dryheat44

Unless an agreement is reached in the next 6 hours and forty-six minutes, there won't be a cap in 2007. That's not a gamble, that's a fact.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

Alk

How would they be sending the wrong message? You can't pay a 34 year old LB $8 plus million for a season plain and simple. I'm sure they would like him to stay but if they can't reach an agreement, what other choice do they have?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bobs My Uncle

Exactly.

Face it this day was going to come sooner rather than later and the Pats were going to have to cut Willie.

At least now they have a built in PR excuse for having to do so ...... The (lack of a) CBA made us do it!

Garbanza

...and let us not forget that just because a player is cut (no bonus for you!) does not mean they can't negotiate and re-sign. Example: Troy Brown.

PATSNUTme

The Word is RESTRUCTURE. It can and should be done, unless Willie doesn't want to.

He can get good money for 3 years by RESTRUCTURE.

spacecrime

What'ss the big deal. People were saying Willie had to take a pay cut or be released a long time ago, way before the CBA stuff.

I doubt they are doing this to send a message anyway, so anyone reading a message is grasping.

The only time I ever thought the pats were sending a message with a cut was Steve Martin and Brooks Barnard. Eveyone else was purelyl business. (Unless that is the message: We will pay you what we believe you are worth."

Richter

Like they should need an excuse. People are idiots when it comes to this stuff. There is a cap, plain and simple, and teams need to work within it. That means players that are popular sometimes have to go. People will spew crap about loyalty, but the team has to do what is best for the organization. Players are hardly loyal in free agency anyway, and it's hardly like the players with contracts that necessitate these actions haven't made a ton of money anyway. Take less money to stay, be a good guy and still make millions, or be a mercenary and make slightly more millions is the choice, so I don't feel bad for anyone that chooses the latter.

Alk

That's the point I'm making. To do something crazy with his contract to keep him here just because we won't have to pay for it next season is irresponsible. There will be a cap again eventually and if he's still under contract when that happens, it's going to catch up with us. I can't see Belichick and Pioli doing something like that.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Steelgal

It would be a shame for you guys to lose Willie. He's one of the first names I think of when someone mentions the Patriots. I've seen him do some interviews with his young daughter and he seems like a class act.

dryheat44

Okay, I get you now. But I was thinking of a two year contract, 2006 and 2007. As long as we stay within the 30 percent rule, we should be fine. For example, if I understand this correctly (which isn't a given) We could re-structure Willie to pay him 3 million this year and 3.9 million next year.

To me, that's reasonable. He'll be seeing 6.9 of his 7 million and change, all guaranteed. And that would probably take him to retirement.

Does that make sense? It seems too easy, so I may be missing something. Other than Willie just saying no.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee