Cap Space

[alamo]

When do we find out whether 2010 will be uncapped?

When the 2010 league year starts at the beginning of March. It will probably be like the last time the CBA negotiations went to the wire, they delayed the start of the year a few days while they were trying to reach agreement.

An arbitrary earlier deadline would make no sense. And even if everyone is convinced on February 28th that 2010 will be uncapped, that could have changed a few days later. Or vice versa. The declarations and posturing that happens during labor negotiations can not be relied upon for truth, and only when a deal is done or they give up and declare the league year started will we know for certain.

 

[cstjohn17]

When the 2010 league year starts at the beginning of March. It will probably be like the last time the CBA negotiations went to the wire, they delayed the start of the year a few days while they were trying to reach agreement.

An arbitrary earlier deadline would make no sense. And even if everyone is convinced on February 28th that 2010 will be uncapped, that could have changed a few days later. Or vice versa. The declarations and posturing that happens during labor negotiations can not be relied upon for truth, and only when a deal is done or they give up and declare the league year started will we know for certain.

Thank you for the breakdown, it seems like the Pats are betting heavy on an uncapped year. I believe it would allow them to put RFA tags on Ghost, Mankins and then franchise Wilfork if necesssary.

 

[mgteich]

I don't think the team is betting heavily on an uncapped year. Even if no one is extended this year, three are only two players who command huge money: Wilfork and Mankins. Wilfork can be franchised if the tag isn't need for Gostkowski.

Thank you for the breakdown, it seems like the Pats are betting heavy on an uncapped year. I believe it would allow them to put RFA tags on Ghost, Mankins and then franchise Wilfork if necesssary.

 

[DaBruinz]

Not until March of 2010.

Miguel - I am fairly confident that it will be finalized, one way or the other, prior to the Combine. Why? Because the combine is where you have all those agents getting together with all their new clients who are about to enter the NFL.

If the agents don't know what their clients are looking at for monetary potential, why would they allow them to participate. And that is something that could throw a monkey wrench into everything.

Tom Condon and other agents have been clammering about the rookies not really having a say in their contract negotiations. I think that Condon is arrogant enough to try and push matters the way he wants by getting as many other agents together to hold their players out of combine participation. Yes, it hurt the rookies in the short term, but long term, it could force the NFL and NFLPA to NOT have a limit on the Rookie salary cap numbers.

That being said, I think it will be an uncapped year.

 

[DaBruinz]

Thank you for the breakdown, it seems like the Pats are betting heavy on an uncapped year. I believe it would allow them to put RFA tags on Ghost, Mankins and then franchise Wilfork if necesssary.

I wouldn't say that they are "betting heavy" on it being an uncapped year. I think its safe to say that BB and Co. are taking the more likely road in that it will be an uncapped year. Which would explain them trading Vrabel, Hobbs, Thomas and Seymour. All were in the last year of their contracts. By moving guys now, the Pats can focus on Wilfork, Mankins, Gostkowski.

There are now only 4 players on the team whose status would change from RFA to UFA if it goes back to a capped year. Those 4 players are Mankins, Gostkowski, Alexander and Woods. Thomas and Hobbs would have been two more.

Of the other players:
Sam Aiken - WR, Tully Banta-Cain - LB , Leigh Bodden - CB, Derrick Burgess - LB, Kevin Faulk - RB, Joey Galloway - WR , Jarvis Green - DE, Chris Hanson - P , Matt Light - OT, Stephen Neal - G, Kendall Simmons - G, Ben Watson - TE, Vince Wilfork - DT

There are some pretty MAJOR names there. In fact, all of them are expected by us fans to be major contributors this season.

If people think that 2009 is a transition year for the Pats, what are they thinking next year is going to be like??????

 

[fester]

As much as I want Maroney to replace Faulk, I don't see a 1st round RB who is supposed to be a #1 running back agreeing to take a lesser role for the benefit of the team. He would go into free agency.

It all depends on how other teams perceive Maroney as to where the value lies for him. If other teams see him in his 5th or 6th NFL season as a legit #1, 300 carries per year back, hell yeah, free agency makes perfect sense for him. If other teams see him as a talented but complementary player who can only perform well as part of a committee, the Patriots are damn attractive to him as they are willing to pay fair market value for complementary parts, he knows the system, he has a great QB to work with, and he has some roots/networks up in New England.

