Super Bowl Titles and High Salary Quarterbacks

[amfootball]

Found this article that was written just before the SB was played this year. Interesting break down of how teams have fared that have paid a lot of money to their starting QBs and may help to explain why Seattle is playing hard ball with Wilson.

 

Check out this stat:

With Aaron Rodgers now eliminated from winning the Super Bowl, it means that Steve Young’s record as the highest salary cap clogging QB to win a Super Bowl remains intact. Young’s cap figure that season took up 13.1% of the 49ers salary cap. That year was 1994, the first year the salary cap was in existence. So in 20 years no Super Bowl winning team has invested a higher percentage of their cap on a QB than the first team to ever win one in the cap era.  Yet teams continue to pour more and more money into that position each season.

 

 

http://overthecap.com/super-bowl-titles-high-salary-quarterbacks/

[chad72]

This is why it is very important that the Colts make noise this year .

[chad72]

It ultimately depends on the specific year and what the QB cap hit is to get key players to put you over the hump, I guess.

 

Favre, Peyton, Eli have all had double digit 10 plus percentage cap hits when they won SBs, so did Brady in 2014 though barely

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/2014/cap-hit/quarterback/

 

 

I think once you get past the 12.5%, which is about 1/8th the team's salary cap, that is when you are in trouble in the current salary cap era. Quality of free agents matter too. Revis and Browner were what put the Pats, who were always a contender, over the top. 

 

It was the first time the Pats had actually spent some money (http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2014/) and it put them over the top, go figure.

 

I still think the Seahawks can get it done if they structure their contracts so that RW does not hit more than 10% in a huge way in any given year. The Saints have done a terrible job with Brees' contract, IMO.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Bill Polian was on NFL radio yesterday and he explained the Wilson deal, and how hard it is to continue to field a winning team when franchise/elite QB's move on from their  rookie contacts and get big $.  But that Seattle really has no alternative.

 

Once, when Peyton's contract was up, Polian and Irsay were chatting with Irsay mentioning that maybe the Colts could use the less expensive non-exclusive franchise tag on him instead of exclusive while negotiating during the upcoming season.  Polian said no to which Irsay asked for 3 teams that would try to sign away Peyton.  Bill said I'll give you 6...  then named off 4 at which point Irsay stopped him and said use the exclusive franchise tag, and keep negotiating for a deal now.

 

Then Polian said you now have to make hard decisions, all business based.  You have to let go some good players.  Once, a player Polian released came to him and asked to name a price the Colts could afford, he'd stay.  Polian told him he could not in good conscience do that.  His offer would have to be a little less than half of what the player was offered by other teams already.  He did not play for the Colts that next year.

 

This is what the salary cap does.  But well run institutions can do well regardless.  The last decade and a half show New England, Steelers, and Colts to be at least 3 that have done so despite the new cap reality.

[Superman]

Focusing on percentage of cap hit makes this incredibly flawed to begin with, because percentage of cap is easily manipulated.

 

As always, the answer is draft well, and manage your roster well. Don't balk at paying your QB, just do a good job around him.

[Bubbz]

Wow if only we could all be like the patriots and have team friendly qb contracts!!!!!! I wish that was my team!!!

Sarcasm

[aaron11]

use the non exclusive tag.  if someone wants to give up two high picks plus 25 mil a year to wilson, they can have him.  seattle could rebuild quickly, the picks would more than likely be pretty high

 

if no one signs him, that would hurt his leverage and seattle could get him at a more reasonable deal.

 

basically, its calling him on his bluff that hes really worth that much.  its a gamble for both sides, with the team having an advantage becasue of the picks that come with the non exclusive tag.

[ColtsBlueFL]

use the non exclusive tag.  if someone wants to give up two high picks plus 25 mil a year to wilson, they can have him.  seattle could rebuild quickly, the picks would more than likely be pretty high

I doubt they could. It is a QB driven league.  There really is no QB next year that is going to be as good as Wilson.  I might even wager that only the Big guy from Penn State and remotely the Stanford QB get a shot at ever starting an NFL game.  I'm not in on Connor Cook, nor the USC (just about any USC these days) QB. The rest will likely never make it behind center to start an NFL game. Unless Cardale Jones excels and progresses this year at the Ohio State University.  But will he even win the starting job?

