A question worth asking....

[patfanken]

..... Regardless of how the Samuel question turns out, on the KFFL board a guy asked a great question, and since we don't have much to do right now; it would be a perfect time to ask this speculative question. One that will have a real effect on the team and will test our metal as future NFL GM's

Even at the Pats offer price, you can assume that if Samuel signs with the Pats, it will be a large investment in one player. High enough, I speculate that it would preclude the Pats from re-signing BOTH Warren and Wilfolk. It might even high enough to effect whether we can bring back Stallworth past this season. So here is the question

You have three key player, each playing a key position on your defense. You only have money to re-sign TWO of them. Samuel, Warren, Wilfolk. You are the GM. Who stays, and who goes?????

I won't contaminate the start of this, with my own opinion, because at this moment I don't have one. Convince me which 2 are the right ones to keep.

 

[The 12th Man]

I disagree with the fact that we can ONLY sign two of the 3. There would be plenty of cap space in in the next 2 years to allow the Pats to resign all IF they wanted to. Especially with reports that the cap increases every year by about 7 mil or so. Warren still has a year left on his contract AFTER this year, and Wilfork has 2 more.

 

[The 12th Man]

If I had to rank the 3 in order of importance though, I would definitely put Wilfork at #1 simply because it's not easy to find big NTs these days with that kind of talent and on defense, it is important to have that in our 3-4 scheme. After that, both Samuel and Warren are important pieces to our defense in their own way, but are NOT irreplacable guys. Personally, I'd love to see all 3 remain Patriots, but I'm not a genius like BB/Pioli so I'll wait and see what they decide.

 

[danny88]

..... Regardless of how the Samuel question turns out, on the KFFL board a guy asked a great question, and since we don't have much to do right now; it would be a perfect time to ask this speculative question. One that will have a real effect on the team and will test our metal as future NFL GM's

Even at the Pats offer price, you can assume that if Samuel signs with the Pats, it will be a large investment in one player. High enough, I speculate that it would preclude the Pats from re-signing BOTH Warren and Wilfolk. It might even high enough to effect whether we can bring back Stallworth past this season. So here is the question

You have three key player, each playing a key position on your defense. You only have money to re-sign TWO of them. Samuel, Warren, Wilfolk. You are the GM. Who stays, and who goes?????

I won't contaminate the start of this, with my own opinion, because at this moment I don't have one. Convince me which 2 are the right ones to keep.

They will have plenty of cap space next year. All three will be retained. Warren is not even up for a contract next year.

 

[Fixit]

..... Regardless of how the Samuel question turns out, on the KFFL board a guy asked a great question, and since we don't have much to do right now; it would be a perfect time to ask this speculative question. One that will have a real effect on the team and will test our metal as future NFL GM's

Even at the Pats offer price, you can assume that if Samuel signs with the Pats, it will be a large investment in one player. High enough, I speculate that it would preclude the Pats from re-signing BOTH Warren and Wilfolk. It might even high enough to effect whether we can bring back Stallworth past this season. So here is the question

You have three key player, each playing a key position on your defense. You only have money to re-sign TWO of them. Samuel, Warren, Wilfolk. You are the GM. Who stays, and who goes?????

I won't contaminate the start of this, with my own opinion, because at this moment I don't have one. Convince me which 2 are the right ones to keep.

Wilfork and Warren. A great line can turn average cornerbacks into above-average cornerbacks. With a bad line, it doesn't matter who you have in your secondary...you're going to suck.

 

[jeffd]

First off I don't think its the true situation but I'm bored so what the hell.

Wilfork, hands down.
This is the key position of a 3-4 and also harder to find than a talented corner or DE in a 3-4. Warren has been great but don't forget he's benefitted from lining up beside Seymour and Wilfork. Don't forget Jarvis Green extending long term either. BB has thought of everything...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I disagree with the fact that we can ONLY sign two of the 3. There would be plenty of cap space in in the next 2 years to allow the Pats to resign all IF they wanted to. Especially with reports that the cap increases every year by about 7 mil or so. Warren still has a year left on his contract AFTER this year, and Wilfork has 2 more.

They will have plenty of cap space next year. All three will be retained. Warren is not even up for a contract next year.