 

[fester]

Tom Condon and other agents have been clammering about the rookies not really having a say in their contract negotiations. I think that Condon is arrogant enough to try and push matters the way he wants by getting as many other agents together to hold their players out of combine participation. Yes, it hurt the rookies in the short term, but long term, it could force the NFL and NFLPA to NOT have a limit on the Rookie salary cap numbers.

That being said, I think it will be an uncapped year.

I see what you are saying about the agent incentive to push for no rookie salary scales/slotting arrangements.

I am having a hard time seeing the top talent of the 2010 NFL draft sitting out the process as they basically have one shot at hitting a rookie contract jackpot. If they do not participate in the Combine and the other off-season work-outs, rookies who reasonably thought they were top 20 picks will slide down into the bottom of the 1st, or the 2nd and 3rd rounds, losing millions in the process. If the potential rookie withdraws from the draft, if they are a senior, they have already lost all their college eligibility, so they are stuck playing in the CFL or UFL for less than a 7th rounder rookie minimum while waiting until the 2011 draft where they are competing against a whole new class of potential Top 20 picks -- if one or two 2010 potential draftees do this, there is minimal dilution, but if 10 or 20 blue or red chip draftees sit out the process, they just doubled the number of "1st round graded prospects" and at that point it is a crap shoot.

It is a nasty collective action problem where the potential rookies don't have strong incentives to think about future rookies who have no mechanism of paying the potential 2010 rookies back for their potential lost wages that gained 2011, 2012, 2013 top end rookies greater wages.

 

[mgteich]

If there is an uncapped year, let us look at who you are so concerned about. As you say, we have made lots of moves, with Mankins, Gostkowski and Wilfork to left as major issues in capped year. As you say, in an uncapped year Gost and Mankins are RFA's. Wilfork is franchised. Replacing NEAL is an issue. We should be able to find a guard in the first four picks if we can't extend Neal or Simmons.

LET'S LOOK AT THE REST THAT ARE CAUSING SUCH CONCERN
THIS SEEMS LIKE NORMAL ATTRITION TO ME, and not a great concern with all the kids coming up and the patriots having four picks in first two rounds.

Alexander RFA in an uncapped year, but not a major concern in any case.
Woods RFA in an uncapped year, but not a major concern in any case.
Banta-Cain rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend, cut or repalace
Burgess rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend , cut or repalace
Galloway rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend, cut or repalace
Simmons rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend, cut or repalace
Faulk normal end of contract decision
Hanson normal end of contract decision
Watson normal end of contract decision; most here would cheer if he went
Green nromal end of contract decision; almost assuredly gone
Aiken a normal end of contract decision; should be replaceable
Light signed through 2010 (2010 salary $4.5M); not sure why he is on the list
In any case, we also have LeVoir, Kaczur and Vollmer.


QUOTE=DaBruinz;1493170]I wouldn't say that they are "betting heavy" on it being an uncapped year. I think its safe to say that BB and Co. are taking the more likely road in that it will be an uncapped year. Which would explain them trading Vrabel, Hobbs, Thomas and Seymour. All were in the last year of their contracts. By moving guys now, the Pats can focus on Wilfork, Mankins, Gostkowski.

There are now only 4 players on the team whose status would change from RFA to UFA if it goes back to a capped year. Those 4 players are Mankins, Gostkowski, Alexander and Woods. Thomas and Hobbs would have been two more.

Of the other players:
Sam Aiken - WR, Tully Banta-Cain - LB , Leigh Bodden - CB, Derrick Burgess - LB, Kevin Faulk - RB, Joey Galloway - WR , Jarvis Green - DE, Chris Hanson - P , Matt Light - OT, Stephen Neal - G, Kendall Simmons - G, Ben Watson - TE, Vince Wilfork - DT

There are some pretty MAJOR names there. In fact, all of them are expected by us fans to be major contributors this season.

If people think that 2009 is a transition year for the Pats, what are they thinking next year is going to be like??????[/QUOTE]

 

[aeg]

We should be able to find a guard in the first four picks if we can't extend Neal or Simmons.

