No Patriot Veteran Extensions Because of the CBA?

[PatsFans.com Article]

Ian's Daily Blog - An interesting point made by Tom Curran this afternoon over at NBCSports.com is that the Patriots haven’t extended any of their veterans past 2010. After that season the current collective bargaining agreement will expire, and that could be a reason why guys like Vince Wilfork and others have yet to receive a contract extension. Curran [...]

Click Here To Read This Blog Entry​

 

[wahwho]

That's what I've suspected for a while now...I just hope it isn't going to come back and bite them later on when other teams are willing to venture a bit further out on the limb to get players in now. I seem to remember something about the Colts making contracts to keep their players that would have put them in cap hell the last time the CBA was under discussion but they knew/assumed the cap number would be going up and so they ended up perfectly fine.

 

[Jimke]

That's what I've suspected for a while now...I just hope it isn't going to come back and bite them later on when other teams are willing to venture a bit further out on the limb to get players in now. I seem to remember something about the Colts making contracts to keep their players that would have put them in cap hell the last time the CBA was under discussion but they knew/assumed the cap number would be going up and so they ended up perfectly fine.

This was the Boston Bruin's plan a few years ago. Let all the

good high priced players go and reload with cheaper players. It

was a disaster and it has taken years to recover. Let's hope

Bob Kraft hasn't called Jeremy Jacobs for his master plan. I

would hate to see Brian Hoyer as the Pat's quarterback in 2011.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I don't think Tom Curran is breaking any real news here - aside from the interesting comments from Kraft and the particular details and implications of the next CBA having some impact

But I feel like this is all posturing by owners and players at this point to put forward the point to the players that the un-capped year has negative implications for them - as does life without a CBA, as does potential poison pills in the next CBA .... i.e. the lack of clarity does no one any good.

That being said, assuming next season is uncapped, what's the point of the Patriots constraining themselves by extending Wilfork this year when they can do it next year with potentially no salary cap implications?

Same with Brady - though in Brady's case - as with other franchise QBs - you're not going to get too cute about playing negotiation games... the overriding factor with Brady may just be to get his contract done before Rivers.

 

[jmt57]

I don't know that we can compare Kraft to Jeremy Jacobs. For thirty years the Bruins business model was to be good enough to contend and make the playoffs - therefore keeping fans interested enough to come out and buy tickets - but don't spend what it takes to win, as that would be less profitable.

I have felt this was a large part of why certain Pats such as Wilfork haven't been extended, though I'm somewhat surprised to hear Kraft essentially admit that the CBA is the reason the extensions haven't happened. Perhaps BB can give him some pointers in how to say a lot without saying anything.

“We don’t know what the rules will be and we don’t want to put ourselves in a position where we could be penalized for making poor decisions now when we don’t know what the rules are. No one knows, we don’t know. What could happen is we don’t have any agreement.”

Reading between the lines I can see Kraft expecting the NFL to be taking a very hard line in these negotiations to scale back the salary cap.

The Pats don't have much of any room under the cap to offer extensions now, so in order to make that happen they'd have to re-do other contracts, shifting money against future years. If they expect that cap number to stop increasing, or even decrease, then perhaps the conservative approach does make a lot of sense. The philosophy has never been one of 'win now, forget about the future' but has instead focused on being competitive every year.

 

[spacecrime]

The philosophy has never been one of 'win now, forget about the future' but has instead focused on being competitive every year.

Disagree with this.

THeir philosphy is indeed win now. THat is why every year BB signs old vets who can help the team win THIS year.

Yes, they plan on being competitive every year, but never at the sacrifice at winning now.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Disagree with this.

THeir philosphy is indeed win now. THat is why every year BB signs old vets who can help the team win THIS year.

Yes, they plan on being competitive every year, but never at the sacrifice at winning now.

is that why they had 6 draft picks in the first 3 rounds this year? is this why they have 3 2nd rounders next year?

 

[jmt57]

Disagree with this.

THeir philosphy is indeed win now. THat is why every year BB signs old vets who can help the team win THIS year.

Yes, they plan on being competitive every year, but never at the sacrifice at winning now.

