Some idle speculation here. Just dealing with the insomnia, so I'll throw this up for discussion:
Is Ireland evaluating what he's seen of Tannehill thus far? I know that camp hasn't even started yet, but it seems from reports of OTAs that so far (ridiculously early as it is), Tannehill hasn't shown that he should have been drafted #8 overall, or that his knowledge of the system from A&M is going to be a factor. Could seem to Ireland that the club is going to have to pay Tannehill quite a bit of money to sit on the bench behind two at best mediocre QBs, while people like Flacco started immediately. Far short of Marino, Tannehill may turn out not to even be Flacco.
Are we beginning to see a bit of buyer's remorse on the part of Ireland? Is he thinking that maybe he whiffed on Tannehill and he needs to start thinking about recovering some of the guaranteed money if they have to give up on him? Does he think Tannehill is in a weak negotiating position, and may accept the language, based on what he's (not) shown so far?
Don't get me wrong. I hope that Tannehill tears up the league. Just thinking that Ireland may be a bit touchy about striking out on Marino's replacement yet again, and doesn't want to have the dead cap space from the failure when he has to try again (assuming he's still around). Or it could have nothing to do with it. The offset may indeed be a concept the league wants introduced into guaranteed contracts.
Not that the language is such an outrageous concept, either. We're committing to pay Tannehill all these millions, regardless of how he actually performs. That's what "guaranteed" means. Say, for example, that the guaranteed amount were four million in his fourth year. If he doesn't work out; in fact, if he stinks it up, and we have to cut him at the end of the third year, we will have failed again at getting a franchise QB and still have to pay him the guaranteed four million after he's gone.
Now say he signs up with another team, which also agrees to pay him four million. He would end up with our four million and the new club's four million in his pocket for the fourth year, while the club gets nothing but dead cap space for its last four million..
The offset language allows the club to set what the new club pays Tannehill off against our guaranteed obligation. If Tannehill makes at least the same four million with the new team, he doesn't get to double-dip, and we're off the hook for that last four million.
It's an attempt to re-introduce accountability for a player's performance into the guaranteed money; or in other words, to condition the back end of the guarantee on his performing well. I can sympathize with the club, but the end result is that the last year is no longer really guaranteed, and Tannehill is probably not going to be the first to accept it. It could get ugly.
i wouldnt mind a piece of that pie.
