Can the Pats afford Brady and Seymour??

[Miguel]

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?

None. It just seems strange to me to give a two-year deal to a player when a one-year deal for the same amount of money in 2006 would allow you to take advantage of the vet min deal.

 

[Pats726]

None. It just seems strange to me to give a two-year deal to a player when a one-year deal for the same amount of money in 2006 would allow you to take advantage of the vet min deal.

Miguel..it does seem strange with these 2 year contracts they have been using..What advantage is there?? As you have mentioned..they get a salary cap break, so one may think there are other reasons for that. Great point though!!

 

[Ring 6]

Miguel..it does seem strange with these 2 year contracts they have been using..What advantage is there?? As you have mentioned..they get a salary cap break, so one may think there are other reasons for that. Great point though!!

Isnt the advantage that you want the player for 2 years????????

The vet exemption saves what? about 300k?
I think locking the guy ion for a second year would be a reasonable benefit to giving up a 300k exemption.
Why sign Warfield at all if you dont think he would be worth less than 1 mill in 2007? If you do, why not lock him up and not have to see the trend of our guys getting offered more elsewhere after they do what we expected them to do?

 

[Ring 6]

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??

I dont see how this can be characterized as foot-dragging.
First of all, the Patriots gave Seymour a raise last year. Why do that if you dont have the intention of extending later? Why keep him happy with his contract if you don't plan to keep him around.
Secondly they CANNOT sign him to an extension until August. I dont know how we could surmise that hi not being extended yet means something when he cannot be extended, by rule.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I think that Miguel pointed out that we can have both Brady and Seymour. According to his projections we can not only have them both long term but still be a player in the FA market in the future, if we want to be.

The next question is can we have Brady, Seymour, & Branch long term. I think the answer to that is, yes we can.

 

[Pats726]

I dont see how this can be characterized as foot-dragging.
First of all, the Patriots gave Seymour a raise last year. Why do that if you dont have the intention of extending later? Why keep him happy with his contract if you don't plan to keep him around.
Secondly they CANNOT sign him to an extension until August. I dont know how we could surmise that hi not being extended yet means something when he cannot be extended, by rule.

I didn't characterize it as that, but the quoted previous poster did. My only point was that the CBA extension mess hampered a look at long term deals. I really believe that if the CBA had been done a few months earlier, they might have been able to start work earlier on long term contracts. I remember Sey being interviewed a few months ago (post season) and his saying that he had wanted to work on a new deal, but that the Patriots hadn't talked with him. I truly think that a lot of that not talk had to do with the CBA and the possibility of an uncapped year etc. I agree with what you are saying.

 

[nickw308810]

Miguel, I have a question. Remember a couple years back when the Vikings had all that cap room and they used it to sign Antoine Winfield? Wasn't his deal frontloaded so that he made all his money in the first year and was a cheap hit on the cap after that? Do you think we are trying to do something like that with either Seymour, Branch, or both?

 

[Miguel]

Miguel, I have a question. Remember a couple years back when the Vikings had all that cap room and they used it to sign Antoine Winfield? Wasn't his deal frontloaded so that he made all his money in the first year and was a cheap hit on the cap after that? Do you think we are trying to do something like that with either Seymour, Branch, or both?

I used to think that the Pats would sign a middle-tier free agent (Griesen, Sam Cowart, Ben Taylor, Mike Pearson) to such a deal. It appears now that it will be Branch or a healthy Koppen that will get the Winfield treatment.

 

[flutie2phelan]

The question referred to "Seymour, Branch, or both?"

Is it significant that you answered, "Branch or a healthy Koppen" ?

 

[jczxohn1]

None. It just seems strange to me to give a two-year deal to a player when a one-year deal for the same amount of money in 2006 would allow you to take advantage of the vet min deal.

Possible trade value in the 2nd yr for a low level draft pick while someone develops, or a keeper if they don't?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Miguel:

I'm impressed, even awed, by your numbers. Thank you. But, IMO, the bottom line is that the Patriots cannot re"youth" their team and keep both TB and Seymour, if indeed Seymour wants to be the highest paid at his position, unless they think they have a legitimate chance at Ring #4 in 06/07. If they decide that this is a transition year, then it's "thanks for the memories" and time to bite the bullet and move on. My money is on this as a transition year. There's a reason that no team has won four SB's in six years since the Cap. They need to get younger and faster.

 

[shakadave]

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.
QUOTE]

I understand that you're right, the value chart DOES say that, but IMO the value chart is crazy. Imagine giving up a 1st, 2nd, and 2 3rds --- crucial building blocks for the next 5 years --- all for one player and the privilege of overspending with a big signing bonus/cap hit. Why would anyone do this? (Answer: they have no QB?)

 

[Miguel]

Miguel:

I'm impressed, even awed, by your numbers. Thank you. But, IMO, the bottom line is that the Patriots cannot re"youth" their team and keep both TB and Seymour, if indeed Seymour wants to be the highest paid at his position, unless they think they have a legitimate chance at Ring #4 in 06/07.