Simmons is signed for 3 years.

 

[mgteich]

Riess an rotowrld say 3; other say 1; miguel has one.

In the end, three makes a lot of sense, and helps us a lot as we project the guard situation into 2010.

Simmons is signed for 3 years.

 

[mayoclinic]

If there is an uncapped year, let us look at who you are so concerned about. As you say, we have made lots of moves, with Mankins, Gostkowski and Wilfork to left as major issues in capped year. As you say, in an uncapped year Gost and Mankins are RFA's. Wilfork is franchised. Replacing NEAL is an issue. We should be able to find a guard in the first four picks if we can't extend Neal or Simmons.

LET'S LOOK AT THE REST THAT ARE CAUSING SUCH CONCERN
THIS SEEMS LIKE NORMAL ATTRITION TO ME, and not a great concern with all the kids coming up and the patriots having four picks in first two rounds.

Alexander RFA in an uncapped year, but not a major concern in any case.
Woods RFA in an uncapped year, but not a major concern in any case.
Banta-Cain rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend, cut or repalace
Burgess rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend , cut or repalace
Galloway rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend, cut or repalace
Simmons rent a player - one of this year's group of 1-year FA's extend, cut or repalace
Faulk normal end of contract decision
Hanson normal end of contract decision
Watson normal end of contract decision; most here would cheer if he went
Green normal end of contract decision; almost assuredly gone
Aiken a normal end of contract decision; should be replaceable

Simmons is signed for 3 years per Reiss:

3-year deal for guard Kendall Simmons - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

That provides significant insurance if we cannot extend Mankins or Neal, at relatively low cost.

I would add Bodden to the list. I lump him in with Burgess. If either proves themselves worthy, then they could be worth extending and may not come cheap. Otherwise, they are 1 year FAs and are replaceable.

The FO has quietly addressed a lot of areas of uncertainty in this team. The extensions of Kaczur and Levoir and the addition of Simmons change the OL from an area of complete uncertainty to one of relative stability. If Simmons is able to come back at all from his ACL tear by the end of this year, then really all that is needed is to extend one of Mankins or Neal in order to keep the OL solid; and Mankins may be only an RFA, to boot. Similarly, most of the DL is already solid through 2011, with only Wilfork and Green up, and Green readily replaceable.

The only major contracts which I see needing to be addressed are:

1. Wilfork. The big one.
2. Mankins. The 2nd big one, depending on whether he is a UFA or a RFA.
3. Gostkowski. Will he be an RFA or a UFA?
4. Bodden - IF he proves himself a worthy starting CB.
5. Burgess - IF he proves himself a worthy pass-rusher/OLB conversion.

That's manageable. The rest are relatively minor.

 

[aeg]

Riess an rotowrld say 3; other say 1; miguel has one.

In the end, three makes a lot of sense, and helps us a lot as we project the guard situation into 2010.

Personally, I'll trust Reiss. I think that Adam Schefter also reported three years.

As to your larger point, I agree that the situation for next year doesn't seem dire. My gut is that we will sign Ghost for whatever the going rate is for a top flight kicker (we did it with Adam, once).

So, it really boils down to re-signing two key players (Wilfork, Mankins). If we get those done, the team (and fans) will be able to overcome the loss of the others. If we don't, it will be another interesting off-season on this board ;-)

 

[mgteich]

It will always be an interesting offseason on this board. especially with four draft picks in the top 64 and the CBA situation.

For me, Gostkowski is the key signing. I believe the league undervalues kickers, and he is the best. If we don't sign him, I think we would franchise him, perhaps for two years in a row. Recall that we franchised Vinitieri. Of course, if the season is uncapped, Gost will be an RFA.

I just can't see us signing Mankins unless it is an uncapped season and he is an RFA, in which case he will be offered the top tender amount, and we have to "settle" for a 1st and 3rd round draft choice as compensation. More likely, he would stay. In a capped season, Mankins will get what other top guards have gotten, but not from us.

Wilfork will be talked about until the situation is resolved, and the situation could be a controversial subject even after his franchised.

