Fine points of a Peppers deal...

[AzPatsFan]

If the rumored Peppers to Pats deal is true, there are fines subtle points that should be made.

The deal pretty clearly can't be a sign-the-tender, trade, and new deal signing. That would require the Pats to have $17 million in cap space, except for the one day exception, that would nullify that restriction.

There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player.

Why?

Because, if 2010 is an Uncapped year, the Pats would be unable, as a probable playoff team, to sign a FA without losing a player first. That might make the loss of a Seymour, a Wilfork or a Mankins, almost mandatory, as a playoff team would be unable to sign a FA until they had lost as many FAs equal to anyone singed in 2009 or 2010 that qualifies as a FA signing, from another team. They can resign as many of their own FA as they wish, after that restriction is recognized for signing other team's FA players. So far there are ZERO in that category. I expect the Pats will be minimally active in FA ,other than for their own in 2010.

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them. IOW, they wait until the players, Galloway, Springs, Bodden, Johnson, Baker, Taylor, etc, have been cut or waived, depending on the player's years of service, to be certain that they will incur no penalty in 2010 free agency. In reviewing their actions I think that this is NOT an accident.

The Pats appear to be clearly deciding and acting as if 2010 will be an Uncapped year.

They have not re-signed their stars. They appear to be prepared to wait until 2010. Then will offer their primary stars a typical deal in 2010, but the amortizable/depreciable "Signing Bonus" term in their new contracts will be converted to the term "Option Bonus" or "Roster Bonus" and thereby apply all in 2010 accounting-wise. So that the CAP consequences in future years is minimal to non-existent when/if a new CBA is signed.

They will be unconstrained from using their three tags in 2010 if needed; nor prevented from signing their own FA players; nor constrained by a limited CAP to sign all their good stars. The Pats would not have to chose between them, they could sign them all.

For the players, they get the same money up front, but it is just called something different. There are just more players participating in their individual good fortunes.

The Peppers deal should be structured no different. It doesn't change a thing, except paper wise, but it might be worthwhile enough for the Pats, for them to sweeten the pot to Carolina, (extra pick?), for doing it that way.

 

[yopats]

If the rumored Peppers to Pats deal is true, there are fines subtle points that should be made.

The deal pretty clearly can't be a sign-the-tender, trade, and new deal signing. That would require the Pats to have $17 million in cap space, except for the one day exception, that would nullify that restriction.

There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers.

Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player.

Why?

Because, if 2010 is an Uncapped year, the Pats would be unable, as a probable playoff team, to sign a FA without losing a player first. That might make the loss of a Seymour, a Wilfork or a Mankins, almost mandatory, as aplayoff team would be unable to sign a FA until they had lost as many FAs equal to anyone singed in 2009or 2010 that qualifies as a FA signing. So far there are ZERO in that category.

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them. IOW, they wait until the players, Galloway, Springs, Bodden, Johnson, Baker, Taylor, etc, have been cut or waived, depending on the player's years of service, to be certain that they will incur no penalty in 2010 free agency. In reviewing their actions I think that this is NOT an accident.

The Pats appear to be clearly deciding and acting as if 2010 will be an Uncapped year.

They have not re-signed their stars. They appear to be prepared to wait until 2010. Then will offer their primary stars a typical deal in 2010, but the amortizable/depreciable "Signing Bonus" term intheri new contracts will be converted to the term "Option Bonus" or "Roster Bonus" and thereby apply all in 2010 accounting-wise. So that the CAP consequences in future years is minimal to non-existent when/if a new CBA is signed.

They will be unconstrained from using their three tags in 2010 if needed; nor prevented from signing their own FA players; nor constrained by a limited cap to sign all their good stars. The Pats would not have to chose between them, they could sign them all.

For the players, they get the same money up front, but it is just called something different. There are just more players participating in their individual good fortunes.

The Peppers deal should be structured no different. It doesn't change a thing, except paper wise, but it might be worthwhile enough for the Pats, for them to sweeten the pot to Carolina, (extra pick?), for doing it that way.

Good stuff!

 

[spacecrime]

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them.

Coincidence. BB will sign the players he thinks will help the team.

