mgteich

I understand that this is a no-cap year. Miguel projected a cap of $132M. I don't expect Kraft to spend more, although in order to compare properly, we might add a $17M "bonus" pot for monies that would ordinarily be bonuses, but are shifted to 2010 salaries (with no effect on Kraft's bottom line.

That gives us a total budget of $149M.
Miguel shows 51 players at $89M (his list without Thomas)
That gives Kraft a free agent and extension potential budget or $60M
================================================== ==
A BUDGET OF $60M

PHASE 1
$8M for the RFA's
$0M for the ERFA's (they don't add any money)
$7M to franchise Wilfork
================================================== ==
A BUDGET of $45M for FREE AGENTS, RE-SIGNS, and EXTENSIONS
A) Some will go to Brady (or be reserved for him).
B) We might have more if Mankins or Wilfork are traded or claimed.
================================================== ==
BOTTOM LINE
I'm not sure that this is a huge amount of money. A $7.5M a year contract to a top corner might include $12M and $6M in the last 3. I'm not even sure that a top corner or LB or NT would sign for only $12M of guaranteed monies.

Metaphors

Unless I'm missing something in your post, 149-89=60...not 50

mgteich

Now, that's much better! I fixed the original post.

upstater1

Rich people are rich because they live to hoard their money.

I'm not rich but I'm a fan and I think NFL owners like Kraft owe it to us to put the best team out there that they can. That doesn't mean signing Julius Peppers--if Peppers is indeed a cancer who doesn't play hard all the time. But it does mean signing guys like Dansby who play hard and will add to this team.

Sorry, it's just how I feel even if it isn't the reality.

Mossed

You dont think franchising wilfork will make a cancer?

Jimke

The owners opted out of the CBA because they thought that the

players were getting too large a share of the revenues. What

makes you think that Bob Kraft and any other owner (except

Snyder) is going to spend more on players rather than less in 2010?

Metaphors

If you go by your assumptions, here is what the roster looks like at the beginning of March:

QB Brady, Hoyer
RB Maroney, Morris, Taylor, Green-Ellis
WR Moss, Welker Edelman, Tate
TE Baker
OT Light, Vollmer, Kaczur, Levoir
OG Koppen, Mankins, Connolly, Ohrnberger, Wendell, Bussey
DT Wilfork, Pryor, Brace
DE Warren, Wright
OLB Crable, Ninkovich, Woods
ILB Mayo, Guyton, McKenzie
CB Butler, Wilhite, Wheatley
S Meriweather, Sanders, Chung, McGowan
K Gostkowski
P
ST Ingram, Alexander, Lockett, Slater

Notice that I got rid of Springs. Once the mind turns to retirement, I don't think you are on the roster come Week #1. So that leaves about 12 roster spots and say about $40M to spend.

- Give the top 4 draft picks $7M (probably too high) and 4 roster spots
- Need a punter at $500K (rookie or serviceable JAG)

So that leaves about 7 roster spots and over $30M. That is an insane amount of money for that few spots. Some will be 3rd day draft picks or UDFA. Even spending top dollar for a CB or LB, there is plenty left for extending Mankins, Ghost and Wilfork.

So on May 1st, if the Pats roster does not appear to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the roster that lost to the Ravens, then Belichick will have failed badly. If the Pats have gobs of cash and plenty of pending contract headaches, then Belichick will have failed badly.

Back to the draft conversation, the Pats already have 3 top 100 picks waiting to contribute (Crable, McKenzie, Tate), 4 top 50 picks set to arrive and 3 top 50 picks coming in the pipeline. That is significant roster turnover just with top picks. Belichick used his 2nd 5-year window to set up his 3rd. The draft and money assets are in place to make yearly championship runs.

Jimke

I agree 100% with your next to last paragraph.

mgteich

I might have some nitpicks (for example, why wouldn't Arrington be on the a beginning roster? I would start with Springs on the roster, but I'm fine with him being replaced by another vet. I agree that $30M is probably a fair number for cap monies available to start.
==================================================
IS $30M AN INSANE AMOUNT FOR FREE AGENTS AND EXTENSIONS?
Is it?

If we signed Dansby, what would you pay? How about $12M, $5M, $6M and $7M. Do you think he'd even sign for only $12M guaranteed? How about re-signing Faulk and Banta-Cain. That's probably at least $5M in 2010 with an monies normally in a bonus included in the 2007 salary. Would they really sign for that? How about replacing Bodden? Is $8M, $4M, $5M, and $6M reasonable? That's another $8M. We should allow at least $5M for a wide receiver.

Dansby or another top LB $12M
Faulk and Banta-Cain $5M
Bodden or a corner $8M
Wide receiver $5M

That's $30M and we have other free agent needs, likely in the $1M-$3M range. For example, we will need a tight end, some corners and wideouts to compete for roster spots. Also, we will need to leave at least $4M available to replace players injured in camp and the season, and to pay the Practice Squad.

I'm not saying that we can't have improvements with a $30M budget for free agents and their 2010 bonuses included in salary, but we CERTAINLY don't have an insane amount of money available. My GUESS is that the reality is that we are not breaking the bank for Dansby or anyone else. Then it all works, with lots of improvments.

And just BTW, where is the money coming from to extend Brady, Wilfork, and Mankins?

Metaphors

That is my bad. Totally forgot he signed a 2-year deal. He is on the roster but it really doesn't change the spots available since it is likely Lockett, Slater and Arrington are competing for 1-2 roster spots. Also forgot that Aiken was extended so my list is a little off. But the concept is about the same.

It feels like you are trying to mix concepts here. The Pats are in a "cash over cap" year for new money. Their cap figure is $89M but new money is only about $63M ($56M if you lose AD and Springs). So if you are budgeting based on new money constraints for Kraft for 2010, start with $56M. If you are budgeting based on a "virtual cap", then start from $89M but use cap accounting practices.

Again, it seems like the $30M budget is based on cap figures, but you don't use cap accounting rules in how you allocate the $30M. If you aren't going to use cap accounting, then yearly budgets are kind of irrelevant. You would have a 4-6 year budget with some years having significantly higher investment (new signings with guaranteed money) than other years. Much like you would have a high startup cost on a project but lower expenses as the project neared completion.

Not from a $30M pool of money if you don't use cap accounting. Again, if Kraft wants to extend these players, the 2010 cost is going to be huge...but the ongoing costs will be much less. The cap essentially averaged out these costs. A cap-less budget should do pretty much the same.

Kraft doesn't need to extend any of these players in 2010 if cash-on-hand is an issue. But whenever they do get extended, that year will have a huge cash outlay. That would be no different than any other team. The only difference would be the cash-on-hand for the Pats vs. other teams. That is why in a cap-less world, teams like JAX, BUF, GB, etc. will just whither away.