Can the Pats afford Brady and Seymour??

[Miguel]

I say YES!!

The above numbers presume giving Seymour a $10 million signing bonus this year and a $6 million option next year. This deal would surpass Abraham's in terms of new money over the 1st 3 years AND in terms of new money over the 1st 5 years.

This deal would leave the Pats 15.34 million this year to spend on Tebucky, Gramatica, the draft picks (2.75M), players 52,53 and a 8-man practice squad (1.14M), have an injury replacement reserve (1.25M)and other free agents. Is 15.34 million enough?? It is more than enough.

This deal would leave the Pats with 36.6 million to spend in 2007
http://www.patscap.com/futureyears.html
on 23 players (most of them would be from the 2006 and 2007 draft classes), 8-man practice, and have an injury replacement reserve . Is 36.6 million enough??IMO, it is more than enough.

The more that the Pats frontload Seymour's deal into 2006 the more they can spend in 2007.

 

[jczxohn1]

Hopefully, something is being done behind the scenes to make this happen. An unofficial agreement in principle or something should be in place before the draft. We may not hear about it but if we trade down out of the first rd. it would indicate such is likely. Conversely, if we trade up to a position requiring a hefty signing bonus, it probably isn't good news for Sey. Also, out of that 15 mil. some accomodation will need to be made for Branch. IMO, it is more likely we try to keep him than Sey. While Sey's backups may be adequate at best, that cannot be said for Branch, and the draft doesn't hold much promise for replacing a #1, either.

 

[patsfan13]

I would guess that if we don't hear anything from Sey or his agent, then there is an agreement in principal in place. Since an agreement can't be signed before August as per the CBA, even if the deal is done the Pats won't say word 1.

 

[BradyisGod]

Well, if not, see ya Richard

 

[PatsFanInVa]

The more that the Pats frontload Seymour's deal into 2006 the more they can spend in 2007.

Miguel, would frontloading more than this be too much assumption of risk on the Pats' part? Also, do you think Sey is so burned by LTBEs that he would not consider them, regardless how structured? Let's take the simple(r) case of playing time - do you think he'd go for a decent portion in LTBEs?

I ask because it seems like the biggest problem with moving money forward via a 2006 roster bonus, is that you take money off the table. When you take it off the table, Sey's risk decreases and the team's increases.

For cap management purposes, I want to take the hit early - add a roster bonus in 06, decrease future cap hits further, and call it a day.

For risk management purposes, I want to leave money on the table. I especially like the idea of Sey knowing he has the hottest deal in history for a DL, IF the high level of performance continues. It is also nice to be able to cut Sey more easily in the case of a bad injury or decreased performance (sorry Richard,) without going to dead money hell.

But I'm also acutely aware that finding the right measurable is hard to do, in Sey's case.

Therefore - is the only useful adjustment to add a roster bonus? Could we afford, say, a 3M roster bonus this year, to take off 500K/year in future years? With the recent signings, it's looking like nobody wants to be that future-oriented, but heck, I'd do it.

PFnV

 

[Miguel]

Conversely, if we trade up to a position requiring a hefty signing bonus, it probably isn't good news for Sey.

Such a move would require the Pats to move into picks 1 through 4. Even if the Pats were to include all of their Day 1 picks, they still would not have enough ammo to make such a move according to the trade value chart.

Also, out of that 15 mil. some accomodation will need to be made for Branch.

$15 million is more than enough to take care of Branch and everything else previously mentioned.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

As long as we have enough money for Martin...

As BB is fond of saying, and at this juncture it's really true, we can afford anybody. This as usual will ultimately be about what they want to pay Richard in relation to how they slot salary throughout the rest of the team, and what they believe he is worth to this team.

According to Felger's info Richard wants upwards of $20M in signing bonus. If you split much less than that into two tiers, I doubt it's a deal he'd agree to. I know, I was wrong about Brady agreeing to the implicit guarantee - but his deal was necessarily dictated by the CBA situation at the time, it was 2 years early and it was Brady. Seymour is no Brady, I fear.

One way or another we should know by July if not sooner.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

According to Felger's info Richard wants upwards of $20M in signing bonus. QUOTE]

20M specifically in signing bonus, or 20M in his pocket this year? (e.g., 6M sal, 4M roster bonus, 10M signing bonus?)

20M signing bonus is a lotttttta risk.

PFnV

 

[Miguel]

According to Felger's info Richard wants upwards of $20M in signing bonus. If you split much less than that into two tiers, I doubt it's a deal he'd agree to. I know, I was wrong about Brady agreeing to the implicit guarantee - but his deal was necessarily dictated by the CBA situation at the time, it was 2 years early and it was Brady. Seymour is no Brady, I fear.