I didn't say the Pats don't want to win in this or any other specific year. The point I was making is that they don't let themselves get so caught up in a 'win now' frenzy that they will pay more than what they perceive a player to be worth, just to have him now so they can win now.

Having a chance to win every year is of more importance than attempting to win this, or any other year regardless of future ramifications; that's the Kraft-BB philosophy and business plan. The signings of Burgess, Galloway, Taylor, Baker, Bodden and Springs did not put them in to salary cap hell. The comparison I would make this year is how the Redskins and Panthers are managing their rosters and contracts, and the effect those will have in future years (assuming a new CBA is ratified.)

 

[Miguel]

It would have been nice if Curran had asked Kraft about the James Sanders and Mike Wright deals that were signed this offseason. Both of them are signed past the 2010 deal.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

It would have been nice if Curran had asked Kraft about the James Sanders and Mike Wright deals that were signed this offseason. Both of them are signed past the 2010 deal.

They aren't big ticket items. I have said all along that constructing a contract under the constraints of an expiring CBA is likely the holdup with Brady. With Wilfork it's more likely a reluctance to invest all the guaranteed money when there may well be a lockout in 2011 (combined with a difference in opinion on overall value).

 

[mgteich]

Belichick is doing all he can and delaying several major contracts until next year: Brady, Wilfork, Seymour and Mankins.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The present poison pills to discourage a cap-less year, make it very difficult to structure extensions with pay raises, due to the 30% rules.

A cap-less 2010 offers the prospect of being able to sign many high priced players with no amortization CAP consequences. That definitely helps a perennial contender, like the Patriots.

If uncapped, there are a pair of franchise tags available that would make it convenient to sign most of their veterans. Plus several potential free agents like Logan Mankins tun out not to be Free Agents since they need 6 years of service before achieving FA.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The present poison pills to discourage a cap-less year, make it very difficult to structure extensions with pay raises, due to the 30% rules.

A cap-less 2010 offers the prospect of being able to sign many high priced players with no amortization CAP consequences. That definitely helps a perennial contender, like the Patriots.

If uncapped, there are a pair of franchise tags available that would make it convenient to sign most of their veterans. Plus several potential free agents like Logan Mankins tun out not to be Free Agents since they need 6 years of service before achieving FA.

There are not a pair of franchise tags. There are two transition tags and a franchise tag and teams can use two tags be it both transition or a franchise and a transition.

The expiring CBA contract rules will still be in effect in 2010 even if there is no cap. What it will do is allow teams to sign as many players as they want to deals with substantial signing bonus. Thing is, if the cap comes back as owners believe it must, you could be screwed going forward depending on how many big ticket players you acquire or extend...

I do think Kraft is waiting to see what the new CBA is most likely to entail. He wants the players he extends or acquires on long term deals to be signed to deals he can live with under the long term cap and revenue limits.

 

[spacecrime]

The expiring CBA contract rules will still be in effect in 2010 even if there is no cap. What it will do is allow teams to sign as many players as they want to deals with substantial signing bonus. Thing is, if the cap comes back as owners believe it must, you could be screwed going forward depending on how many big ticket players you acquire or extend....

Don't see how you could get screwed going forward. Not that you can't, but could someone explain to me how?

If there is no cap, and Seymour gets extended, $20 mil guaranteed, los salary first year, then escalating salaries, Kraft will not be prorating the cap for following years. It won't change Kraft's checkbook - the players get the signing bonus when they sign, it's just that the expense is spread out.

So with no cap, all Seymour's money gets paid in the uncapped year. Then the cap comes back the following year. Fine. Seymour's salary counts but his signing bonus was never spread out.

The other thing is that owners think they are giving too big an amount for player salaries, so that if the cap comes back, it is likely to come down. If so, then salaries will come down. This means you can sign your players for less AND it means those guys who signed players this year will have inflated salaries to deal with and a cap in place.

The last reason to think that the Patriots are not likely to be screwed going forward is that Kraft says that it is a poor business maneuver to sign players now and a good business maneuver to wait. He didn't get where he is by being stupid.

