Either/Or - you choose

[patfanken]

Since we have nothing better to do than to wildly speculate about what the Pats will do this off season to improve the team; a discussion in the most recent cap thread got me to thinking.

It IS possible to re-sign Welker, Talib, Volmer, Edelman, etc for under $10MM COMBINED and still have money left over for additional signings. Of course the problem with that, is that it comes with a heavy cost down the road. For example. The Jets signed Holmes for a 5 year, $50MM contract. However it was backloaded so that his first year his cap cost was just $1.4MM, and his 2nd year just $3.6MM.

So I ask the question. If you were in charge, would you sign all the people you needed to make a dynamic superbowl run the next 2 years, and then have to blow the whole thing up and suffer through a complete rebuild. OR do we continue to function as we have been and "only" field a very good team that wins a lot of games and can compete for a superbowl, and perhaps win one if things break our way.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Patriots will not take the short term view, IMHO, and I don't think they should. The Jets thought they were close to "winning it all" - look where it got them. I personally think that it never makes sense to build a team that way.

 

[patfanken]

The Patriots will not take the short term view, IMHO, and I don't think they should. The Jets thought they were close to "winning it all" - look where it got them. I personally think that it never makes sense to build a team that way.

I don't disagree, nor do I think the Pats would take the "immediate fix" approach. However the question wasn't what would the Pats do? The question is what would "we" do if "we" were in charge.

Do you think it would be worth a couple of Lombardis the next 2 years and then **** the bed for a couple of years, as opposed to spending the next 4 years as AFCE champions and just hope for the best in the playoffs?

 

[Ivan]

Since we have nothing better to do than to wildly speculate about what the Pats will do this off season to improve the team; a discussion in the most recent cap thread got me to thinking.

It IS possible to re-sign Welker, Talib, Volmer, Edelman, etc for under $10MM COMBINED and still have money left over for additional signings. Of course the problem with that, is that it comes with a heavy cost down the road. For example. The Jets signed Holmes for a 5 year, $50MM contract. However it was backloaded so that his first year his cap cost was just $1.4MM, and his 2nd year just $3.6MM.

So I ask the question. If you were in charge, would you sign all the people you needed to make a dynamic superbowl run the next 2 years, and then have to blow the whole thing up and suffer through a complete rebuild. OR do we continue to function as we have been and "only" field a very good team that wins a lot of games and can compete for a superbowl, and perhaps win one if things break our way.

I don't buy the premise that they have to do it in such a way that they suck in 3 years but I do believe that what they should do is be really aggressive about making this team as dominant as possible for the remainder of Brady's career, and I believe they have set themselves up in such a way that they can do just that while staying competitive down the road. On offense they have a great QB, great young TE's, one of the best receivers to ever play the game, really good young tackles, and really good young RB's. They still need help at interior OL and at WR but that's it on offense, and that should be pretty easy to address in terms of need. Defensively they have one of if not the youngest defense in football, and while it is still a work in progress it has many of the pieces in place to develop into a really good defense in coming years. They can add to it in the draft and free agency and together with this offense create a team that can dominate the next few years and give them a great chance to add a couple more rings before Brady hangs them up, and imo that should be the priority.

The single most important component of any championship team is obviously the QB, and when Brady retires it is going to be a crapshoot unless they strike gold again and end up with an Andrew Luck, and I for one would much rather bet on Brady's chances at getting them more rings than on the QB who follows him. I would much rather see them go for it and suffer a couple of down years while sitting on another ring or 2 than squander the rest of Brady's career for the purpose of frugality and staying competitive after he is done. Championships matter more than simply being competitive so i want them to be smart but aggressive, and make the most out of the next 4 years. After that i would be fine with a couple of off years. And even if they didn't win more rings i would be much happier seeing them go for it than just staying the course.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Problems with the go for broke win now at future cap hell strategy
(1) First & foremost it's against Bobby Kraft's business philosophy for the Pats. Having years of suckatude will damage the brand. A no-no. All Pats associated revenues would dip. The backlash of the fair weather short attention span fan base, the largest segment, would not be good for business.

