mikey

I thought it is pretty obvious why we are under the cap.

If every contract is under the market value, then it is only logical the entire payroll will be under the cap.

Brady's contract is under market. So is Bruschi's, and Troy's, and Vrabel's ...

Anyone who wants market contract is gone.

When Brady signed his undervalued contract in 2005, it sets the tone for all future contract negotiations.

When your HOF QB is getting "only" an average of $10M a year, there is no way Branch was going to get $7M from the team.

By agreeing to his undervalued contract, Brady unwittinlgy established the parameters for all future negotiations that saw the departure of his two favorite receivers.

.

DaBruinz

Man, let me know when you actually get some sense of reality.

Givens is over-paid. That isn't a market contract.

Brady got a damn good deal when he signed his extension 2 years early. Seymour got a market deal.

No one will ever know if Branch could have gotten a market deal from the Patriots since Chayut never bothered to actually negotiate. OH, and the extension offers he was given were DEFINITELY market deals.

Box_O_Rocks

101010

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Mike the Brit

It doesn't follow at all.

First, no team could pay "market value" at every position if that means matching the top bid for each player if that player were to auction his services in free agency. Of course, a high proportion of players on any team are not free agents but are playing under a rookie deal. Unless they are in the top section of the first round they may be -- if they turn out successful, which, of course, not all of them do -- "underpaid".

Where your logic is really off track, though, is in ignoring the composition of the roster. The Patriots, as is well known, have a number of very well compensated players who are not starters -- think Jarvis Green or Kevin Faulk. The fact that they spread the wealth does not make them "cheap".

If they deliberately set out not to spend up to the cap that would indeed be the case. But there is no evidence that they do. Jonathan Kraft gave a good explanation for why they are under the cap this year -- the expenditure that they had left space for didn't materialize. What is wrong with that?

__________________
My prized possessions: Our family pictures; my dad and me getting doused by Bruschi in Super Bowl XXXIX [Shalize Manza Young Up Close with ... Bill Belichick]


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


They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Well, Pats fans should be invincible by now. [Fitzy, 16 November 2009]

Still here to learn

MoLewisrocks

So Einstein explain why with essentially the same cast of leading characters on the roster last season we were up against the cap?

The Pats are under the cap because it balooned in the first year of a new TV deal and that coincided with a piss poor FA market. We tried to sign 2 starting corners to market contracts and they chose to play for a Hugger and a Spitter instead. For pretty much the same deals in "real" money terms. Neither player had the talent (or talent left) or upside to even consider overpaying them, which is why nobody did. We lost 2 WR's to teams willing to overpay due to panic or suckitude. Branch is a $5M receiver even in the new salary cap era. And Givens is a $3.5M receiver even in the new salary cap era. That other GM's chose to overpay them is a problem for us, but not one you counter by overpaying them yourself. Not unless you want to throw your entire salary structure out of whack for the next 4-5 years.

Buffalo and Detroit gave Lawyer and Damien what many would contend was obviously market value since to some market is whatever a player can get one team to pay. How'd that work out? The JETS gave Ty Law his market last year - $2M - and then gave him a bonus of $4M (still less than he would have gotten had he extended here) in hopes he would renegotiate the phony long term deal they signed him to. How'd that work out?

JoeSixPat

I'm pretty sure we're under the cap by $2-$4 million every season during the season. In fact I'm pretty sure most teams try to stay under the cap until the end of the season.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that teams try to give themselves a cap buffer to sign players to replace injuries throughout the season.

They must all be as cheap as us, if indeed being under the cap means you're cheap.

Of course for us, much of our cap room is a result of the good faith effort made to sign Branch to a fair market long term contract. As everyone knows that didn't work out.

Are people actually MAD that we kept enough cap space available to sign Branch?

And they think this is a sign that the team is cheap???

__________________

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

IcyPatriot

Must suck being Mikey...everywhere he looks he sees evil and stupid people doing evil and stupid things ... being God makes it lonely at the top.

RayClay

bump.......

__________________

MrBigglesWorth

I agree. Seymour is still here and I think he got a pretty good deal.