A Look at The Burgess Trade

[PatsFans.com Article]

Ian's Daily Blog - In a move that seemed to be a long time coming, the Patriots acquired defensive lineman Derrick Burgess from the Oakland Raiders Thursday afternoon.Christopher Price of WEEI.com reports that Burgess cost the team a 3rd round draft pick in 2010, and a 5th round selection in 2011.The move bolsters a Patriots pass rush that was [...]

Click Here To Read This Blog Entry​

 

[JFK]

How much cap did trading Vrabel save and how much cap does Burgess take. I hope this trade makes sense in terms of performance, cap and draft picks.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

How much cap did trading Vrabel save and how much cap does Burgess take. I hope this trade makes sense in terms of performance, cap and draft picks.

Burgess is due $2M. Vrabel was scheduled to make $2.2M in salary plus a $1M roster bonus plus his dead cap ($1M) which we have to eat either way. So basically Burgess will cost $1.2M less. The Herald is now reporting the deal is for a 3rd and 4th in 2010 (but the 4th is conditional and will become a 5th if we acquire a 5th to trade...).

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet

 

[Rob0729]

Burgess is due $2M. Vrabel was scheduled to make $2.2M in salary plus a $1M roster bonus plus his dead cap ($1M) which we have to eat either way. So basically Burgess will cost $1.2M less. The Herald is now reporting the deal is for a 3rd and 4th in 2010 (but the 4th is conditional and will become a 5th if we acquire a 5th to trade...).

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet

So it is a fifth since you know Belichick will find a way to acquire a low 5th rounder to avoid giving up a fourth.

 

[jmt57]

I've read Burgess has a $2 million salary but also $1.5 million in bonuses for a cap of $3.5 million. I have no idea what those bonuses were and whether or not those will be included as part of the Pats cap, or whether or not the Pats are on the hook for any of them. For example if it was a roster bonus does that go away since he is no longer a Raider, or does it follow him to his new team should he be on the Pats roster on the date that roster bonus is due? I know a player doesn't get a roster bonus when he is cut and signed elsewhere, but doesn't he still get that when he is traded?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I've read Burgess has a $2 million salary but also $1.5 million in bonuses for a cap of $3.5 million. I have no idea what those bonuses were and whether or not those will be included as part of the Pats cap, or whether or not the Pats are on the hook for any of them. For example if it was a roster bonus does that go away since he is no longer a Raider, or does it follow him to his new team should he be on the Pats roster on the date that roster bonus is due? I know a player doesn't get a roster bonus when he is cut and signed elsewhere, but doesn't he still get that when he is traded?

The raiders already paid the bonus and all we are on the hook for is his $2M salary. A player gets a roster bonus if he is on the roster on the day it was due. That is why we traded Vrabel when we did, KC had to pay that $1M bonus three days after they traded for him. Roster bonuses are generally due on the first day of the league year or shortly thereafter. If you trade for a player who is due a roster bonus post trade, you are on the hook for it when it comes due.

 

[Rob0729]

The raiders already paid the bonus and all we are on the hook for is his $2M salary. A player gets a roster bonus if he is on the roster on the day it was due. That is why we traded Vrabel when we did, KC had to pay that $1M bonus three days after they traded for him. Roster bonuses are generally due on the first day of the league year or shortly thereafter. If you trade for a player who is due a roster bonus post trade, you are on the hook for it when it comes due.

The only question is when he was due the roster bonus. If he was due the day he reported to camp, he hasn't been paid it yet. Granted if that was the case, he probably would have reported just to get it. Odds are that Burgess already got the bonus and it is on the Raiders' books.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The only question is when he was due the roster bonus. If he was due the day he reported to camp, he hasn't been paid it yet. Granted if that was the case, he probably would have reported just to get it. Odds are that Burgess already got the bonus and it is on the Raiders' books.

It has been confirmed by the media as paid as noted in the other Burgess thread.

 

[The 12th Man]

How much cap did trading Vrabel save and how much cap does Burgess take. I hope this trade makes sense in terms of performance, cap and draft picks.

Very good point. I would rather pay $1.2 million more and have Vrabel and
a 3rd round pick than Burgess. They both are on last year's of contract. But can't look back at what's already done. Burgess is definitely a good talent, only question is how he will adjust to playing 3-4 (or how quickly he can adjust). Vrabel's leadership and locker room presence alone are worth a 3rd round pick, not to mention his knowledge of the game, the system, and the juice he still has left in his tank.

 

[DaBruinz]

Very good point. I would rather pay $1.2 million more and have Vrabel and
a 3rd round pick than Burgess. They both are on last year's of contract. But can't look back at what's already done. Burgess is definitely a good talent, only question is how he will adjust to playing 3-4 (or how quickly he can adjust). Vrabel's leadership and locker room presence alone are worth a 3rd round pick, not to mention his knowledge of the game, the system, and the juice he still has left in his tank.

Burgess played in the 3-4 under Rob Ryan in Oakland when they had Ted Washington lining up at NT and Warren Sapp at one DE position and Bobby Hamilton at the other. Burgess put up 16 sacks that year. However, its unknown whether Ryan ran it as a one gap or two gap system.

 

[jmt57]

It has been confirmed by the media as paid as noted in the other Burgess thread.

Thank you MLR, I missed that in the other (lengthy) thread. I didn't know if that was a due March 1, week one, or somewhere in between, or if it included other bonus incentives.

 

[The 12th Man]

Burgess played in the 3-4 under Rob Ryan in Oakland when they had Ted Washington lining up at NT and Warren Sapp at one DE position and Bobby Hamilton at the other. Burgess put up 16 sacks that year. However, its unknown whether Ryan ran it as a one gap or two gap system.