 

Superman is right.  When you have a QB on the level of Wilson, you pay him and the do your best elsewhere. Draft well, manage the roster well. Coach well and players execute.

[amfootball]

Focusing on percentage of cap hit makes this incredibly flawed to begin with, because percentage of cap is easily manipulated.

 

As always, the answer is draft well, and manage your roster well. Don't balk at paying your QB, just do a good job around him.

I agree to a certain extent but having a large chunk tied up in the QB makes the margin for error that much tighter. Right now Harbaugh is having to answer a lot questions about Flacco given his contract situation and the fact that many believe he is not elite status. So I think there is a balance. For guys like Rogers and Luck, it is a no brainer, you pay them. But for other Qbs like Newton who just got paid $20+ mil and Wilson who wants the same or more, it becomes much dicer. I think clubs need to do a good job of managing their QBs first and foremost.

[aaron11]

I doubt they could. It is a QB driven league.  There really is no QB next year that is going to be as good as Wilson.  I might even wager that only the Big guy from Penn State and remotely the Stanford QB get a shot at ever starting an NFL game.  I'm not in on Connor Cook, nor the USC (just about any USC these days) QB. The rest will likely never make it behind center to start an NFL game. Unless Cardale Jones excels and progresses this year at the Ohio State University.  But will he even win the starting job?

 

Superman is right.  When you have a QB on the level of Wilson, you pay him and the do your best elsewhere. Draft well, manage the roster well. Coach well and players execute.

i dont think he would go anywhere under the non exclusive tag.  even if he did, seattle would tank for a year, then have a lot of high picks.  i think wilson is good but not great.  he could be replaced using three first round picks over two years, with some of those picks likely to pretty high. 

 

they could trade them all to move into the top 2 or 3 picks

 

people said the same things about wilson when he was in college too, i bet someone in those draft classes could be a sufficient replacement

[21isSuperman]

It's no surprise.  When you have less money invested into one position, you can invest more into other positions and create a balanced team.

[Superman]

I agree to a certain extent but having a large chunk tied up in the QB makes the margin for error that much tighter. Right now Harbaugh is having to answer a lot questions about Flacco given his contract situation and the fact that many believe he is not elite status. So I think there is a balance. For guys like Rogers and Luck, it is a no brainer, you pay them. But for other Qbs like Newton who just got paid $20+ mil and Wilson who wants the same or more, it becomes much dicer. I think clubs need to do a good job of managing their QBs first and foremost.

 

Flacco's contract is taking a serious jump, but his cap number is still adjustable. It's a moot point. And the bigger concern with Flacco is how good he actually is, not whether he's making 15-18% of the cap.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Flacco's contract is taking a serious jump, but his cap number is still adjustable. It's a moot point. And the bigger concern with Flacco is how good he actually is, not whether he's making 15-18% of the cap.

 

Teams problems, if you have some talent at QB, and you have won a Super Bowl with your team, they can't afford to let you go and win for someone else.  You get paid.  (IE: Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Russell Wilson, etc...)  Besides these 3, (and removing Tent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who each had mad monstrous defenses), The Super bowl winning QB's are elite or HOF level players.  I might have to compare their earnings to their cap hits (when it became a reality). Since at least 1992, (and before) top shelf QB play rises to the top most often.

 

[Superman]

Teams problems, if you have some talent at QB, and you have won a Super Bowl with your team, they can't afford to let you go and win for someone else.  You get paid.  (IE: Joe Flacco, Eli Manning, Russell Wilson, etc...)  Besides these 3, (and removing Tent Dilfer and Brad Johnson who each had mad monstrous defenses), The Super bowl winning QB's are elite or HOF level players.  I might have to compare their earnings to their cap hits (when it became a reality). Since at least 1992, (and before) top shelf QB play rises to the top most often.

 

 

Yeah, let's not try to promote this idea that teams are winning SBs with replacement level QBs. They're really not even getting to the final four without good QBs, or QBs playing really well at the time.

[jvan1973]

I agree to a certain extent but having a large chunk tied up in the QB makes the margin for error that much tighter. Right now Harbaugh is having to answer a lot questions about Flacco given his contract situation and the fact that many believe he is not elite status. So I think there is a balance. For guys like Rogers and Luck, it is a no brainer, you pay them. But for other Qbs like Newton who just got paid $20+ mil and Wilson who wants the same or more, it becomes much dicer. I think clubs need to do a good job of managing their QBs first and foremost.

