Pats and Wilfork close to a deal for an extension?

[The Boston Patriot]

The ONLY way to gage future performance is to compare current health and talent to past performance, and then guess at what the future will bring. You MUST pay for past performance, as a result. It's all you have to go on. Anything else is basically a coin flip.

People who talk about not paying for past performance are, almost invariably, looking for a way to screw the player by trying to undervalue that performance.

Not even close (coin flip). Nobody pays for past performance, nobody. In fact, I would bet if you asked anyone paying the freight not a one would line up behind your assertion. Every contract is not for a previous year but for the future years. A coin flip suggests that the talent evaluators have no more clue as to the anticipated performance than you and I. As for me, I have no clue what future performance for a player is without the vast amount of information available to the clubs. I would guess your opinions are above needing anything else to evaluate future performance.

 

[mayoclinic]

The NEP were sure as hell paying for past performance when they traded for, and paid, Ochocinco and Haynesworth.

Exactly. Those were stupid trades and stupid deals, and they hurt the team. They're great examples of why overpaying based on prior performance that doesn't match current value is bad operating procedure. Why would we possibly use those to justify continuing to pay another player when past performance doesn't equal present value?

 

[JPPT1974]

Well would be great to get Wilfork back. As he is such a fan favorite over the Patriots!

 

[The Scrizz]

The ONLY way to gage future performance is to compare current health and talent to past performance, and then guess at what the future will bring. You MUST pay for past performance, as a result. It's all you have to go on. Anything else is basically a coin flip.

People who talk about not paying for past performance are, almost invariably, looking for a way to screw the player by trying to undervalue that performance.

That isn't paying for past performance. That is extrapolating future performance.

You say that the only way to gauge future performance is to compare current health and talent to past performance. And then say that you MUST go on past performance because everything else is a coin flip. What happened to the gauging? Are you implying that gauging health and talent is a coin-flip?

Paying for past performance, in the general nomenclature, refers to an already signed player who by recent past performance isn't worth what he now makes. When you sign a player you are paying him what you think he will be worth in the future. You are not paying for past performance.

Paying for past performance is always taken to mean paying money to a player who no longer holds that value. You MUSTN'T pay for past performance if what you are paying is more than it's worth. That's the whole point.

Your argument ignores the fact that not all past performance is equally relevant.

Of course you can instead be completely literal about what THE PAST means and argue in order to mindlessly drive up a 40,000+ post count.

Damn those powerless message board posters invariably trying to screw those poor players by undervaluing them.

If posting messages changed anything you'd apparently be the most powerful man here.

 

[The Scrizz]

Not even close (coin flip). Nobody pays for past performance, nobody. In fact, I would bet if you asked anyone paying the freight not a one would line up behind your assertion. Every contract is not for a previous year but for the future years. A coin flip suggests that the talent evaluators have no more clue as to the anticipated performance than you and I. As for me, I have no clue what future performance for a player is without the vast amount of information available to the clubs. I would guess your opinions are above needing anything else to evaluate future performance.

Much more succinctly put than my post which took so long to write you slipped in front of me.

 

[Ivan]

Is there anyone arguing Wilfork should refuse the restructure and they should still pay him 11.6?


If so, i haven't seen it.

 

[Claremonster]

Wilfork has earned approximately $50M in his 10 year NFL career ($18M on his rookie deal, and $32M on his 2010 deal). He's been well compensated. Injuries are a part of the business, and salary reductions are common. It's not a free ride.

The 2004-2012 version of Wilfork would be worth every penny of his $8M 2014 salary, and it wouldn't be an issue. But why should it be "effed up" for the team to want performance commensurate with that kind of money, or to reduce the money if that is unlikely?

VW should be "ALL IN GETTING THE RING(S) MODE" by now...

 

[Ivan]

Exactly. Those were stupid trades and stupid deals, and they hurt the team. They're great examples of why overpaying based on prior performance that doesn't match current value is bad operating procedure. Why would we possibly use those to justify continuing to pay another player when past performance doesn't equal present value?

Mayo, do you trust Belichick to make the right decision on this?


I do.


I'm a fan first and I hated the idea of losing Wilfork, in part because things changed so fast and i didn't really see it coming, however i will admit to being influenced by your posts and some others on the matter and changed my mind on it pretty quickly, however not to the degree of just cutting him even if he agrees to restructure. And in truth i don't think there are many on either side of this issue who are completely for just cutting him, or for keeping him if he refuses to restructure, so all in all it has been a debate where people seem to just be arguing past each other instead of recognizing that this is really about what kind of deal they can work out and how each party is protected by it.