Good point also, even though it has been a while. I'm just still a little bitter about Vrabel being gone, especially after seeing who his potential replacement will be now. Vrabel > Burgess.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Burgess picks up BB's defensive scheme right away and helps this team win another Superbowl. Just in the back of my head, I'll always have that "WHY" question. Could the Chiefs been happy enough with just Cassel? Maybe Cassel and a low draft pick? Never know I guess.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Good point also, even though it has been a while. I'm just still a little bitter about Vrabel being gone, especially after seeing who his potential replacement will be now. Vrabel > Burgess.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Burgess picks up BB's defensive scheme right away and helps this team win another Superbowl. Just in the back of my head, I'll always have that "WHY" question. Could the Chiefs been happy enough with just Cassel? Maybe Cassel and a low draft pick? Never know I guess.

Vrabel wasn't thrown into that deal to sweeten it for KC. They were taking Cassel either way. He was included in the trade because it was a way to move on without cutting a respected vet who was not ready to hang 'em up (and who also happened to be the NFLPA team rep). It insured he got his full salary plus bonus ($3.2M+) from a team who needed his veteran leadership enough to make him worth that kind of $$$. And it also kept him from signing on with Rex Ryan or someone else we play this season...

The question is will Burgess be $1.2M better than the 2009 Mike Vrabel, and we won't know that for another 4-5 months. But apparently BB thinks so, and that should be good enough for most of us.

 

[patsfan55]

Good point also, even though it has been a while. I'm just still a little bitter about Vrabel being gone, especially after seeing who his potential replacement will be now. Vrabel > Burgess.

Don't get me wrong, I hope Burgess picks up BB's defensive scheme right away and helps this team win another Superbowl. Just in the back of my head, I'll always have that "WHY" question. Could the Chiefs been happy enough with just Cassel? Maybe Cassel and a low draft pick? Never know I guess.

I was and always will be a big Vrabel fan, but his better days are long since gone. For the year 2009 Burgess>>>Vrabel

 

[The 12th Man]

Vrabel wasn't thrown into that deal to sweeten it for KC. They were taking Cassel either way. He was included in the trade because it was a way to move on without cutting a respected vet who was not ready to hang 'em up (and who also happened to be the NFLPA team rep). It insured he got his full salary plus bonus ($3.2M+) from a team who needed his veteran leadership enough to make him worth that kind of $$$. And it also kept him from signing on with Rex Ryan or someone else we play this season...

The question is will Burgess be $1.2M better than the 2009 Mike Vrabel, and we won't know that for another 4-5 months. But apparently BB thinks so, and that should be good enough for most of us.

What I'm trying to say is that Vrabel was easily worth 4.5 mil cap to keep for at least one more year or extend his contract. BB kept Bruschi even though he's older didn't he? I'm saying that Vrabel brought a LOT to this team and after seeing that he's pretty much replaced by another veteran with 1 year left on his contract, I don't like the Vrabel trade looking back.

And the question should be will Burgess be $1.2M better than the 2009 Mike Vrabel (defensive captain, locker room leader, experience in system) PLUS a future 3rd and 4/5th round picks, and we won't know that for a few years to come I guess.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

What I'm trying to say is that Vrabel was easily worth 4.5 mil cap to keep for at least one more year or extend his contract. BB kept Bruschi even though he's older didn't he? I'm saying that Vrabel brought a LOT to this team and after seeing that he's pretty much replaced by another veteran with 1 year left on his contract, I don't like the Vrabel trade looking back.

And the question should be will Burgess be $1.2M better than the 2009 Mike Vrabel (defensive captain, locker room leader, experience in system) PLUS a future 3rd and 4/5th round picks, and we won't know that for a few years to come I guess.

Vrabel generated very little pass rush last year. Burgess's speciality is rushing the passer. I imagine that is why they made the moves they did. Only time will tell but Vrabel's best days are behind him. Let's hope Burgess still has something left.

 

[The 12th Man]

I was and always will be a big Vrabel fan, but his better days are long since gone. For the year 2009 Burgess>>>Vrabel

What do you base that off? Look at their stats, last year's or career total:

Derrick Burgess

Mike Vrabel

Sure looks like Vrabel >>> Burgess

 

[The 12th Man]

Vrabel generated very little pass rush last year. Burgess's speciality is rushing the passer. I imagine that is why they made the moves they did. Only time will tell but Vrabel's best days are behind him. Let's hope Burgess still has something left.

Well if it's his "specialty", then he should be fired after last year's performance. Vrabel's "very little pass rush" got more sacks last year.

 

[spacecrime]

The question is will Burgess be $1.2M better than the 2009 Mike Vrabel

Isn't this backwards? If we are paying Burgess 2 mil and would have paid Vrabel 3.2 mil, then ...........

 

[DaBruinz]

What do you base that off? Look at their stats, last year's or career total:

Derrick Burgess

Mike Vrabel

Sure looks like Vrabel >>> Burgess

Stats don't tell the whole story. And this was brought up in the other thread with a counter of Randy Moss' production.

Burgess hasn't exactly played on the best of defenses. In fact, the quality of the other defensive players around him has gone down since 2005. Not to mention the coaching carousel that has gone on there in Oakland. Burgess also was lining up some on the strong side last year instead of his normal side, the weak side. So, that is going to also hamper the number of sacks he got.

Some people claim that is "apologizing" for his stats. The reality is that its all contributing factors that have to be considered when looking at them. Does it guarantee anything? Nope. It doesn't. But some people would have you believe that it does.