Personally, I'll trust Reiss. I think that Adam Schefter also reported three years.

As to your larger point, I agree that the situation for next year doesn't seem dire. My gut is that we will sign Ghost for whatever the going rate is for a top flight kicker (we did it with Adam, once).

So, it really boils down to re-signing two key players (Wilfork, Mankins). If we get those done, the team (and fans) will be able to overcome the loss of the others. If we don't, it will be another interesting off-season on this board ;-)

 

[shmessy]

"other reasons" like signing Peppers!!!

... sorry, had to.

Eh, he's a poor man's Adam Seward.

 

[mayoclinic]

Eh, he's a poor man's Adam Seward.

No, he's a rich man's Adam Seward.

 

[jeffbiologist]

I think the underlying rationale is that they are trying to have as many players as possible on thier rookie deal entering the uncapped year. This would make sense of the overhaul and some of the moves they are making with one year players and future draft picks. That list is pretty much all JAGS, and Wilforks future will be as much up to Brace and Pryor as it is up to him. If those guys make some plays and close the talent gap Big Vince could be the next JAG. I think BB may be willing to try it this way because it poses completely different set of coaching problems and he will look forward to going to work every day. Having All Pros and names at every position(07) may not have been his cup of tea, who knows.

 

[shmessy]

No, he's a rich man's Adam Seward.

Blasphemer!

 

[mgteich]

I don't think Bodden will be back. If he is worthy, he'll sign for for someone else for big money. If not, we don't want him. I do think there is a chance that Burgess will have a future with us.

Also, consider Green gone. I don't think that he has any desire to play for the pats after this year. That fine; he's had a good run with us.

Simmons is signed for 3 years per Reiss:

3-year deal for guard Kendall Simmons - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

That provides significant insurance if we cannot extend Mankins or Neal, at relatively low cost.

I would add Bodden to the list. I lump him in with Burgess. If either proves themselves worthy, then they could be worth extending and may not come cheap. Otherwise, they are 1 year FAs and are replaceable.

The FO has quietly addressed a lot of areas of uncertainty in this team. The extensions of Kaczur and Levoir and the addition of Simmons change the OL from an area of complete uncertainty to one of relative stability. If Simmons is able to come back at all from his ACL tear by the end of this year, then really all that is needed is to extend one of Mankins or Neal in order to keep the OL solid; and Mankins may be only an RFA, to boot. Similarly, most of the DL is already solid through 2011, with only Wilfork and Green up, and Green readily replaceable.

The only major contracts which I see needing to be addressed are:

1. Wilfork. The big one.
2. Mankins. The 2nd big one, depending on whether he is a UFA or a RFA.
3. Gostkowski. Will he be an RFA or a UFA?
4. Bodden - IF he proves himself a worthy starting CB.
5. Burgess - IF he proves himself a worthy pass-rusher/OLB conversion.

That's manageable. The rest are relatively minor.

 

[Miguel]

Miguel - I am fairly confident that it will be finalized, one way or the other, prior to the Combine. Why? Because the combine is where you have all those agents getting together with all their new clients who are about to enter the NFL.

So the owners and the NFLPA will just stop negotiating weeks before the start of the 2010 League Year. That did not happen in 2006. There is a historical quote that applies here.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't think Bodden will be back. If he is worthy, he'll sign for for someone else for big money. If not, we don't want him. I do think there is a chance that Burgess will have a future with us.

Also, consider Green gone. I don't think that he has any desire to play for the pats after this year. That fine; he's had a good run with us.

I consider Green gone. No argument there. No big loss, either. I don't profess to know anything about what he "desires", but I think that we can replace his contribution more cheaply.

I'm not convinced that Bodden is gone after this year. We're his 3rd team in 3 years, and he made it clear when arriving here that he would have liked nothing better than a stable, long term deal. It's possible that you're right and he'll bolt for top dollar, but I'm not totally giving up home. And, as you say, if he's not worthy, we don't want him.

Similarly with Burgess. If he doesn't prove himself worthy, we don't want him. If he does, then he could potentially make more on the open market than we will be willing to give him. But after 4 years in Oakland, he may prefer to stay with a winning organization if we are able to give him a relatively competitive deal.

Time will tell.