Do you hope the Patriots trade Garoppolo?

[Wilfork#75]

Unitas can still do it. Favre can still do it. Moon can still do it. Peyton can still do it.

Funny none seems to be on anyone's roster though. Brady will be 41 going on 42 when Polo's contract expires. You fans are daft, thankfully BB is not. "Better one year too early than one year too late" is a BB motto. " We pay for performance not past performance" is another guiding motto.

What is so hard to predict will happen? TB takes a pay cut, or gets cut/traded like Montana in 2018 preseason.

How do you get around the dead cap issue? If they re-sign Jimmy and cut/trade Brady after 2017 it will be a $14mil cap hit. Even if they designate it as a post June 1st cut it will count $7mil against the cap for the following 2 years. There is no way to avoid that, Brady can't take a pay cut to reduce it. $7mil might not sound like a huge amount of money, but in terms of dead cap it is enormous. The only way you willingly take on that type of hit is if you cut one of your players accused of murder. That money is hitting our cap regardless, they aren't going to add another $20+ mil on top of that for another QB.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

How do you get around the dead cap issue? If they re-sign Jimmy and cut/trade Brady after 2017 it will be a $14mil cap hit. Even if they designate it as a post June 1st cut it will count $7mil against the cap for the following 2 years. There is no way to avoid that, Brady can't take a pay cut to reduce it. $7mil might not sound like a huge amount of money, but in terms of dead cap it is enormous. The only way you willingly take on that type of hit is if you cut one of your players accused of murder. That money is hitting our cap regardless, they aren't going to add another $20+ mil on top of that for another QB.

And thus, as far as Belichick is concerned, it really doesn't matter very much; it's what economics majors (like BB) would call a sunk cost.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I don't disagree, but the reason the Pats were "only" able to get #33 for Matt was the time element. The Pats literally had just days to create a trade, or they would have either have to play Cassel the franchise tag (which was impossible) or release him. That took a LOT of the leverage away from NE.

However they really gain a LOT of leverage if they trade him after the 2016 season. Now they have until Draft day to make a deal, and can pass if they don't get what they want. Besides, why WOULDN'T they get multiple picks for him.

Ken:

You've got the basic concept right, but the timing is a bit off.

Trades are prohibited from the trade deadline until the start of free agency. In other words, there wasn't an "or else" deadline to trade Cassel. The problem is that his $14.6M cap hit was fully guaranteed, and thus counted on the Pats' cap as soon as he signed the tender. It ate up most of their cap room, and thus they had to move him if they wanted to make any big moves in FA. What cost the Patriots in terms of draft capital is that other teams knew the Pats were in a bind, and all they had to do was wait for the price to come down. Moreover, the team that would take him had to have $14.6M cap room of their own, which further limited the Pats' maneuvering room.

In the current scenario, that means the Pats would not have a "window" in which to trade Garoppolo before FA 2018 starts. They'd have to franchise him and go through the exact same process as with Cassel.

 

[supafly]

With a decent amount of salary cap space coming up, I wouldn't necessarily put it past Belichick to take on that 7m dollar hit for 2018 and 2019 if it means that we're able to lock up the next franchise QB.

That said, I do have a difficult time imagining a scenario where Tom Brady is traded out of N.England. I realize that Belichick will always do what's best for the franchise, but it's hard for me to imagine Kraft and BB shipping him off.

 

[strngplyr]

I'm franchising him in 2018. I don't let Jimmy walk away, I wish we'd get to see 2 more healthy games with him this year, but what he's done when he's the #1 and the gameplan is his, he's been phenomenal. Preseason is unscripted BS, I don't care if he looks like crap or gold, Brady is the same way in PS, rarely spectacular.

But Jimmy has looked like a stud through 6 quarters, top 5 in comp %, ypa, and passer rating, too.

It's so rare to see guys in their first starts look that good.

BTW, at 2-0 so far, with Jimmy's offense being as good as it was at most times, it's almost a good thing for the franchise to have a Brady suspension (awful for Brady's name though, as there is literally no evidence he did a single damned thing). It's completely backfired for Goodell. Jimmy has either made the Pats' a kings ransom before the draft or has the potential to keep New England contenders for another decade or more.