1) I think you are right that he will never be the same player he once was because of the injury and his age, it is a tough one to come back from and they have to protect themselves from committing too much to a player who may not be able to make a full recovery. However they are definitely watching his weight and his rehab closely and will base any decisions on the restructure upon their evaluations of those factors.

2) Belichick is not prone to sentimental decisions and he is going to do what he thinks is best for the team first and that has been demonstrated over and over and over throughout is tenure so I really don't think that anyone should be worried about sentimentality playing a role in any decisions they make.


3) There is no compelling reason that they need this money freed up right now. Free agency has hit a lull and the deals are now second and third level or lower. The Patriots have numerous options to clear out space for any deal they would make at this point, unless a trade option we don't know about is out there an requires 8-10 in the immediate future.

4) The idea that teams don't need to be able to stop the run is idiotic (I am not suggesting you believe that). If Wilfork returns he most likely will not be as explosive as he was, however he will still be a big strong force in the middle of their defense and can play the same role for them over the next few seasons that Ted Washington did, and if you are facing Marshawn Lynch, Frank Gore, or any of the other backs who can tear it up through the middle of a defense you definitely want Vince out there plugging everything up.


The Patriots are having a really good offseason and they aren't done yet, and they will need for Wilfork to restructure to a more reasonable number to come to any agreement that keeps him here, that's a given, if he refuses to restructure they should release him and move on until they welcome him back for his Patriots HOF induction. However if he is willing to reach an agreement similar to what mgteich laid out earlier, around 5 a year for 3 seasons, then i want him back to finish his career here. Not for sentimentality, but because i think he can play a vital role in helping them win more Championships. One less gaping hole to fill and one more strength for the team to rely upon in getting them another ring or two.




I don't know if Wilfork will agree to a good restructure or not but i do trust Belichick to make the right decision on this and think that whether they release him or keep him it will be best move for them because this is really what belichick does best.

 

[ohiopatsfan]

Hopefully, Wilfork will agree to a multi-year restructure. Then BB can begin grooming his replacement; either Siliga or the DT from Penn State in the draft. The freed up cap money can be used to help fill in a few holes (interior OL and LB), although there are slim pickings left right now.

 

[50-yard-line]

Is there anyone arguing Wilfork should refuse the restructure and they should still pay him 11.6?


If so, i haven't seen it.

Mike Reiss. Which really surprised me.

 

[Ring 6]

He's getting that deal because Minnesota thinks they saw something in his past performance. This notion that you don't pay for past performance is simply nonsense. Even stiffs are paid based upon past performance. They're just paid by people who make mistakes. The NEP were sure as hell paying for past performance when they traded for, and paid, Ochocinco and Haynesworth.

And supply and demand impact only relatively. They have nothing to do with the underlying point.

You simply do not understand this concept.
Paying for past performance means paying an aging player based upon the level he played at when younger, which he can no longer still play at.
Paying for future performance is basing your contract on the level of play you expect in the future.
Vince Wilforks last contract was based upon expecting his high level of play to continue. His next will be based upon the understanding that there is little chance he will play at as high a level as he has in the past for the duration of the contract.

And you are wrong about 85 and Haynesworth, otherwise they would have had to give #1 picks and pay them near the top dollar for their position as both we allpros in the past.
Again, you don't understand the concept. Paying less that what their past performance would have earned, and ultimately finding out their decline was more than expected is not paying for past performance, its paying for future performance and overestimating what the performance will be.

 

[pdangle]

It's almost like they need to say hey Vince, if you don't believe us, bring us back a valid FA deal, and we will pay you 1M more a season bc we truly DO value you.

If he is such a team first player he should see this trade me demand hurts the team. And NE will surely pay him more than any other valid FA offer. I'm hoping it's just negotiating tactics, but these things sometimes escalate.

 

[Ring 6]

It's almost like they need to say hey Vince, if you don't believe us, bring us back a valid FA deal, and we will pay you 1M more a season bc we truly DO value you.

If he is such a team first player he should see this trade me demand hurts the team. And NE will surely pay him more than any other valid FA offer. I'm hoping it's just negotiating tactics, but these things sometimes escalate.

Why should the Patriots pay him more than the highest offer anyone else will give him?

 

[Stylez]

Mayo, do you trust Belichick to make the right decision on this?





I do.





I'm a fan first and I hated the idea of losing Wilfork, in part because things changed so fast and i didn't really see it coming, however i will admit to being influenced by your posts and some others on the matter and changed my mind on it pretty quickly, however not to the degree of just cutting him even if he agrees to restructure. And in truth i don't think there are many on either side of this issue who are completely for just cutting him, or for keeping him if he refuses to restructure, so all in all it has been a debate where people seem to just be arguing past each other instead of recognizing that this is really about what kind of deal they can work out and how each party is protected by it.



