Miguel Question....????

[jct]

(Or anyone who is reasonably certain)

Can we expect the Pats to spend the Balance of the Salary cap (6.4 M or so) before next Sunday at 4pm?
Any guesses where?
TBC?,Seau?,Graham?,Samuel?,Ted Johnson?,C Scott?,Izzo?

If we sign T Johnson in the Playoffs it shouldn't hit the Salary Cap correct?
Thanks

 

[HAMMERMILL]

(Or anyone who is reasonably certain)

Can we expect the Pats to spend the Balance of the Salary cap (6.4 M or so) before next Sunday at 4pm?
Any guesses where?
TBC?,Seau?,Graham?,Samuel?,Ted Johnson?,C Scott?,Izzo?

If we sign T Johnson in the Playoffs it shouldn't hit the Salary Cap correct?
Thanks

NO.....
Samuel,and Graham,They MIGHT like to extend but don't see anything happing
until the off-season.

I love TJ but it's nothing more than a media creation IMHO.

 

[cstjohn17]

(Or anyone who is reasonably certain)

Can we expect the Pats to spend the Balance of the Salary cap (6.4 M or so) before next Sunday at 4pm?
Any guesses where?
TBC?,Seau?,Graham?,Samuel?,Ted Johnson?,C Scott?,Izzo?

If we sign T Johnson in the Playoffs it shouldn't hit the Salary Cap correct?
Thanks

Some more questions, how do rosters work in the playoffs?

If someone goes on IR can additional players be added? or do you set a 53 man roster and that is the pool of players who can become active?

Inquiring minds want to know...

P.s. Maybe it is knee jerk but if the Pats end the season with significant, >$4 Million, in unspent cap space I will be pissed.

 

[Pats726]

Some more questions, how do rosters work in the playoffs?

If someone goes on IR can additional players be added? or do you set a 53 man roster and that is the pool of players who can become active?

They can add players as they do all year..exacyly the same..

 

[pats1]

P.s. Maybe it is knee jerk but if the Pats end the season with significant, >$4 Million, in unspent cap space I will be pissed.

Why? Since when does spending more money guarantee success?

The 2005 Patriots were $38,000 under the cap.
The 2004 Patriots were $1,330,000 under the cap.

Were you "pissed" at the 2004 Patriots more?

Why is there some stupid magic number of $4,000,000 under that suddenly makes you "pissed?" That's pathetic.

And if the Pats didn't alter contracts for the sake of making fans feel better with a 3% difference in their cap number, why fret? Would you really trust your judgment of the situation over that of Pioli or Belichick?

A 3% increase in a cap number won't win a championship. But a 3% better performance-per-cost increase on every player on that cap number will.

Also keep in mind that any impact player signed would have a long-term deal, and thus the cap ramifications would extend out of 2006. That would leave, say, a couple of Heath Evans-type deals to use the rest of the space. Would such moves make a difference?

 

[HAMMERMILL]

Why? Since when does spending more money guarantee success?

The 2005 Patriots were $38,000 under the cap.
The 2004 Patriots were $1,330,000 under the cap.

Were you "pissed" at the 2004 Patriots more?

Why is there some stupid magic number of $4,000,000 under that suddenly makes you "pissed?" That's pathetic.

And if the Pats didn't alter contracts for the sake of making fans feel better with a 3% difference in their cap number, why fret? Would you really trust your judgment of the situation over that of Pioli or Belichick?

A 3% increase in a cap number won't win a championship. But a 3% better performance-per-cost increase on every player on that cap number will.

CTJOHN IS RIGHT-
And as I'm trying to keep the peace ,I have forwarded my bank account number to the pats front office so they can remove that from there account.
If it happens-Drinks on me

 

[alamo]

Why? Since when does spending more money guarantee success?

There is nothing that *guarantees* success, so your point is meaningless. But spending all your available money wisely greatly increases your chances of success, which is all we as fans can ask for.

The 2004 Patriots were $1,330,000 under the cap.

Wrong. They spent every penny available. They were 3M *OVER* the cap after NLTBE incentives which were paid out were calculated in. The 2005 salary cap was 85.5M for most teams, the Pats' adjusted cap (according to Miguel) was 82,591,805. 2004 NLTBE incentives earned were first charged against whatever room was left on the 2004 cap and the rest was charged against 2005, to the tune of just under 3M.

I too will be upset if the Patriots don't use almost all their available space... but it's fine with me if they do so by using a LTBE accounting maneuver to move that cap space forward to next year. Then they can spend it wisely on value rather than on their limited choices for this year.

If they simply let cap room expire completely unused, though, they are opting to keep the money rather than spending it on players, and that is a clear signal that the ownership's commitment to winning as #1 priority has changed. And that would be disturbing.

But I don't think that will happen.

 

[PatsSteve1]

(Or anyone who is reasonably certain)

Can we expect the Pats to spend the Balance of the Salary cap (6.4 M or so) before next Sunday at 4pm?
Any guesses where?
TBC?,Seau?,Graham?,Samuel?,Ted Johnson?,C Scott?,Izzo?

