2006 NFL Offseason Thread

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I'll be glad if this works out for the Vikings, but I'd be shocked if this kind of move isn't outlawed by the NFL in the very near future.

No joke. It really destroys the spirit of the rules.

[wade moore]

Ok, so i'm dumb.. what is the "poison pill"?

[TazFTW]

Cowboys sign LB Rocky Boiman to a 3 year deal.

[wade moore]

lame.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ok, so i'm dumb.. what is the "poison pill"?

Clause in Hutchinson's contract stating that if he isn't the highest paid offensive lineman on the team, his entire contract becomes guarenteed.

On the Seahawks, as of the offer, Walter Jones was being paid more than Hutchinson, and as it turns out, once the offer was signed by Hutchinson, the Seahawks could not then restructure Jones' contract to pay him less on average than Hutchinson.

Meanwhile, Hutch would have been the highest paid lineman on the Vikings, so the clause would not have kicked in, and they likely wouldn't have had to worry about it until McKinnie's contract needed to be redone, at which point they'd like restructure Hutchinson's contract as well to avoid the clause that was included.

For all intent's and purposes, the clause's intention is to either stick the Hawks with all $49 million on the deal, or (preferably for Minnesota) force them to step back and allow Hutch to walk.

[dawgfan]

It's a bullshit provision in the first place and an even bigger bullshit decision by the arbitrator to uphold it - by the definition of his ruling, there was no possible way for the Seahawks to "match" the offer since they would have to guarantee the entire deal and the Vikings wouldn't.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think it's pretty creative. I like seeing stuff like that from teams when competing for free agents.

It reminds me of what happened with Fedorov and Carolina back 1998 in the NHL. Fedorov was holding out for a long time and then near the end of the season Carolina signed Fedorov, a restricted free agent at the time, to a massive offer sheet that the Wings either had to match or let him go. It was a 6 year, $38 million deal. The "poison pill" in that contract was a clause that trigged a massive bonus ($12 million) if his team reached the Conference finals. Carolina had no hopes of doing that in 1998 and the Wings had a very good chance (they won the Cup that year). The Wings matched the deal and had to cough up $26 million to Fedorov that year: $14 million signing bonus + $12 million that was triggered when they reached the conference finals.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It's a bullshit provision in the first place and an even bigger bullshit decision by the arbitrator to uphold it - by the definition of his ruling, there was no possible way for the Seahawks to "match" the offer since they would have to guarantee the entire deal and the Vikings wouldn't.

Based on my understanding of the rules of the CBA, the arbitrator got it. In order to "match" a deal a team has to match all the principal provisions of the contract and and clauses that trigger guarantees are considered within that definition.

[Poli]

All football contracts should be guaranteed, with exception to the stupid motorcycle/other stupid act not otherwise defined clause.

[General Mike]

JMO, but the Vikings overpaid for Hutchinson. You don't give that kind of money to an OG.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by General Mike

JMO, but the Vikings overpaid for Hutchinson. You don't give that kind of money to an OG.

I agree. Both teams are actually hurt by this move.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

All football contracts should be guaranteed, with exception to the stupid motorcycle/other stupid act not otherwise defined clause.

Ummm, no.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Ummm, no.

Baseball players get guaranteed contracts, correct?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

Baseball players get guaranteed contracts, correct?

yes.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by wade moore

yes.

Are you the one word answer man? Don't answer that.

Get rid of the cap. Let the players get paid for the length of their contracts.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Cowboys sign LB Rocky Boiman to a 3 year deal.

Don't know much about him. I'm assuming this is a depth move rather than picking up a starter.

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Don't know much about him. I'm assuming this is a depth move rather than picking up a starter.

Hmm, not sure. Ourlads has the starters as Singleton and Ware on the outside and Bradie James and Ayodele on the inside. Ware is a lock and with the money given to Ayodele, he should be a lock. Boiman could compete for the other spots.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

Are you the one word answer man? Don't answer that.

Get rid of the cap. Let the players get paid for the length of their contracts.