Brady is also not going to have to suffer through 16 regular season games of abuse if the OL reverts, and in theory should be healthier come January. If we can go 1-1 in the next 2, Goodell has maybe done nothing but help this team when his intentions were to flatten it.

We do have to be realistic, Brady is the GOAT and at 38 was on pace for possibly the best season ever once again before he the teams #1 players at basically every skill position. And the #2's too in some cases. History show he'll hit a wall ...at some point. The teams has to legitimately think that will be within the next 2-5 years and Jimmy can realistically be kept even in 2018.

 

[supafly]

We do have to be realistic, Brady is the GOAT and at 38 was on pace for possibly the best season ever once again before he the teams #1 players at basically every skill position. And the #2's too in some cases. History show he'll hit a wall ...at some point. The teams has to legitimately think that will be within the next 2-5 years and Jimmy can realistically be kept even in 2018.

The biggest obstacle to keeping Garoppolo in 2018 (and beyond) would be the cap hit. When you combine whatever cap hit he'd have with Brady's 22m dollars, you're basically looking at 40-45m dollars dedicated to the QB position alone.

I'd love to keep both past 2017. That would be ideal. I think our concerns are the obvious unlikelihood of keeping both, while also taking into account the fact that Garoppolo probably doesn't want to wait to start any longer than he has to, especially after proving himself right now. The thought of waiting until 2019 to start probably isn't too appealing to him.

Any way you look at the situation, it's certainly something we could probably talk about all night, and then some. It will likely be one of the most important decisions Belichick has ever made here.

 

[patfanken]

Ken:

You've got the basic concept right, but the timing is a bit off.

Trades are prohibited from the trade deadline until the start of free agency. In other words, there wasn't an "or else" deadline to trade Cassel. The problem is that his $14.6M cap hit was fully guaranteed, and thus counted on the Pats' cap as soon as he signed the tender. It ate up most of their cap room, and thus they had to move him if they wanted to make any big moves in FA. What cost the Patriots in terms of draft capital is that other teams knew the Pats were in a bind, and all they had to do was wait for the price to come down. Moreover, the team that would take him had to have $14.6M cap room of their own, which further limited the Pats' maneuvering room.

In the current scenario, that means the Pats would not have a "window" in which to trade Garoppolo before FA 2018 starts. They'd have to franchise him and go through the exact same process as with Cassel.

I think you may be right about the Pats will still have to franchise JG after the 2017 season, if they want the time to trade him before he becomes a FA. However I thought there was a little time where a trade can be worked out BEFORE they'd have to franchise.

But either way, here's the main point. If the Pats hold on to JG for the 2017 season, their LEVERAGE to trade him after that season will be diminished because they will have lost the bargaining position of time. That is why they could "only" get a #33 pick for Cassell in 2009, when many were expecting a first. Tradying JG at the end of THIS season, gives them the leverage to maximize the asset

 

[Gronk]

I think you may be right about the Pats will still have to franchise JG after the 2017 season, if they want the time to trade him before he becomes a FA. However I thought there was a little time where a trade can be worked out BEFORE they'd have to franchise.

But either way, here's the main point. If the Pats hold on to JG for the 2017 season, their LEVERAGE to trade him after that season will be diminished because they will have lost the bargaining position of time. That is why they could "only" get a #33 pick for Cassell in 2009, when many were expecting a first. Tradying JG at the end of THIS season, gives them the leverage to maximize the asset

I agree with ken. I think they could get more (maybe a LOT, maybe marginally, but MORE) for JG if they pull the trigger this offseason - it gives his new team a measure of control over his future price. That's attractive - try before you buy, etc. And I think that's why it happens this offseason, barring a TB nosedive in 2016, because they believe Brady can play out his current deal (at least) and because sometimes that's just part of the business to unload quality players that you can't play.

I also think there are innumerable examples of QBs who have had an equally or better 6 quarters of football (or for longer stretches) that allow the Pats to exploit the situation and let someone else take the real risk while they remain SB contenders for 3-4 more years. 2023 be damned...and also I'd re-iterate the idea that JG is "The One" and the team is ****ed if they pick the wrong next QB is a total error in logic and far more blasphemous to the BB/Pats philosophy than the "better a year early than too late" argument that's been revolving around this debate. They didn't cut/release/trade those other guys because they thought they had a guy who might be kinda good. They did it because they made an objective call that they couldn't play up to the level they needed anymore and moved on. That isn't the case here.

