Can Pats structure contracts for "window" then crash and burn?

[RayClay]

Hate these panic threads about losing every player (while, amazingly we always could sign someone else's) but this year there's definitely merit to them.

People have always talked about a window and the team has ignored it, fortunately, thereby having a chance to win every single year since 2002.

However, you can't deny there's a window now as Brady will retire someday, and the chance for multiple rings with this team is deadly serious.

I've always maintained that the Pats almost always retain players they want, that want to play here. Most big name cuts were older players, or ones where there was some friction.

Say we want Revis, McCourty for a few years and I'll say Mayo too and Wilfork 1 or 2 [so we don't end up the Colts until we get some building blocks and Easley and the overachievers can take over]. (Please, no Wilfork or Mayo bashing, there are already threads for that.)

So, we maintain our core through clever accounting and crash later. Is this possible financially?

Miguel, it would be wondeful if you'd like to chip in...

 

[BradyManny]

As a fan I could probably live with that, honestly, but Belichick the GM would never stand for it. Miguel I am sure can weigh in with more relevant an opinion than anyone, but isn't the cap going to continue to rise & rise? We might be able to have our cake and eat it, too, to some extent. If we're smart, we can retain the core guys we need (Revis), and then continue to fill in with good drafting and smart pickups.

Guys like Vereen, or even McCourty, good and great players respectively - if we have to move on from them, we can and will, and I don't think it will kill our SB chances. Just means that Belichick has to have some good days in May (used to saying April). Sure, I'd rather have them - but its not worth jeopardizing the future of your team.

 

[RayClay]

As a fan I could probably live with that, honestly, but Belichick the GM would never stand for it. Miguel I am sure can weigh in with more relevant an opinion than anyone, but isn't the cap going to continue to rise & rise? We might be able to have our cake and eat it, too, to some extent. If we're smart, we can retain the core guys we need (Revis), and then continue to fill in with good drafting and smart pickups.

Guys like Vereen, or even McCourty, good and great players respectively - if we have to move on from them, we can and will, and I don't think it will kill our SB chances. Just means that Belichick has to have some good days in May (used to saying April). Sure, I'd rather have them - but its not worth jeopardizing the future of your team.

If other teams pay huge salaries then have to cut people in later years, why not us? If brady can and wants toplay into his 40s he might need to play on a team like the 2001 team made up of street free agents.

Of course, if that means keeping our core know, he might already have 7 rings and not mind taking over the mentor role for Garop, or whoever.

 

[shmessy]

I don't know why so many people automatically assume the Patriots will have no chance at all of keeping it going in 3-4 years if Garropolo takes over.

Honestly, I'd say he is ahead of Tom Brady when comparing their respective rookie seasons.

I'm greedy. I want a quarter century of dominance.

 

[BradyManny]

If other teams pay huge salaries then have to cut people in later years, why not us? If brady can and wants toplay into his 40s he might need to play on a team like the 2001 team made up of street free agents.

Some teams can do that phony back-ended stuff and live to talk about it, but others don't -Steelers and Saints, etc. have paid the price.

I don't see Brady having to play with street free agents. As of right now, his play is far exceeding his cap hit & salary. He could/should be a $20 million hit. That gives us some extra $$ to spend on other guys. And going forward, if he keeps his level of play up, he will only be better value as the cap rises and salaries rise.

 

[Marinlik]

I don't know why so many people automatically assume the Patriots will have no chance at all of keeping it going in 3-4 years if Garropolo takes over.

Honestly, I'd say he is ahead of Tom Brady when comparing their respective rookie seasons.

I'm greedy. I want a quarter century of dominance.

I don't really understand it either. This is a fairly young team, with many of our best players being very young. I think this is a team that can win now, and in 5-6 years with many of the same players, even if we don't have Brady. BBs way of building a team has never been trying to fit something into a window. It has always been to constantly rebuild and renew the team. I would hate if he suddenly changed and tried to win now while sacrificing the future, because that almost never works.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Hate these panic threads about losing every player (while, amazingly we always could sign someone else's) but this year there's definitely merit to them.

People have always talked about a window and the team has ignored it, fortunately, thereby having a chance to win every single year since 2002.

However, you can't deny there's a window now as Brady will retire someday, and the chance for multiple rings with this team is deadly serious.

I've always maintained that the Pats almost always retain players they want, that want to play here. Most big name cuts were older players, or ones where there was some friction.

