Vereen - stay or go?

mgteich said:

BOTTOM LINE
1) We're not paying Revis $20M.
2) McCourty will play for us.
3) We're not paying Wilfork $8.5M
4) Mayo can be restructured for the same money.
5) There is plenty of room to sign Gostokowski and/or Vereen, if Belichick so chooses. If they go, it will be because belichick thinks that they are no worth what they are asking in compensation.
========

Click to expand...

1) I disagree that Wilfork will either have to take a pay cut or he'll be cut. Many here stated that "a man of that size can never successfully come back from an injury like that," and yet Wilfork did---and then some. He was a staple on the defensive line (which was already rather weak) and led them to a nice SB push. He will likely play out his last year here in 2015, but getting rid of him will put them in a very bad position. There's just no one else there...at least not yet.

He played "nice" last year by agreeing to less money. He has now played at or above the level of the new agreement that he signed. He has absolutely ZERO incentive to do it again.

2) A decision will have to be made within the next 2 weeks in terms of Devin McCourty and the franchise tag, which is 9.5m dollars. We're already 4m over the cap as it stands now. Franchising McCourty (which is the popular rumor that even he himself referred to yesterday) will put us somewhere near 14 million dollars over the cap. Any potential 2015 cap savings on the contract of Darrelle Revis will immediately wipe that out, or at least take a big chunk of it out, but they will definitely still have a lot of work to do in terms of signing other key players. If you stay with your projection that extending Revis will free up 9m dollars, that would STILL leave us 5 million over the cap. Obviously, the franchise tag possibility for McCourty, along with the pending decision on Revis will go hand in hand.

3) I highly, highly disagree that there is money or value to retain Shane Vereen.

The veteran RB free agent market is not typically a very lucrative one, and I think teams will be even more hesitant to make deals after how Blount, Tate, Gerhart, and MJD worked out. I think we'll get Vereen on a good deal back. He's still young (25), has very little mileage on him, fits the system well, and I haven't seen anything from James White to make me believe he's the guy.

McClusky said:

The veteran RB free agent market is not typically a very lucrative one, and I think teams will be even more hesitant to make deals after how Blount, Tate, Gerhart, and MJD worked out. I think we'll get Vereen on a good deal back. He's still young (25), has very little mileage on him, fits the system well, and I haven't seen anything from James White to make me believe he's the guy.

Click to expand...

While there's truth that the RB market isn't great (lots of it), I posted a list of 22 current players a page or two behind, who are making 3+ million or more, about half of them no-names or has-beens. The point is that there is certainly a market out there for other teams who pay RBs 3+ million dollars.

The current contract of Donald Brown of 3/10.5 will be the lowball starting point for Vereen's new deal, and that's already 3.5m dollars. Guys like Joicque Bell etc don't have the kind of resume that Vereen has, so the concern is that there are a good handful of teams who would LOVE the idea of having that kind of weapon on their offense.

supafly said:

While there's truth that the RB market isn't great (lots of it), I posted a list of 22 current players a page or two behind, who are making 3+ million or more, about half of them no-names or has-beens. The point is that there is certainly a market out there for other teams who pay RBs 3+ million dollars.

The current contract of Donald Brown of 3/10.5 will be the lowball starting point for Vereen's new deal, and that's already 3.5m dollars. Guys like Joicque Bell etc don't have the kind of resume that Vereen has, so the concern is that there are a good handful of teams who would LOVE the idea of having that kind of weapon on their offense.

Click to expand...

Sup, you seem to be arguing both sides at once. In some posts you argue he's too desirable and too expensive while in other posts you argue that he had limited production and is not worth the money. Which is it?

I don't think Donald Brown is comparable to Vereen. They play different positions even if they are both listed as HB. I think Donald Brown is more comparable to Ridley.

In any case let's consider a few facts.

