleaf :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 2:15pm

I'm glad to see Vick is going to be starting somewhere in the league in 2013. He was pretty much lost behind the Eagles injury-ravaged offensive line in 2012, and he was pretty good in 2011 and 2010. If Peters is back or the Eagles fix a few positions on the offensive line in the draft or FA, he could be a very good fit for a Chip Kelly offense that depends on tempo and execution rather than complicated pre-snap reads.

3
by Kevin from Philly :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 2:27pm

Tempo he can do. Execution? Hasn't been is strong suit (outside of a few games in 2010).

4
by Dan in Philly (not verified) :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 2:49pm

I heard unofficial numbers are pointing to an incentive deal:
Keep the turnovers to less than 2 per game: $1 million bonus
Learn the entire playbook by the bye week: $5 Million bonus
Lose less than 40% of snaps to injury: $2 Million bonus.

Base salary: $2 million

5
by NYC Ramos (not verified) :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 3:34pm

Does this have to be approved by the NFLPA? Can't see them being happy with such a change in a contract for a player, even though said player would be released without a deal like this. Looking forward to input from the NFL Player contract and CBA gurus out there...

6
by justanothersteve :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 4:23pm

Contract changes happen all the time, just not usually with players as high-profile as Vick. Donald Driver had a major restructuring last year to stay with the Packers even though he had just won the "Dancing with the Stars" contest. If he hadn't, they probably would have let him go. With the restructuring, Driver's 2012 salary was about half of what he would have gotten on his contract from a few years earlier. You can probably find similar restructured contracts on most teams every off-season.

7
by DisplacedPackerFan :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 4:43pm

Calvin Johnson did a major restructure before this season as well. He was the highest profile recent one that I could think of.

Now if the original question was about incentive laden, those happen all the time too, and honestly I wish there were more of them out there. Though the NFLPA will scream about coaches benching people just so that they don't reach some games played or snap count, or whatever incentive, just so they can save the club some money. I just think if the standard contracts were more incentive heavy that concern would solve itself, players would hopefully be better incentivized on a year in year out basis (fewer "contract year" performances) and clubs would have more roster flexibility. Though you might crash the cap if you win the Super Bowl. I suppose the market has worked itself out to a decent equilibrium already.

9
by Lebo :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 7:01pm

I agree that there should be more incentivisation of contracts - especially rookie contracts. Just as it was ridiculous that JaMarcus Russel got paid so much for sucking it's ridiculous that Russell Wilson is going to get paid so little (relatively) for being pretty damn good. Aaron Rogers was somewhat shafted on his first contract too. Incentivised contracts would allow rookies to get played and paid as their abilities dictated. And would possibly help some veterans avoid being salary-cap casualties as their performance begins to decline.

10
by deep64blue :: Tue, 02/12/2013 - 6:08am

"Does this have to be approved by the NFLPA?"

This is not MLB - these are not guaranteed contracts and as others have said if they did review and say no then Vick would be cut so not much point.

8
by Sifter :: Mon, 02/11/2013 - 5:36pm

As an Eagles fan, I'm glad Chip Kelly is at least giving Vick a shot. Vick certainly wasn't great last year, but I think his worst game was probably week 1 vs the Browns, about the time when he realised the extent of the damage to his o-line...after that I thought he was OK - still too many turnovers, but some of those were the kind that don't seem repeatable eg. snap hitting him in the head when not looking = fumble.

And displaced packer fan nailed it with regards to money - Eagles can afford to gamble on Vick because Foles' contract is a bargain. Here's hoping that one of those 2 is serviceable this year. If not, I look forward to a new QB in 2014.

11
by Bnonymous (not verified) :: Tue, 02/12/2013 - 9:12am

we can add kelly to the list of fools who bought into the hype. soon we'll add him to the list of coaches that vick got fired.

12
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Tue, 02/12/2013 - 12:26pm

Given Kelly's offense and the QBs available via roster, draft, or FA -- with whom do you replace Mike Vick?

The knock is that Vick doesn't make great pre-snap IDs, but he's comfortable playing quickly, and has fantastic physical gifts. If you don't think you can make a Super Bowl with a QB like that, you're clearly not a Harbaugh.

13
by DEW (not verified) :: Tue, 02/12/2013 - 12:48pm

Except that he's going to be 33 next year and those fantastic physical gifts are declining with age and near-constant injury. At the top of his game he was the anti-Alex Smith, where his brilliance and his blunders averaged out to, well, average. He's not at the top of his game any more, just another in a long line of players who were going to redefine the quarterback position and instead found themselves defined by it.

Mind you, he may still be the best option the Eagles have available, given a weak draft class and weak free-agent market. But frankly, I don't think anybody can win a SB with the current Vick as QB unless they bring along the 2000 Ravens' defense.

(I presume the Harbaugh comment refers to Kaepernick. But whatever their similarities, Vick only had one year in his entire career--2010--where his completion percentage was as good as Kaepernick's, has never matched his yards-per-pass, throws more INTs, etc. Basically, Kaepernick's 2012 passing was better than anything Vick's done in his entire career.)

14
by Dean :: Tue, 02/12/2013 - 12:54pm

It's not IF, but WHEN, they replace him.

Because even if he actually wins the starting job in camp, there's no way to logically conclude that he has any reasonable chance of playing for anything close to the entire season. He was brittle even when he wasn't washed up. So even if he's a square peg in a round hole, the answer is probably Foles, who may be a square peg but at least he's a square peg who can pass.

15
by chemical burn :: Wed, 02/13/2013 - 1:44pm

The idea that Vick has any physical gifts left is laughable. He had a -11 rushing DVOA - you'd be hard pressed to find a play from 2012 where his attempts to run didn't run him smack into trouble. Compare that to Foles positive 11 rushing DVOA playing behind an even more injury ravaged line (and RB and WR and TE ravaged offense) and there's just no argument to be made that Vick has any physical gifts left. I think the Eagles are going to be competing for worst in the league again in 2013 if they even try to get half a season from Vick and waste a similar amount of time seeing if Peters can come back from his brutal injuries.

16
by Theo :: Wed, 02/13/2013 - 3:30pm

True, but he has enough physical gifts left to wow people in training camp where you can't hit the QB.