Donald Butler signs extension

[Fleet]

If he doesn't reach year 4 of this latest contract he would be a failure. You don't pay a very young player 6.5 for three years with a team option to have it only be a 3 year deal.

It's a lot of cap space for a guy that many don't believe in.

Look at the Butler extension thread, nobody wanted him to get paid.
And he just did.

I wanted him to get paid. Just a million or 2 less. Based on injury issues. Im not gonna even worry about it at this point. Over the next few years draft another ILB and groom him for all i care. Im expecting Butler to perform well over the next few years and we can cross the bridge when we get to year 4.

I really dont care what the members of this forum think about a player. If this staff believes in Butler ill do as well. My only gripe has been injuries. But they clearly are paying him based on his production when healthy. I think hes played hurt a lot and thats hurt his game.

Who knows bro. It is what it is. Im ready to move on to the next move. Cheers.

[BoltBacker]

I just see it giving the team flexibility:

1. buys time for Te'o to develop
2. Shows commitment to a drafted player without selling out the future
3. Only about a million higher than what the board was thinking, we always tend to undervalue these contracts, myself included
4. He along with Weddle are the continuity to the D
5. After seeing salary cap jump and forecasted to jump again Butler may be really good value if he can stay healthy

I for one am glad to see him stay. Revisit this thread in December

[oneinchpunch]

I just see it giving the team flexibility:

1. buys time for Te'o to develop
2. Shows commitment to a drafted player without selling out the future
3. Only about a million higher than what the board was thinking, we always tend to undervalue these contracts, myself included
4. He along with Weddle are the continuity to the D
5. After seeing salary cap jump and forecasted to jump again Butler may be really good value if he can stay healthy

I for one am glad to see him stay. Revisit this thread in December

The board was thinking only a million under 6.5-8+ million per year?

Show me anyone that thought that.

What does Te'o have to do with it?

It's like saying royal's restructure is great for Malcolm Floyd.

[blueman]

He's baaaaaack.

[blahblahblah]

too much.

[BoltBacker]

The board was thinking only a million under 6.5-8+ million per year?

Show me anyone that thought that.

What does Te'o have to do with it?

It's like saying royal's restructure is great for Malcolm Floyd.

From the poll 40% of the board had Butler in the $5M range another 10% had him at $6M per year, that is half the board. The meat of the deal which is the first three years is the $6.5M range, that is why I said about a million more.

Te'o is developing at the NFL level and having Butler along side him will only help his growth (do you disagree?).

Royal is not the compliment to Floyd that Butler is to Te'o. I would say a better comparison for Floyd was VJ and we have missed him until KA showed up.

[Panama]

Considering how durable this guy is throwing a shitload of money at him was the smart thing to do.

That's why they didn't throw but instead dangled it.

[Panama]

The board was thinking only a million under 6.5-8+ million per year?

Show me anyone that thought that.

http://www.thepowderblues.com/forum/showthread.php?6447-What-is-your-max-acceptable-yearly-price-for-Butler

8 votes (tied for most) for 5 mill, 2 votes for 6 mill, and 1 vote for whatever it takes. I voted 5 mill; you voted 6. Can you drop your schtick now? Thanks.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

At 28 years old he wouldn't be worth keeping?

A 3 year contract and the outcome I to let him be a free agent?

To not want to keep him after that means he underperformed.

It's called managing downside risk.

To keep the player now (for the reasons Fleet pointed out), you had to commit to a deal of this length at those dollars. That 's the market. But given his history, you give yourself an out for the last four years. That's called smart. This isn't rocket science.

You're talking about him as if he's already underperformed. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. The important thing is the player has been retained and the Chargers have minimized their exposure. We'll see how clear your crystal ball is.

Or were you fine letting him walk and creating another hole on D? Tiresome is the word that comes to mind.

[SDFan]

I wonder if there are also injury protections for the team built in that we haven't learned about yet?

[Steve]

That was the thing with Sean Lee's contract last year. It had a lot of protection in there for the Cowboys. I kind of wonder if we aren't hearing the agent side of things, which means some of the none necessarily achieved things get reported as salary, which is common when you hear about large contracts.

If he goes out and performs well (which includes being on the field to perform) then I don't think anyone has an issue with him getting what he is being paid. We need 2 every down LB to be in our nickle package, plus Butler plays in our dime package as well. Butler isn't the greatest coverage LB out there, but he is good enough given his other strengths.

[sandiego17]

It's called managing downside risk.

Exactly. Funny discussion. I'm trying to think of a situation where I wouldn't want a short term deal with MY option to extend it, even if it meant paying a premium on the extension in order to secure that option. Any player comes with risk, its football, managing that risk is smart.