NEVER try to guess BB's philosophy based on what he did in any one year. Or even over the year's. Or you will end up saying (as I did) that BB doesn't draft interior lineman or linebackers in the first round.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

If the rumored Peppers to Pats deal is true, there are fines subtle points that should be made.

The deal pretty clearly can't be a sign-the-tender, trade, and new deal signing. That would require the Pats to have $17 million in cap space, except for the one day exception, that would nullify that restriction.

There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player.

Why?

Because, if 2010 is an Uncapped year, the Pats would be unable, as a probable playoff team, to sign a FA without losing a player first. That might make the loss of a Seymour, a Wilfork or a Mankins, almost mandatory, as a playoff team would be unable to sign a FA until they had lost as many FAs equal to anyone singed in 2009 or 2010 that qualifies as a FA signing, from another team. They can resign as many of their own FA as they wish, after that restriction is recognized for signing other team's FA players. So far there are ZERO in that category. I expect the Pats will be minimally active in FA ,other than for their own in 2010.

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them. IOW, they wait until the players, Galloway, Springs, Bodden, Johnson, Baker, Taylor, etc, have been cut or waived, depending on the player's years of service, to be certain that they will incur no penalty in 2010 free agency. In reviewing their actions I think that this is NOT an accident.

The Pats appear to be clearly deciding and acting as if 2010 will be an Uncapped year.

They have not re-signed their stars. They appear to be prepared to wait until 2010. Then will offer their primary stars a typical deal in 2010, but the amortizable/depreciable "Signing Bonus" term in their new contracts will be converted to the term "Option Bonus" or "Roster Bonus" and thereby apply all in 2010 accounting-wise. So that the CAP consequences in future years is minimal to non-existent when/if a new CBA is signed.

They will be unconstrained from using their three tags in 2010 if needed; nor prevented from signing their own FA players; nor constrained by a limited CAP to sign all their good stars. The Pats would not have to chose between them, they could sign them all.

For the players, they get the same money up front, but it is just called something different. There are just more players participating in their individual good fortunes.

The Peppers deal should be structured no different. It doesn't change a thing, except paper wise, but it might be worthwhile enough for the Pats, for them to sweeten the pot to Carolina, (extra pick?), for doing it that way.

Good well-thought out post! Plus it supports my theory that where there's a will there's a way; if BB wants him they'll figure a way to get him:rocker:

 

[Clonamery]

Coincidence. BB will sign the players he thinks will help the team.

NEVER try to guess BB's philosophy based on what he did in any one year. Or even over the year's. Or you will end up saying (as I did) that BB doesn't draft interior lineman or linebackers in the first round.

Huh, I took the message as: BB is typically preparing for every contingency. Huh.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

If the rumored Peppers to Pats deal is true, there are fines subtle points that should be made.

The deal pretty clearly can't be a sign-the-tender, trade, and new deal signing. That would require the Pats to have $17 million in cap space, except for the one day exception, that would nullify that restriction.

There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player.

Why?

Because, if 2010 is an Uncapped year, the Pats would be unable, as a probable playoff team, to sign a FA without losing a player first. That might make the loss of a Seymour, a Wilfork or a Mankins, almost mandatory, as a playoff team would be unable to sign a FA until they had lost as many FAs equal to anyone singed in 2009 or 2010 that qualifies as a FA signing, from another team. They can resign as many of their own FA as they wish, after that restriction is recognized for signing other team's FA players. So far there are ZERO in that category. I expect the Pats will be minimally active in FA ,other than for their own in 2010.

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them. IOW, they wait until the players, Galloway, Springs, Bodden, Johnson, Baker, Taylor, etc, have been cut or waived, depending on the player's years of service, to be certain that they will incur no penalty in 2010 free agency. In reviewing their actions I think that this is NOT an accident.

The Pats appear to be clearly deciding and acting as if 2010 will be an Uncapped year.

They have not re-signed their stars. They appear to be prepared to wait until 2010. Then will offer their primary stars a typical deal in 2010, but the amortizable/depreciable "Signing Bonus" term in their new contracts will be converted to the term "Option Bonus" or "Roster Bonus" and thereby apply all in 2010 accounting-wise. So that the CAP consequences in future years is minimal to non-existent when/if a new CBA is signed.