It's cavalier attitudes like these that get other teams in cap trouble.

We currently have 39 players signed for 2008 at almost $99M against cap a $116M cap. That does not include the rookies signed this season, or Samuel if he were retained which would take up at least several more million. That would leave us with about $10M before signing any additional players or our 2008 draft picks or extending anyone else like Warren who is being touted as a new core leader on defense. Remember, Seymour is only signed through 2009, same year Wilfork comes due and Vrabel's contract ends and Mankins will need to be resigned and Brady will need to be extended and on and on... There is room for some restructures, but we will also likely be looking to replace Tedy Bruschi inside as this is his final contractual season. He could remain, but it won't be at veteran minimum if he does. He's already played 4-5 years at well below market. And there is always the chance that Rodney will not in return for a 2008 season which is his final contract year. So there are some shoes that need filling that the 2007-2008 drafts alone may not in fact fill, and not a ton of cap space readily available (if for example both Stallworth and Washington were to perform well enough to be retained at #1 and #2 WR under their existing contracts) to add veteran FA if need be.

 

[The 12th Man]

It's cavalier attitudes like these that get other teams in cap trouble.

We currently have 39 players signed for 2008 at almost $99M against cap a $116M cap. That does not include the rookies signed this season, or Samuel if he were retained which would take up at least several more million. That would leave us with about $10M before signing any additional players or our 2008 draft picks or extending anyone else like Warren who is being touted as a new core leader on defense. Remember, Seymour is only signed through 2009, same year Wilfork comes due and Vrabel's contract ends and Mankins will need to be resigned and Brady will need to be extended and on and on... There is room for some restructures, but we will also likely be looking to replace Tedy Bruschi inside as this is his final contractual season. He could remain, but it won't be at veteran minimum if he does. He's already played 4-5 years at well below market. And there is always the chance that Rodney will not in return for a 2008 season which is his final contract year. So there are some shoes that need filling that the 2007-2008 drafts alone may not in fact fill, and not a ton of cap space readily available (if for example both Stallworth and Washington were to perform well enough to be retained at #1 and #2 WR under their existing contracts) to add veteran FA if need be.

I disagree with you to an extent. You look at those numbers, but you don't realize that they wouldn't keep Colvin for 7.3 mil (either extend or cut), if Rodney retires after this year it is highly unlikely that his replacement will make more than 3.7 mil he would be due, and yes, those numbers already include Stallworth and Washington's big salaries (which we might not keep both of them). Also, don't worry about Vrabel, he'll be too old when his contract ends to get another big one if he decides to keep playing. Rookies don't take up a whole lot of money in the cap (unless they are very high picks in the top 10). I do agree with you that we can't simply go and spend money like crazy, but I strongly feel BB/Pioli can easily retain Samuel IF they wanted to pay him his value AND be able to resign Warren 2 years from now (if not extend him next year in his contract year) and Wilfork 3 years from now (or 2 years from now in his contract year).

 

[danny88]

It's cavalier attitudes like these that get other teams in cap trouble.

We currently have 39 players signed for 2008 at almost $99M against cap a $116M cap. That does not include the rookies signed this season, or Samuel if he were retained which would take up at least several more million. That would leave us with about $10M before signing any additional players or our 2008 draft picks or extending anyone else like Warren who is being touted as a new core leader on defense. Remember, Seymour is only signed through 2009, same year Wilfork comes due and Vrabel's contract ends and Mankins will need to be resigned and Brady will need to be extended and on and on... There is room for some restructures, but we will also likely be looking to replace Tedy Bruschi inside as this is his final contractual season. He could remain, but it won't be at veteran minimum if he does. He's already played 4-5 years at well below market. And there is always the chance that Rodney will not in return for a 2008 season which is his final contract year. So there are some shoes that need filling that the 2007-2008 drafts alone may not in fact fill, and not a ton of cap space readily available (if for example both Stallworth and Washington were to perform well enough to be retained at #1 and #2 WR under their existing contracts) to add veteran FA if need be.

See 12th mans post above.