* I don't think we can "expect" anything to happen. If it happens it happens. I would guess BBioli would like to spend some getting guys extended, but it's not just up to them. The player has to agree to the deal.
I'd like to see it happen myself, but I won't call it 'expecting' it.

 

[pats1]

There is nothing that *guarantees* success, so your point is meaningless. But spending all your available money wisely greatly increases your chances of success, which is all we as fans can ask for.

Technically, sure. "Death and taxes..."

However, "wisely" is the key word. A team that uses less cap room but gets more value out of it will have more success than a team that uses more cap room but gets less value out of it. (See: Redskins, Washington)

Evidently, Beioli believed, coming into the 2006 season, there was no "wise" way to use their available cap space at the time. I'd prefer that any day over a GM/coach who decides to "unwisely" overpay for a player just to use up the rest of the cap room. Why go out and overpay for a player when doing so would knock an in-house option (like Mike Wright) with equal performance but less cap hit off the roster?

You can always cut him, right? Dead money. It's cap space. It's "money spent." But, by using MORE CAP SPACE, it NEGATIVELY affected the team.

The Redskins have only $988,000 in cap room, but $16,521,000 in dead money. That's $3,304,200 in dead dead money per win this season.

The Patriots have $6,600,000 in cap room, but only $5,090,228 in dead money. That's $462,748 in dead money per win this season.

Wrong. They spent every penny available. They were 3M *OVER* the cap after NLTBE incentives which were paid out were calculated in. The 2005 salary cap was 85.5M for most teams, the Pats' adjusted cap (according to Miguel) was 82,591,805. 2004 NLTBE incentives earned were first charged against whatever room was left on the 2004 cap and the rest was charged against 2005, to the tune of just under 3M.

Sure, you can always add the earned NLTBE's back into the equation, but that has nothing to do with a team "wisely spending." It's a player's performance after the fact. Although, in a sense, it's a good gauge of value. More NLTBE's achieved means the player is living up to or exceeding the value of his contract. So if 2004 had more achieved NLTBE's than 2005, I wouldn't be surprised.

The 2005 cap room was pre-NLTBE's.
The 2004 cap room was pre-NLTBE's.

Equal footing, as far as a management standpoint goes.

I too will be upset if the Patriots don't use almost all their available space... but it's fine with me if they do so by using a LTBE accounting maneuver to move that cap space forward to next year. Then they can spend it wisely on value rather than on their limited choices for this year.

That's the key, and we won't know that until the adjusted caps are released.

If they simply let cap room expire completely unused, though, they are opting to keep the money rather than spending it on players, and that is a clear signal that the ownership's commitment to winning as #1 priority has changed. And that would be disturbing.

It has nothing to do with ownership spending money. What ownership actually spends and what counts against the cap are two completely different things.

For example, you can subtract any signing bonuses in existing contracts signed before this season. Those were paid in full by ownership the year they were signed. The proration of each of those signing bonuses are purely for accounting. That's $9,823,750 (Brady's 2006) that counts against the cap but wasn't actually paid by ownership in 2006.

On the same token, since Mel Mitchell signed a 2-year deal with a $250,000 signing bonus, ownership paid all of that in 2006, but only $125,000 counts against the cap this year.

Since option bonuses are also prorated, I'm assuming the same is true with them. That's $6.66 million paid by the Pats this season (and another $12 next), but only $1.665 will count against this year's cap.

But I don't think that will happen.

With Kraft & co., we'll never see the day.

 

[spacecrime]

Why? Since when does spending more money guarantee success?

The 2005 Patriots were $38,000 under the cap.
The 2004 Patriots were $1,330,000 under the cap.

Were you "pissed" at the 2004 Patriots more?

YES!!!!!! If they don't spend all their money, Kraft is cheap.

Oh, sorry. For a minute I thought I was Mikey.

 

[spacecrime]

I too will be upset if the Patriots don't use almost all their available space...

If they simply let cap room expire completely unused, though, they are opting to keep the money rather than spending it on players, and that is a clear signal that the ownership's commitment to winning as #1 priority has changed. And that would be disturbing.

So when did we change from being a bunch of guys with beer and hot dogs cheering three yards and a cloud of dust, to a bunch of quiche-eating auditor-pansies?

 

[Gumby]

is the last day for money to count against this years cap the last day of regular season?

what about a playoff team that makes roster moves after the end; are those cost-free? I don't think so. If they were then theoretically if Dallas is knocked out of playoff and cut TO; someone else could pick him up just for the remaining playoff games.

 

[mgteich]

What you are asking is whether the team will adjust a contract to move the cap money into 2007, or whether Kraft will simply pocket the money.

 

[Pats726]

is the last day for money to count against this years cap the last day of regular season?

what about a playoff team that makes roster moves after the end; are those cost-free? I don't think so. If they were then theoretically if Dallas is knocked out of playoff and cut TO; someone else could pick him up just for the remaining playoff games.

Can not happen.... I don't understand when the Cap is gone..but I think it is in the new year NOT now...any moves have to be reflected somewhere..as long as teams are playing..