They will be unconstrained from using their three tags in 2010 if needed; nor prevented from signing their own FA players; nor constrained by a limited CAP to sign all their good stars. The Pats would not have to chose between them, they could sign them all.

For the players, they get the same money up front, but it is just called something different. There are just more players participating in their individual good fortunes.

The Peppers deal should be structured no different. It doesn't change a thing, except paper wise, but it might be worthwhile enough for the Pats, for them to sweeten the pot to Carolina, (extra pick?), for doing it that way.

Man, you know your stuff!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Sorry to rain on your parade. . . .

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them. IOW, they wait until the players, Galloway, Springs, Bodden, Johnson, Baker, Taylor, etc, have been cut or waived, depending on the player's years of service, to be certain that they will incur no penalty in 2010 free agency. In reviewing their actions I think that this is NOT an accident.

The Final Eight plan you're referring to makes no such distinction.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Pats reach the AFCCG, and thus are under the more onerous set of restrictions. It makes no difference how long the player has been with the team; if he leaves via free agency, he can be replaced.

Moreover, there is no restriction in 2010 on signing UFAs who are waived by their old teams.

The Pats appear to be clearly deciding and acting as if 2010 will be an Uncapped year.

That may well be true, but the main area where this will matter is in comp picks; their signing only cut UFAs this year has no direct impact on their ability to do so next year.

They will be unconstrained from using their three tags in 2010 if needed; nor prevented from signing their own FA players; nor constrained by a limited CAP to sign all their good stars. The Pats would not have to chose between them, they could sign them all.

Two tags: one extra transition-only tag plus the one normal tag.

 

[mayoclinic]

If the rumored Peppers to Pats deal is true, there are fines subtle points that should be made.

The deal pretty clearly can't be a sign-the-tender, trade, and new deal signing. That would require the Pats to have $17 million in cap space, except for the one day exception, that would nullify that restriction.

There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player.

Why?

Because, if 2010 is an Uncapped year, the Pats would be unable, as a probable playoff team, to sign a FA without losing a player first. That might make the loss of a Seymour, a Wilfork or a Mankins, almost mandatory, as a playoff team would be unable to sign a FA until they had lost as many FAs equal to anyone singed in 2009 or 2010 that qualifies as a FA signing, from another team. They can resign as many of their own FA as they wish, after that restriction is recognized for signing other team's FA players. So far there are ZERO in that category. I expect the Pats will be minimally active in FA ,other than for their own in 2010.

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them. IOW, they wait until the players, Galloway, Springs, Bodden, Johnson, Baker, Taylor, etc, have been cut or waived, depending on the player's years of service, to be certain that they will incur no penalty in 2010 free agency. In reviewing their actions I think that this is NOT an accident.

The Pats appear to be clearly deciding and acting as if 2010 will be an Uncapped year.

They have not re-signed their stars. They appear to be prepared to wait until 2010. Then will offer their primary stars a typical deal in 2010, but the amortizable/depreciable "Signing Bonus" term in their new contracts will be converted to the term "Option Bonus" or "Roster Bonus" and thereby apply all in 2010 accounting-wise. So that the CAP consequences in future years is minimal to non-existent when/if a new CBA is signed.

They will be unconstrained from using their three tags in 2010 if needed; nor prevented from signing their own FA players; nor constrained by a limited CAP to sign all their good stars. The Pats would not have to chose between them, they could sign them all.

For the players, they get the same money up front, but it is just called something different. There are just more players participating in their individual good fortunes.

The Peppers deal should be structured no different. It doesn't change a thing, except paper wise, but it might be worthwhile enough for the Pats, for them to sweeten the pot to Carolina, (extra pick?), for doing it that way.

Terrific analysis. You've raised a lot of good points, including some I hadn't thought of, and you've obviously thought much more about the uncapped year scenario than I have. Nice job.

But wouldn't the "easiest" scenario be for Peppers to agree to allow Carolina to sign him to a long term deal (according to terms worked out between the Pats and his agent) and then trade him for a previously agreed upon consideration? In that case we would be trading for a player rather than signing a FA (or cut player), so no FA signing issues would arise. Why wouldn't that work just as well, and more easily than allowing Peppers to become a FA (cut or otherwise)?