1) I think you are right that he will never be the same player he once was because of the injury and his age, it is a tough one to come back from and they have to protect themselves from committing too much to a player who may not be able to make a full recovery. However they are definitely watching his weight and his rehab closely and will base any decisions on the restructure upon their evaluations of those factors.



2) Belichick is not prone to sentimental decisions and he is going to do what he thinks is best for the team first and that has been demonstrated over and over and over throughout is tenure so I really don't think that anyone should be worried about sentimentality playing a role in any decisions they make.





3) There is no compelling reason that they need this money freed up right now. Free agency has hit a lull and the deals are now second and third level or lower. The Patriots have numerous options to clear out space for any deal they would make at this point, unless a trade option we don't know about is out there an requires 8-10 in the immediate future.



4) The idea that teams don't need to be able to stop the run is idiotic (I am not suggesting you believe that). If Wilfork returns he most likely will not be as explosive as he was, however he will still be a big strong force in the middle of their defense and can play the same role for them over the next few seasons that Ted Washington did, and if you are facing Marshawn Lynch, Frank Gore, or any of the other backs who can tear it up through the middle of a defense you definitely want Vince out there plugging everything up.





The Patriots are having a really good offseason and they aren't done yet, and they will need for Wilfork to restructure to a more reasonable number to come to any agreement that keeps him here, that's a given, if he refuses to restructure they should release him and move on until they welcome him back for his Patriots HOF induction. However if he is willing to reach an agreement similar to what mgteich laid out earlier, around 5 a year for 3 seasons, then i want him back to finish his career here. Not for sentimentality, but because i think he can play a vital role in helping them win more Championships. One less gaping hole to fill and one more strength for the team to rely upon in getting them another ring or two.









I don't know if Wilfork will agree to a good restructure or not but i do trust Belichick to make the right decision on this and think that whether they release him or keep him it will be best move for them because this is really what belichick does best.

Holy freakin post

 

[Peachhead]

Why should the Patriots pay him more than the highest offer anyone else will give him?

Because of his connections in the community and his connections and leadership in the locker room, his knowledge of the system and personalities here and his fitting a role we can use, I think he is worth more to us than to any other team. Just not drastically more.

($11.6 mil is "drastically more" btw)

 

[mayoclinic]

Because of his connections in the community and his connections and leadership in the locker room, his knowledge of the system and personalities here and his fitting a role we can use, I think he is worth more to us than to any other team. Just not drastically more.

($11.6 mil is "drastically more" btw)

By the same logic, we are "worth" more to Wilfork than any other team, so he should take less.

 

[Froob]

Exactly. Those were stupid trades and stupid deals, and they hurt the team. They're great examples of why overpaying based on prior performance that doesn't match current value is bad operating procedure. Why would we possibly use those to justify continuing to pay another player when past performance doesn't equal present value?

What reason did you have to not think Ocho could do well here? He had a solid season the year before....Haynesworth really didn't hurt them they just cut him when he stopped trying. They gave up like a 6th round pick whoop dee doo.

 

[Ring 6]

Because of his connections in the community and his connections and leadership in the locker room, his knowledge of the system and personalities here and his fitting a role we can use, I think he is worth more to us than to any other team. Just not drastically more.



($11.6 mil is "drastically more" btw)

I don't think those things make him worth more than the most anyone would pay him but i can see why you do.

 

[mayoclinic]

What reason did you have to not think Ocho could do well here? He had a solid season the year before....Haynesworth really didn't hurt them they just cut him when he stopped trying. They gave up like a 6th round pick whoop dee doo.

The most Haynesworth did to help the team was getting cut. That sent a message to the team about giving effort on every play, and playing as a unit. The 2011 squad came together after BB sent that message.

There was every reason to think that Ochocinco couldn't fit with the Pats. He had made a career of freelancing routes, and was a poor fit for the Pats complex, precision offense which requires disciplined route running and close rapport between the QB and WRs.

Those were wasted trades that cost us cap space, draft picks, and the opportunity to address those positions elsewhere. They weren't catastrophic mistakes, but they had a cost.

 

[Froob]

The most Haynesworth did to help the team was getting cut. That sent a message to the team about giving effort on every play, and playing as a unit. The 2011 squad came together after BB sent that message.

There was every reason to think that Ochocinco couldn't fit with the Pats. He had made a career of freelancing routes, and was a poor fit for the Pats complex, precision offense which requires disciplined route running and close rapport between the QB and WRs.

Those were wasted trades that cost us cap space, draft picks, and the opportunity to address those positions elsewhere. They weren't catastrophic mistakes, but they had a cost.

I still think they were worth the risks tbh. I don't remember who were free agents that summer but, I don't think it was anyone who would have made too much of a difference anyways.