Raiders Not on the Hook for $20 Million Guaranteed to Stanford Routt
When Stanford Routt was released the day before he was set to receive $5 million in base salary, the thinking was that GM Reggie McKenzie was eliminating the “out of whack” five year, $54.5 million contract and eating the reported $20 million guaranteed to Routt.
Considering Routt led the entire league in penalties and all cornerbacks in touchdowns against, he certainly didn’t have the resume to support the third most lucrative contract at his position.
From when he signed his extension in August, the details of Routt’s contract were reported to have guaranteed him at least $20 million of the $54.5 million total. But according to NBC’s Mike Florio, the of that $54.5 million by releasing him prior to his escalator. Raiders were only bound to $10 million
Florio is generally reliable with his assessment of contracts and NFL legal matters, so there’s every reason to believe his report is accurate.
To that point, there’s every reason to believe that Routt’s agent, Vann McElroy, put information out there after the extension that probably wasn’t entirely accurate. It’s not all that uncommon for agents to leak information like this in an effort draw interest from prospective clients.
McElroy is also the source expressing the great interest in Routt since his release. While that may be true, McElroy is probably feeling the heat to find a contract somewhere in the ballpark of the numbers he reported after Routt’s original contract.
If not, he’s done little more for Routt than negotiate a one year, $10 million deal, which is nice, but hardly $54.5 million and only half of the reported $20 million guaranteed.
As it concerns the Raiders, they overpaid yet again, but left themselves with an opportunity to bail out early—Reggie McKenzie did just that.
In the end, Routt was never seeing the $54.5 million as it was advertised. He would have been due over $15 million next season, and you can be sure McKenzie wasn’t paying him anywhere near that.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?