If you're saying you'd like the NFL to be MORE like MLB, then we might as well stop because we have completely different views on what is an enjoyable professional sports league.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It appears to be a moot point now since the arbiter doubly screwed the Seahawks, but there's no reason, had the Seahawks matched the offer for Hutch, that they then couldn't have turned around and traded him.

Yes, they could have, but they would have to have paid the $13 million bonus immediately, or in any case, take the entire cap hit of the bonus.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

All football contracts should be guaranteed, with exception to the stupid motorcycle/other stupid act not otherwise defined clause.

yup.

[Poli]

I can understand the enjoyable part, but I still feel players should get what they're signed for, whether it counts to the cap or not.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

I can understand the enjoyable part, but I still feel players should get what they're signed for, whether it counts to the cap or not.

I couldn't disagree more.

[Poli]

It happens in baseball, I don't know or care about other sports other than football.

Pay the players for what they signed for.

I would be ticked if the Navy told me they'd sign me to a six year contract (which I'm currently on) to release me three years in because they have a new sailor they want to break in and he's cheaper.

Meh. You want to release a guy? Fine, that money counts to the cap at the rate (if there is one) that it does now, and you have to pay the guy the money he is owed. NFL teams should have to be more responsible with their money than they are.

Can the player break the contract? You start letting players break their contract when they want to, and I will be happy.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I agree. Both teams are actually hurt by this move.

The Vikings overpaid, but I don't think the contract is that bad for them. Having $30+ million in cap space this year it was unlikely they would have used it all and 13 million of it counts under the cap this season. That means after this season the deal has $36 million remaining over 6 years, which I believe is slightly less per year than Larry Allen's contract pays him, who I believe has a deal that averages more than $6 million a year. So after one year in which money under the cap wasn't an issue, the deal is on par with what had been the going rate for a top guard in the league.

[DeToxRox]

You can't have garunteed contracts in the NFL. Injuries are too frequent and severe and it'd bankrupt teams when the average career length is like 4 years. You'd only see 1 year contracts.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I couldn't disagree more.

Me either. There are so many circumstances where a player shouldn't get non-guaranteed money.

1). In real life, I don't get the full value of my contract if I retire, why should an athelete automatically?

2) I don't get the full value of my contract if I am injured, just part of it, so why should an athelete?

3) I don't get the full value of my contract if I misrepresented myself at contract time, so why should an athelete?

4). I don't get the full value of my contract if I'm lazy and fired, why should an athelete?



-Anxiety

[Poli]

1). In real life, I don't get the full value of my contract if I retire, why should an athelete automatically?

Otherwise not defined category. I agree with that.

2) I don't get the full value of my contract if I am injured, just part of it, so why should an athelete?

If you're injured as part of your job, you do.

3) I don't get the full value of my contract if I misrepresented myself at contract time, so why should an athelete?

Do you get scrutinized as much as the athlete?

4). I don't get the full value of my contract if I'm lazy and fired, why should an athelete?

I'd like to know how many of the players released as a salary cap casualty are in the lazy category.

[sovereignstar]

athlete

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

athlete

Heh - what I get for typing and watching the WBC at the same time.

-Anxiety

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Hmm, not sure. Ourlads has the starters as Singleton and Ware on the outside and Bradie James and Ayodele on the inside. Ware is a lock and with the money given to Ayodele, he should be a lock. Boiman could compete for the other spots.

No way he beats out James. Word from the coaching staff was James had a very good year and is really coming into his own. Singleton has had health issues, though, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him compete there. I had hoped they'd go after someone like Peterson to play opposite Ware. A group with Ware, James, Ayodele and Peterson would not only be very solid but still fairly young as well.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Based on my understanding of the rules of the CBA, the arbitrator got it. In order to "match" a deal a team has to match all the principal provisions of the contract and and clauses that trigger guarantees are considered within that definition.

