Pasquarelli: Pats in cap trouble

[spacecrime]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2859992

"...while the restructuring for this year reduced Brady's 2007 salary-cap charge to $7.346 million, roughly $4 million less than before the deal was redone Sunday morning, it inflated the cap hit for each of the subsequent seasons through 2010. All of the maneuvering with the new six-year, $60 million contract that Brady signed in May of 2005 -- the initial $14.5 million signing bonus, a $12 million option bonus in March 2006 that was converted into a second signing bonus, and Sunday's machinations -- means the quarterback is carrying prohibitive cap charges over the final three seasons of the contract.

Just how prohibitive? Try a cap charge of $14.626 million for 2008. "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Peyton's 2008 cap charge about $17 million BEFORE he restructure this year. What is is now? $20 mil? And our resident capologist has no problem with this. So why is $14 mil prohibitive?

Even funnier, he goes on to say about Brady's "prohibitive" $14 mil 2008 cap number:

Reducing such a monumental cap charge by consummating what is known as a "simple" restructuring -- taking a player down to the minimum salary and making up the difference in a signing bonus, which is, essentially, what the Pats did Sunday -- merely increases the future cap liability. It just delays the inevitable, and even with all of the various cap juggling and bookkeeping maneuvers available to every team (particularly to high-revenue franchises like New England), sooner or later the credit card balance has to be paid.

Okay, it was prohibitive, now it's monumental. Did he write a similar article when Manning did a restructure this year to increase his cap number to arouknd $20 mil for 2008 and 2009?

I hate to whine (and yes, I'm aware that I'm whining badly here), but Geez, why the double standard? At Randy Moss's press conference, Felger asked Moss if he was in the drug program because in 2005 Moss said he smoked marijuana once in a blue moon. Yet Felger was one of the many writers who said that Calvin Johnson and the others saying they smoked was not a big deal, and was meaningless.

I can assure you that if one of those three had been drafted by the Pats it would not be meaningless. It would be further "proof" that the Patriots ignoring all decency and putting together a team of thugs and dopers. As Felger led off in one article: "While the NFL has worked hard recently to distance itself from the thug culture and questionable attitudes nagging pro sports, the Patriots [team stats] chose to embrace them this weekend. "

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=197592

I'm getting very disgusted with the media in general and Felger in particular.

 

[zippo59]

All they have to do is sign Brady to an extension, most likely next year, and this all is moot.

This from Reiss:

ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli looks at quarterback Tom Brady's new contract in his Tip Sheet and notes that Brady's salary cap charge for 2008 will be $14.6 million.

With the salary cap estimated to increase to $116 million in 2008, Brady's deal would account for 12.6 percent of the team's cap.

Pasquarelli writes that it could mean Brady is line for a contract extension. Brady's current deal extends through 2010.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

 

[BelichickFan]

Brady is 29 going on 30. They can rip up his contract in 12 months and give him another 5-6 year one to retire on and cut that $14.6M way down for next year while spreading it across 6. They can do the same with Colvin's $7.3M too. It'll be OK

 

[mgteich]

This is normal nonsense from sportswriters. Brady can restructure next year, even without an extension, as can Seymour, Light, Stallworth and Washington. Colvin will likely extend at a lower cap hit. We are in fine cap shape through the end of decade of the best team in the history of football. Three years to go!!

 

[zippo59]

The artcile is a little melo-dramatic. 14.6 million isn't THAT much for a franchise QB in tolday's NFL, especially when you don't take restructuring and finagling (a very official word) into account.

 

[livinginthe past]

I don't remember old Lenny boy being quite so quick off the mark when it came to telling everyone how Mannings restructuring wouldn't cost him a penny.

It was, of course, a selfless gesture by one of the NFL's classiest performers.

But while Brady was universally lauded, and justifiably so, people should know this: The reworking of the contract didn't cost Brady anything at the pay window. He still will earn the $6 million that is due him in 2007. Not a penny less.

Im trying to work out if Lenny is dumb enough to contradict himself in the space of two sentences or if he was experimenting with sarcasm with the opening sentence.

Brady doesn't deserve to be 'lauded' for anything simply because he doesn't lose a penny in real money.

As for the future cap hits - im quietly confident that that Patriots FO wont be turning round to each other with confused looks on their faces saying "we owe Brady howwww much?".

Honestly if the Patriots aren't portrayed as cheap money pinchers they are the portrayed as the the Washington Redskins MkII....hilarious.

 

[RyanTheColtsFan]

Pats are not in cap trouble. Neither is Indy. I honestly believe both teams have learned from the Ravens/Niners on how to spend as much as possible and stay competitive without having to cut 88 players.