 

[patfanken]

You guys are missing the point of the excercise. Being a GM means you have to make hard decisions. This is MY hypthetical and I set the rules. You HAVE to get rid of one of these players. You CANNOT keep them all. CHOOSE! and tell me why

 

[The 12th Man]

You guys are missing the point of the excercise. Being a GM means you have to make hard decisions. This is MY hypthetical and I set the rules. You HAVE to get rid of one of these players. You CANNOT keep them all. CHOOSE! and tell me why

Sorry Ken, don't really have time for "hypothetical" games. Otherwise I'd be making some mock drafts right now.

 

[mcbee]

Dump Samuel for a 1st.

I don't get why Wilfork is so popular. I always thought he was more of a 4-3 DL rather than a NT. I've never seen him do that much and the pats do give up yards up the middle don't they?

 

[skri65]

Stallworth is expendable, as shown by our success last year. Keep Wilfork and Warren...they are both integral to our team.

 

[spacecrime]

See 12th mans post above.

I did. It was pretty bogus, you have to admit. It says the same as the earlier post. Don't worry, we can sign everyone and there will be plenty of money for everyone.

Fact is that with $120 or $130 mil, there isn't enough money to keep all our good players.

Anyway, the initial post was framed, "What if ..." in an attempt to determine priorities. What's wrong with doing that?

 

[Fixit]

Let the record show that I answered the question with nary a wiseass comment.

 

[shakadave]

You guys are missing the point of the excercise. Being a GM means you have to make hard decisions. This is MY hypthetical and I set the rules. You HAVE to get rid of one of these players. You CANNOT keep them all. CHOOSE! and tell me why

I'll choose to keep Wilfork and Warren, and let Samuel go. Even though Samuel may be as "good" or as "valuable" as the other two, I think he is also a little more straightforward to replace through the draft. By this I mean that drafting a 1st-round DL is always a bit of a crapshoot. Don't something like half of them underperform or never work out? On the other hand, draft a Round 1 CB and I think (no data here) you have a better chance of getting a good perennial starter.

When's the last time we took a DB in Round 1, by the way?

 

[DaBruinz]

..... Regardless of how the Samuel question turns out, on the KFFL board a guy asked a great question, and since we don't have much to do right now; it would be a perfect time to ask this speculative question. One that will have a real effect on the team and will test our metal as future NFL GM's

Even at the Pats offer price, you can assume that if Samuel signs with the Pats, it will be a large investment in one player. High enough, I speculate that it would preclude the Pats from re-signing BOTH Warren and Wilfolk. It might even high enough to effect whether we can bring back Stallworth past this season. So here is the question

You have three key player, each playing a key position on your defense. You only have money to re-sign TWO of them. Samuel, Warren, Wilfolk. You are the GM. Who stays, and who goes?????

I won't contaminate the start of this, with my own opinion, because at this moment I don't have one. Convince me which 2 are the right ones to keep.

Lets really step back and look at things. In all honesty, the Pats could very easily re-sign all 3 players and still have money to spare. Why? Its like this. Wilfork doesn't become a UFA until after the 2009 season and Warren after the 2008 season.

The Pats will treat them the same way they treated Brady and Seymour. They will offer then extensions in the last year of their contract that will pay them accordingly. They will still have to play out that last year, but they will get their signing bonus money then.

The Pats have about 13.6 million in free space for the 2008 season and some 46 million for the 2009 season. I can see then getting the deals donw without issue.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Very simple, Wilfork and Warren. Good teams are built from the ground up.

 

[zarakotas5]

PF Ken:

Thank you Samuel, for all your hard work and great play. I'm glad we've given you the opportunity to make the most of your future endeavors and wish you the best.

I'm keeping Wilfork and Warren. CB is generally a more expensive position, if you're trying to fill them all with upper-tier players. It is easier to fill through the draft, as there are plentiful players are at least capable and can be coached up. A line player who is deficient weakens all three of the positions.

 

[fgssand]

You guys are missing the point of the excercise. Being a GM means you have to make hard decisions. This is MY hypthetical and I set the rules. You HAVE to get rid of one of these players. You CANNOT keep them all. CHOOSE! and tell me why

Not even close to being a hard decision...Wilfork & Warren. Great D'linemen are much harder to come by than good (but not great) D' backs.