Except that it's not a match - the Seahawks had absolutely no way to avoid triggering the full contract guarantee, whereas the Vikings will have the option at any time during Hutch's contract to renegotiate his contract in whatever way they see fit. The fair thing would've been to rule that the provision is valid, but rule that the Seahawks had until the time at which they submitted the matching offer to make Hutch their highest paid offensive lineman. As it stands now, the arbitrator is ruling that the Seahawks not make a matching offer to the Vikings, but a superior one, where the entire contract is guaranteed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Except that it's not a match - the Seahawks had absolutely no way to avoid triggering the full contract guarantee, whereas the Vikings will have the option at any time during Hutch's contract to renegotiate his contract in whatever way they see fit. The fair thing would've been to rule that the provision is valid, but rule that the Seahawks had until the time at which they submitted the matching offer to make Hutch their highest paid offensive lineman. As it stands now, the arbitrator is ruling that the Seahawks not make a matching offer to the Vikings, but a superior one, where the entire contract is guaranteed.

I'd 100% agree with this. By saying the matching offer has to be automatically back dated from the time the offer sheet is signed, Seattle has to make a greater offer than Minnesota made. They were able to get Jones to redo his deal to not trigger that part of the Hutch deal, but they weren't allowed to basically 'match' the deal instead of being forced into a superior one.

[Travis]

Seahawks move on?

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9324476

(March 20, 2006) -- One of the busiest teams of the offseason struck again when the Seattle Seahawks reached agreement with former San Francisco linebacker Julian Peterson on a blockbuster seven-year, $54 million deal.


The deal, which the Seahawks and agent Kevin Poston spent today finalizing, includes $18.5 million worth of guarantees, including $10 million this season.


A Seahawks official confirmed the agreement in principle with the linebacker the San Francisco 49ers designated their franchise player one year ago.
Even with Peterson's mega-contract, the Seahawks still have the wherewithal to match the $49 million offer sheet Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutcinson signed with the Vikings. The Seahawks had to announce their decision by tonight at midnight ET.


And they are not done there. Still in place is a contingent deal for defensive end John Abraham, whom the Seahawks have the exclusive negotiating rights for from the New York Jets in exchange for Seattle's first-round pick.


Already this offseason, the Seahawks have re-signed NFL MVP running back Shaun Alexander and defensive tackle Rocky Bernard.


But now, the Seahawks are bolstering their defensive line, landing Peterson tonight and former Arizona Cardinals defensive tackle Russell Davis over the weekend.


Peterson now is expected to start ahead of D.D. Lewis, and the Seahawks also could use him as a pass-rushing end. But the NFC champion Seahawks have options for the 28-year-old Peterson, whom the Miami Dolphins also pursued until he reached agreement with Seattle.


With Peterson off the market, former Washington Redskins linebacker LaVar Arrington now will be the most coveted defensive player available. His decision should come soon.

A good signing, I'm still holding out hope on the Hutchinson front, but this should really solidify our front seven. Add a corner and if Hamlin returns, could be a very scary defense.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Travis

Seahawks move on?

Seems like it:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2377300

Seahawks let Vikings take Hutchinson for $49M

By John Clayton
ESPN.com



The Seahawks decided Monday not to match the seven-year, $49 million offer sheet on Steve Hutchinson, allowing the All-Pro guard to go to the Minnesota Vikings.
The seven-day deadline to match the Vikings' seven-year, $49 million offer sheet expired at midnight ET Monday. The Seahawks did not notify Hutchinson, the Vikings or his agent, Tom Condon, that they were going to match the offer. By letting the deadline pass, Hutchinson became property of the Vikings.
As the deadline was passing, the Seahawks entered serious negotiations with 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson. The Seahawks regained $6.391 million of cap room by letting Hutchinson leave for Minnesota. The $6.391 million represented the one-year tender Hutchinson had as a transition player.
Earlier Monday, the Seahawks lost a ruling with special master Stephen Burbank in which they wanted to make a slight change in the language of the Vikings' offer sheet to avoid having to guarantee the entire $49 million had they matched. Burbank called the adjustment a change in the principle term of the contract and ruled in favor of Hutchinson and the Vikings.


John Clayton is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.

[ZXTT]

I've seen some speculation that this Hutchinson affair will essentially remove the transtition tag as an option for teams and make restricted free agency a situation teams may need to avoid: any team that does not have high paid players at a position is free to sign a restricted/transition player from a team that does have a high paid player and throw in a guaranteed provision and voila...