1. The salary cap is rising by about 10m next season.
2. Even if we give Revis a 2.5m raise to make him the highest paid corner, that's still 7.5m of new cap space.
3. The Patriots are going to 'roll over' some of their cap savings from this year into next year. Miguel would know better than me how much that number actually is.
4. We have no idea how much Vereen's agent is asking for. So pushing him out the door before we even know the pricetag is WAY PREMATURE. It's almost deflate-gate level premature.
5. Shane Vereen is the BEST pass catching RB on this roster today.
6. White is completely unproven, I don't even know if he could CATCH a cold!
7. In BB I trust.
8. I feel like Vereen is Faulk 2.0. BB tends to value players like that and so do I.
9. When you face teams that can shut down/suffocate the run, you will need players like Vereen.
10. Please rewatch Superbowl XLIX and tell me how we are winning with James White instead of Vereen. I just don't SEE IT!

Ivan said:

Sup, you seem to be arguing both sides at once. In some posts you argue he's too desirable and too expensive while in other posts you argue that he had limited production and is not worth the money. Which is it?

Click to expand...

I think it's more than obvious if you read the context of the specific comments/responses. Different comments warrant different responses.

1) Those who claim that "there's no market for RBs" are simply not correct. It may be a lesser paid position, but there are plenty of examples of those who are making 3+ million or more, actually 22 in the example that I posted, with much lesser "names" than Vereen. That discussion started because some were questioning the thought of Vereen being worth 3m dollars per year. I think he's worth something around that, but the concern is that it won't be here.

2) I personally don't think that Belichick will be able to afford him with the other more important priorities that we have, as much as I've stated that I'd love to keep him. That said, I do not agree with your assessment that "he can do everything," or that "we have no shot at repeating without him" (as someone said). We lose key pieces of the puzzle all the time, and this year will be no different. We go through this dog and pony show every year at this time. Sure, it'd be great to keep him--just like it'd be great to keep everyone. The fact remains that this is generally a top 5-10 offense, and it was both before (and possibly after) Shane Vereen.

I obviously have no idea if he'll stay or not--no one does. We're just discussing the pros and cons of the possibility, which often includes examining things from all angles.

My guess is that White will be in the mix, as well as Gaffney, along with an additional pick or two in the draft. We'll have to see what happens.

I have never suggested anything at all like they can't repeat without him, I was simply asking what your position was on it because it seems to shift with each post.

VJCPatriot said:

I don't think Donald Brown is comparable to Vereen. They play different positions even if they are both listed as HB. I think Donald Brown is more comparable to Ridley.

Click to expand...

The SD Chargers would probably not agree with you, and they are the ones who paid Brown that kind of money.

They use Ryan Matthews as their lead, bell-cow RB. They also have Brandon Oliver, Danny Woodhead, and Donald Brown--who has a career high of about 600 yards in SIX seasons (not exactly "Ridley-like" numbers).

I think the fact that they were willing to pay Brown that kind of money with very poor past stats shows that teams are willing to overpay for that shifty kind of Darren Sproles/3rd down back.

VJCPatriot said:

1. The salary cap is rising by about 10m next season.

Click to expand...

As has been figured into the equation for quite sometime now by Miguel and others. It's not really helping out much at the moment, but I believe many project it to be around 140-142. If it goes up beyond that, we'll get some "relief" from the current projections.

VJCPatriot said:

The Patriots are going to 'roll over' some of their cap savings from this year into next year. Miguel would know better than me how much that number actually is.!

Click to expand...

At the moment, the Patriots are currently about 4m dollars OVER the cap, so any talk about rolling over positive figures is moot. That would instantly change one way or another with either a Revis extension or a Revis cut. If you're into the possibility of franchising McCourty, things are about even (give or take a couple of million depending on whether Revis is extended and what his 2015 hit is) and we're back to square one.

Ivan said:

I have never suggested anything at all like they can't repeat without him, I was simply asking what your position was on it because it seems to shift with each post.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that you did. As a matter of fact, I specified that you did not by saying "someone else said that." I'd have to go back and re-read to find out who it was, but it hardly matters.