I also can't imagine the whining around here if BB dumped Brady for JG and Brady came back to burn them on it - yeah, let's cut Brady after this year. You think he's pissed about Ballghazi and being called a cheater? Imagine the fire he'd be burning with if the dynasty he built with his bare hands was stolen from under him and handed to Aladdin. This forum can barely handle a team getting a 1st down or completing a pass against the Patriots - you're ready to handle dumping the GOAT? Stop yourself. Please.

 

[patfanken]

I agree with ken. I think they could get more (maybe a LOT, maybe marginally, but MORE) for JG if they pull the trigger this offseason - it gives his new team a measure of control over his future price. That's attractive - try before you buy, etc. And I think that's why it happens this offseason, barring a TB nosedive in 2016, because they believe Brady can play out his current deal (at least) and because sometimes that's just part of the business to unload quality players that you can't play.

I also think there are innumerable examples of QBs who have had an equally or better 6 quarters of football (or for longer stretches) that allow the Pats to exploit the situation and let someone else take the real risk while they remain SB contenders for 3-4 more years. 2023 be damned...and also I'd re-iterate the idea that JG is "The One" and the team is ****ed if they pick the wrong next QB is a total error in logic and far more blasphemous to the BB/Pats philosophy than the "better a year early than too late" argument that's been revolving around this debate. They didn't cut/release/trade those other guys because they thought they had a guy who might be kinda good. They did it because they made an objective call that they couldn't play up to the level they needed anymore and moved on. That isn't the case here.

I also can't imagine the whining around here if BB dumped Brady for JG and Brady came back to burn them on it - yeah, let's cut Brady after this year. You think he's pissed about Ballghazi and being called a cheater? Imagine the fire he'd be burning with if the dynasty he built with his bare hands was stolen from under him and handed to Aladdin. This forum can barely handle a team getting a 1st down or completing a pass against the Patriots - you're ready to handle dumping the GOAT? Stop yourself. Please.

BTW- one other factor which would make JG a more valuable asset if the Pats trade him after THIS season is that with a year left on his rookie contract, he's a more valuable for the team who wants him.

Think about it. If they trade him after the 2017 season, the team that gets him not only has to trade picks, they also have to pay JG a starting QB's contract long term. Any team would be willing to risk more knowing that they will have JG on the cheap for at least one year, before they have to pony up the big money.

 

[bruinator]

Jimmy

 

[IllegalContact]

BTW- one other factor which would make JG a more valuable asset if the Pats trade him after THIS season is that with a year left on his rookie contract, he's a more valuable for the team who wants him.

Think about it. If they trade him after the 2017 season, the team that gets him not only has to trade picks, they also have to pay JG a starting QB's contract long term. Any team would be willing to risk more knowing that they will have JG on the cheap for at least one year, before they have to pony up the big money.

I would think that Jimmy would demand an extension or a redo of his contract as part of the transaction

 

[BelichickFan]

I would think that Jimmy would demand an extension or a redo of his contract as part of the transaction

He'd be a year away from the big payday. If he's traded, he's traded, he can't demand an extension.

As for the question if we got a Top 15 #1 and another good pick - or a 16-32 this year and future #1 then I would reluctantly trade him. If not, I'd be fine keeping the best backup QB in the league.

 

[IllegalContact]

He'd be a year away from the big payday. If he's traded, he's traded, he can't demand an extension.

As for the question if we got a Top 15 #1 and another good pick - or a 16-32 this year and future #1 then I would reluctantly trade him. If not, I'd be fine keeping the best backup QB in the league.

nobody's going to trade big stuff for him unless they know they can get a deal done......nobody's going to get the deal done if garoppolo doesn't want to get the deal done.

for this to work, they need his buy in

 

[bradydaman29]

The biggest obstacle to keeping Garoppolo in 2018 (and beyond) would be the cap hit. When you combine whatever cap hit he'd have with Brady's 22m dollars, you're basically looking at 40-45m dollars dedicated to the QB position alone.

