Pats best use for Cassel - New England Patriots Forums

SunnyDenmark · 02-16-2009, 03:59 PM

Cassels’ value to Pats (Best use of Matt Cassel)

I , like many on this forum would love for some team (Lions, SF, etc) to fork over a 1st rounder plus another high (2 or 3rd round ) pick for Cassel. Nothing would please me more. HOWEVER, I am also considering what maybe the best possible use for Cassel (if I were PATS GM) -as follows:

Following is my main criteria for my rational
1) Job #1 for Pats is THIS year and is about WINS. As we saw in ’08, one more game won would have put them in the playoffs. This is not baseball - NFL has only 16 games so each and every one counts greatly. Pats are a team built to win NOW. Pats need to field the best team from week 1 -without screwing up long term TB’s health (see point 2 below).

2) No sense rushing Tom back from his SEVERE injury. He is still young enough (32 in Aug) to be playing on a high level for next 4-6 years. 2 ligaments damaged in TBs’ knee is severe. Carson Palmer and Dante Culpepper were not the same their first year back following knee surgery. Screw it up again while not completely healed and it might kiss Toms career goodbye (I remember all to well Bobby Orr). PUP for TB seems like a good compromise and ease him back into 2009 season keeping him fresh for 2nd half of season and playoffs. Personal note: Having had ACL surgery myself – I was not the same even playing Frisbee or skiing the first year following surgery; let alone playing a competitive sport at NFL level.

3) Cassels’ trade value should remain high EVEN after the ’09 draft. He is not a piece of rotting fruit with a self-life and franchaise QB’s don’t grow on trees every day (or at every draft). Ryan and Flacco are the vast exception – not the rule and it is not even worth debating.

4) Fair to good chance O’Connell by week 1 (2009 season) not able to play at Cassels level of this past season. Cassel had 3 years to practice, study playbook and learn with Pats. O’Connel has had only 1.

5) Pats can afford to keep Cassel 14 mill within their salary cap structure without wacking lots of veterans. Yes, that does mean little FA action this offseason. But that downside is negated by the upside of fielding the best QB available week 1 of 2009 season for priority #1 (point 1= WINS).

6) This point is – granted, somewhat lacking in objectivity and only a ‘best guess’ observation: While this draft ’09 looks fairly deep first day at positions of need (CB, OLB , ILB, OT) – Pats do already have 3 first day picks and with Samuels compensatory likely a 3rd rounder –that would be 5 picks in first 3 rounds. How many rookies can realistically make the team ? Might be better to get more first day picks in 2010 draft where there could be a flood of juniors who want to avoid a rookie pay scale possibly instituted (earliest) in 2011.

To spell out my idea according to the points above, I believe the Pats should keep Cassel for start of 2009 season, PUP Brady and activate him likely as late as possible (depending upon Pats game schedule). Trade Cassel just before the trade deadline in 2009 season which means would have to start O’Connell (or another FA Veteran pickup) for 1-2 games before Brady off of PUP list. Cassel would be traded to any number of DESPERATE teams who lost their starting QB to injury (or unhappy with current starter – see Derek Anderson ‘08) and don’t want to see their season go down in flames so early on. They would happily trade away high draft picks to keep playoff hopes alive and as it would be relatively early on in the season –that increases the potential pool of suitors (ie. Teams that had not already gone 3-4 games under .500).

Finally, after Cassel is traded just before trade deadline ( early/midway through season), the salary cap is suddenly freed up and allows contract extension possibilities for Wilfork, Gostkowski, Mankins, etc. Meanwhile these potential FA players (Wilfork, etc) are already playing their butts off that season trying to look good as a potential FA. (unless uncapped year were they would have to acrew 6 years tenure). And to top it all off, as Cassel will only have played alittle less than half a season – he is only owed about half of the 14 mill franchaise tag with no signing bonuses to screw up future years cap numbers.

Summary:

Pros’: Get best starting QB week 1 (health wise); keep Brady from rushing back too quickly risking long term health of knee; still get good trade value for Cassel (for 2010 draft); pay only about ½ of franchaise tag salary (players’ salary is pro-rated for each week of season); Brady available for late season push and playoffs.

Cons: contract extensions would have to be done during the 2009 season after Cassel trade; would have to start O’Connel or FA veteran 1-2 games as2009 in-season trade deadline is a couple of weeks before players can come back from PUP list.

Thoughts, comments and constructive criticisms are welcome. Flames will not be replied to.

Cheers from snowy Denmark – land of Lego and Hans Christian Andersen.

fair catch fryar · 02-16-2009, 04:12 PM

HOWEVER, I am also considering what maybe the best possible use for Cassel (if I were PATS GM) -as follows:

Whatever Bill does....is what I think is best. Unlike you apparently,

I don't have any insight to what Brady's status is and will be, so I'll trust in Bill thank you very much.