The debate is going to change as each page or comment moves forward, depending on what we're talking about at the time.

Why can't I point out BOTH that Vereen has value (in response to those who say that he doesn't), but also claim that it may be worth too much to stay here (to those who think he'll be staying)? Isn't that what being objective is all about, the ability to see things from every angle without bias?

Would you rather that I hunker down in my stance, and dispute every notion from one side like I'm his agent? That seems counter productive to the discussion.

supafly said:

I didn't say that you did. As a matter of fact, I specified that you did not by saying "someone else said that." I'd have to go back and re-read to find out who it was, but it hardly matters.

The debate is going to change as each page or comment moves forward, depending on what we're talking about at the time.

Why can't I point out BOTH that Vereen has value (in response to those who say that he doesn't), but also claim that it may be worth too much to stay here (to those who think he'll be staying)? Isn't that what being objective is all about, the ability to see things from every angle without bias?

Would you rather that I hunker down in my stance, and dispute every notion from one side like I'm his agent? That seems counter productive to the discussion.

Click to expand...

I'm just asking whether you would pay him 10.5 for three or not? Some here wouldn't, I would and don't see it as having any bearing on Revis or McCourtu re-signing. I'm just asking your opinion, that's all.

Ivan said:

I'm just asking whether you would pay him 10.5 for three or not? Some here wouldn't, I would and don't see it as having any bearing on Revis or McCourtu re-signing. I'm just asking your opinion, that's all.

Click to expand...

Personally, I wouldn't--but I'm assuming some other circumstances, such as still needing to deal with the McCourty/Revis situations.

I think I'd go as high as 2.75m per year if they decide to pass on Ridley. Of course, we don't know if Vereen would bite on that or not.

I think many times agents/players want to hit free agency to see what the market brings, and unfortunately that's where we tend to lose players due to offers that cannot be competed with.

Joker said:

and to chicken little the death out of this team...stop setting yourself up as some friggin' Mgteich Uber Alles roster know-it-all...I read your bull before THIS past season started. If the Pats had done 1/2 of what YOU wanted they'd have come in last. Don't ever patronize me again.

Click to expand...

Life is hard.

But thank you for reminding me about just how empty of comments your posts are. I'll put put you on ignore, as I have in the past.

supafly said:

Personally, I wouldn't--but I'm assuming some other circumstances, such as still needing to deal with the McCourty/Revis situations.

I think I'd go as high as 2.75m per year if they decide to pass on Ridley. Of course, we don't know if Vereen would bite on that or not.

I think many times agents/players want to hit free agency to see what the market brings, and unfortunately that's where we tend to lose players due to offers that cannot be competed with.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that was all I was asking. I would pay him it because I see him as filling a number of needs and I don't want Brady going into another season trying to get on the same page with new receivers. And if Amendola doesn't restructure and they let Vereen walk that's exactly what he will be faced with. I would much rather see them restructure Amendola and use the savings to keep Vereen. I would then sign Ridley to a one year deal and feel good about the skill positions and focus on the O line. That's a minimal investment in the offense and would leave the vast!majority of their of season spending for the defense. I would then look to the draft to help the OL.

supafly said:

I think many times agents/players want to hit free agency to see what the market brings, and unfortunately that's where we tend to lose players due to offers that cannot be competed with.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you saw Vereen on the NFLN but he sounded liken a guy who wants to stay in New England for a long time.

Ivan said:

Thanks, that was all I was asking. I would pay him it because I see him as filling a number of needs and I don't want Brady going into another season trying to get on the same page with new receivers. And if Amendola doesn't restructure and they let Vereen walk that's exactly what he will be faced with. I would much rather see them restructure Amendola and use the savings to keep Vereen. I would then sign Ridley to a one year deal and feel good about the skill positions and focus on the O line. That's a minimal investment in the offense and would leave the vast!majority of their of season spending for the defense. I would then look to the draft to help the OL.

Click to expand...