(2) Having paid the price, there's no guarantee you win anything. Bad ref calls, key player injuries, once in a career helmet catches, or the bounce of the not round ball shows that chaos rules.

 

[Ring 6]

Since we have nothing better to do than to wildly speculate about what the Pats will do this off season to improve the team; a discussion in the most recent cap thread got me to thinking.

It IS possible to re-sign Welker, Talib, Volmer, Edelman, etc for under $10MM COMBINED and still have money left over for additional signings. Of course the problem with that, is that it comes with a heavy cost down the road. For example. The Jets signed Holmes for a 5 year, $50MM contract. However it was backloaded so that his first year his cap cost was just $1.4MM, and his 2nd year just $3.6MM.

So I ask the question. If you were in charge, would you sign all the people you needed to make a dynamic superbowl run the next 2 years, and then have to blow the whole thing up and suffer through a complete rebuild. OR do we continue to function as we have been and "only" field a very good team that wins a lot of games and can compete for a superbowl, and perhaps win one if things break our way.

Are you sure about those numbers on Holmes?
If correct that means at best he got about a 4mill signing bonus, and ony 7.4mill in the fiorst 2 years and would have salaries totalling 42.6mill in the final 3. I don't think that is correct.
Even if it were, Welker, Talib, and Vollmer would never sign such a contract.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't disagree, nor do I think the Pats would take the "immediate fix" approach. However the question wasn't what would the Pats do? The question is what would "we" do if "we" were in charge.

Do you think it would be worth a couple of Lombardis the next 2 years and then **** the bed for a couple of years, as opposed to spending the next 4 years as AFCE champions and just hope for the best in the playoffs?

I gave you my answer as clearly as I could: "I personally think it never makes sense to build a team that way". What more do you want?

 

[Ivan]

The Patriots will not take the short term view, IMHO, and I don't think they should. The Jets thought they were close to "winning it all" - look where it got them. I personally think that it never makes sense to build a team that way.

Comparing the Jets situation and that of the Patriots is really pretty ridiculous. The Jets had a shaky team with a bad QB and thought they were something they weren't. the patriots have the GOAT and a great team that is a few pieces from total dominance, and will be in the final four the next couple of years even if they stand pat.

And ken's premise that it will be 2 years and then suck is also pretty ridiculous, it is not either/or even though it is a choice as to whether to be frugal and competitive or aggressive and go for it.


I think a serious discussion of these choices is warranted but setting up false premises for the discussion makes it difficult to have that discussion.

 

[SacPete1]

Totally agree with Mayo. A "Superbowl run" is a flawed strategy. Fielding a team that is consistently in the mix to challenge for the Superbowl is hard enough but the difference now more than ever between a conference champion and a playoff team is so slim.

Establish the cost structure that you feel is appropriate for that position on your team. Compare this to what you project the market to be for the same position and evaluate the degree of delta between the two to determine if your team value should be recomputed or accepted.

Do not let another team's market value determination (Jets with Holmes, Bills with Williams) determine or significantly influence your own.

I find it difficult to believe that Welker's value to another team is greater than the Pats and if someone chooses to break the bank for him (4 yrs, 40 mil), then thank you Wes for all you've done.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I don't disagree, nor do I think the Pats would take the "immediate fix" approach. However the question wasn't what would the Pats do? The question is what would "we" do if "we" were in charge.

Do you think it would be worth a couple of Lombardis the next 2 years and then **** the bed for a couple of years, as opposed to spending the next 4 years as AFCE champions and just hope for the best in the playoffs?

Seeing, as we have, that it only takes one play to dramatically change a team's playoff hopes, I say no.