I swear that someone wrote:
"My guess is Belioli would be looking for a 6 year $7-$8M AAV deal with <$25M guaranteed over the first 3 and a two tiered bonus structure ($10M now and $6-8M in 3/07 similar to the Brady split) and perhaps roster bonuses guaranteed by playing time triggers reached in 2006-2008 for 2009-20010 (as a hedge against those knees) with decreasing backend salaries like Brady's."

So I used that post as my template.

Let's say that the deal does include the $20 million signing bonus, which has to be the worst case scenario in terms of cap impact. The Pats are left with
13.34 million this year to spend on Branch, Koppen, Samuel, Tebucky, Gramatica, the draft picks (2.75M), players 52,53 and a 8-man practice squad (1.14M), have an injury replacement reserve (1.25M)and other free agents. Is 13.34 million enough?? It is more than enough.

 

[World Champs 3X]

Great work Miguel
I agree Seymore will be signed in August It will be a tier payment which should work for both sides. Then they can start signing the other guys mainly Branch and Koppen this year with that 15 mil.

 

[Miguel]

Could we afford, say, a 3M roster bonus this year, to take off 500K/year in future years? With the recent signings, it's looking like nobody wants to be that future-oriented, but heck, I'd do it.
PFnV

Adding a 3M roster bonus would add $2.4 million to Seymour's 2006 cap hit.

The Pats would be left with just around $13 million this year to spend on Branch, Koppen, Samuel, Tebucky, Gramatica, the draft picks (2.75M), players 52,53 and a 8-man practice squad (1.14M), have an injury replacement reserve (1.25M)and other free agents. Is 13 million enough?? It is more than enough.

Why was Warfield signed to a two-year deal?? IMO, because the Pats are hard-pressed to use all of their cap space. If his deal was just an one-year deal, it would qualify for the vet min treatment and his 2006 cap number would be $455,720 and not $740,720.

 

[Gumby]

Miguel,
Your thoughts on moving more of the SB money to first year guaranteed Salary. To me has same effect as signing bonus but the cap hit is not deferred (which I would think pats would prefer)

For example:

Seymour
..................2006..........2007
salary............ 7,0.............5,0
5M S Bonus.... 1,0..............1,0
6M future SB.. 0,0..............1,0
Total Cap hit..10,4.............7,0

So that methodology would move $4M of cap hit to current year and decrease cap hit in all the out years by $1M.

what is wrong with that from either Pats or Sey's perspective?

 

[Miguel]

Miguel,
Your thoughts on moving more of the SB money to first year guaranteed Salary. To me has same effect as signing bonus but the cap hit is not deferred (which I would think pats would prefer)

For example:

Seymour
..................2006..........2007
salary............ 7,0.............5,0
5M S Bonus.... 1,0..............1,0
6M future SB.. 0,0..............1,0
Total Cap hit..10,4.............7,0

So that methodology would move $4M of cap hit to current year and decrease cap hit in all the out years by $1M.

what is wrong with that from either Pats or Sey's perspective?

To me, the structure of Seymour's deal is unimportant. The point of my post was to rebut the notion posted by some that the Pats can not afford to pay Seymour top DL money and continue their winning ways. The Pats can afford to do your proposal AND still be in great cap shape.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with all Miguel's comments.

To me, the structure of Seymour's deal is unimportant. The point of my post was to rebut the notion posted by some that the Pats can not afford to pay Seymour top DL money and continue their winning ways. The Pats can afford to do your proposal AND still be in great cap shape.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Agreed, on the broad strokes - the structure is unimportant right now, and all it does is get us into the details that routinely get reworked by mid-contract deal shuffling... but getting ready for the future (remember that word preparation?) is a virtue. Frinstance, instead of working with six guys to redo deals in the future, you only have to work with four...

First things first, Miguel, as always it is great to see your work on these types of questions. I only hope one day I get these details half as fluidly as you do, but for the time being your page and observations here are like a "peek behind the curtain." Instead of going "huh?" with every Pats roster move, the rationale usually becomes apparent after a look at the latest update of your Cap page - it's an offseason treasure (and not a bad in-season extra either.)

So, don't misread me... as Miguel says, the main point is that the deal can be done. There have been some questions here as to whether it should be done, but, barring absolutely insane demands, those questions are non-starters, to my way of thinking.

Would still love a #1 corner, a #2 receiver, and as many young linebackers as fit the system (among other acquisitions,) and we might get some of that. But no team makes every move on the fans' wish list in a year. The Brady/Belichick/Kraft backbone has kept the team winning for 5 years... and Seymour is (in my opinion) the next name on that list.

PFnV

 

[MoLewisrocks]

To me, the structure of Seymour's deal is unimportant. The point of my post was to rebut the notion posted by some that the Pats can not afford to pay Seymour top DL money and continue their winning ways. The Pats can afford to do your proposal AND still be in great cap shape.

My earlier contract musings deal with two very seperate and distinct scenarios - what I think Belioli would be looking for in a deal vs. what Richard is reportedly looking for.