PatsAttack · 02-16-2009, 04:19 PM

To unrealistic. They are not going to change their entire system on offense midway through the season. I agree with you to a point about Cassel possibly being the best option in week 1 with brady coming back.

I also think that Brady will be back quicker than you suspect, so i could see Gutz or OC could start in the first couple weeks if he really isnt ready.

Trade Cassel and build a defense that can absolutly carry them the first couple of weeks, then with a healthy brady and new contracts for 2009 free agents they would be set for the playoff push.

That frees up a ton of money this offseason and lets the needs of patriots be addressed on defense.

***Mike the Brit*** · 02-16-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunnyDenmark

Thoughts, comments and constructive criticisms are welcome. Flames will not be replied to.

Cheers from snowy Denmark – land of Lego and Hans Christian Andersen.

Major negative: trade value for a quarterback is at its lowest at that stage. Any team that needs a QB wants him during the off-season to work in camp and getting to know the offense. By the time the season has started, teams have made their choices.

AzPatsFan · 02-16-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SunnyDenmark

Cassels’ value to Pats (Best use of Matt Cassel)

I , like many on this forum would love for some team (Lions, SF, etc) to fork over a 1st rounder plus another high (2 or 3rd round ) pick for Cassel. Nothing would please me more. HOWEVER, I am also considering what maybe the best possible use for Cassel (if I were PATS GM) -as follows:

Following is my main criteria for my rational
1) Job #1 for Pats is THIS year and is about WINS. As we saw in ’08, one more game won would have put them in the playoffs. This is not baseball - NFL has only 16 games so each and every one counts greatly. Pats are a team built to win NOW. Pats need to field the best team from week 1 -without screwing up long term TB’s health (see point 2 below).

2) No sense rushing Tom back from his SEVERE injury. He is still young enough (32 in Aug) to be playing on a high level for next 4-6 years. 2 ligaments damaged in TBs’ knee is severe. Carson Palmer and Dante Culpepper were not the same their first year back following knee surgery. Screw it up again while not completely healed and it might kiss Toms career goodbye (I remember all to well Bobby Orr). PUP for TB seems like a good compromise and ease him back into 2009 season keeping him fresh for 2nd half of season and playoffs. Personal note: Having had ACL surgery myself – I was not the same even playing Frisbee or skiing the first year following surgery; let alone playing a competitive sport at NFL level.

3) Cassels’ trade value should remain high EVEN after the ’09 draft. He is not a piece of rotting fruit with a self-life and franchaise QB’s don’t grow on trees every day (or at every draft). Ryan and Flacco are the vast exception – not the rule and it is not even worth debating.

4) Fair to good chance O’Connell by week 1 (2009 season) not able to play at Cassels level of this past season. Cassel had 3 years to practice, study playbook and learn with Pats. O’Connel has had only 1.

5) Pats can afford to keep Cassel 14 mill within their salary cap structure without wacking lots of veterans. Yes, that does mean little FA action this offseason. But that downside is negated by the upside of fielding the best QB available week 1 of 2009 season for priority #1 (point 1= WINS).

6) This point is – granted, somewhat lacking in objectivity and only a ‘best guess’ observation: While this draft ’09 looks fairly deep first day at positions of need (CB, OLB , ILB, OT) – Pats do already have 3 first day picks and with Samuels compensatory likely a 3rd rounder –that would be 5 picks in first 3 rounds. How many rookies can realistically make the team ? Might be better to get more first day picks in 2010 draft where there could be a flood of juniors who want to avoid a rookie pay scale possibly instituted (earliest) in 2011.

To spell out my idea according to the points above, I believe the Pats should keep Cassel for start of 2009 season, PUP Brady and activate him likely as late as possible (depending upon Pats game schedule). Trade Cassel just before the trade deadline in 2009 season which means would have to start O’Connell (or another FA Veteran pickup) for 1-2 games before Brady off of PUP list. Cassel would be traded to any number of DESPERATE teams who lost their starting QB to injury (or unhappy with current starter – see Derek Anderson ‘08) and don’t want to see their season go down in flames so early on. They would happily trade away high draft picks to keep playoff hopes alive and as it would be relatively early on in the season –that increases the potential pool of suitors (ie. Teams that had not already gone 3-4 games under .500).

Finally, after Cassel is traded just before trade deadline ( early/midway through season), the salary cap is suddenly freed up and allows contract extension possibilities for Wilfork, Gostkowski, Mankins, etc. Meanwhile these potential FA players (Wilfork, etc) are already playing their butts off that season trying to look good as a potential FA. (unless uncapped year were they would have to acrew 6 years tenure). And to top it all off, as Cassel will only have played alittle less than half a season – he is only owed about half of the 14 mill franchaise tag with no signing bonuses to screw up future years cap numbers.