 

[zippo59]

Pats are not in cap trouble. Neither is Indy. I honestly believe both teams have learned from the Ravens/Niners on how to spend as much as possible and stay competitive without having to cut 88 players.

Indeed. Both are the models of how an NFL organization SHOULD be run.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Indeed. Both are the models of how an NFL organization SHOULD be run.

Indy got lucky, as I've said on many occasions, that the cap inflated as much as it did with the new CBA - something no one could have predicted especially given the near stalemate on the CBA as well.

That being said, Indy's moves were a worthwile gamble at the time - as it stands even with the inflated cap they've still had to let some key players go - but to their credit Indy's done a good job replacing guys like Edgerin James with rookies.

The Pats meanwhile have hung way back on the cap and just this season, with the players that they WANTED, available and willing to sign they made their move. Unless AD turns out to be a major bust (not likely) its allworthwhile.

The main issue with the current cap situation is it makes it that much more difficult for the Pats to franchise Samuel two years in a row given the 20% bump he'd get (still worthwhile in terms of a one year contract in my opinion assuming he plays up to par this season - but again, difficult to squeeze into the cap since it can't be stretched out.)

The main thing here is that the Pats won't be in a situation where they will be taking a major risk by cutting a key contributor - they'll find cap relief elsewhere if they need to and keep the key players.

 

[Miguel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Peyton's 2008 cap charge about $17 million BEFORE he restructure this year. What is is now? $20 mil? And our resident capologist has no problem with this. So why is $14 mil prohibitive?.

For those new to this board, spacecrime is referring to me. Background - since Manning signed his contract in 2004 I have posted on this board numerous times in 2004/2005/2006 that his contract would not prevent the Colts from winning the Super Bowl.

As spacecrime said, I do not have a problem with Manning's 2008 cap number. I do not have a problem with Brady's 2008 cap number. I do not believe that Brady's contract will not prevent the Patriots from winning the Super Bowl. Earlier today I said in a reference to this article -"Big deal. Brady's 2006 cap number accounted for 13.8% of the team's adjusted cap number.The Pats did not extend Brady then. Why should they be forced to do so in 2008???"

 

[Miguel]

Indy got lucky, as I've said on many occasions, that the cap inflated as much as it did with the new CBA - something no one could have predicted especially given the near stalemate on the CBA as well.

FWIW - There were several predictions in 2004 that the cap would reach $100 million in 2006. Look in PFT's archives. I guess that the people would make those predictions were just lucky

 

[Miguel]

http://www.patscap.com/brady.gif

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Not a problem. We cut Brady and pay our 7th round pick with a modest contract extension.

 

[JoeSixPat]

FWIW - There were several predictions in 2004 that the cap would reach $100 million in 2006. Look in PFT's archives. I guess that the people would make those predictions were just lucky

Like I said - very lucky and very risky. I predict that the Patriots will win the Super Bowl but I'm not going to wager my house and annual salary either.

The $102 mil salary cap of 2006, regardless of predictions, could only come about with a new CBA that included new sources of revenues and somehow navigated the challenge of figuring out how unequally profitable franchises would share stadiums and other revenues, not only with the players, but amongst themselves.

Then one had to hope that an equitable solution was found and that not only would the players approve it, but enough team owners.

While I suppose the Colts could have been banking on the fact that there would be uncapped years as well, all the aforementioned circurmstances were so up in the air that various last minute deals and midnight approval deadlines needed to be met to allow the new CBA to move forward, right on the cusp of midnight free agency.

The uncapped year of course wouldn't have kicked in until the next year - so had the deal not gone down, we would have played 2006 under the old CBA with a much lower cap number than we had last year.

I'm not sure how many players the Colts would have had to cut last season had the cap been at $90 million (or whatever it would have been) rather than $100 million plus, but I'd bet they wouldn't have been able to be overly active in the free agency market either (and would they have had the season they did with Vanderchoke as their kicker?)

So, unless they were outright prescient, predictions are nice but the Colts were very lucky that the cap wasn't simply adjusted for inflation in 2006 from the $85.5 million it was in 2005.

In other words - could the Colts had fielded the team that they did in winning the 2006 Super Bowl with a salary cap that was $15 million lower?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Seriously speaking, it was a calculated low risk strategy by the Colts that the cap would increase as it did. They took reasonable business risk that had a potentially big upside. They were right. Just good business practises.

 

[Miguel]

In other words - could the Colts had fielded the team that they did in winning the 2006 Super Bowl with a salary cap that was $15 million lower?