Salary cap/guaranteed contracts: the salary cap almost certainly causes players to be paid more by increasing interest in the league. Contracts have a guaranteed portion: the signing bonus, and to a lesser extent, roster bonuses. I believe players can insure the contract against injury and they can probably buy disability insurance - it's bound to be expensive, but c'mon, skip the Ferrari and insure yourself. Frankly, I think guaranteed contracts simply allow underperforming players to continue to be paid while more deserving players are paid less.

[kingfc22]

That's a lot of money for Peterson. This will be his 2nd season after his major achilles injury and he did not play that well last year for the Niners.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

That's a lot of money for Peterson. This will be his 2nd season after his major achilles injury and he did not play that well last year for the Niners.

Agreed. I am shocked to see that number for him. The last I read, he was considering re-signing with S.F. on a one-year deal for like $3-4M. I am really surprised that the Seahawks gave him that much guaranteed money. It seems like they may have been bidding against themselves.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Travis

Meanwhile, Hutch would have been the highest paid lineman on the Vikings, so the clause would not have kicked in, and they likely wouldn't have had to worry about it until McKinnie's contract needed to be redone, at which point they'd likely cut McKinnie.

Fixed.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Hmm, not sure. Ourlads has the starters as Singleton and Ware on the outside and Bradie James and Ayodele on the inside. Ware is a lock and with the money given to Ayodele, he should be a lock. Boiman could compete for the other spots.

After doing a bit of checking, it looks like he'll be a depth guy for the most part, and he's supposedly a monster on special teams.

What do you think about Allen? Rumors are flying he's going to get cut...

[WSUCougar]

If Peterson plays like he's capable of playing, and they can stay reasonably healthy, that Seahawks defense will be formidable, baby.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

It happens in baseball, I don't know or care about other sports other than football.

Pay the players for what they signed for.

I would be ticked if the Navy told me they'd sign me to a six year contract (which I'm currently on) to release me three years in because they have a new sailor they want to break in and he's cheaper.

Meh. You want to release a guy? Fine, that money counts to the cap at the rate (if there is one) that it does now, and you have to pay the guy the money he is owed. NFL teams should have to be more responsible with their money than they are.

Can the player break the contract? You start letting players break their contract when they want to, and I will be happy.

One of the bad things that the NFL/NFLPA do is call the agreements that the players sign with the teams "contracts" instead of something more accurate like "CBA sub-agreements." In a normal employment contract, I promise to employ you for 3 years at $50,000 per year. In that instance, you need to work for me (with some exceptions) and I need to pay you. The money is legally guaranteed.

But NFL "contracts" are really creatures of the CBA. They are not contracts in the traditional sense. Let's say that the Titans give Eddie George a 4 year deal with a $7,000,000 signing bonus and annual salaries of $2,000,000. Here is what the team and player are really getting:

Eddie George gets:

1.) $7,000,000
2.) The right to be paid $2,000,000 for every season that the Titans choose to employ him.

The Titans get:
1.) The right to employ Eddie George (and prevent him from being employed by another NFL team) at the rate of $2,000,000 per year for four years.
2.) The unilateral right to end the agreement at any time.

Now the key thing to remember is that ALL OF THE PARTIES KNOW HOW THIS WORKS FROM THE BEGINNING. Both Eddie George and the Titans know the rules of the game. That is why Eddie George tries to get as much money as he can as a signing bonus. That is why Eddie George will try to get roster bonuses put into the contract that kick in right before UFA starts (because that will force the team to either pay him more money or release him at a time when other teams can pick him up). And that is why the team will lots of time put huge salaries at the end of agreements--they know that they will never have to pay them and it strokes the player's ego to say he has a "75 million dollar deal." If the contracts were guaranteed, then teams would never agree to the Monopoly money numbers we see at the end of agreements today.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

One of the bad things that the NFL/NFLPA do is call the agreements that the players sign with the teams "contracts" instead of something more accurate like "CBA sub-agreements." In a normal employment contract, I promise to employ you for 3 years at $50,000 per year. In that instance, you need to work for me (with some exceptions) and I need to pay you. The money is legally guaranteed.