Why would Harbaugh be answering questions about the Flacco contract? He didn't negotiate it

[BOTT]

I know when the Packers blew that onside kicked recovery I was like..."damn you Aaron Rodgers and your salary cap percentage!!!"

[BloodyChamp]

I know when the Packers blew that onside kicked recovery I was like..."damn you Aaron Rodgers and your salary cap percentage!!!"

Where's that old Packers needing more 6th round draft picks when you need it?

These contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. Every quarterback who wins the SB can get away with a newer, bigger 1 from this point on it seems.

[amfootball]

Flacco's contract is taking a serious jump, but his cap number is still adjustable. It's a moot point. And the bigger concern with Flacco is how good he actually is, not whether he's making 15-18% of the cap.

Yes. That was my point. Flacco got paid for having a four game post-season run for the ages and he is being paid like he is Rodgers or close to Rodgers as Rodgers deal was done after him. The more room he takes on the cap without delivering elite results that much tougher it is for the Ravens to be successful. So my overall point was that teams need to manage their QBs first and then the team. And I am not saying the Ravens should have not paid Joe as they kind of had it at that point but their future success is directly tied to that monster contract and his level of play.

[Lawrence Owen]

i also think you need to have a certain balance.  yes you pay your QB if he is worth that money, top 5 qb's should have those big contracts because those type of qb's are few and far between, game makers, and changers.  But when you do have a top 5 QB, you have to go all in to make him great.  You either have a solid running game, and spend the rest on defense, or you make him unstoppable.  You can't try to equalize the rest of your money on both sides of the ball.  This is why i think Cam and Flacco's deals are going to end up hurting their teams in the long run.

[amfootball]

Why would Harbaugh be answering questions about the Flacco contract? He didn't negotiate it

Not about the contract specifically but Joe being an elite QB because he is being paid like one. The media and fans in Baltimore see that deal and continue to wonder if Joe is worth it.

[Valpo2004]

Once you start paying a franchise QB then it becomes all about drafting well.  It's only through drafting well, getting players who play for 4 years on ultra cheap rookie contracts that you can really hope to get ahead of everyone else.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Not about the contract specifically but Joe being an elite QB because he is being paid like one. The media and fans in Baltimore see that deal and continue to wonder if Joe is worth it.

 

Just seems funny people complaining about Flacco, and his salary.  People and the Ravens didn't believe in him enough to give him elite money.  Long term deals kept falling through.  Flacco tells the world he is Elite.  World largely snickers, excepting the few huge guffaws in the background.  Flacco wins the Super Bowl,  SB MVP, and crams it down everybody's throats.  Then collect his (even larger!) long term deal.

 

Now those same naysayers complain Flacco isn't good enough, and his coach will have to answer to it.  Of course Harbaugh wants Joe to continue to believe he is elite.  Joe needs to believe it to emulate it.  Harbaugh won't deviate from that script.

 

But what fun it would be for the Ravens to somehow part ways with Joe Flacco under fan pressure, and he ends up on a team like (please Lord forbid it!) like the Texans or similar, and he puts them over the top.  Flacco goes on another run and he wins another Lombardi.  Crams it down the throats of the general populace GM's out there once more.

 

Flacco is good enough to win a SB.  I feel there are other QB's good enough to win as well, yet they have not (A. Luck, M. Ryan, P. Rivers, T. Romo, M. Stafford, C. Newton).

 

In my mind, when you have a QB that is good enough to win, you don't blame him and his salary when they don't. Otherwise we should be blaming 31 QB's every year for 'ruining it' for their team.  ¬_¬

 

Seem folks like to complain about 'overpaid QB's.  But a good amount of the noise comes from the camps that have HOF or elite level QB's on their team already.  There are a lot of teams that don't have one, have been trying for years to get one, and will (over) pay dearly to get one.  Including Flacco.

[amfootball]

Just seems funny people complaining about Flacco, and his salary.  People and the Ravens didn't believe in him enough to give him elite money.  Long term deals kept falling through.  Flacco tells the world he is Elite.  World largely snickers, excepting the few huge guffaws in the background.  Flacco wins the Super Bowl,  SB MVP, and crams it down everybody's throats.  Then collect his (even larger!) long term deal.

