mgteich

OUR VETS WHO MIGHT BE BACK
After Game 1, we don't need to guarantee a player his full year's salary.

Branch
Carpenter
Gaffney
Koutouvides
Warren

The Scrizz

I think Warren is more like, let's not tax an old guy too much who will happily come back if we need him due to injuries.

Gaffney = hurt. No intrigue there.

Branch... shadow roster? Lost a step or two? I was for showing he and Stallworth the door to get a young WR on the roster and if it's Salas instead of Ebert I have no problem with that.

Carpenter is bleh.

Koutouvides was only going to make like six bucks anyway.

I can see more than one of these players coming back but I extremely doubt that saving a few bucks in case they release them after week one was even in the top 20 reasons involved in these decisions.

__________________
I was like, ‘Dang! Um, Mr. Brady, can we line up?’ He didn’t care. He was like, ‘You’re not going to line up.’ When we turned around one time I checked back around and my hand was going to the grass and they were like, ‘Hut!’ And I said, ‘Noooooooooooo!’

Patriot Missile

The title of this thread makes you sound like a miser that needs to be visited by 3 ghosts.

betterthanthealternative

LOL. I don't read it as a recommendation, but as an observation or inquiry about management's motives.

BadMoFo

Only one I think makes it back is maybe Gaffney, unless he signs with someone else.

AndyJohnson

The guaranteed contract for players on the roster week 1 is the most inconsequential factor in roster builidng that there is.
The argument is that we want these guys to be on the team, but will sacrifice week 1 so that we can not have to pay them if we cut them later in the year. The savings is so insignificant this shouldn't even be discussed.

Patriot Missile

I know. Just poking fun.

BradyFTW!

With guys like this, I think it has less to do with not guaranteeing their salary (as AJ said, it's not enough savings to justify risking a guy who you'd otherwise want on your roster), and more to do with a combination of the following factors:

1) They already know the system, so not practicing with the team isn't the end of the world
2) They're of limited value to any other team, so it's unlikely that they're going anywhere, even if they are technically free agents. Alternately, they might be the kind of player who simply doesn't want to play anywhere else.

mgteich

Perhaps you might tweet Gaffney and tell him that it doesn't matter that his 2012 salary will not be guaranteed and that he will get a paycheck only when the team is willing to commit a week's pay to him.

The guarantee MATTERS.

It is not about sacrificing Game 1. We are talking about having an inactive like Rivera or Forston on the squad an additional week or two instead of having Gaffney inactive. Apparently it is so valuable to have both of these players on the 53 (instead of the Practice Squad) that Gaffney needed to be cut.

I understand that it is likely that Schiancoe will likely go on IR to open a roster spot. That spot needn't be Gaffney's. The roster spots aren't numbered after all.

The BOTTOM LINE is that the nfl is a business and that Belichick is trying to see what else is available before allocating ANY money to Gaffney. Meanwhile, Gaffney apparently is rejecting other offers. IMHO, Gaffney is NOT making a good business decision.

Armchair Quarterback

They're all making the minimum or only slightly more. It would be the same contract if they brought any of them back. Patriots are saying these players aren't good enough to guarantee them minimum salaries.

Branch 1.325 nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Carpenter 775k nfl minimum 4-6 years 700k
Gaffney 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Koutouvides 825k nfl minimum 7-9 years 825k
Warren 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k