Say we want Revis, McCourty for a few years and I'll say Mayo too and Wilfork 1 or 2 [so we don't end up the Colts until we get some building blocks and Easley and the overachievers can take over]. (Please, no Wilfork or Mayo bashing, there are already threads for that.)

So, we maintain our core through clever accounting and crash later. Is this possible financially?

Miguel, it would be wondeful if you'd like to chip in...

No way I would sacrifice the future.. this team has a ton of young talent and can remain competitive for a long time to come.

I would have been more likely to accept risky front office management of the salary cap in the past when we were desperate to get 1 more SB before Brady retired to shut all the spygaters up but now that Brady and BB have their forth I'm completely content and just want BB to continue to manage the team intelligently the way he has for 15 years that keeps them a contender every year.

 

[Tunescribe]

I'm greedy. I want a quarter century of dominance.

That would look good on a T-shirt with some nice graphics. You could do the same for New Jersey's green slime.

Patriots: Quarter Century of Dominance.
Jets: Half Century of Futility.

 

[IllegalContact]

russel wilson has been to 2 SBs, colin kaepernick has been to one, joe flacco has been to one....all recently....

the fact is that 2 QB's have to get to the SB every year........largely because of the rest of the roster.

going all out for the 'window' doesn't work......to many variables involved.......you have a better chance of playing a QB on a rookie contract and loading up the rest of the roster

it's actually pretty rare for a team to win the SB with a QB that has a top 5 cap hit

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The Patriots' mission statement denies the concept of a window: We are building . . . a team that consistently competes for championships.

 

[patsfan-1982]

the worst case is revis, McCourty and Vereen are all gone the pats would still be coming back with 19 starters from a SB wining team that owned the AFC. just look at the Seahawks they lost both WR's and there pass rusher and were one yard a way from back to back SB's as long as the core of the team is still there they got a shot and Brady gronk and Edelman are the core on offense. and the defense will have to center around the young LB's and DL.

as for the future I know I have said this a million times but cut revis and there is no cap problems in 2015 or 2016. I mean both sides are still winners if he is cut he helps the pats get a ring for the first time in 10 years and now he can take his ring and get a blockbuster contract at 30 years old,

ok a nuff of my rant lets get to the real future of this team life after Brady. I know us fans understand but we have yet to fully appreciate that this team has been rebuilding/re-tooling every year since 2007 but yet they have still been knocking on the door of the super bowl almost every year since. I cant remember the last time the pats started a season with the same DB's that started the season before, and Brady's weapons and the offense has changes from the deep ball to the two TE hurry up to this year were the offense almost changed every week to fit the match ups and yet his numbers are in the top five or six every year and we and the media shake it off as that's just Brady being Brady so much so that he did not even get one MVP vote this year...I don't really know what the future holds after Brady or who the pats will sign or let go this year but as long as Brady is the QB the pats will always have at shot at winging it all

 

[hwc]

Ask Saints fans about going all in, not getting back to the big dance, and then having to blow up the team to get out of cap jail.

I think Belichick has the better approach. There are no guarantees. To win a SuperBowl takes good football and a lot of luck. Everything has to break your way, including an interception on a slant pass at the goal line with 30 seconds left. Realistically, if you want rings, you want a team that is in the hunt every year with a chance at the incredible string of luck it takes to win one.

 

[Ring 6]

If other teams pay huge salaries then have to cut people in later years, why not us? If brady can and wants toplay into his 40s he might need to play on a team like the 2001 team made up of street free agents.

Of course, if that means keeping our core know, he might already have 7 rings and not mind taking over the mentor role for Garop, or whoever.

Because that method hasn't worked.
I get the concept, but no team has ever used it effectively.

 

[Ring 6]

Hate these panic threads about losing every player (while, amazingly we always could sign someone else's) but this year there's definitely merit to them.

People have always talked about a window and the team has ignored it, fortunately, thereby having a chance to win every single year since 2002.

However, you can't deny there's a window now as Brady will retire someday, and the chance for multiple rings with this team is deadly serious.

I've always maintained that the Pats almost always retain players they want, that want to play here. Most big name cuts were older players, or ones where there was some friction.

Say we want Revis, McCourty for a few years and I'll say Mayo too and Wilfork 1 or 2 [so we don't end up the Colts until we get some building blocks and Easley and the overachievers can take over]. (Please, no Wilfork or Mayo bashing, there are already threads for that.)

So, we maintain our core through clever accounting and crash later. Is this possible financially?

Miguel, it would be wondeful if you'd like to chip in...