 

Now those same naysayers complain Flacco isn't good enough, and his coach will have to answer to it.  Of course Harbaugh wants Joe to continue to believe he is elite.  Joe needs to believe it to emulate it.  Harbaugh won't deviate from that script.

 

But what fun it would be for the Ravens to somehow part ways with Joe Flacco under fan pressure, and he ends up on a team like (please Lord forbid it!) like the Texans or similar, and he puts them over the top.  Flacco goes on another run and he wins another Lombardi.  Crams it down the throats of the general populace GM's out there once more.

 

Flacco is good enough to win a SB.  I feel there are other QB's good enough to win as well, yet they have not (A. Luck, M. Ryan, P. Rivers, T. Romo, M. Stafford, C. Newton).

 

In my mind, when you have a QB that is good enough to win, you don't blame him and his salary when they don't. Otherwise we should be blaming 31 QB's every year for 'ruining it' for their team.  ¬_¬

 

Seem folks like to complain about 'overpaid QB's.  But a good amount of the noise comes from the camps that have HOF or elite level QB's on their team already.  There are a lot of teams that don't have one, have been trying for years to get one, and will (over) pay dearly to get one.  Including Flacco.

Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this. Flacco is a unique case in that he was in contract year when he won the SB and put together a great four games in the post-season. But as you know, fans are fickle. You get the taste of a SB and you want more and they look at Flacco's average regular season numbers and his brain fart last year that cost them vs the Pats and they start clamoring. It is what it is but still underscores the point that if you pay elite money and don't get consistently elite play then the margin for winning becomes very compromised.

[Superman]

Yes. That was my point. Flacco got paid for having a four game post-season run for the ages and he is being paid like he is Rodgers or close to Rodgers as Rodgers deal was done after him. The more room he takes on the cap without delivering elite results that much tougher it is for the Ravens to be successful. So my overall point was that teams need to manage their QBs first and then the team. And I am not saying the Ravens should have not paid Joe as they kind of had it at that point but their future success is directly tied to that monster contract and his level of play.

 

No it isn't. Either you have a pretty good QB and pay him as such, or you don't. The Ravens aren't interested in trying to replace Flacco, as the QB market is dry as ever. They could have been in the AFCCG if they didn't lose all their corners last season and in the playoffs. The Ravens are fine, and if they want, they can move Flacco's deal around after 2015. To this point, he hasn't accounted for more than 11% of their cap. I don't like his contract or the structure, but his contract hasn't held them back, nor should it moving forward.

[amfootball]

No it isn't. Either you have a pretty good QB and pay him as such, or you don't.

No one is arguing that. The point of the article was how hard it is to win the SB when the QB accounts for a high percentage of the cap. My point was Flacco is not Rodgers-level elite so the margin for error for the Ravens is harder given what they are paying him versus his level of play. That does not mean they can't or won't win again just that the road will be tougher.

 

And they could have been in the AFCCG if Flacco did not have a brain fart at the end of the game.

[Superman]

No one is arguing that. The point of the article was how hard it is to win the SB when the QB accounts for a high percentage of the cap. My point was Flacco is not Rodgers-level elite so the margin for error for the Ravens is harder given what they are paying him versus his level of play. That does not mean they can't or won't win again just that the road will be tougher.

 

And they could have been in the AFCCG if Flacco did not have a brain fart at the end of the game.

 

Even good QBs make mistakes in games. "Flacco threw a pick at the end of the game" isn't an effective argument for why he shouldn't be paid like he is. And it wasn't really a brain fart, the threw just was too far to the inside, when it should have been on the receiver's outside shoulder.

 

Regardless, it's not really hard to win the SB when the QB accounts for a high percentage of the cap. It's hard -- near impossible -- to win the SB when you don't have a QB that's worthy of accounting for a high percentage of the cap. Paying your QB is the cost of doing business. It's not even worthy of conversation, to be honest. Either pay him, or replace him, and good luck with that.

[amfootball]

Even good QBs make mistakes in games. "Flacco threw a pick at the end of the game" isn't an effective argument for why he shouldn't be paid like he is. And it wasn't really a brain fart, the threw just was too far to the inside, when it should have been on the receiver's outside shoulder.

