No Patriot Veteran Extensions Because of the CBA?

[mgteich]

I'll try again. If the patriots convert $60M in bonus to salaries in an uncapped year, presuming 5 year contracts, that will free up $48M of future cap space. Another way of saying this is that patriot players as a whole will receive an additional $48M when the team uses the cap in future years. Unless Kraft underspends future caps by $48M, he is indeed out cash.

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).

 

[spacecrime]

I'll try again. If the patriots convert $60M in bonus to salaries in an uncapped year, presuming 5 year contracts, that will free up $48M of future cap space. Another way of saying this is that patriot players as a whole will receive an additional $48M when the team uses the cap in future years. Unless Kraft underspends future caps by $48M, he is indeed out cash.

I see what you are saying. This is true. He will have the option of underspending the cap, or spending to the cap and thus spending more (over the long haul) than some other teams. Since he is concerned about the level of calaries now, your thoughts are most logical.

Still, I am hoping he splurges and locks up Brady and Wilfork during the uncapped year.

Probably you are right. Probably his goal is spending less money. And the other part of my original post was that the cap was likely to go down, not up, because the reason the owners want out is that they are spending too large a percentage on players now. So if the cap goes down, they will spend less after a new CBA is forged. Or if a new CBA is never forged, who knows?

Be an interesting time ahead, though.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Space - I think that you missed the point and you two are actually agreeing with one another.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

You could screw yourself the same way that the 49ers screwed themselves and the Broncos screwed themselves. You give out so much in signing bonuses, that even amortized, you no longer can put together a viable roster.

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.

I am pretty sure that isn't how it works. Just like what happened when they first instituted the cap. The signing bonuses were still prorated based on the years under the cap. So, lets say that Seymour got a 3 year deal with the 21 million signing bonus. The SB amortization is $7 mill a year. So, while in 2010, it would be uncapped, it would still count $7 mill in SB amortization in 2011 and 2012, assuming a cap was still in play.

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.

While Kraft isn't stupid, he's also not involved in the signing of contracts and extensions for players. And there is such a thing as signing a player now so that your know what you're working with going forward.

 

[RobertWeathers]

IMO another factor at play is that if the cap does go down, there will be less to spend and in theory player's contracts will not be as hefty. Perhaps that may be another reason why the Pats have taken the position of not signing players and waiting.

 

[spacecrime]

You could screw yourself the same way that the 49ers screwed themselves and the Broncos screwed themselves. You give out so much in signing bonuses, that even amortized, you no longer can put together a viable roster.

You are talking about being cap stupid. I am tlaking about contracts signed in the absence of a cap. When did the 49ers and Broncos screw themselves in an uncapped year?

I am pretty sure that isn't how it works. Just like what happened when they first instituted the cap. The signing bonuses were still prorated based on the years under the cap.

Yes, that would be a possibility if back then they backfitted to cap to include contracts signed before the cap. My recollection is that they do not do that. If the contracts signed BEFORE the CBA donot fall under CBA rules, then there is no signing bonus to amortize.

Do you see what I am saying? It's a bit complicated.

So, lets say that Seymour got a 3 year deal with the 21 million signing bonus. The SB amortization is $7 mill a year. So, while in 2010, it would be uncapped, it would still count $7 mill in SB amortization in 2011 and 2012,

Ah, this is our disconnect. Go back to my original post. If Seymour is signed in an uncapped year, there is no amrotization of the signing bonus. Amortizationi is a function of the cap, not money paid. He gets teh $21 mil. Nothing is applied to teh cap and nothing prorated to the cap because there is no cap.

If a CBA is voted in in 2011, it will govern contracts signed under that CBA, just like in 93-94. Old contracts are not retroactively made to fall under the agreement.

If, as you state, the original cap applied retroactively to contracts signed before the cap was voted in, then, yes, I agree with you.

I still believe this uncapped year can be manipulated, as all rules can be manipulated by a clever, far-seeing person who thinks outside the box, which IMO applies to the patriots FO.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I am pretty sure that isn't how it works. Just like what happened when they first instituted the cap. The signing bonuses were still prorated based on the years under the cap. So, lets say that Seymour got a 3 year deal with the 21 million signing bonus. The SB amortization is $7 mill a year. So, while in 2010, it would be uncapped, it would still count $7 mill in SB amortization in 2011 and 2012, assuming a cap was still in play.

I have a very hard time believing the that the new agreement will be retroactively applied to any uncapped years.

However, even if we assume that is true, it is very easily worked around. Instead of a signing bonus, you give wilfork an equally large payment as a guaranteed salary. This would apply only to the uncapped 2010 year and therefore could not affect future years. From Wilfork's perspective, it is the same as a signing bonus.