 

[Ivan]

Problems with the go for broke win now at future cap hell strategy
(1) First & foremost it's against Bobby Kraft's business philosophy for the Pats. Having years of suckatude will damage the brand. A no-no. All Pats associated revenues would dip. The backlash of the fair weather short attention span fan base, the largest segment, would not be good for business.

(2) Having paid the price, there's no guarantee you win anything. Bad ref calls, key player injuries, once in a career helmet catches, or the bounce of the not round ball shows that chaos rules.

I don't disagree with your points but I hope they realize that this is the home stretch of Brady's career and once it ends the chances of a Lombardi are radically reduced.


It would be difficult to argue that the Patriots take a shortsighted approach and I don't think they ever will, but there is a difference between shortsighted and maximizing opportunities while they are available, and even though Kraft and Belichick have been consistent in their approach i also think they understand the context they are in and that they have to make the most of it. The Patriots will and do change their approach when they believe the circumstances warrant it and i think that last year's draft was a perfect example of that. "Belichick never trades up" was blown up and they went after 2 blue chip defensive players, and even though i believe i will be in the minority on this i honestly think that they are going to change it up and get really aggressive about putting this team over the top for the remainder of Brady's career. That in no way means that they are going to be stupid and go sign Mike Wallace for 90 million but I do think they will worry less about long term cap implications and more about more Lombardi's for the rest of Brady's career.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Since we have nothing better to do than to wildly speculate about what the Pats will do this off season to improve the team; a discussion in the most recent cap thread got me to thinking.

It IS possible to re-sign Welker, Talib, Volmer, Edelman, etc for under $10MM COMBINED and still have money left over for additional signings. Of course the problem with that, is that it comes with a heavy cost down the road. For example. The Jets signed Holmes for a 5 year, $50MM contract. However it was backloaded so that his first year his cap cost was just $1.4MM, and his 2nd year just $3.6MM.

So I ask the question. If you were in charge, would you sign all the people you needed to make a dynamic superbowl run the next 2 years, and then have to blow the whole thing up and suffer through a complete rebuild. OR do we continue to function as we have been and "only" field a very good team that wins a lot of games and can compete for a superbowl, and perhaps win one if things break our way.

It's neither possible nor practical to sign all 5 for under $10M. But then, they don't have to. They can free up another $12M or so on top of the $16M or so they will have for a total of $28M just by extending Brady and Wilfork and restructuring Mankins. And they can do more than that to probably free up another $5M+/- via a series of minor restructures and inexpensive extensions. And that will not result in a blow it all up scenario, which is never preferable.

We have to get past this either or scenario bs on this forum. It's never that simple or that foolish.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Problems with the go for broke win now at future cap hell strategy

(2) Having paid the price, there's no guarantee you win anything. Bad ref calls, key player injuries, once in a career helmet catches, or the bounce of the not round ball shows that chaos rules.

This. During each of the 3 title runs, there were a few plays that the Pats made...and the opposition didn't make...that were low-percentage cases that worked out in the Pats' favor. If they flipped a la the Helmet Catch or the Manningham Catch, who knows how many title the Pats would have now.

The lines between "great players making plays" and "good fortune" are thin and often blurred. But that's okay..."Luck is the residue of design".

Regards,
Chris

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Are you sure about those numbers on Holmes?
If correct that means at best he got about a 4mill signing bonus, and ony 7.4mill in the fiorst 2 years and would have salaries totalling 42.6mill in the final 3. I don't think that is correct.
Even if it were, Welker, Talib, and Vollmer would never sign such a contract.

As usual ken's numbers are off...

His 2010 cap # was based on remaining salary due under his Steeler's contract for which the Jets traded.

He was signed to a new deal in 2011, 5 years $45M. His first year cap hit was $3.25M. His second year cap hit (2012 on IR) was $9.25M.

His remaining cap hits are $12.5M in 2013, $10.7M in 2014 and $9,25M in 2015.