 

Regardless, it's not really hard to win the SB when the QB accounts for a high percentage of the cap. It's hard -- near impossible -- to win the SB when you don't have a QB that's worthy of accounting for a high percentage of the cap. Paying your QB is the cost of doing business. It's not even worthy of conversation, to be honest. Either pay him, or replace him, and good luck with that.

No reason to throw that ball period. Into double coverage and he was late as well which allowed Harmon to close on his lollipop throw and wait for it to hit him in the hands.

 

To your second paragraph - yes it is which is why the article was written. When Flacco won the SB he was nowhere near his current salary. And the Seahawks won the bowl and were in their second in  large part because Wilson is on a third round pick salary and also why they are balking right now at paying him what he wants. And of course we know the Pats were there and won due to Brady's extension that freed up cap room for Revis, Browner and LaFell.

[pgt_rob]

I know when the Packers blew that onside kicked recovery I was like..."damn you Aaron Rodgers and your salary cap percentage!!!"

 

[Superman]

No reason to throw that ball period. Into double coverage and he was late as well which allowed Harmon to close on his lollipop throw and wait for it to hit him in the hands.

 

To your second paragraph - yes it is which is why the article was written. When Flacco won the SB he was nowhere near his current salary. And the Seahawks won the bowl and were in their second in  large part because Wilson is on a third round pick salary and also why they are balking right now at paying him what he wants. And of course we know the Pats were there and won due to Brady's extension that freed up cap room for Revis, Browner and LaFell.

 

People only question throws into double coverage if they're picked off. There was nothing wrong with the decision; the ball was just misplaced.

 

The article is based on faulty logic. Just because it was written and makes a claim doesn't make that claim true.

[amfootball]

People only question throws into double coverage if they're picked off. There was nothing wrong with the decision; the ball was just misplaced.

 

The article is based on faulty logic. Just because it was written and makes a claim doesn't make that claim true.

You question it when there is over a minute left and you are over the 50 and the game is on the line.

 

How is 20 years of stats faulty logic?

[Superman]

You question it when there is over a minute left and you are over the 50 and the game is on the line.

 

How is 20 years of stats faulty logic?

 

Have you ever heard of a coincidence?

[amfootball]

Have you ever heard of a coincidence?

lol. Not 20 years ...

[Superman]

lol. Not 20 years ...

 

How many variables go into winning a SB? And you think the pay of the most important player on the roster is a deciding factor? Try again.

 

And like I said earlier, the number of teams with highly paid QBs that reach the final four shows pretty definitively how important it is to have a good QB. If people want to link the QB's pay to the number of SBs won by teams with highly paid QBs, so be it. I guess teams should start letting their QBs walk since they make too much money...

[Swan Ronson]

How many variables go into winning a SB? And you think the pay of the most important player on the roster is a deciding factor? Try again.

 

And like I said earlier, the number of teams with highly paid QBs that reach the final four shows pretty definitively how important it is to have a good QB. If people want to link the QB's pay to the number of SBs won by teams with highly paid QBs, so be it. I guess teams should start letting their QBs walk since they make too much money...

Just one. The percentage of cap taken up by the quarterback.

[Superman]

Just one. The percentage of cap taken up by the quarterback.

 

Evidently, based on the "logic" of this thread.

[amfootball]

How many variables go into winning a SB? And you think the pay of the most important player on the roster is a deciding factor? Try again.

 

And like I said earlier, the number of teams with highly paid QBs that reach the final four shows pretty definitively how important it is to have a good QB. If people want to link the QB's pay to the number of SBs won by teams with highly paid QBs, so be it. I guess teams should start letting their QBs walk since they make too much money...

Who said it was the deciding factor? The article was drawing a correlation since the cap era about teams who have won the SB as compared to the pay/percentage of QBs. Like I said, 20 years is not coincidence.

 

And your last sentence makes no sense. Nowhere does the article suggest letting QBs walk but was more discussing the thinking process of GMs as they look at the QB position and its effect on the cap in this era of trying to build competitive rosters year in and year out. As you have said, teams have to draft smart and built their rosters smartly but that margin is much slimmer when you have a QB making 10 percent or more of the cap. Does not mean it can't be done or should not be done but probably more speaks to the fact that teams with good/elite QB play who are not paying elite money right now to their Qbs have an advantage over those that do. The last 3 years SB winners pretty much showcase that with Flacco, Wilson and Brady and their respective deals ...