But NFL "contracts" are really creatures of the CBA. They are not contracts in the traditional sense. Let's say that the Titans give Eddie George a 4 year deal with a $7,000,000 signing bonus and annual salaries of $2,000,000. Here is what the team and player are really getting:

Eddie George gets:

1.) $7,000,000
2.) The right to be paid $2,000,000 for every season that the Titans choose to employ him.

The Titans get:
1.) The right to employ Eddie George (and prevent him from being employed by another NFL team) at the rate of $2,000,000 per year for four years.
2.) The unilateral right to end the agreement at any time.

Now the key thing to remember is that ALL OF THE PARTIES KNOW HOW THIS WORKS FROM THE BEGINNING. Both Eddie George and the Titans know the rules of the game. That is why Eddie George tries to get as much money as he can as a signing bonus. That is why Eddie George will try to get roster bonuses put into the contract that kick in right before UFA starts (because that will force the team to either pay him more money or release him at a time when other teams can pick him up). And that is why the team will lots of time put huge salaries at the end of agreements--they know that they will never have to pay them and it strokes the player's ego to say he has a "75 million dollar deal." If the contracts were guaranteed, then teams would never agree to the Monopoly money numbers we see at the end of agreements today.

All contracts in life are not guarenteed. They generally do have clauses to allow for early release in certain situations, or buy-outs. These are contracts because they are agreed upon conditions by the teams and the player's association. If the NFL guarenteed contracts, they would be in the mess the MLB baseball is in quickly, and in even worse shape within a few years. It would be the worst thing that could happen to the sport. Luckly, the men involved (including the players) are smart enough to see that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This was taken from profootballtalk.com, so the be mindful of the source:

LIONS FEAR A REVOLT

We're told that management of the Detroit Lions is bracing themselves for a backlash once new coach Rod Marinelli begins to apply his military mindset to a locker room containing more than a few guys who might not be inclined to respond to such tactics.

Although the hiring of Marinelli won praise in some circles since he's the kind of take-the-bull-by-the-bouncy-things leader that the team needs, there's only so much of the roster that can be turned over in a single offseason. So when guys like receiver Mike Williams (who showed up, we hear, for offseason workouts overweight) or receiver Charles Rogers (who continues to be a lazy turd, we're told) start to piss and moan about Marinelli's manner, other guys might be influenced by their complaints.

The other problem is that, if Marinelli and the Lions take liberties with any of the offseason workout rules, one of the guys who haven't bought in to Marinelli's approach could blow the whistle to the NFLPA, which is exactly what happened during Tom Coughlin's first season with the Giants and Denny Green's first year with the Cardinals.

So maybe, in the end, the decision to boot quarterback Joey Harrington sooner rather than later was an effort to win over the players, many of whom had decided that Harrington should go. Indeed, the move could win over just enough guys to keep the ones who might be inclined to rebel in check.

--------------------------------------

There have been rumblings about this for a while. Apparently Mooch ran things like a country club. Very little hitting, not too demanding, etc. He basically left it up to the players to be disciplined enough to work hard. It was pretty obvious that wasn't working. Quite obvious.

As for a revolt, I think a little revolution every now and then is a good thing. These players need a kick in the ass. I don't think it needs to go to a ridiculous, Tom Coughlin/Boot Camp level of things, but this team needs a fire light under its collective ass and needs someone who will push these guys, force them to work hard, and form an identity. As for those players who aren't up for it... the Lions are probably better off without them, even if they include a lot of their "best" players.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds. Most likely it wont work and the Lions will continue to suck.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Apparently Mooch ran things like a country club. Very little winning, not too demanding, etc.

fixed

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

After doing a bit of checking, it looks like he'll be a depth guy for the most part, and he's supposedly a monster on special teams.

What do you think about Allen? Rumors are flying he's going to get cut...

He's gone if they have to free up cap room to sign somebody. The 'boys would save $3.4 million if he were released. They still haven't gone after a kicker. I'm surprised that they haven't gone after Vinatieri or that Vinatieri hasn't gotten any offers besides the Packers.