 

[borg]

Can you clarify this point for me.

"There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player."

In this scenario, Carolina cuts Peppers yet receives future considerations from NE in the form of draft picks. Not sure how the league would treat such a bypass since no trade actually took place.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Can you clarify this point for me.

"There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player."

In this scenario, Carolina cuts Peppers yet receives future considerations from NE in the form of draft picks. Not sure how the league would treat such a bypass since no trade actually took place.

Shssssh...AZ is wingin' it as is his way lately...

He can't clarify this because it's a pipedream scenario fashioned around a lot of his own misunderstandings.

The sad thing is while others will come along and correct those, no one will notice.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Terrific analysis. You've raised a lot of good points, including some I hadn't thought of, and you've obviously thought much more about the uncapped year scenario than I have. Nice job.

But wouldn't the "easiest" scenario be for Peppers to agree to allow Carolina to sign him to a long term deal (according to terms worked out between the Pats and his agent) and then trade him for a previously agreed upon consideration? In that case we would be trading for a player rather than signing a FA (or cut player), so no FA signing issues would arise. Why wouldn't that work just as well, and more easily than allowing Peppers to become a FA (cut or otherwise)?

That would work also, PROVIDED that the new contract that Carolina signed with its present player Peppers was not constrained by the 30% Rule for Uncapped years.

Any deal the Pats would create would be with a brand new player to them, and I am led to believe that such are not constrained by the 30% Rule. Otherwise the Haynesworth contract could never have been approved by the NFL Office.

I frankly don't think the Pats could structure any deal to Peppers that would not envision lots of money into a 2010 option bonus that WOULD NOT ordinarily violate the 30% Rule.

 

[mgcolby]

For anyone that is interested...here is a Q and A that the NFL released about the changes that would take affect in an uncapped 2010.

Q and A about the NFL's upcoming uncappedseason - Cincy Jungle


One of the interesting things is that a player's income can only increase 30% from 2009 but what I didn't see or notice is if that includes any bonus received in 2010 or if it is straight salary.

 

[solman]

For anyone that is interested...here is a Q and A that the NFL released about the changes that would take affect in an uncapped 2010.

Q and A about the NFL's upcoming uncappedseason - Cincy Jungle


One of the interesting things is that a player's income can only increase 30% from 2009 but what I didn't see or notice is if that includes any bonus received in 2010 or if it is straight salary.

Any compensation that is treated as a signing bonus is explicitly exempt from this limitation. Option bonuses are exempt. Roster and incentive bonuses are not.

 

[Shockt327]

Can you clarify this point for me.

"There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player."

In this scenario, Carolina cuts Peppers yet receives future considerations from NE in the form of draft picks. Not sure how the league would treat such a bypass since no trade actually took place.

Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me either.

What I also don't get is, what "restriction" would the Pats face in 2010 by signing Unrestricted Free Agents in 2009? The only downside would be how it factors into the Compensation-Pick equation for 2010.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

That would work also, PROVIDED that the new contract that Carolina signed with its present player Peppers was not constrained by the 30% Rule for Uncapped years.

Any deal the Pats would create would be with a brand new player to them, and I am led to believe that such are not constrained by the 30% Rule. Otherwise the Haynesworth contract could never have been approved by the NFL Office.

I frankly don't think the Pats could structure any deal to Peppers that would not envision lots of money into a 2010 option bonus that WOULD NOT ordinarily violate the 30% Rule.

Please stop this. You're doing nothing but confusing people with hairbrained musings that have no basis in fact. A teams 2009 FA signings have no impact on their ability to do 2010 FA signings, and ALL 2009 contracts are covered by the CBA whether the player is new or not...

The Hainesworth contract was approved by the NFL therefore it doesn't violate the 30% rule...although some of the descriptions of it likely do. Unless you read the entire contract, and few mediots see them in their entirety, they are just reporting on what has been spun to them by a FO or an Agent.

And teams can't compensate another team for cutting a player who is then free to sign with anyone...and would be insane not to then take a long look at his options.