Why would not the Pats think that they have a legitimate chance this year in 2006??

If they decide that this is a transition year, then it's "thanks for the memories" and time to bite the bullet and move on. My money is on this as a transition year.

If by transition year, you mean that the Pats think that they are not legit SB contenders this year. I think that you are dead wrong.

Under my proposal Seymour's average cap number for the 1st 5 years of his contract is 8,282,800. What number does it have to be in order in your opinion for the Pats to be able to re"youth" their team and have a legitimate chance at Ring #4 in 06/07??

Please note that I deliberately posted worst-case numbers in terms of cap impact so as to highlight my point.

 

[jczxohn1]

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.
QUOTE]

I understand that you're right, the value chart DOES say that, but IMO the value chart is crazy. Imagine giving up a 1st, 2nd, and 2 3rds --- crucial building blocks for the next 5 years --- all for one player and the privilege of overspending with a big signing bonus/cap hit. Why would anyone do this? (Answer: they have no QB?)

There are other ways to move up. If the essence of BB's D is the line-backing corps, their current positioning is too heavily weighted going forward on the D line. Three yrs + from now it will cost a lot to keep the current three starters (all potential Pro-Bowlers, IMO). A serious arguement can be made for trading Seymour for a slot that would guarantee drafting Hawk and picking up a 1st day b/u for Jarvis.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Why would not the Pats think that they have a legitimate chance this year in 2006??


If by transition year, you mean that the Pats think that they are not legit SB contenders this year. I think that you are dead wrong.

Under my proposal Seymour's average cap number for the 1st 5 years of his contract is 8,282,800. What number does it have to be in order in your opinion for the Pats to be able to re"youth" their team and have a legitimate chance at Ring #4 in 06/07??

Please note that I deliberately posted worst-case numbers in terms of cap impact so as to highlight my point.

No need to be testy. We're just discussing football and I can't compete with your numbers. To answer your question directly, I honestly don't know, but a lot less than $8.3 mil. At 26, Seymour is rightly trying to secure his future because, with a bit of a history of injury already, no one knows what scenarios he'll be looking at when he's 27 or 28. The Patriots got where they did by developing young talent and avoiding big contracts. I don't think a big payout to Seymour is consistent with that formula As a fan, I'd love to see them keep him, as he is truly an exciting, impact player--when healthy. I'm just not sure that's the best thing in the long run.

As for their prospects in 2006, I like them a lot more now that I've seen the schedule, but I still think that 06 is a question mark. Also, I don't think that any of us can honestly say that our play in 05 was at a Championship level, with or without the Starks' call and with or without the first half schedule. I see the Patriots winning one or two more rings during Brady's contract. I just think that, when we consider how they got their three rings, not all of the pieces might yet be in place for another run. Remember, it took Montana, even in the precap era, nine years to get his four rings.

 

[Don_the_patfan]

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.

Miguel I have never gotten a chance to say this but you do a great job backing everything with numbers. I agree 100% with you. Lets lock big Sey up.

 

[fgssand]

A worthy cause.........

Miguel I have never gotten a chance to say this but you do a great job backing everything with numbers. I agree 100% with you. Lets lock big Sey up.

Hello Don....I also appreciate Miguels contributions a lot and have for quite some time:

Thank him this way - I have a few times and will do again.....see below

For Miguel:
__________________
My youngest sister's best friend is on the board of directors of a food pantry in Malden, Massachusetts that distributed 285,000 meals and meal equivalents in 2005. I am asking that if you have found my salary cap pages useful that if you are able to do so, please make a donation to the
http://www.thebreadoflifeonline.org
Bread of Life
511 Main Street
Malden, MA 02148-3918
ATTN: Mea Quinn Mustone
Please mention this website with your donation.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

FGS, part of me is persuaded by your position. After all, the cliche is that Seymour is the Brady of the defense. More accurately, he's as close to a Brady as you have on defense. Part of me says Hill and Green come up big regularly enough that we can plug one in, take a significant but not exhorbitant hit on versatility and athleticism, and move on with tremendous cap dollars in our pocket for years to come.

This part of me, however, is likely the same part that questioned the decision to let Bledsoe go. (Well, okay, it's the reverse case, but the point is poor judgment.)

If Sey costs north of $8M/year, I am okay with that. I think he gets that on the open market, and I think he provides value commensurate with that. For reasons of injury and effort, I do like incentivizing the contract, whereas for reasons of cap management and "do-ability," I like paying a big chunk up-front. Specifically, given history, Seymour and agent will probably look askance at too many LTBE/NLTBE incentives. The Pats need outs if the knees go, and Sey needs the security that he gets something (and a big something) even if that's the case. Something tells me it's the how of it not the whether that will be the sticking point, if there is one.

Eventually you have to question where we'll spend those big dollars... we're structured to have some star money around for a few guys. I think Sey is one of them. I think for a year or two (but not more,) Colvin is one of them. Obviously Brady is one of them. And Bruschi cannot keep being cheap just because he wants to retire in New England. I think he gets rewarded next year with a few mill a year including some incentives (and Tedy is one of the guys freed up to make the plays that result in measureables, when guys like Seymour take care of business up front.)

