Fencer

Miguel has a $2.83 million cap hit for Wilfork this year. In a straightforward deal where he gets, say, $20 million+ in guaranteed money plus vet minimum salary his first year, his cap hit would go up somewhat.

That said, there's a negotiating lever with him in that he IS tied up for this year. So any deal that offered him a lot more guaranteed money than his $2.83 million, without seriously hurting his long-term earnings prospects, could be good. E.g. -- to be ridiculous -- the Pats could give him a long-term deal for minimum salary, a $10 million bonus, and a large 8-figure workout bonus in the 2010 offseason. That the Pats could in theory cut him before the roster bonus came due would not necessarily be a reason for him to not sign. I THINK the current cap hit would just be vet minimum plus the pro-ration of the $10 million.

So is there a less ridiculous way to have the same effect?

The reason I ask is because a Jason Taylor signing could put a lot of pressure on the Pats' 2009 cap ...

RayClay

Beats me.

.........

__________________

smg93

Not sure about lessening his cap hit this year but I think the more likely scenario is not a "tearing up" of his original contract, it will likely be more like an extension of the current one. He would play out his original contract but he'd have years tacked on.

I believe this is what they wanted to do with Branch, but he was insisting on getting his last year torn up and the Pats didn't want to do that because it would set a precedent with all the other existing and future rookie contracts.

Fencer

That issue is almost orthogonal to the one I raised.

Branch wanted a contract that increased the payment for his last year AND paid him fair market value after that. The Pats said no.

On the other hand, supposed Wilfork accepted a contract that left his payments unaffected for next season, but had a nice guaranteed deal after that. Amortizing the guarantee would greatly increase his 2009 cap hit.

Synovia

Why would we sign a player, who is going to put pressure on the cap, who was so terrible last year that he got cut by Washington?

DaBruinz

Wilfork would not be eligible to do the vet minimum on a deal because the 30% rule would be in effect. There are other issues as well. Miguel would be the best one to answer this.

DaBruinz

First off, Taylor was cut because it saved Washington 8.5 million against the cap and because he wanted to spend the off-season training in Florida. Second. Taylor also suffered an injury that almost cost him his life early in the season and he had to have emergency surgery to fix it. Third, kneejerk reactionary posts are for the likes of Condon84, Mr.Bigglesworth, and others who don't look into the facts. You are better than that, Synovia.

Synovia

If Taylor was playing elite DE, he wouldn't have been cut to save cap space. He was cut to save cap space because he was playing terribly, and was easily replaceable. He was consistently getting blown off the ball in running plays, and wasn't mounting any sort of pass rush.

Yes, it sucks that the injury almost killed him, but that makes him even more of a risk. He's a 35 year old guy, who was elite in his prime, but is coming off a string of injuries, and doesn't seem to have a whole lot of interest in the game anymore.

Belichick loves guys who think football is everything. Taylor used to, but clearly doesn't anymore. The upside of picking him up is high, but the most probable outcome is that he doesn't beat out Pierre Woods.

mgteich

1) The extension of Wilfork would cost lots of additional cap money, perhaps $5M.

2) If I were to choose among signing Taylor, extending Wilfork and trading for Peppers, I would choose extending Wilfork.