And whether or not they can "afford" a deal can be looked at not just from the standpoint of available cap now and the appearance of available cap going forward, but from the standpoint of the mark any deal sets relative to the teams overall financial plan for slotting player salaries across the board and by unit. There are some talented young players on this team who will be looking for their big contract in the next few years. With Brady they set the upper limit teamwise at $10M AAV, the limit on strictly up front SB money at $14.5M, slightly more than half in hand in the first two years, and the 3 year essentially guaranteed take at $37M (65% of total contract value in hand in the first half of the deal). That was for a very durable HOF level franchise QB. I don't believe they will cross any of those upper limit thresholds for ANY other player on this team.

At first glance Tommy's deal barely placed him in the top 5 at his position, although by the all important first three guaranteed we know he is probably in the top two or three (although still substantially below the benchmark of Peyton Manning). If Seymour is willing to do a deal that puts him in the top 3-5 DL by by similar measures I assume they get a deal done. Unless durability concerns are even greater than some of us may think. If he is determined to set the new high value contract mark for DL across the league, I don't think they get a deal done whether they can "afford" it or not.

Suffice it to say though that's just IMHO. I pegged the deal Vinatieri was really looking for (as opposed to all the $3M+ hype) and predicted if that were the case he would get that deal here. I was apparently more than half right, unfortunately.

The footdragging and apparent unwillingness to be proactive (as they were with Brady and Vrabel) can prove costly in the long run. I can only assume they have a pecking order and Richard may not be quite as highly valued long term as some folks insist he has to be. I think that may be because looking ahead a year or two or three they know that in addition to retaining some of their emerging young drafted talent, they will need impact players at SS, ILB, OLB and even RB who once again may not all emerge via our draft. Those may again have to be acquired via FA, and as in Colvin's case they will not all be bargain finds. And even if they are initially as in Vrabel's case, eventually they will have to be paid to be retained.

 

[flutie2phelan]

....
Why was Warfield signed to a two-year deal?? IMO, because the Pats are hard-pressed to use all of their cap space. If his deal was just an one-year deal, it would qualify for the vet min treatment and his 2006 cap number would be $455,720 and not $740,720.

M., this is not your main point ... but it is at least the second time you've mentioned it ...
so this time i'll ask,
What Possible Advantage Is There In Simply Burning Cap Room?

It's not as if this room carries forward to a future year, like unearned LTBE incentives.
And there is no penalty for ending the year with unused space (once you're over the min.)

 

[PatsFanInVa]

M., this is not your main point ... but it is at least the second time you've mentioned it ...
so this time i'll ask,
What Possible Advantage Is There In Simply Burning Cap Room?

It's not as if this room carries forward to a future year, like unearned LTBE incentives.
And there is no penalty for ending the year with unused space (once you're over the min.)

Can't speak for M, but I believe there's an advantage in burning the cap room if it offsets future hits (hence my desire to get Seymour costs frontloaded.) I think the same might go for signing a two-year rather than a one-year contract, if you think it's likely the guy is worth having around.

Maybe there's a manouever or two I don't get happening here.

PFnV

 

[Brarrell]

M., this is not your main point ... but it is at least the second time you've mentioned it ...
so this time i'll ask,
What Possible Advantage Is There In Simply Burning Cap Room?

It's not as if this room carries forward to a future year, like unearned LTBE incentives.
And there is no penalty for ending the year with unused space (once you're over the min.)

Jonathan Kraft said just before the CBA was signed that the Pats would spend up to the cap he also insinuated that the Pats would be a player in free agency which so far they haven't been. So they have alot of cap space what are they going to do? Brady and Seymour are the anchors of this franchise and should be paid as such. These kind of players come around once every 15 years or so the fact you actually have both of these guys on your team and already have 3 bowls in your pocket when both players are JUST REACHING THEIR PRIME this in my opinion is a no brainer. When you are the 3rd largest gross revenue team in the NFL and you have sold out for more than 10 years running with 50,000 ticket waitng list you go for it. I didn't agree with not signing Givens it should have been done a year earlier but I have accepted that some good players are going to leave. After Seymour in order Branch, Graham and Koppen should be their priorities. These are young players all coming into their prime and are battle tested. The fact they let Givens go makes it more imperitive to sign Graham. Maybe because the OL was banged up last year and at the end of the year Graham was banged up
but the Graham, Watson matchups simply have to be more of the game plan next year.

 

[Pats726]

The footdragging and apparent unwillingness to be proactive (as they were with Brady and Vrabel) can prove costly in the long run.

How much of this so called footdragging had to do with the CBA extension not being completed?? Some may say that other teams did long deals, but I really have to wonder about that. Maybe being very conservative with money, they HAD to wait this year until completed. It may have been more that than other things. Have the Pats been proactive in past years??