A long-held fantasy football theory is that players in the final year of their contract will turn it up as they seek the bigger dollars of a new deal. What are your feelings on this theory? Is it valid?
Jason Wood: I've seen no empirical evidence to suggest contract years are worth targeting. In fact, I think a credible argument can be made against them because it often invites a player being unhappy with their situation, sometimes letting themselves fall out of shape as they skip offseason conditioning programs in protest. I also think players understand that, in most cases, they need to elevate their play earlier than Year 4-5-6, and if they do, their teams will work on signing them to extensions BEFORE their walk years.
Jeff Haseley: I definitely think it's a valid conclusion, especially players who are looking to prove themselves as a valuable commodity for the 2014 free agency period. It not only makes sense, it makes business sense. Players such as Jermichael Finley, Kenny Britt, Hakeem Nicks, Jeremy Maclin, Julian Edelman, Jacoby Ford, Jacoby Jones, Josh Cribbs all have something to prove. I expect them to play at an elevated state both physically and mentally. There's a reason why motivation and competition is such a winning formula - it works. To those impending free agents who have already proven themselves (to some extent), I still believe the effort will be there. Maybe not as much from a mental standpoint, but the desire to stay among their peers at the top of their position is reason for optimism.
Chad Parsons: While I monitor contract information on my excel sheets, it is not from a "this contract-year player is hyper-motivated" standpoint. Moreso, I use it to monitor the situation if that player leaves in free agency, who will emerge and be a hot name the following offseason? I do have a theory that a long-term lucrative deal can unmotivate certain players going forward, but buying into a contract-year player thinking they will try harder or something to that degree is not something I subscribe to in way of anaylzing player value.
Andy Hicks: There is no doubt that some players are motivated by money and as such would see a contract year as a tool to get more money, but in the NFL it is very difficult for a player to get away with not maximizing their ability or to loaf. Not For Long has often been what some have referred to the NFL as, and any player who didn't turn out in a non contract year would easily be identified by the coaching staff. We've seen very big name players cut soon after signing massive contracts when their effort hasn't been given, so for some of the non top tier players to be especially motivated by dollar signs seems a stretch. Players live and die by their reputation and if they earn a rep as someone who doesn't give their all, natural ability will only take them so far. Of course there are exceptions, but you could probably list way more players who don't achieve success in their contract years than those who break out.
Heath Cummings: I think it all depends on the player. There are absolutely certain players that are going to perform better in a contract year but the flip side of that is that there are also players that are going to sulk (or worse yet, holdout). It's a very dangerous game trying to predict which is which, but a lot can be learned from how the player and the team handle themselves in the offseason. I'll adjust a player in a contract year up slightly if the situation is being handled professionally and there doesn't seem to be any hostility. On the other hand I might slightly downgrade a player in a very volatile situation, especially if they're taking their hurt feelings to the media or Twitter.
Jason Wood: Again, I would make the point that if anyone has any empirical evidence to show that contract years matter, I would love to see it.
Ryan Hester: Like Heath, I think it depends on the player. More than that, though, it depends on the situation around that player. For instance, 2013 contract year guys like Jermichael Finley and Kenny Britt are considered enigmas (one for on-the-field reasons, one for off-the-field reasons, but enigmas nonetheless). Predicting what they are going to do, what their motivational level will be, etc. is a really difficult thing to do.
I look to read between the lines in this kind of situation. In New York, the Giants have Hakeem Nicks in a "walk" year and Rueben Randle behind him. This could motivate Nicks to perform well, be in better shape, and maybe even play through more injuries than he has in the past. But it also could motivate the Giants to give Randle more of a shot to see what they have should they not sign Nicks long-term. Further examination suggests that since they signed Victor Cruz, they may not want to devote two huge contracts to players who play the same position. So is Nicks a better value because he's a soon-to-be free agent, or a worse value?
Another situation where reading the tea leaves applies is in Seattle. Golden Tate is a pending free agent, while Sidney Rice is signed through 2015. However, Tate makes $630,000 this year while Rice makes $8.5 million this year and next before $9 million in 2015. The smart football move is to cut Rice after 2013, save the non-guaranteed portion of that contract (reportedly only $3.6 million of guaranteed money remains), and re-sign Tate to a much friendlier contract. That makes Tate an attractive soon-to-be-free agent in my eyes.
I do agree with Jason, though, that empirical evidence is lacking (or if it's out there, I also haven't seen it). On things that are case-by-case like this, it's really in the eye of the beholder.
Jeff Pasquino: It clearly depends on the player. I wrote an article about this this year, and I did it last year too. I found an interesting article to support the "it doesn't matter" argument that pretty much shows that it doesn't matter much overall - but on an individual player standpoint it certainly might. For example, Jay Cutler is going for the Joe Flacco path to a big deal this year, investing in himself in the hopes for a big payday next year. Dustin Keller is doing the same in Miami. I tend to look for public statements by the player themselves as to whether they are pushing for a "prove it" year to land a big contract next season. That's what I want to read most, and that will cause me to raise that player in the rankings a little more.
Matt Waldman: It's all about putting the pieces together about a player. If you examine the one piece and try to quantify it alone then you're not going to get anything worthwhile from it. Therefore you conclude it's not a factor. However, if you look at the player, see that he has reported to camp in better shape than he has in the past, learn that he's making plays that have impressed his veteran teammates and coaches in ways he hasn't before, and that he mentions that he's playing for a new contract, then I'll take it into account.
I've managed enough young people (early 20s to 30s) in my lifetime to see how certain factors serve as motivation. There are studies that up to a certain point, money can be a strong motivational factor for increased performance. Because NFL salaries are often not guaranteed, job tenures are short or capable of ending unexpectedly, and the fast-money nature and attitude than many young people have when they enter their career, the second contract can give these players a chance to make up for past mistakes or sustain lifestyles that have more demands than they should created with that first contract.
While I didn't manage people making huge sums of money, the dynamics of this age group are similar as are the basic demands. So yes, contract is a factor just not always "the factor."
Will Grant: I think Matt is much closer to this with the 'one factor' but not 'the factor' point. I think it makes for easy writing copy (and I'm sure if I go back through my articles, I'll probably find it in there from time to time), but to Jason's point - I think there is no specific evidence that anyone can point to that will say player X will play better this year because he is playing for a better contract. In fact, I'll bet if you look, you'll probably find more people that didn't have a big year before the signed a new contract. Especially with NFL owners being more and more reluctant to sign players to longer term contracts.
Coaches may argue that players looking for a long term deal will be more motivated to play harder, but I think the reality is that it's more of a tool to prevent owners from getting locked into long term deals with players who are just one major injury away from being a completely different player.
Chicago is a perfect example. Right now, they have 43 players with expiring contracts that the end of the season, including 13 of them a key unrestricted free agents including guys like Charles Tillman, Henry Melton, and Devin Hester. Based on the 'players play better' theory, the Bears should be one of the top teams in the league this year. While some certainly will be, my bet is that the majority will be about the same or below their previous years performances.
For younger players, looking for their first extension, there is probably some additional motivation. For ets, looking to extend their career, it's a negotiating tactic most of the time.