Ian - as I mentioned in my post in the other thread.
To my knowledge (and I've done a lot of research on this), during his tenure, BB has never cut a player in the same year as they had re-done their contract. Not Ted Johnson. Not Ty Law. Not Lawyer Milloy.
It is bad business to do so. Veteran players will look at it and ask why they should do it if it doesn't protect their potential to being cut. It's their only leverage.
When they were first acquired I thought it was a possibility - not a high probability, but certainly a chance - based on factors like performance in camp, injuries, learning curve in picking up a new system, and their contract (budget and cap ramifications). Frankly I thought there was a similar possibility Randy Moss would be cut when the Pats first acquired him four years ago too. However, I figured once they restructured their contracts it was extremely doubtful they would not be on the roster in week one.
That's an interesting fact that you pulled up DaBruinz about players not be cut after restructuring; I did not know that. That's something worth remembering and noting in future years.
Pompei is a writer who has been around for quite some time, and generally does good work. But I don't think he made a strong enough point that the executive he quoted made that statement
the day before the two players restructured their contracts.
All Pompei had to do was add one more sentence, about how that factor surely changes the chances of that happening - but he didn't. Sure, he notes it by saying "one day before this story came out", but it's way too easy to gloss over that and instead focus on what immediately follows: "one NFL executive familiar with the Patriots ways told me he believes one or both of the big name acquisitions will be cut before the season starts".
Pompei should have just added one more line, saying something like 'by restructuring their contracts the chances of either player being cut is far less likely', or words to that effect. Did he accidentally fail to make that point of emphasis? Did he purposely leave that out in order to stir some debate? Did he perhaps initially have that line in their and his editor told him to remove it? Regardless of what the case may be, it's a critical factor that changes the speculation dramatically.
