Hypothetical situation: if Brady were only 50-50 to be ready Week 1 - New England Patriots Forums

***ctpatsfan77*** · 07-17-2009, 09:46 PM

This idea came up on a Bleacher Report article today:

Quote:

Also, if Brady’s knee wasn’t completely healthy, the Patriots wouldn’t have traded away Matt Cassel, and instead would have kept him as an expensive insurance policy.

Is that really true, though?

Personally, I think that if they felt O'Connell would be ready to lead this team in September, they'd have traded Cassel, even if they weren't 100% sure Brady would be ready.

What do you think?

hernandeztribe · 07-18-2009, 12:41 AM

I think when you look at the definition of the word, "TEAM", you would see the PATS organization right there on the page. Every position, the next MAN has to step up and fill that role. So, that being said, Cassel was gone, because his value was high, and O'Connell was ready to fill the QB spot because the offense at that point would have been taylored, no pun intended, to his strengths. We would have been a running team until O'Connell was confident enough to throw it. while in the meantime, Brady was getting stronger. On another note, I think that is why other fans HATE us so bad. We build a TEAM and have to be prepared for anything that happens in training camp, and so forth. So, go PATS.

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 07-18-2009, 04:01 AM

Unlikely. The smart play at that point would involve re-signing Cassel to a long term deal to reduce the cap hit and free up funds for Free Agency. Cassel would have been a better choice than O'Connell due to his experience with the offense and his proven leadership under fire. IMHO, Pioli signed Cassel to a long term deal because all signs point to Cassel's continued development into a solid franchise QB, for those same reasons keeping him would have been the choice if there was any expectation of a delay in Tommy's readiness.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie · 07-18-2009, 05:06 AM

Probably trade him anyway.

Patriots could not afford to pay Cassel $14.65 million without shedding several players.

As for the the sign him to a long term deal like Box suggested. You mean like the 6 year $60 million dollar deal he got from KC? Well, that is still a serious cap hit for a guy you plan to have holding a clip board. And another signficant cap hit when you trade him and the rest of the bonus gets hit. Plus the media has pointed out repeatedly Cassel is getting more money than Brady. Do you really think it is smart capology or great lockerroom dynamics to have the highest paid player be the back up QB?

The only way the Patriots could keep Cassel would be to trade Brady.

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 07-18-2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGodInAGreyHoodie

Probably trade him anyway.

Patriots could not afford to pay Cassel $14.65 million without shedding several players.

As for the the sign him to a long term deal like Box suggested. You mean like the 6 year $60 million dollar deal he got from KC? Well, that is still a serious cap hit for a guy you plan to have holding a clip board. And another signficant cap hit when you trade him and the rest of the bonus gets hit. Plus the media has pointed out repeatedly Cassel is getting more money than Brady. Do you really think it is smart capology or great lockerroom dynamics to have the highest paid player be the back up QB?

The only way the Patriots could keep Cassel would be to trade Brady.

First, the media and the more money than Brady canard...Brady's contract was four years ago, as a percentage of the cap Matt is a couple or so percentage points cheaper than Brady. As usual the media is deficient.

Second, contract length - NE would not have needed to extend Matt for another six years, there is no reason Matt could not have been signed to a shorter contract in the 2-5 year range (two would have put him right in his prime for a QB), one that he could then renegotiate were he to be traded to another team after Brady recovered (I have no doubt Matt would have continued to improve and would have been in higher demand if he'd been needed to lead the offense for 2009) - a win-win for Matt because he would then have two seasons of proof as to his abilities and could demand a higher price and for the NEP because they would have had a proven veteran who understood the offense. Further, if Brady had been having that much trouble rehabbing his knee, I'd be all out to make sure Cassel was locked up and available.

Third, the lockerroom and Brady would have understood the dynamics of the Brady/Cassel situation, the veteran leaders in there would have kept things in line if it had been needed (which I doubt). It's not as if Caserio went out and brought in a high priced outsider to take Brady's spot, this was "Cass-dog" finally getting his chance, "he's one of us and he's earned his pay day" would have been the sentiment.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie · 07-18-2009, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

Second, contract length - NE would not have needed to extend Matt for another six years, there is no reason Matt could not have been signed to a shorter contract in the 2-5 year range (two would have put him right in his prime for a QB), one that he could then renegotiate were he to be traded to another team after Brady recovered (I have no doubt Matt would have continued to improve and would have been in higher demand if he'd been needed to lead the offense for 2009) - a win-win for Matt because he would then have two seasons of proof as to his abilities and could demand a higher price and for the NEP because they would have had a proven veteran who understood the offense. Further, if Brady had been having that much trouble rehabbing his knee, I'd be all out to make sure Cassel was locked up and available.

So what would the terms of a two year deal look like? He already has a one year $14.65 million one year deal. My guess is for a two year deal he is going no less than 2 years $22 million. $16 million in signing bonus, then $3 million a year salary. This years cap hit would be be $11 million, next year when traded $8 million.