 

[mayoclinic]

Please stop this. You're doing nothing but confusing people with hairbrained musings that have no basis in fact. A teams 2009 FA signings have no impact on their ability to do 2010 FA signings, and ALL 2009 contracts are covered by the CBA whether the player is new or not...

The Hainesworth contract was approved by the NFL therefore it doesn't violate the 30% rule...although some of the descriptions of it likely do. Unless you read the entire contract, and few mediots see them in their entirety, they are just reporting on what has been spun to them by a FO or an Agent.

And teams can't compensate another team for cutting a player who is then free to sign with anyone...and would be insane not to then take a long look at his options.

I'm sure if this somehow happened if would generate intense scrutiny and would likely be voided.

Again, as I mentioned above, wouldn't it be much simpler for the Pats to simply negotiate an acceptable contract with Peppers' agent, get Carolina (either directly if Peppers is allowed to authorize teams to talk to Carolina, or indirectly through his agent) to agree on compensation, and then have Carolina sign him and trade him to the Pats? Why go through all this complicated rigamarole of cutting him and trading a pick for "future considerations" of which there are none?

 

[AzPatsFan]

Sorry to rain on your parade. . . .



The Final Eight plan you're referring to makes no such distinction.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Pats reach the AFCCG, and thus are under the more onerous set of restrictions. It makes no difference how long the player has been with the team; if he leaves via free agency, he can be replaced.

Moreover, there is no restriction in 2010 on signing UFAs who are waived by their old teams.

Yes there is a restriction for FAs, but not for cut/waived players. Otherwise the SB winners could sign all the 2011 players that they want to sign.

You've missed the entire point. It has nothing to do with re-signing your own players or how long they have been there. It refers to the Team's FA status from 2009 much like the present 3rd-7th round "comp" replacement draft picks. A playoff team in an Uncapped year is constrained to sign no more then their current status as would the calculation used for "comp" replacement draft picks. Except you can't get a "comp" pick if you signed more than you lost, the previous year.
The same principle applies here. You must lose players until the "score" is Zero or below zero,, before you can sign anyone.
Have you signed more FA than you lost? You can't sign anyone in an Uncapped year, until the value is ZERO or negative, and then you can sign one each of other team's FAs for every one of your own lost, and when the "score" is ZERO, you can sign you own FAs players, without restriction. [


That may well be true, but the main area where this will matter is in comp picks; their signing only cut UFAs this year has no direct impact on their ability to do so next year.

That is ridiculous and you know it. If your "score" is positive you lose the right to a comp pick for each positive number, above zero, from the previous year. Only if you have signed zero or less than zero (ie a negative) "score", are you able to receive a "comp" replacement draft pick.
Two tags: one extra transition-only tag plus the one normal tag.

There is a controversy as to whether there are one Franchise and either one or two Transition tags or a total of three. The only thing certain is that there is only one Franchise tag.

 

[bucky]

Please stop this. You're doing nothing but confusing people with hairbrained musings that have no basis in fact. A teams 2009 FA signings have no impact on their ability to do 2010 FA signings, and ALL 2009 contracts are covered by the CBA whether the player is new or not...

The Hainesworth contract was approved by the NFL therefore it doesn't violate the 30% rule...although some of the descriptions of it likely do. Unless you read the entire contract, and few mediots see them in their entirety, they are just reporting on what has been spun to them by a FO or an Agent.

And teams can't compensate another team for cutting a player who is then free to sign with anyone...and would be insane not to then take a long look at his options.

I'm with you on this.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm sure if this somehow happened if would generate intense scrutiny and would likely be voided.

Again, as I mentioned above, wouldn't it be much simpler for the Pats to simply negotiate an acceptable contract with Peppers' agent, get Carolina (either directly if Peppers is allowed to authorize teams to talk to Carolina, or indirectly through his agent) to agree on compensation, and then have Carolina sign him and trade him to the Pats? Why go through all this complicated rigamarole of cutting him and trading a pick for "future considerations" of which there are none?

This is exactly what needs to be done. See Jared Allen Chiefs to Vikes

 

[Miguel]

Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them.

Al Johnson was an UFA.