If the CBA was not extended, the cap would not have been $87 million but $94.5 million or $96.5 million. I can' t remember which.

Please note that the Colts use the phony LTBE move in 2006 on at least 2 players to push out at least $2 million in cap space into 2007 so they did not even use the entire $102 million to build their team.

Would the 2006 Colts have looked different if the CBA was not extended??Yes, but so would every other team in 2006.

 

[Miguel]

but I'd bet they wouldn't have been able to be overly active in the free agency market either (and would they have had the season they did with Vanderchoke as their kicker?)

In 2006 with an extended CBA the Colts signed one UFA from another team (Adam). DO you consider that "overly active"??

 

[MoLewisrocks]

http://www.patscap.com/brady.gif

If he thinks we're in cap trouble because of Brady's first restructure under this deal, Pastabelly must think the Colts are totally screwed...

http://www.patscap.com/manning.gif

Brady can still play out his deal without the team feeling strapped - his cap hit for 2010 is now just over $10M on a projected $125M+ cap. Mannings is $19M and if his voidable years are voided, as they usually are, he's already got potential dead cap sitting in 2011-12. And if they don't restructure yet again again his hits top $18M in 2008 and $21M in 2009, so it's likely lots more amortization gets pushed into those voidable years unless they do an extension with him before next season.

Brady can and likely will be extended. He's only 33 in 2010. Manning must be extended and he's 35 in 2010.

 

[Miguel]

So, unless they were outright prescient, predictions are nice

FYI - The NFL pays people to predict/project what the cap will be in the future. Those people were the ones who were being reported as predicting in latter part of 2003/early part of 2004 that the cap in 2006 would be in the $100 million range. Is it really luck that those people ended up being right???Is it really lucky to have thought in 2003/2004 that those projectors knew what they were doing??

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I don't think that Brady's hit of 14+M in 2008 and 2009 is crippling, but it is amazing how his cap charge distances him from his teammates. It is not unheard of in the NFL, but it is not the model everybody uses.

after Brady, the Pats continue to have a hefty number of "middle class" vets, but with more and more falling into an "upper middle" category, though they might still be seen elsewhere as bargains (Colvin, Seymour, and now Thomas and Stallworth). Some other guys are huge bargains, like Randy Moss for less than the cost of a David Givens (for one year.)

Worst case scenario, the Pats will have to decide which "bargains" to keep, and which (if any) to put on the credit card.

But it's little use to say "if Brady were just cheaper...", because he's not. He's already taken a deal that is less than he might attract elsewhere. He's also shown willingness (this season) to move money around (but notice: not give it away,) to make the math work. It's hypothesized here that he'll restructure, essentially taking a little more guaranteed money for a few more guaraneed years, in exchange for spreading out the whole hit until he's over the usual QB hill. Also fine, if it happens.

As for 08, using Miguel's figures, there are 39 guys under contract, accounting for a little more than $104M of the projected $116M cap. Unless something changes, your final roster of 53 guys includes 14 guys (plus practice squad and in-season replacements etc.), all together accounting for $12M. So, at somewhere south of $1M a piece for the year, these 14 guys:

A) Must all be JAGs,
B) Must be dependent on some departures from among our current signees (AKA cuts,) or
C) Must be dependent on some degree of restructuring.

I'm not saying the sky falls in 2008, I am saying that, as always, there will be choices to be made (just as when we traditionally let a lot of guys go, just at the moment they became most expensive.)

As to "credit card thinking," this premise does not seem to fit what the Pats have done here. We have one guy's contract being restructured to make a comparatively small amount of room, and other guys coming in for below market rate. If they can not be retained at those rates, well, then the choices must be made.

We now have a few more stars than we have had in the past, not home-grown ones either. Bad performance metrics will probably result in bad pay or an open door, as will (as is more frequently noted these days) bad behavior.

Worst case scenario? The metrics are off the charts, and the decisions get tougher.

The most easily observed constant in the scenarios discussed?

There is criticism if you spend freely in free agency. There is criticism if you do not. I had plenty of good things to say about last year's "discipline," and maybe a few words to say about us "missing the boat" in 2006... but I'm by no means an opponent of this year's deals.

How can you be an opponent of getting guys relatively cheap, loading risk advantageously, and making them prove their worth? The time to be a critic of the Brady deal was when he originally scored his payday... what, did you expect to just "say" you'd pay him, then skip the part about the paychecks?

Of course, a happy offseason like this one implies future decisions (just as a subdued offseason last year implied a wider range of action this year.)

PFnV