Miguels answer will no doubt be more informed than mine, but I think this idea of pushing money into the future to load up now is overrated.
You could probably find some mathematical ways to do it but they aren't realistic within building a team.
The easiest way is to sign a bunch of players with huge bonusses amortized over the deal and small salaries, but that is already largely done. Pushing money to the future to create room to sign a player is feasible, IMO, but as a strategy to load up a roster, I don't think it can work.

 

[rochrist]

Hate these panic threads about losing every player (while, amazingly we always could sign someone else's) but this year there's definitely merit to them.

People have always talked about a window and the team has ignored it, fortunately, thereby having a chance to win every single year since 2002.

However, you can't deny there's a window now as Brady will retire someday, and the chance for multiple rings with this team is deadly serious.

I've always maintained that the Pats almost always retain players they want, that want to play here. Most big name cuts were older players, or ones where there was some friction.

Say we want Revis, McCourty for a few years and I'll say Mayo too and Wilfork 1 or 2 [so we don't end up the Colts until we get some building blocks and Easley and the overachievers can take over]. (Please, no Wilfork or Mayo bashing, there are already threads for that.)

So, we maintain our core through clever accounting and crash later. Is this possible financially?

Miguel, it would be wondeful if you'd like to chip in...

Can they? Possibly. Would they? No chance.

 

[chasa]

How about no?

Do you understand how hard it is to win the superbowl? its damned near impossible. So short of being able to see into the future and adding and subtracting parts that guarentees the superbowl, I'd rather the patriots didn't sacrifice the future, for a CHANCE at winning now.

Here is what we know about this current patriots team.

Without Wilfork they made it to the AFCCG.
Without Mayo They made it to the AFCCG and Won a Superbowl in consecutive years.

By not picking up vince's option, and potentially cutting Mayo. those two moves alone put this team under the salary cap. That means we will have the talent on the roster right now, that made it to a AFCCG, And would be two pieces on defense removed from a superbowl winning caliber team.

TLR This team right now with the players it has signed, is a favorite to win the superbowl this year, AND STILL NOT BE IN CAP HELL.

this team should continue doing what it's always done.

 

[rochrist]

That would look good on a T-shirt with some nice graphics. You could do the same for New Jersey's green slime.

Patriots: Quarter Century of Dominance.
Jets: Half Century of Futility.

How about putting that on the same shirt?

 

[FirstAndGoal]

I'd rather compete every year than be a force one year and suck for 10 more.

Blowing up a team and rebuilding is not a good bet for getting back on top.

Besides, if 4 Super Bowl trophies and 6 Super Bowl appearances in 15 years isn't enough, what is?

In Bill I trust.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'd rather compete every year than be a force one year and suck for 10 more.

Blowing up a team and rebuilding is not a good bet for getting back on top.

Besides, if 4 Super Bowl trophies and 6 Super Bowl appearances in 15 years isn't enough, what is?

In Bill I trust.

It might be good to also point out most of the "all-in" teams that we've seen are certainly no shoo-in. In fact, I can't remember a team that has won the championship that way, save for maybe the Ravens in 2012 when they knew it was their last run with all the retirements coming; even the Ravens, though, didn't hamstring themselves long-term (not until the Flacco deal, that is.)

Let's say you really built a true powerhouse team that will blow up in a year or two based on the contracts; at best, you are probably going to have a 25% chance to win the Super Bowl, whereas if you had just fielded a very good, competitive team without destroying the future, you may field a team with a 20% chance to win the Super Bowl. It is really hard win it all, so the year-after-year cumulative chances are better than stacking a team for one year and having just marginally better odds. I think there is a misnomer that the Patriots could go into a "win-now" mentality and have a 75% chance to win the Super Bowl. That is complete insanity; the likely outcome is that they would mortgage the future, still fail in their quest to win, and then spend years rebuilding.

This is all just theoretical stuff; I'm not saying the Patriots shouldn't be aggressive or that they would be tremendously different in their team strength by any event other than Brady/Belichick's retirements. I just think people overvalue the true chances of winning it all with a super team. Most of the Patriots best teams have not won the Super Bowl; three of their four SB champs were 2-2 to start the season and didn't necessarily have the most talent. More chances in the postseason equals more championships.

It is almost silly, though, to ponder why the Patriots don't go "all-in" when they have had a first-round bye for five straight seasons; most teams would consider that their deal with the devil, just for one chance like that.

 

[chasa]

The redskins seem to go all in every year, and the broncos last year looked like they went all in..

Can't remember the last time a team went "All in" and won it all.