That was a beyond foolish deal on so many levels. They could cut him this season but it only saves them $1.25M. If they had a franchise QB it would probably behoove them to spend his $11M in salary elsewhere, though...

New York Jets Salary Cap- Santonio Holmes

 

[signbabybrady]

If I were in charge right now. Hell yes I would go for broke and backload a few contracts. Time to set Brady up for his stretch run.

Now that answer is coming from me with no actual pressure as the real GM and following a stretch of 10 years done the right way and from the prespective of trying to squeeze the last of what you have out.

This can be by no means the normal model and if I were the guy in charge for real with all the pressured that come with it I dont know that I could make that decision to just go for broke. It is easy to go all in in hold em when you are playing a 20 dollar home game put yourself in a million dollar tourney and see what that does.


I think the good thing though is that the smart spending of the last 10 years combined with the new TV money that is a few years away you can likely go for broke a little and not completely strap yourself going forward.

we have 18 mil available right now and some spots to free some added money up. We have 3 pending free agents that you could consider high priced guys and at most you would want to bring in 2 high priced guys to go with them. This being Wes, Talib, Volmer, A DB, and WR. There are other needs but nothing that would be to high priced to fill. lets assume that all 5 guys wind up with a average contract of 6 mil that 30 mil a year on average but you could backload half of those and probably get this years hit down to the 20 mil range with only back loading 2 or 3 deals. And personally I think 6 mil a year on average is more than we need to get the 5 guys mentioned above.


Right now I think our list of needs is small, our key pending free agent list is small, we have a fairly large amount of cap space, and we can free up more if needed so I see no reason for this not to be a smooth and fun free agency.

 

[Ivan]

It's neither possible nor practical to sign all 5 for under $10M. But then, they don't have to. They can free up another $12M or so on top of the $16M or so they will have for a total of $28M just by extending Brady and Wilfork and restructuring Mankins. And they can do more than that to probably free up another $5M+/- via a series of minor restructures and inexpensive extensions. And that will not result in a blow it all up scenario, which is never preferable.

We have to get past this either or scenario bs on this forum. It's never that simple or that foolish.

Right on the money. The Patriots are actually so well set that they can have their cake and eat it to. That doesn't mean they re-sign everyone at market deals nor would they, and it doesn't mean they throw the baby out with the bathwater and act so frugally they screw up their chances for more rings before Brady retires. They don't have that many holes or needs and some can be addressed at low cost through the draft. They have set it up capwise where they have good space and flexibility and can be both aggressive and smart about it. The Patriots aren't going to go out and start paying guys like mario Williams 100 million dollars nor should they, but they can still be really aggressive, just as they were after the loss in 2006, and put this team over the top and get another ring or 2 before Brady calls it quits.

 

[Frezo]

In order for this to work, I'd have to be the owner so if BB didn't approve of things, TOUGH!

1st order of business is to put all personnel moves to a vote here at Patsfans. That includes not just which players, but the contract offers too and the draft. We'll clear the dead wood, make runs at FAs, and go for it NOW!

2nd, I'll pick a home game against a crappy opponent, charge half price for tickets and start Mallet. We have to know what this guy can do!

3rd, 2 for 1 hotdog game!!

4th, BRADY GAME! All people in the stadium will be given a Brady mask. On the scroll screens people will be instructed to shout, ALABAMA!...RITA!, RITA! The camera shots will be awesome! This will have to be a nationally televised game and on every channel in NYC.

What else can I do??? 2 for 1 beer day? Cheerleader thong day? Patsfans recognition day? Design the first play day? Fire the owner day?

 

[DocHoliday]

In my opinion this team is as good as it is BECAUSE it is frugal. It attracts football minded players and demands a buy in.

If we threw big money contracts around the Patriots would lose what I believe is part of their winning edge.