Do you get Sey with, say, $7.5M a year including bonuses, and a lot of the money up front in the first three years? Maybe, and if the Pats can pull that off, more power to them. But Sey is worth it in the $8M+ range... I think that's the range we're talking about.

PFnV

ps,

Okay, obviously I'm not going to be able to live with myself without ponying up for Bread Of Life. Grrrr. Well, it's deductible.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

There are other ways to move up. If the essence of BB's D is the line-backing corps, their current positioning is too heavily weighted going forward on the D line. Three yrs + from now it will cost a lot to keep the current three starters (all potential Pro-Bowlers, IMO). A serious arguement can be made for trading Seymour for a slot that would guarantee drafting Hawk and picking up a 1st day b/u for Jarvis.

Now, we know the difference between Jarvis/Marquis and Seymour, from games last year. Don't get me wrong - I think both these guys can grow into something pretty special, but Seymour is THERE.

What do we know about the difference between, say, Hawk and Lawson? First off, this year, right out of the gate, and then secondarily, say, three years out? We have no clue.

We need to remember draft scouting, even at the meticulous BB/SP level, is an inexact science. This is not the case with evaluating a Seymour versus, say, a Green or a Hill. We know that for the time being, Seymour is the eight-foot-wingspan condor in hand. Green and Hill are relatively unknown. We can guess. We can hope. But at the end of the day, we'll be trading knowns for unknowns. Can the risk be justified?

Cassell's supposed to be pretty accurate... you tell me. I think Sey is close to the Brady level of play - somewhere between the level where you evaluate the gap between him and the unknown the way you would for a McGinnest or Colvin, and the way you would evaluate that gap for a Brady (leaning to the Brady end of the continuum.)

PFnV

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Now, we know the difference between Jarvis/Marquis and Seymour, from games last year. Don't get me wrong - I think both these guys can grow into something pretty special, but Seymour is THERE.

What do we know about the difference between, say, Hawk and Lawson? First off, this year, right out of the gate, and then secondarily, say, three years out? We have no clue.

We need to remember draft scouting, even at the meticulous BB/SP level, is an inexact science. This is not the case with evaluating a Seymour versus, say, a Green or a Hill. We know that for the time being, Seymour is the eight-foot-wingspan condor in hand. Green and Hill are relatively unknown. We can guess. We can hope. But at the end of the day, we'll be trading knowns for unknowns. Can the risk be justified?

Cassell's supposed to be pretty accurate... you tell me. I think Sey is close to the Brady level of play - somewhere between the level where you evaluate the gap between him and the unknown the way you would for a McGinnest or Colvin, and the way you would evaluate that gap for a Brady (leaning to the Brady end of the continuum.)

PFnV

NOT EVEN CLOSE. We've sliced through the playoffs in 2004 with Jarvis Green (and an otherwise healthy defense albeit simultaneously minus a pro bowl corner). In relative level of importance to this team, Richard is a distant third at best behind Brady, Bruschi and Harrison. Tedy and Rodney aren't getting any younger and will need to replaced in two or three years. They may be replaced via the draft, or by players already in the system - but I doubt it. And even if they are, by then those players will be in a position to command substantial salaries if we hope to retain them through their peak years.

The beauty of Brady is two fold (at least). He can do more with less (which I did not see Richard accomplish at any point in the 2005 season) and he's willing to do it for less (which Richard says he will not). Both Bruschi and Harrison have also done more with less and for less. Their replacements cannot just be expected to provide that kind of value, although we can hope...

This thread was based on the premise that we can afford to pay Richard a contract that averages a certain amount. Truth is we can afford to pay him more. The real question is do we want to. Does his open market value fit the salary structure this team appears determined to continue operating under. Because there will always be tradeoffs. In Richard's case the tradeoff may be disrupting that entire structure. Is his particular talent worth sacrificing that broadbased philosophy? Or does his talent value perception exceed the value we place on the position? BB tries to explain this to people on a fairly regular basis.

I would like to think that Brady is the one player whose value is worth exceeding the structure. But obviously they did not. Luckily, neither did he. It's that simple. They aren't going to overpay for talent simply because someone else on the open market will. If you want to be a star and a leader on this particular team, you have to be willing to make sacrifices that may include your personal finances. It is what it is.

While BB admires sheer talent, he understands it is only as valuable to him as the remainder of the roster he is able to fashion around it. And under a hard cap spreading the value and the risk is the best model for long term success. Players with average or slightly above average talent, quality depth, and a handful of durable and reliable impact players who took a little less to allow for the rest. That's as much a part of his scheme as the X's and O's, and the part many of his staunchest critics have long held he cannot maintain indefinitely. Brady was the first big test, and the model passed. Richard is the next big test of whether or not he can. The answer will come when he is either re-signed in a manner that does not adversely impact the salary scheme or he is replaced in a manner that underscores how the scheme can adapt and move on.