 

[pats1]

is the last day for money to count against this years cap the last day of regular season?

what about a playoff team that makes roster moves after the end; are those cost-free? I don't think so. If they were then theoretically if Dallas is knocked out of playoff and cut TO; someone else could pick him up just for the remaining playoff games.

Yes, they are cost-free. Since playoff salaries are paid by the league, those players' salaries' are counted as benefits, not against the cap.

But there's still a 53-man limit and free agency has yet to start so the team is still limited in what it can do.

 

[cstjohn17]

Lighten up, typical over the top angry comment from an innocent post. Let me think, hmm... it is close... but I trust the FO more than me (or you).

I want to see the money used so we have more cap money in 2007. Although we don't spend a lot of money on FAs we do bring in a lot of players through out the season. We usually have add 10-15 additional bodies throughout the year, as per Reiss.

The money can't be brought forward so why not use it on contracts that are already on the books?

In 2005 we couldn't even keep a full practice squad because of the lack of cap room, again why not move it into 2007?

Why? Since when does spending more money guarantee success?

The 2005 Patriots were $38,000 under the cap.
The 2004 Patriots were $1,330,000 under the cap.

Were you "pissed" at the 2004 Patriots more?

Why is there some stupid magic number of $4,000,000 under that suddenly makes you "pissed?" That's pathetic.

And if the Pats didn't alter contracts for the sake of making fans feel better with a 3% difference in their cap number, why fret? Would you really trust your judgment of the situation over that of Pioli or Belichick?

A 3% increase in a cap number won't win a championship. But a 3% better performance-per-cost increase on every player on that cap number will.

Also keep in mind that any impact player signed would have a long-term deal, and thus the cap ramifications would extend out of 2006. That would leave, say, a couple of Heath Evans-type deals to use the rest of the space. Would such moves make a difference?

 

[Flying Fungi]

YES!!!!!! If they don't spend all their money, Kraft is cheap.

Oh, sorry. For a minute I thought I was Mikey.

YES!!!!!! If they don't FIRE McDaniels and THROW $6million to the Detroit Lions for Mike Martz, Kraft is cheap.

Oh, sorry. For a minute I thought I was NEM.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

So when did we change from being a bunch of guys with beer and hot dogs cheering three yards and a cloud of dust, to a bunch of quiche-eating auditor-pansies?

You must add that to your signature! :rocker:

 

[alamo]

is the last day for money to count against this years cap the last day of regular season?

what about a playoff team that makes roster moves after the end; are those cost-free? I don't think so. If they were then theoretically if Dallas is knocked out of playoff and cut TO; someone else could pick him up just for the remaining playoff games.

They are cost-free to the team, yes. And if Dallas cuts TO, then yes, someone could pick him up off of waivers, use him for the playoffs, and cut him again. All players get the same amount per game for the playoffs, contracts don't matter.

If TO was cut and cleared waivers he'd probably want a new contract with a bonus, and if he got one then that would count against next year's cap under the normal rules (since as I said above the contract doesn't count in the playoffs).

Even though free agency has yet to start, we can still sign players who are currently free agents because the were released. Players who were in the last year of their contracts aren't available, though, the contracts run through beginning of March.

So when did we change from being a bunch of guys with beer and hot dogs cheering three yards and a cloud of dust, to a bunch of quiche-eating auditor-pansies?

So what you are saying is that effort and will to win is completely irrelevent? The fact that a true fan stands by their team when they fail does not in any way or shape mean that they are a bad fan for expecting that team to do their very best to win.

 

[alamo]

Technically, sure. "Death and taxes..."

However, "wisely" is the key word. A team that uses less cap room but gets more value out of it will have more success than a team that uses more cap room but gets less value out of it. (See: Redskins, Washington)
...blah blah blah...

Don't try to make points by misstating what I said. I absolutely did not advocate them spending money on players of lesser value just to spend it. If they don't see value, I want them to move it forward to next year. The alternative is let the cap space expire unused, which means they spend less than they are allowed on players.

Sure, you can always add the earned NLTBE's back into the equation, but that has nothing to do with a team "wisely spending." It's a player's performance after the fact. Although, in a sense, it's a good gauge of value. More NLTBE's achieved means the player is living up to or exceeding the value of his contract. So if 2004 had more achieved NLTBE's than 2005, I wouldn't be surprised.

Strange how you denied my point there but eventually came back to saying something that was consistent with it. My original point was that vthe Pats didn't let 1.3M expire in 2004, they didn't spend to the stated limit because they knew they would be hit with lost of incentives and would end up spending to the limit anyway. They knew early in 2004 that they would get slammed with incentives, since most of the incentive money was paid to Dillon and it was clear early on he was having a monster season. How's that for wise spedning? They didn't just wake up one day in 2005 and realize they had actually used all their cap space the previous year even though they thought they didn't, they knew.

It has nothing to do with ownership spending money. What ownership actually spends and what counts against the cap are two completely different things.

Yes, they are different, but you act like they are completely unrelated. Here's two facts: what you pay players ends up counting against the cap, some year or other. Secondly, if you let cap space expire unused you can never spend as much money on players in total over the time you own the team as you would have been able to had you spent it or rolled it forward to the next year. I want the Patriots to have the maximum amount available to spend on players when they see value.