Hernandez cap hit if not cut until later?

As I understand it, Hernandez is counting for $7.5mil of NE cap space.

I vaguely recall reading at the time he was cut that if NE had waited until some magic date later in the offseason to cut him that the cap hit for this year would have been different.

* Is that true?
* What was the magic date?
* What would the cap hit have been?

(I'm not interested in arguing about whether or not NE did the right thing by cutting him when they did. Just curious about knowing what the cap alternatives were.)

rlcarr said:

As I understand it, Hernandez is counting for $7.5mil of NE cap space.

I vaguely recall reading at the time he was cut that if NE had waited until some magic date later in the offseason to cut him that the cap hit for this year would have been different.

* Is that true?
* What was the magic date?
* What would the cap hit have been?

(I'm not interested in arguing about whether or not NE did the right thing by cutting him when they did. Just curious about knowing what the cap alternatives were.)

Click to expand...

I think they would have had to wait until the following league year and then designate him a 7/1 cut. It would not have saved them any cap money it would have just spread out the $7.5M over two seasons instead of just one. I could be off though, so maybe Miguel or someone else with more knowledge of the cap could add.

if they hadn't cut him, I think he would've been in breach of his contract and the pats would be able to nullify it and the cap hit would be 0 for last year and this year

Pats made a decision to cut him when they did to show they were doing the right thing.

The Anti Baltimore move.

resdubwhite said:

Pats made a decision to cut him when they did to show they were doing the right thing.

The Anti Baltimore move.

Click to expand...

Help me remember, was there a later date that would have been ideal to cut him in regards to our cap hit? Because if that is the case in retrospect, they didn't really do what was best for the team.

resdubwhite said:

Pats made a decision to cut him when they did to show they were doing the right thing.

The Anti Baltimore move.

Click to expand...

rlcarr said:

(I'm not interested in arguing about whether or not NE did the right thing by cutting him when they did. Just curious about knowing what the cap alternatives were.)

Click to expand...

10 characters

See http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ary-cap-breakdown-dead-money.html#post3714372

Basically, if the Pats had waited until training camp to release him they could have avoided the dead money cap hits for Aaron Hernandez.

condon84 said:

Help me remember, was there a later date that would have been ideal to cut him in regards to our cap hit? Because if that is the case in retrospect, they didn't really do what was best for the team.

Click to expand...

Well maybe not what was best for the team, but perhaps what was best for the organization.

voluntarysaftey said:

if they hadn't cut him, I think he would've been in breach of his contract and the pats would be able to nullify it and the cap hit would be 0 for last year and this year

Click to expand...

Wouldn't murdering someone also be a breach of contract under the character clause of whatever they call it?

condon84 said:

Help me remember, was there a later date that would have been ideal to cut him in regards to our cap hit? Because if that is the case in retrospect, they didn't really do what was best for the team.

Click to expand...

I think they'd been in a better position to win some money back but chose not to go that root.

Perhaps. I think that cutting Hernandez before there were any hearings and costing the team millions of cap dollars was simply a knee jerk reaction.

Hernandez could have been excluded from all team facilities and activities, pending more actions by the legal system. He could have been cut after June 1. I believe that the team could even have indicated that they would likely cut him after June 1 if he were to be indicted on serious charges. i DO NOT think this approach would have harmed the organization or put any doubt in anyone's mind with regard to the intent of the organization.

PatriotSeven said:

Well maybe not what was best for the team, but perhaps what was best for the organization.

Click to expand...

raduray said:

Wouldn't murdering someone also be a breach of contract under the character clause of whatever they call it?

Click to expand...

Except that when you cut him, you release him from his remaining contract. At that point (or even at this point), he hasn't been convicted of murder. But at this point, if he hadn't been cut, the Pats probably could've gotten out and sued for their prorated money back as he wouldn't have shown up for duty.

You can even make the argument that cutting him was morally wrong, because it helped him keep his millions. If he wasn't cut, you could argue that one reason is because you don't want a murderer to have millions that he didn't earn.

raduray said:

Wouldn't murdering someone also be a breach of contract under the character clause of whatever they call it?

Click to expand...

I believe he would have to have been convicted before they could void it.

When does the dead money from Hernandez come off the books?

bigcountry75 said:

When does the dead money from Hernandez come off the books?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's off the books next year. Which is why I expect Revis will be here at least two-three years with the cap possibly going to $145m in '15 and $160m in '16

JMC00 said:

Pretty sure it's off the books next year. Which is why I expect Revis will be here at least two-three years with the cap possibly going to $145m in '15 and $160m in '16

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response......That is where I was going with the question is that the Pats may sign more good FA's with backloaded contracts seeing as this 7.5mil boost will happen sooner rather than later.....

CPAGuy said:

I believe he would have to have been convicted before they could void it.

Click to expand...

just to clarify, i wasn't saying i questioned ah's guilt(frankly i think he did it along with the 2012 murders) but rather that my understanding is in order for the "morals clause" to take effect, the legal process would have to run it's course.

mgteich said:

Perhaps. I think that cutting Hernandez before there were any hearings and costing the team millions of cap dollars was simply a knee jerk reaction.

Hernandez could have been excluded from all team facilities and activities, pending more actions by the legal system. He could have been cut after June 1. I believe that the team could even have indicated that they would likely cut him after June 1 if he were to be indicted on serious charges. i DO NOT think this approach would have harmed the organization or put any doubt in anyone's mind with regard to the intent of the organization.

Click to expand...

Like with Spygate, Kraft went all squishy PR on this one to the detriment of his team.