Or you propose a contract you think he would take (given he already has $14.65 in guarenteed money) and then do the cap hit for both this year and next year when the rest of the bonus hits. And keep in mind the signing bonus must be significantly more than $14.65 million to pass the laugh test.

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 07-18-2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGodInAGreyHoodie

So what would the terms of a two year deal look like? He already has a one year $14.65 million one year deal. My guess is for a two year deal he is going no less than 2 years $22 million. $16 million in signing bonus, then $3 million a year salary. This years cap hit would be be $11 million, next year when traded $8 million.

Or you propose a contract you think he would take (given he already has $14.65 in guarenteed money) and then do the cap hit for both this year and next year when the rest of the bonus hits. And keep in mind the signing bonus must be significantly more than $14.65 million to pass the laugh test.

You assume the first move has to be the Franchise Tag, while they may have needed to apply it, they would have had time in January to project Tommy and begin negotiations with Matt (which is exactly what they did do). Let's say they did want to try for a two year deal, his deal right now is worth roughly $10M/year, offer him a $20M contract, $10M and $10M with the first year guaranteed. Maybe you set up a $5M roster bonus for March 2010 to give him part of his year two that way, with the rest 2010 salary. Maybe his agent forces the Franchise Tag, who knows, but if you were Matt and had a chance to start for the NEP and pull down $10M solid, wouldn't you give it some serious consideration? If you try to get a deal before you have to use the Franchise Tag you might have eliminated the need to use it, just show some good faith.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie · 07-18-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

You assume the first move has to be the Franchise Tag, while they may have needed to apply it, they would have had time in January to project Tommy and begin negotiations with Matt (which is exactly what they did do). Let's say they did want to try for a two year deal, his deal right now is worth roughly $10M/year, offer him a $20M contract, $10M and $10M with the first year guaranteed. Maybe you set up a $5M roster bonus for March 2010 to give him part of his year two that way, with the rest 2010 salary. Maybe his agent forces the Franchise Tag, who knows, but if you were Matt and had a chance to start for the NEP and pull down $10M solid, wouldn't you give it some serious consideration? If you try to get a deal before you have to use the Franchise Tag you might have eliminated the need to use it, just show some good faith.

Okay maybe you could have gotten him for that in January for only a $10 cap space hit this year...

Now go to Miguel's UNOFFICIAL 2009 Patriots Salary Cap Information Page and find me $10 million dollars.

List the players that you would cut/trade to save $10 million dollars in cap space for the back up QB.

***PatsFan37*** · 07-18-2009, 08:24 AM

I'm going to get shelled for this one, but just as a hypothetical, let's turn it around (at the risk of pissing off the OP for hijacking the thread).

If Brady was less than 50-50 to play the next season, do you trade him and sign Cassel long-term? Bearing in mind that even an injured Brady would trade for a boatload of picks.

The question is: can Cassel take them to the SB and win it with Moss, Welker, and Galloway, the 4 RBs, the shiny new TEs. We talk about Brady's window, but there's also the window of that DL (Seymour, Wilfork, Warren).

IOW, do you take a chance on a great team led by an inexperienced QB? Or do you trade one of the greatest players in the history of the NFL?

Keep both QBs and you've killed this year's free agency plus any chance of resigning that one star defensive player you would otherwise keep.
Trade Brady and you trade your franchise QB for a decent QB leading a great team plus total ownership of the next year's draft.
Trade Cassel and (assuming Brady can't play) you've probably squandered a great team on an untried QB.

Hobson's choice. I go with trading Cassel, just as they did. But I don't know what Belichick would do.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie · 07-18-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFan37

I'm going to get shelled for this one, but just as a hypothetical, let's turn it around (at the risk of pissing off the OP for hijacking the thread).

If Brady was less than 50-50 to play the next season, do you trade him and sign Cassel long-term? Bearing in mind that even an injured Brady would trade for a boatload of picks.

The question is: can Cassel take them to the SB and win it with Moss, Welker, and Galloway, the 4 RBs, the shiny new TEs. We talk about Brady's window, but there's also the window of that DL (Seymour, Wilfork, Warren).

IOW, do you take a chance on a great team led by an inexperienced QB? Or do you trade one of the greatest players in the history of the NFL?

Keep both QBs and you've killed this year's free agency plus any chance of resigning that one star defensive player you would otherwise keep.
Trade Brady and you trade your franchise QB for a decent QB leading a great team plus total ownership of the next year's draft.
Trade Cassel and (assuming Brady can't play) you've probably squandered a great team on an untried QB.

Hobson's choice. I go with trading Cassel, just as they did. But I don't know what Belichick would do.

We tried to have this conversation last year, but the thread was polluted.

If you Brady is probable you trade Cassel as they did.

If Brady was doubtful (less than 50%) I think the best course would be trade Brady for a boatload of picks and sign Cassel long term. Part of that equation includes the idea that if Brady if you are questioning if Brady is going to be ready for this year, then you also must assume that if he comes back he is going to be at a high risk or reinjury and become injury prone.