 

[mayoclinic]

It's neither possible nor practical to sign all 5 for under $10M. But then, they don't have to. They can free up another $12M or so on top of the $16M or so they will have for a total of $28M just by extending Brady and Wilfork and restructuring Mankins. And they can do more than that to probably free up another $5M+/- via a series of minor restructures and inexpensive extensions. And that will not result in a blow it all up scenario, which is never preferable.

We have to get past this either or scenario bs on this forum. It's never that simple or that foolish.

Mo, I'm not a capologist by any means, and I certainly will defer to your better knowledge of cap maneuvering. But I sort of see it this way, and wonder if you think I am off:

1. The 2013 league-wide cap is estimated at around $121M. The Pats have around $6M carryover from 2012 IIRC, and around $5M in dead money, so when those two are factored in it leaves them with around $122M.

2. I think that the league cap will probably remain flat for a while, and Robert Kraft has generally taken a conservative view of the cap and of speculative spending (including in the uncapped year in 2010). So I think the Pats will probably play things on the conservative side. That may include trying to have a little money that they can roll into 2014 if possible, and some money to maneuver with during the season. Add in the rookie pool (at least $3M), PS, injured reserve, and I don't see any way that they will immediately spend up to $122M. They will probably want to keep $10M or so in reserve for all of those factors. JMHO.

3. Discounting players under contract who are most likely training camp bodies (if they make the roster all the better, as they will be low cost roster additions and will decrease overall position cap costs) and looking at guys who are likely to be on the roster, right now I get the following cap breakout:

- QB(2) = $22.6M for Brady and Mallett.
- RB(4) = $2.7M for Ridley, Vereen, Bolden and Demps. Woodhead is a UFA.
- TE(4) = $8M for Gronkowski, Hernandez, Fells and Ballard. This assumes around $0.5M cap hit for Ballard in 2013 as an ERFA.
- FB/H-Back(1) = $0.9M currently for Spencer Larsen, or to sign RFA Michael Hoomanawanui. I don't really expect 4 TEs plus a FB/H-Back, but I'm keeping this for now for cap planning purposes.
- WR(2) = $6.8M for Lloyd and Slater, the later obviously being more of a STer than a true WR.
- OL(7) = $18.3M for Solder, Mankins, Connolly, Wendell, Cannon, McDonald and Zusevics. Vollmer and Thomas are UFAs.
- DL(5) = $15.4M for Wilfork, Love, Deaderick, Forston and Pryor. I'm estimating about $1M for Forston and Pryor for 2013. Unless the Pats get better options, they are cheap depth at DT.
- DE(6) = $6.5M for Jones, Ninkovich, Armstead, Cunnigham, Francis and Bequette.
- LB(5) = $9.7M for Mayo, Hightower, Spikes, Fletcher and either Tarpinian or Rivera. I'm including Fletcher since he is a RFA, and guestimating around $900K.
- CB(6) = $7.5M for McCourty, Gregory, Dowling, Dennard, Wilson and Ebner. Talib, Arrington, Coles and Martin are UFAs.
- ST(3) = $5.3M for Gostkowski, Mesko and Aiken.

All 2013 cap numbers are rounded numbers based on Jason's site. The total comes to around $103.7M for 45 players.

4. That would leave us with less than $10M to spend assuming the conservative rules I've suggested above. You suggest we could free up another $21M or so through extending Brady and Wilfork, restructing Mankins, and minor cuts and restructurings, without doing major surgery or sacrificing the future for the present. Assuming that scenario, we end up with about $30M that we can spend, excluding rookies, on our own FA re-signings and on external FAs.

5. Our own FAs (I've including Ballard, Fletcher and possibly Hoomanawanui in the above calculation) include:

- WR Welker
- OT Vollmer
- CB Talib
- WR Edelman
- RB Woodhead
- CB Arrington
- OG Thomas
- CB Cole
- CB Martin

Not to mention any external FAs that we might want to pursue (WRs, DBs, etc.). I'm not even bothering to include Pat Chung, but others can if they want to.

Does this seem way off to you?