[ColtsBlueFL]

Evidently, based on the "logic" of this thread.

 

Hypothetical (nightmare) contract talks with A. Luck's agent: 

 

"Wow, really? That much?  Let see.... that equates to xx% of the salary cap!  Nah, we can't go that high. We want to win Super Bowls.  Does A.L. want to win Super Bowls?  Well, we read an article that if your QB is > x% of the cap, you can't win a Super Bowl.  Your just fleecing the team of cash and opportunity.  I guess if you can't come down, or budge off the asking price, we're just going to have agree to disagree, and part ways.  Best of Luck to you both..."

 

That isn't happening...

 

What strikes me is this quote-

'If we assume next year’s salary cap to be $140 million six quarterbacks will eat up more cap space than Young. Those players include Tony Romo, Drew Brees, both Mannings, Ryan, and Roethlisberger. Half of that group didn’t make the playoffs in 2014 and none advanced beyond the second round.'

 

Funny thing, 2/3 of those have won a Superbowl with Ben and Eli winning two.  That's 6 Super Bowl wins in a list of 6 QB's.  LOL!  So that really tells me how hard it is to win a Super Bowl with those types of QB's eating up so much cap space on your team!  LOL

[Superman]

Who said it was the deciding factor? The article was drawing a correlation since the cap era about teams who have won the SB as compared to the pay/percentage of QBs. Like I said, 20 years is not coincidence.

 

And your last sentence makes no sense. Nowhere does the article suggest letting QBs walk but was more discussing the thinking process of GMs as they look at the QB position and its effect on the cap in this era of trying to build competitive rosters year in and year out. As you have said, teams have to draft smart and built their rosters smartly but that margin is much slimmer when you have a QB making 10 percent or more of the cap. Does not mean it can't be done or should not be done but probably more speaks to the fact that teams with good QB play who are not paying elite money right now to their Qbs have an advantage over those that do. The last 3 years SB winners pretty much showcase that with Flacco, Wilson and Brady and their respective deals ...

 

Did you read the entire article? It's linking QB cap % with the likelihood of winning a SB, and directly questions, several times, the wisdom of paying QBs as they're being paid now:

 

The regular season success of most of those players is off the charts and irreplaceable.  But if it compromises your ability to get better more and more teams need to question whether it is worth it or not.

 

...

 

But clogging the salary cap on this one position is not going to help a team win a Super Bowl.

 

 

Faulty logic. Correlation does not equal causation, and the "winning a SB" criteria is unnecessarily strict, as the variables that go into winning a SB are multiple. It doesn't even make sense to spend time considering this, unless teams really want to try to replace their QBs.

[amfootball]

Did you read the entire article? It's linking QB cap % with the likelihood of winning a SB, and directly questions, several times, the wisdom of paying QBs as they're being paid now:

 

 

Faulty logic. Correlation does not equal causation, and the "winning a SB" criteria is unnecessarily strict, as the variables that go into winning a SB are multiple. It doesn't even make sense to spend time considering this, unless teams really want to try to replace their QBs.

Yes, I think it is shortsighted in the fact that is only uses winning the SB as its measuring stick for success. That being said, I think it makes valid points in looking the QB pay scale vs the cap. I mean there is a reason Seattle is balking right now at Wislon and he has a strong case to be paid elite money. There is a reason Kraft talked to Brady for 18 months to get him to sign that extensions and there is a reason that Elway asked Manning to take a pay cut. Like I said, teams that are getting very good to elite QB level of play for non-elite money have an advantage over other teams that are paying out the elite money. Does not mean that those teams can't or won't win but just harder to do for obvious reasons ...

[amfootball]

Hypothetical (nightmare) contract talks with A. Luck's agent: 

 

"Wow, really? That much?  Let see.... that equates to xx% of the salary cap!  Nah, we can't go that high. We want to win Super Bowls.  Does A.L. want to win Super Bowls?  Well, we read an article that if your QB is > x% of the cap, you can't win a Super Bowl.  Your just fleecing the team of cash and opportunity.  I guess if you can't come down, or budge off the asking price, we're just going to have agree to disagree, and part ways.  Best of Luck to you both..."

 

That exact convo may be happening in Seattle right now ...