You have a very solid argument, and I agree with most of what you're saying. I think I'm just used to seeing players come/go so much that it becomes second nature to expect some of our own free agents to move on, that's all.

While some others may not agree with me, I also believe that it's a bit of a tough year, free agency-wise in terms of fringe players. They've really got a lot to work out in the coming weeks, and in some other years we may have had a bit of a better shot to try and keep a player like Vereen.

Perhaps they work things out with Amendola, Wilfork, and Mayo--to save some money, decide to move on from Ridley, and are willing to allocate more money to keeping Vereen a part of the future. I think this is one of those situations where it will make sense either way. Now...if Belichick moves on and another team signs Vereen to 2m dollars per year or something, then we'll all be pretty pissed, but it would also give us a better glimpse into how Belichick sees a player like that. A fair percentage of these guys are only going to be kept on their cheap, rookie deals.

Ivan said:

I'm not sure if you saw Vereen on the NFLN but he sounded liken a guy who wants to stay in New England for a long time.

Click to expand...

Fair point, but I don't think that we've seen many players who don't say the same exact thing. It's a business.

Welker was adamant about wanting to stay, and ended up leaving for less year one guaranteed money, so that he could make an extra 17 percent each year in the 2 year deal.

I'll have more respect and belief in Vereen (and McCourty + Revis' comments) if they all stay on a reasonable deal here. Until then, they may really hope to stay, but they're probably not going to pass up bigger money to do so.

Sup, I have no idea what they will or won't do. I go more by what I want them to do or what I think they should do. In this case I think that restructuring Amendola and paying Vereen allows them to enter next season with the offense that won the Super Bowl intact, and after the last two seasons see that as a big deal because making Brady adjust to new receivers all the time is detrimental to the team. I would replace Connolly with a high pick* and restructure Amendola then focus on the defense.

* There will be some really good OL available when the Patriots pick and I'm confident they can get one who can start at OG and contribute for them.

Ivan said:

Thanks, that was all I was asking. I would pay him it because I see him as filling a number of needs and I don't want Brady going into another season trying to get on the same page with new receivers. And if Amendola doesn't restructure and they let Vereen walk that's exactly what he will be faced with. I would much rather see them restructure Amendola and use the savings to keep Vereen. I would then sign Ridley to a one year deal and feel good about the skill positions and focus on the O line. That's a minimal investment in the offense and would leave the vast!majority of their of season spending for the defense. I would then look to the draft to help the OL.

Click to expand...

Let us presume that the base case is one where none of the three are re-signed.

So, what you seem to be willing to pay $6.0M for three important positions.

Vereen - $3.0M net
Ridley $1.0M net
--------
total $4.0M net
Amendola ($2.0M) savings if you get him to reduce his new money to $2.5M
-----------
$2.0M added to the cap

I presume that you would keep Solder. IMHO, I think that we also need a veteran interior OL for an additional cost of $2.0M net.
==============================
Compared to the numbers needed on the defense, this cost is very modest, and very reasonable. For $4M added to the cap, the offense is kept intact, with another 2-3 of draftee OL's to be added.

Ivan said:

* There will be some really good OL available when the Patriots pick and I'm confident they can get one who can start at OG and contribute for them.

Click to expand...

While I agree, I think that we need a veteran guard as a backup and as insurance in case the draftee isn't ready for prime time, Connolly or a replacement.

supafly said:

Fair point, but I don't think that we've seen many players who don't say the same exact thing. It's a business.

Welker was adamant about wanting to stay, and ended up leaving for less year one guaranteed money, so that he could make an extra 17 percent each year in the 2 year deal.

I'll have more respect and belief in Vereen (and McCourty + Revis' comments) if they all stay on a reasonable deal here. Until then, they may really hope to stay, but they're probably not going to pass up bigger money to do so.

Click to expand...

Welker contacted the Patriots and asked them to match but they had moved on. And it was really the way in which Vereen talked about the team that stood out to me, he loves being a Patriot and I think that will factor heavily in his decision.