Summary:

Pros’: Get best starting QB week 1 (health wise); keep Brady from rushing back too quickly risking long term health of knee; still get good trade value for Cassel (for 2010 draft); pay only about ½ of franchaise tag salary (players’ salary is pro-rated for each week of season); Brady available for late season push and playoffs.

Cons: contract extensions would have to be done during the 2009 season after Cassel trade; would have to start O’Connel or FA veteran 1-2 games as2009 in-season trade deadline is a couple of weeks before players can come back from PUP list.

Thoughts, comments and constructive criticisms are welcome. Flames will not be replied to.

Cheers from snowy Denmark – land of Lego and Hans Christian Andersen.

I think you have a lucid, well though out, and a very cogent arguement. But you do not have to PUP Brady. Just not play him until he is fully ready. On PUP, he is not allowed to practice, whereas on non PUP, as a member of the 53, he can practice with the Team and get ready to play. Early on, he might not even be on the active 47, for the first several weeks, as is necessary, and determined by Belichick weekly.

SunnyDenmark · 02-16-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan

I think you have a lucid, well though out, and a very cogent arguement. But you do not have to PUP Brady. Just not play him until he is fully ready. On PUP, he is not allowed to practice, whereas on non PUP, as a member of the 53, he can practice with the Team and get ready to play. Early on, he might not even be on the active 47, for the first several weeks, as is necessary, and determined by Belichick weekly.

Interesting idea....sounds rational as when on the PUP - you have to pay TBs' salary anyway - so I see your logic in not putting him on the PUP, just maybe gameday inactive until ready to play.

SunnyDenmark · 02-16-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike the Brit

Major negative: trade value for a quarterback is at its lowest at that stage. Any team that needs a QB wants him during the off-season to work in camp and getting to know the offense. By the time the season has started, teams have made their choices.

Trade value is not only based on future need (like now before FA / draft) but could actually increase for some teams if they don't get the FA or draft QB they were targeting. Or increase when during the season a starting QB gets injured and your choices for backup are Joey Harrington, Byron Leftwich, Patrick Ramsey, JP Loseman, etc. On the otherside is that during the season many teams wont have much cap space left if they are smart.

SunnyDenmark · 02-16-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fair catch fryar

HOWEVER, I am also considering what maybe the best possible use for Cassel (if I were PATS GM) -as follows:

Whatever Bill does....is what I think is best. Unlike you apparently,

I don't have any insight to what Brady's status is and will be, so I'll trust in Bill thank you very much.

Never claimed I had a crystal ball, (just some lucky dice hanging from rear view mirror). But not even BB, Tom Brady or even the teams physicians can at this time now tell how his knee will respond to drills in training camp come end of July. No one knows until then.....so by keeping Cassel and easing Tom back in during the season - it will give more time for the knee to heal completely and yet still (by keeping Cassel) give Pats best chance to win week 1.

I don't want to jepordize TB's long term health for a few early season games in 2009 (C. Palmer and D. Culpepper were not good first half season after surgery).

BelizePats · 02-16-2009, 04:43 PM

I like the thought that went into this post. But I have major disagreements with it.
I am of the opinion that keeping Cassel on team in 2009 will hurt the team from a longer term point of view. Having close to 30 mil tied up in one position is just not practical regardless of how much the 2009 cap increases. I want the Pats to win now but not at the expense of 2010 and 2011. BB has always been unwilling to mortgage the future for immediate success if the price paid potentially jeopardizes long term plans.
Cassel's value is at or near its peak right now. The only way it goes higher is if he makes it to the Superbowl in 2009.
He has to be traded in order to maximize this current value. There is no way he was franchised with the expectations that he would be on the team at any point during the 2009 season (this is just my opinion as I have no way of knowing this as fact) If Brady is not ready (and I'd be shocked if he wasn't) then hello KO or MG until he is ready. This defense needs to be improved in 2009 and 2010, and trading Cassel is how this happens over the next 16 months.
I'm OK with 2010 picks so long as Cassel is traded before the season. Not doing so would be failing to take advantage of Cassel's current value. And franchising him was doing precisely this. Taking advantage of his current value.
Great post dude. It got me thinking.
Respects,

Rich

***PATSNUTme*** · 02-16-2009, 04:53 PM

Sunny you did very good job in stating your case. However I will disagree.

1. From Miguels pages
So I have the Pats under their adjusted cap by about $3.9 million.

That is not enough space to field a full roster. Sure they can redo contract but they need much more cap space than that. They do need to make one impact FA signing on D this year. That could be a vet CB.

2. This is one of the worse years for QB's in the draft in a long time. Matts value will never be higher.

3. The more and higher draft picks you have, the more you can do with trades for players, picks this year, or stockpile them for next year.

So I think that Matt will be traded and I think a deal has already been agreed.