[scooper]

HB, before you brought him up, I was asking myself, didn't they say the same things about the Giants when Coughlin came in? Things have gone smoothly there. If they win, it will solve everything.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

He's gone if they have to free up cap room to sign somebody. The 'boys would save $3.4 million if he were released. They still haven't gone after a kicker. I'm surprised that they haven't gone after Vinatieri or that Vinatieri hasn't gotten any offers besides the Packers.

Been reading that Dallas may still make an offer to Josh Brown, which barring some sort of clause making him the highest paid player on the team, I'd imagine the Seahawks would have to match.

That said, if Allen gets cut, I wonder (re: hope) if that's an avenue the Seahawks might explore for a short term solution to replacing Hutchinson.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

This was taken from profootballtalk.com, so the be mindful of the source:

LIONS FEAR A REVOLT

We're told that management of the Detroit Lions is bracing themselves for a backlash once new coach Rod Marinelli begins to apply his military mindset to a locker room containing more than a few guys who might not be inclined to respond to such tactics.

Although the hiring of Marinelli won praise in some circles since he's the kind of take-the-bull-by-the-bouncy-things leader that the team needs, there's only so much of the roster that can be turned over in a single offseason. So when guys like receiver Mike Williams (who showed up, we hear, for offseason workouts overweight) or receiver Charles Rogers (who continues to be a lazy turd, we're told) start to piss and moan about Marinelli's manner, other guys might be influenced by their complaints.

The other problem is that, if Marinelli and the Lions take liberties with any of the offseason workout rules, one of the guys who haven't bought in to Marinelli's approach could blow the whistle to the NFLPA, which is exactly what happened during Tom Coughlin's first season with the Giants and Denny Green's first year with the Cardinals.

So maybe, in the end, the decision to boot quarterback Joey Harrington sooner rather than later was an effort to win over the players, many of whom had decided that Harrington should go. Indeed, the move could win over just enough guys to keep the ones who might be inclined to rebel in check.

--------------------------------------

There have been rumblings about this for a while. Apparently Mooch ran things like a country club. Very little hitting, not too demanding, etc. He basically left it up to the players to be disciplined enough to work hard. It was pretty obvious that wasn't working. Quite obvious.

As for a revolt, I think a little revolution every now and then is a good thing. These players need a kick in the ass. I don't think it needs to go to a ridiculous, Tom Coughlin/Boot Camp level of things, but this team needs a fire light under its collective ass and needs someone who will push these guys, force them to work hard, and form an identity. As for those players who aren't up for it... the Lions are probably better off without them, even if they include a lot of their "best" players.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds. Most likely it wont work and the Lions will continue to suck.

I would definitely expect the revolt and I agree it will be a good thing. That is exactly why they hired him. To kick the soft guys in the ass. I am pretty sure someone will complain about the tough practices and workouts. That is a-okay in my book.

[miami_fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2378389

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Defensive tackle John Henderson signed a six-year contract extension with the Jacksonville Jaguars on Tuesday, locking up another cornerstone of one of the team's defenses.


Terms of the deal were not released, but Henderson's agent, Tim McGee, said the new contract gave Henderson more guaranteed money than any other NFL tackle.

Henderson is the fourth defensive starter, and third lineman, to sign a long-term contract with the Jaguars since early last year.

End Reggie Hayward, cornerback Rashean Mathis and tackle Marcus Stroud each signed five-year contracts that totaled $82 million, including about $30 million guaranteed.

Henderson made his lone Pro Bowl in 2004, but coaches believe he has been equally important to the team's success as Stroud, a three-time Pro Bowler.

Henderson had three sacks and 70 tackles last season, the most by any interior lineman in the AFC.

The 6-foot-7, 328-pound former Tennessee star and first-round draft pick has started every game in four seasons and has 254 tackles and 18½ sacks.

So is this the new claim du jour? Instead of getting big signing bonuses, it will be about getting the most guaranteed money.

[TazFTW]

Adam Vinatieri and the Colts have agreed in principle.