While Mgteich is correct that Kraft will end up spending more money, a perceived negative, let's not pretend he (or other owners in big markets) wouldn't LOVE to be able to do that. That's why they have a salary cap to begin with!!! If an owner has the money to spend and he can spend more than other teams, he *should* be able to increase his chance at a SB win.

If the Patriots line up a bunch of big contracts to renew in an uncapped year, they will undoubtedly have an advantage in the long run presuming that the cap is reestablished.... also assuming that they can actually sign those players in the uncapped year, rather than lose them to another team.

 

[patchick]

If Seymour is signed in an uncapped year, there is no amrotization of the signing bonus. Amortizationi is a function of the cap, not money paid.

This is one of the big unknowns. The salary cap as it exists to date happens to assign a privileged status to signing bonuses. A new CBA could, as you suggest, conveniently ignore all payouts made in uncapped-year deals...or it could not. Something like the current amortization system could be reinstated. Or perhaps they'll try a whole new approach -- say, using multiyear averaging on salaries but not amortizing bonuses. Given all the talk about how "broken" the current CBA is, major structural changes are a real possibility.

It really is incredibly risky to structure a blockbuster contract under that kind of uncertainty.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I have a very hard time believing the that the new agreement will be retroactively applied to any uncapped years.

However, even if we assume that is true, it is very easily worked around. Instead of a signing bonus, you give wilfork an equally large payment as a guaranteed salary. This would apply only to the uncapped 2010 year and therefore could not affect future years. From Wilfork's perspective, it is the same as a signing bonus.

While Mgteich is correct that Kraft will end up spending more money, a perceived negative, let's not pretend he (or other owners in big markets) wouldn't LOVE to be able to do that. That's why they have a salary cap to begin with!!! If an owner has the money to spend and he can spend more than other teams, he *should* be able to increase his chance at a SB win.

If the Patriots line up a bunch of big contracts to renew in an uncapped year, they will undoubtedly have an advantage in the long run presuming that the cap is reestablished.... also assuming that they can actually sign those players in the uncapped year, rather than lose them to another team.

Only probelm is Kraft is already on record saying he doesn't think that way... He understands that whatever he does in 2010 will impact his business model and ability to operate in 2011 and beyond whether there is or isn't a cap.

 

[fester]

You could screw yourself the same way that the 49ers screwed themselves and the Broncos screwed themselves. You give out so much in signing bonuses, that even amortized, you no longer can put together a viable roster.



I am pretty sure that isn't how it works. Just like what happened when they first instituted the cap. The signing bonuses were still prorated based on the years under the cap. So, lets say that Seymour got a 3 year deal with the 21 million signing bonus. The SB amortization is $7 mill a year. So, while in 2010, it would be uncapped, it would still count $7 mill in SB amortization in 2011 and 2012, assuming a cap was still in play.

That just assumes the bonus cash payment that the player receives on the same day as he signs the contract is accounted for as a signing bonus. Why not make that large one-time only cash payment as a "roster" bonus and apply the entire accounting to the non-capped year? Depending on the rules of the CBA for cap accounting for the uncapped year, there are plenty of games that can be legitimately played so that players and owners are no worse or better off by re-labeling different payment streams.

 

[DaBruinz]

I have a very hard time believing the that the new agreement will be retroactively applied to any uncapped years.

Its not being retroactively applied. That would assume that people would then get dinged for being over a non-existant salary cap in 2010.

Also, if you look around the league, teams that have signed players to contracts that expire after 2010, still have to pro-rate the signing bonus as if the Salary cap were to continue. So, its stand to reason that any contracts signed in 2010 would have to do the same if the cap was re-instated for 2011.

However, even if we assume that is true, it is very easily worked around. Instead of a signing bonus, you give wilfork an equally large payment as a guaranteed salary. This would apply only to the uncapped 2010 year and therefore could not affect future years. From Wilfork's perspective, it is the same as a signing bonus.

Who said anything about there not being a work around?

While Mgteich is correct that Kraft will end up spending more money, a perceived negative, let's not pretend he (or other owners in big markets) wouldn't LOVE to be able to do that. That's why they have a salary cap to begin with!!! If an owner has the money to spend and he can spend more than other teams, he *should* be able to increase his chance at a SB win.

Since when did money expediture = improving ones chances to win the SB? If that were the case, then Dan Snyder would have won 3 or 4 by now..

The salary cap was put in place to help bring parity to the league. Also, to limit the amount of money that the players earned as free agents. But also to force the owners to spend a certain amount as well.

If the Patriots line up a bunch of big contracts to renew in an uncapped year, they will undoubtedly have an advantage in the long run presuming that the cap is reestablished.... also assuming that they can actually sign those players in the uncapped year, rather than lose them to another team.

