Globe: BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

[borg]

"Lending further credence to the idea that the trade was done in part with an eye toward clearing cap space is the fact that the Lions offered the first pick of the second round (No. 33 overall) straight up for Cassel, according to an NFL source"

Sanders has room to grow - The Boston Globe

 

[JSn]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

I think we've only seen Pt. 1 of this deal, frankly.

 

[mayoclinic]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

There's no effective difference between #33 and #34, and it seems like the whole deal with KC was part of a bigger plan. I think that BB wanted to dump Vrabel before his March 1 roster bonus was due, and trading him saved BB the embarrasment of potentially cutting one of the greatest Pats of all time.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

There's no effective difference between #33 and #34, and it seems like the whole deal with KC was part of a bigger plan. I think that BB wanted to dump Vrabel before his March 1 roster bonus was due, and trading him saved BB the embarrasment of potentially cutting one of the greatest Pats of all time.

Precisely, but most won't believe that it was that simple. Add to the fact that BB likes Cassel and was looking out for his best interest by sending him to a now up and coming KC instead of the NFL hinterlands of Detroit over one spot in the draft. If it was Detroit's second 1st at #20 I would be upset, but it wasn't. End of story.

 

[crowell33]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

The globe article seems to imply that we were willing to take a lower pick if a team was also willing to take Vrabel in the trade. Wouldn't cutting Vrabel have created the same cap room as trading him?

 

[crowell33]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

Maybe trading Vrabel instead of cutting him keeps him from potentially joining the Rat in Cleveland.

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

At least I think more highly of Detroit now that I know they made an attempt to get Cassel.

I agree w Mayoclinic regarding the deal and Vrabel. Of course, if Sintim, Barwin, A. Smith, etc. goes #33, I may feel differently

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

not to mention the fact that if cassel has a say, he'd probably prefer the chiefs to the lions

 

[Remix 6]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

im guessing we wanted to send Cassel to a certain place that would make him happy as well as satisfy us. respecting the player

 

[borg]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

The four teams that BB was dealing with are all operating under new regimes...Detroit, Denver, Tampa, and KC. Call it rookie jitters, extra patience watching free agency unfold, fear of paying too much, or New Englands track record in the trade market....more likely , all of the above. The undeniable fact is that New England had cap issues and needed to move fast. The Globe article does a nice job pointing out the cap pressure the Pats were under and the Vrabel dilemma. $9 mill for Sanders, $8 mill for Taylor, $12.2 mill for Baker.....adding up to about $11 mill on the 2009 books. Not to mention, according to Reiss, that Moss redid his contract to help out the team.

 

[DarrylS]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

There's no effective difference between #33 and #34, and it seems like the whole deal with KC was part of a bigger plan. I think that BB wanted to dump Vrabel before his March 1 roster bonus was due, and trading him saved BB the embarrasment of potentially cutting one of the greatest Pats of all time.

Bingo.. this has been said time and time again, but sounds about true to this patsfan..

 

[unoriginal]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

I think it says a lot about the Lions they considered all their current linebackers/DEs a better value than Mike Vrabel.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

.

 

[Urgent]

There's no effective difference between #33 and #34?
Well, actually there is a difference, one pick.

There could be a player that the Pats want at #34 who goes at #33. I don't recall the Pats ever offering "after you" during the first 200 or so draft picks, for no compensation.

As noted, the Pats could have achieved the exact cap outcome by trading Cassel for the #33, and releasing Vrabel.

Further, after trading Cassel, there was no short-term salary cap imperative to release Vrabel. With $14.6mm in additional space, a further $3mm was not needed this weekend.

If the Patriots were concerned about Vrabel re-uniting in Cleveland with Mangini, they could trade him to any other team, hell, for a 2012 7th round pick or something. Given six months, they probably could have found a partner. It's possible one team valued Cassel more than KC, and maybe another team valued Vrabel more than KC. Or asked him to restructure. Before the trade, I think there were fewer "trade Vrabel" threads than "trade Brady" threads - there was no great clamor to dump Vrabel to save the defense and cap a week ago.

In the past, the Patriots seemed far less concerned about where a player ended and far more about maximizing the value of the return. The Drew Bledsoe trade is a pretty clear example of this approach.

The facts seem to show that the Pats did not maximize value in this deal. You can argue how much value - oh, it really was only a little value that they gave up. But this is a competitive organization in a competitive league. Strange to see this approach.

 

[primetime]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

I think it says a lot about the Lions they considered all their current linebackers/DEs a better value than Mike Vrabel.

I doubt the Lions even know Vrabel would be part of the package. Like others have said, I think this was about getting Cassel somewhere where he would be happy. One spot worse doesn't make much of a difference.

 

[jeffd]

Re: Globe:BB rejects Lions #2 (33) for Cassel

not to mention the fact that if cassel has a say, he'd probably prefer the chiefs to the lions

CASSEL DID HAVE A SAY!!! No team would trade for him w/o agreeing to a long term deal first. If BB wanted to make the deal w/ Detroit but Cassel refused to agree to a long term deal Detroit wouldn't go through with it. Why give up the #2 overall pick for a 1 yr QB at a cost of 14mil?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

There's no effective difference between #33 and #34?
Well, actually there is a difference, one pick.

The point, though, is that once you get beyond even the top 10 picks, the utility difference between pick N and pick N + 1 is relatively meaningless.

Also, remember that Vrabel was due $1M today. By trading him to KC, even if the Cassel trade went elsewhere, the Patriots ensure he gets all his money, which would likely not have happened if they released him.

 

[BPF]

Good read on this story and Wetzel gets in a couple of shots on Mort, which is always good:
Belichick hasn't lost his mind - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

1. Someone’s anonymous source alleging that Belichick, for inexplicable reasons, turned down superior deals. (It might be worth considering someone’s track record with anonymous sources when considering this scenario.)

2. Belchick’s decade-in-the-making reputation as the best personnel man in football.

.....

That’s why New England took what Kansas City offered. Logic says it was all that was available.

Unless, when it comes to Bill Belichick’s intelligence, you want to believe unknown sources over history and common sense.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Isn't the ability to control where Vrabel goes worth one spot in the second round of the draft?

I suppose there's nothing to prevent KC from cutting Vrabel once the trade was done, but if (1) BB believed that was unlikely, and (2) he wanted to avoid a situation with a prior defensive captain being out on the market, then giving away one spot in the draft for some protection is not an unsound move.

This all assumes, by the way, that Cassel was willing to negotiate with Detroit.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Further, after trading Cassel, there was no short-term salary cap imperative to release Vrabel. With $14.6mm in additional space, a further $3mm was not needed this weekend.

They needed to release Vrabel by midnight last night or else they would have had to pay him over $1 million in a roster bonus.

By trading him, they ensured that the team that took him would basically have to cut him immediately or, once they got to March 2, they were basically all in and had to keep him. So, by including him in the deal, they kept him out of the division.