 

[mgteich]

What you seem to be saying is that next year the players would get bonuses as salaries, thus allowing and requiring teams to pay a greater percentage of revenues over the next five years (including 2010) if next year is uncapped, since the same would be spent in the capped years and much more would be spent next year.

I don't see why the owners would want to pay even more for players than now or what they will end paying when the cap comes back.

Don't see how you could get screwed going forward. Not that you can't, but could someone explain to me how?

If there is no cap, and Seymour gets extended, $20 mil guaranteed, los salary first year, then escalating salaries, Kraft will not be prorating the cap for following years. It won't change Kraft's checkbook - the players get the signing bonus when they sign, it's just that the expense is spread out.

So with no cap, all Seymour's money gets paid in the uncapped year. Then the cap comes back the following year. Fine. Seymour's salary counts but his signing bonus was never spread out.

The other thing is that owners think they are giving too big an amount for player salaries, so that if the cap comes back, it is likely to come down. If so, then salaries will come down. This means you can sign your players for less AND it means those guys who signed players this year will have inflated salaries to deal with and a cap in place.

The last reason to think that the Patriots are not likely to be screwed going forward is that Kraft says that it is a poor business maneuver to sign players now and a good business maneuver to wait. He didn't get where he is by being stupid.

 

[spacecrime]

What you seem to be saying is that next year the players would get bonuses as salaries, thus allowing and requiring teams to pay a greater percentage of revenues over the next five years (including 2010) if next year is uncapped, since the same would be spent in the capped years and much more would be spent next year.

I don't see why the owners would want to pay even more for players than now or what they will end paying when the cap comes back.

That's not what I said at all.

I am saying that when a player signs a contract this year, he gets all his signing bonus, say $20 mil, this year. If he gets his signing bonus next year (uncapped) he gets all his signing bonus, say $20 mil, next year, the year he signs.

Either way he gets his signing bonus when he signs.

The difference is that with a cap, the signing bonus is pro-rated (for cap accounting purposes) for the length of the contract. With no cap, there is no accounting process for cap purposes.

The money is paid, end of story.

If the cap comes back, unless you are saying they will make it retroactive, not likely since both palyers and owners will be opposed and they did not do that when the cap came into being, then any team that signs a player during the uncapped year gets the services of that player with a much smaller cap charge (salary only, not signing bonus).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Also, Ty Warren (2013) says hi.

 

[Miguel]

The present poison pills to discourage a cap-less year, make it very difficult to structure extensions with pay raises, due to the 30% rules.

See Lee Evans, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers, Maurice Jones-Drew, Kellen Winslow, Jr., Adrian Wilson, Eli Manning, Roddy White, Heath Miller, James Harrison, Kris Brown, Michael Roos, Vernon Carey, Marques Colston, Lito Sheppard, Andrew Whitworth, Eric Winston, Luis Castillo, D.J. Williams, Antoine Winfield. I am sure that I missed other big names.

It appears that their teams did not find it very difficult to structure extensions.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Could a bonus paid in 2009 on a 4-year deal be accrued against the cap 25% this year and 75% in an uncapped year to allow the same benefit of signing a player to guaranteed money in an uncapped year? If there's no cap, it would make sense that the accounting rules don't carry through the time when there is no cap. Hard to imagine teams that have taken care of their players last year or this year would want teams like the Pats to have a financial advantage going into the the new cap. The union probably wouldn't want to reward the Pats for withholding guaranteed money until 2010 either.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

See Lee Evans, Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers, Maurice Jones-Drew, Kellen Winslow, Jr., Adrian Wilson, Eli Manning, Roddy White, Heath Miller, James Harrison, Kris Brown, Michael Roos, Vernon Carey, Marques Colston, Lito Sheppard, Andrew Whitworth, Eric Winston, Luis Castillo, D.J. Williams, Antoine Winfield. I am sure that I missed other big names.

It appears that their teams did not find it very difficult to structure extensions.

How many of those were signed before the 2009 league year began? Quick checking shows that, at the least, Aaron Rodgers's and Luis Castillo's were, and the 30% rule didn't go into effect until then.