I'd love to keep both past 2017. That would be ideal. I think our concerns are the obvious unlikelihood of keeping both, while also taking into account the fact that Garoppolo probably doesn't want to wait to start any longer than he has to, especially after proving himself right now. The thought of waiting until 2019 to start probably isn't too appealing to him.

Maybe after getting a taste of some real pain in this last game, JG won't mind taking a lower salary to hold the clipboard on the sideline where it's safer. Backup QB, best job in the NFL!

 

[rochrist]

In a vacuum that may work, but in the real world of contracts and salary caps it's just not possible. I think the money and timing are what will almost certainly lead BB to trade Jimmy G after the season.

In 2017 Brady's dead cap number is $27mil so he definitely isn't going anywhere. In 2018 Brady's dead cap is $14mil. Even if he is designated as a post June 1st release, it will still be $7mil dead cap in each of 2018/19. There is no way the Pats take on that cap hit. Basically, the only way TB12 isn't our QB until at least 2018 is if he retires, and that would be a huge blow to our cap anyway.

Jimmy G is under contract next season but would likely need to be franchised at around $22mil to be kept for 2018. There is no way the Pats pay $40+ mil for QB's in 2018. You also need to take into account the extra roster spot you would lose next season carrying 3 QB's and the loss of value by not trading Jimmy for a kings ransom.

I just can't see any way they can keep Jimmy G long term and make the money work. Stick with Brady the next 3 or 4 years, take a haul of picks for Jimmy G and hope JB can develop into our next franchise QB.

One thing I haven't seen suggested is a backloaded contract for JG. Isn't it possible to construct a contract so as to push the major cap ramifications off for a year or two? I'm not anything like an expert in the details of the salary cap calculations, but it seems to me that it ought to be possible. Especially if you're talking about pushing the big hit one year down the road.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One thing I haven't seen suggested is a backloaded contract for JG. Isn't it possible to construct a contract so as to push the major cap ramifications off for a year or two? I'm not anything like an expert in the details of the salary cap calculations, but it seems to me that it ought to be possible. Especially if you're talking about pushing the big hit one year down the road.

The big question is how much he gets up front and how much guaranteed.

Brock Lobster got $12M signing bonus plus another $25M guaranteed (his 2016 and 2017 salaries + his 2016 roster bonus).

 

[oldrover]

Brock Lobster

"It wasn't a Brock... it was a... BROCK LOBSTER! Sing with me!!"

 

[rochrist]

The big question is how much he gets up front and how much guaranteed.

Brock Lobster got $12M signing bonus plus another $25M guaranteed (his 2016 and 2017 salaries + his 2016 roster bonus).

Yeah, for cap purposes, it is (AFAIK) prorated bonus + salary. So, for example, you could have a 6 year contract with a 12 million signing bonus, with salary escalations from 2 to 4 to million in the first two years. That would give you a prorated cap hit of 2 mil + 2 mil for the first year and 2 mil + 4 mil for the second. (i'm not proposing that as an actual contract, just as an example)

I don't /think/ the guarantee matters except in cases where you want to cut the player before the contract has played out.

Is this close to correct?

 

[RobertWeathers]

"It wasn't a Brock... it was a... BROCK LOBSTER! Sing with me!!"

I actually saw the B52s in Vegas a couple of years ago. They were great!

 

[Fencer]

nobody's going to trade big stuff for him unless they know they can get a deal done......nobody's going to get the deal done if garoppolo doesn't want to get the deal done.

for this to work, they need his buy in

Well, there's always the franchise tag.

If somebody wants to trade for Jimmy G, it should be possible -- no matter which team it is -- to negotiate a deal with him. Something like a 3 year true commitment, with $15-20 million guaranteed and team options at high average annual compensation for a couple of years after that, would make sense for all concerned. He doesn't have the leverage or breadth of options to categorically refuse that kind of offer.

The Pats' leverage of 1 cheap year remaining plus the franchise tag should be worth some nice pick compensation as their part of the loot.

I picked the guarantee number for Jimmy G in part because his guarantee would indeed have to be at least vaguely comparable to the franchise tag figure.