Well, that where all the other rules regarding a capped year come into play. Like the the Top 4 and Top 8 rules that limit the number of free agents those teams can sign. Remember, the 4 teams that play in the Conference Championships will only be allowed to sign a player of equal value to one they've lost. The 4 teams that lost in the Divisional round will be limited to signing free agent equal to the number they lost, without being limited to spending to the value of the player lost. While the rest of the league will be able to sign players without issue.

Then there is the free agency issue.. Who will be unrestricted free agents and who will be restricted free agents.

Then there is the extra player a team can tag as a transition player if they so chose.. So they could have a Franchise Player and a transition player.

I honestly believe that the owners will lock out the players rather than go into that mess.

 

[DaBruinz]

One of the things to remember is that once the contract is signed, it can't be modified for a full year..

So, Lets say the Pats sign Wilfork to a deal now that included the "Roster Bonus". Then, no matter what, they have to account for that roster bonus in 2010. Whether the year is uncapped or not. If its capped, they just hamstrung themselves...

So, until the league owners and the NFLPA sit down and really start negotiating, I fully understand why the Pats won't do anything. Its not because they don't want to. Its because, to do so before knowing the accounting process would be folly..

 

[JoeSixPat]

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.

My feeling is that it's the big ticket contracts - Wilfork, Brady - that are much more contingent on the CBA and uncapped year. I don't see where the team really stands to benefit from not doing ANY deals - and I don't get the feeling either contract is going to hamstring the Patriots.

 

[spacecrime]

This is one of the big unknowns. The salary cap as it exists to date happens to assign a privileged status to signing bonuses. A new CBA could, as you suggest, conveniently ignore all payouts made in uncapped-year deals...or it could not.

How did they do it in '94 when they went from uncapped to capped? Were all previous contracts suddenly subject to the new rules, or was it only contracts signed after the new agreement. My memory says that they signed the agreement and all contracts signed under that agreement were governed by the agreement, not contracts signed before the agreement was ratified. But my memory isn't as good as it was, and even in the best of times was rather selective (according to my wife).

But think about this: They cannot apply the cap year rules retroactively because different rules applied in the uncapped year. Like the Rule of 8.

So under your retroactive scenario, in lieu of a cap in 2010 the Pats and other teams are not allowed to sign FAs. How do you retroactively undo that in 2011??????

 

[spacecrime]

Space - I think that you missed the point and you two are actually agreeing with one another.

Yes. It's like we're married or something.

 

[spacecrime]

Well, that where all the other rules regarding a capped year come into play. Like the the Top 4 and Top 8 rules that limit the number of free agents those teams can sign. Remember, the 4 teams that play in the Conference Championships will only be allowed to sign a player of equal value to one they've lost. The 4 teams that lost in the Divisional round will be limited to signing free agent equal to the number they lost, without being limited to spending to the value of the player lost. While the rest of the league will be able to sign players without issue.

Yes, another excellent point.

Hoefully the Pats will be SB winners and therefore restricted. So if they can't spend $$$ on free agents, who can they spend money on?

Well, there are no restrictions on how much they can pay their own players, so they can pay Brady, Wilfork, and all the other current Pats players they are not extending.

 

[spacecrime]

Since when did money expediture = improving ones chances to win the SB? If that were the case, then Dan Snyder would have won 3 or 4 by now...

There is faulty logic here, or at least a faulty assumption. Snyder isn't spending any more money that Kraft or Irsay or Rooney. He just spends most of it on a few players.

But if he could spend more money, I would say that his chances of winning a superbowl are greater if he spent $200 mil on his roster rather than $20 mil. Not a guarantee, but I think that

money expediture = improving ones chances to win the SB

 

[Miguel]

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.

Some of them were. I was thinking about extensions made since the owners opted out of CBA in May, 2008. I should have look for players that were extended just this year. Sorry about that. Even without Rodgers and Castillo and others, my main point remains that teams have not found it difficult to extend players in 2009.

 

[DaBruinz]

Some of them were. I was thinking about extensions made since the owners opted out of CBA in May, 2008. I should have look for players that were extended just this year. Sorry about that. Even without Rodgers and Castillo and others, my main point remains that teams have not found it difficult to extend players in 2009.

I think that the teams that HAVE extended players since the owners opted out of the CBA in 2008 are ones that believe that the owners will lock the players out before they allow an uncapped year. I think that the Patriots want to do right by the players and pay them accordingly.. And they can't do that without really knowing what is happening in 2010.

 

[Miguel]

I think that the teams that HAVE extended players since the owners opted out of the CBA in 2008 are ones that believe that the owners will lock the players out before they allow an uncapped year.

If the owners lock out the players in 2010, the union will sue and win big $$$$ because it would be a violation of their CBA.