apple strudel

One of the other deleterious side-effects of this team's success is that not only do we lose coaches, they all want to draft our type of player.

Gholston part II? He seems so boom or bust.

Overpaying. But if it drops good players our way, then it's great.

dryheat44

I'm talking about next season in an uncapped year. The final four teams will not be able to sign an outside FA (not a re-signing) until it loses an equivalent one off its roster. There are financial implications as to the other teams that finish 5-8...something like a max contract you can sign a FA to.

This offseason is business as usual. Next year at this time it will be very, very different. I kind of look forward to see the strategy BB unveils.

__________________
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

DaBruinz

The 67 million doesn't matter. 2010 stands to be an uncapped year. As it stands, the Pats will have 12 RFAs and 2 ERFAs, bringing the total to 40. And you can figure on 5-8 rookeis from this year as well, so that would be 45-48 players.

Now, with a salary cap, its a different situation. The RFAs drop to 1 and 2 ERFAs. But then the Pats would have the some about 50 million to use (yes, I foresee a drop in the salary cap).. The Pats would use about 30 million during the extended re-signing period prior to free agency to re-sign Wilfork, Mankins, Gostkowski, Kaczur, Green and Hobbs. That would still leave 20 million to fill out the roster. And when you look at the roster, you'd see that many of the positions are the reserve positions that would need to be filled. Positions that the Pats regularly use for rookies or vets signed to the Veteran minimum.

DaBruinz

Teams who make the playoffs in a year prior to an uncapped year are limited to the number of outside free agents (probably the same rules apply as they do to the comp picks). I don't believe they are limited in signing the number of players who were cut by other teams.

Yes, the Patriots have done extremely well this year bringing in those types of players, but who knows what will be available next year.

SunnyDenmark

Brilliant! (ROFL)

But by getting the joke, I am certainly showing my age. These young whipper-snappers on the forum wouldn't have any use for the stuff.

mgteich

I'll try again. Please name two free agents that we signed this year that we would not be able to sign next year under the 2010 rules. We will NOT limited in our ability to re-sign our own or in the ability to re-sign our own nor in our ability to cut players from other teams.

Also, I don't see Kraft changing the value he places on players and positions. I think it quite pssible that others will be willing to may more for such players as Seymour and Green. Wilfork is the only player I can see "breaking the bank" to keep. For Kraft, football is a business, even in an uncapped year.

The biggest effect will NOT be the inability to sign the free agents of other teams. The biggest effect will be the RFA status of Mankins, Kaczur, Gostkowski and Hobbs. With other teams required to send us a 1st and a 3rd, and us still ahving the ability to match, we should be able to keep the players or use the 1st and 3rd compensation to draft a reasonable replacement.

dryheat44

I'm not sure there is a differeniation between free agent because of expiring contract of free agent because of terminated contract. If there is, then you're correct. It wouldn't have mattered this year. However, with so many players set to hit FA next year, I can't say that next year will be the same. Karlos Dansby comes quickly to mind.

Agreed. AND the use of an additional transition tag. AND the lack of a salary floor.

__________________
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