ESPN: Lombardi on Pats "starting price" for Cassel

[BelichickFan]

Because of the 30% rule, his 2010 can not be more than 130% of his 2009 salary. The minimum 2009 salary for a player with Cassel's experience is $620,000. 30% of $620,000 is $186,000. That means his 2010 salary can be no more than $806,000.

Your deal gives Cassel less money in two years than signing the franchise tender immediately.

That's what we pay Pioli and his guys the big bucks for. I have said over and over I don't really care about the details of the CBA or the salary rules. All I am saying is that there is a 2 year deal that would make Cassel happy that would be less than the total of being Franchised in 2009 and again in 2010. How much less, none of us know. How would they structure it, that would depend on facts we don't know - how Brady's knee is and what the desire of the Patriots is to trade Cassel + how much they would want for him.

The hypotheticals of what Cassel would accept and what the Patriots would offer don't matter to me. But the big picture is this : there is a two year deal the Patriots would make and a two year deal Cassel would make. How close they are and whether they'd meet in the middle is the question. But to say "why would Cassel take less in year one" isn't asking the full question if he is happy with getting $5M or more extra guaranteed over the two year deal. Maybe that $5M more would have to be $7M more - or just $3M more - we don't know. But it's fully reasonable that a two year deal where Cassel takes less now can be done. That's all I'm saying. Don't ask me why he would or how much it would be because I'm not in his mind. I don't know and no-one here does.

 

[BelichickFan]

Not only to play but to start and presumably to succeed as his starter.

If Cassel signs a deal in early March, he can take part in his new team's OTAs, passing camps, and training camp. The sooner Cassel is with his new team the more he increases his chances of picking up his new team's system. Why would Cassel then agree to a deal that makes it easier for the Patriots to keep on the roster for a couple of months??

Most people here say that if we Franchised him he'd sign immediately. Your question asks why. If we Franchise him maybe he doesn't sign and tries to get a team like Minnesota to sign him and give up two late #1 picks

 

[patsox23]

Deus, I would prefer - and I'd bet the Patriots would prefer - to get Detroit's "Dallas pick" at #20 overall and their 2nd rounder, as opposed to the #1 overall. Yes, we could try and trade the #1 overall, but more and more lately that draft-slot has become the bane of teams' existence. It's a pretty tough pick to move. And the Pats F.O. seems to think there's not great value that high up, 'though there is the chance to land "special" players.

The 20's are the Patriots' wheelhouse draft-area in a typical draft and would be even better this season as so many underclassmen are declaring for the draft. And the Lions' 2nd rounder is EXTREMELY valuable this season, as it costs far less but is essentially a 1st rounder, as well.

To me, that is the ultimate we could expect in exchange for MC. That would be a RIDICULOUS haul, and yet, I believe, pretty fair trade value for Detroit, as well.

 

[dhamz]

Signing with the Patriots works for "a chance to play". If Brady is out, he would play. If Brady ends up doing well he'd be traded. Signing a two year deal that's structured to make him tradeable is very good for his chance to play. The worst case for his chance to play is to sign the franchise tag and not talk about a new deal. Then he's behind Brady if Brady is OK but unlikely to be traded with a one year contract.

That just doesn't add up.

If Brady isn't going to play in 2009, Cassel is going to play here no matter the deal.

If Brady is going to play in 2009, signing the one year tender makes Cassel a prohibitively expensive back-up and raises the chance he gets traded to a team of his choosing, can negotiate a long term deal, and is starting in 2009. A team friendly 2 year deal makes it easier for the Pats to not trade him and keep him as their backup - not only in 2009 but possibly in 2010 too. He also gives up a lot of leverage over who he is traded to and what they pay him if the Pats do decide to deal him.

Cassel's worst case from a wanting to start standpoint on a 1 year deal is one year on the bench and then free agency and starting in 2010. Worst case on a 2 year deal is 2 years on the bench and free agency in 2011. You'd have to compensate him to accept that. He'd probably also want to be compensated for the hit to his value that not playing for 2 years would generate versus not playing for 1 year. Now if they do that, I doubt it is a team freindly deal anymore so it makes no sense for the Pats.

A multi year deal makes sense for Cassel only if it pays him enough to give up free agency in 2009 and has an out for him if he isn't going to be the guy here. Something like a 16m signing bonus on a multiple year deal (to lessen the cap impact from the 14.8) with one of those Stallworth type roster bonuses in February meaning he essentially has to be cut if he isn't the guy here would probably make sense for Cassel and get it done. But I doubt the Pats want to do that.

 

[BelichickFan]

That just doesn't add up.

Well I don't agree. A two year contract that's structured to be tradable sets Cassel up very well to play - for us if Brady is out or for someone else. Playing under the one year Franchise complicates it because Cassel the new team and the Patriots would all have to find common ground. If Cassel has a contract in place then only the Patriots and the new team have to agree because Cassel is already signed for two years to a contract he's happy with.

 

[Miguel]

But it's fully reasonable that a two year deal where Cassel takes less now can be done. That's all I'm saying.

I am saying that it is not fully reasonable based on 2009 being the last capped deal to presume that Cassel will accept a deal that will pay him less money. Cassel could have signed such a deal during the 2008 regular season but did not.

 

[BelichickFan]

I am saying that it is not fully reasonable based on 2009 being the last capped deal to presume that Cassel will accept a deal that will pay him less money.

Fine, we'll agree to disagree.

Cassel could have signed such a deal during the 2008 regular season but did not.

That doesn't mean they couldn't find a middle ground - just that they didn't find one. We don't even know if the Patriots tried, a lot of players don't like the distraction of contract talk during the season.

 

[Miguel]

Well I don't agree. A two year contract that's structured to be tradable sets Cassel up very well to play - for us if Brady is out or for someone else. Playing under the one year Franchise complicates it because Cassel the new team and the Patriots would all have to find common ground. If Cassel has a contract in place then only the Patriots and the new team have to agree because Cassel is already signed for two years to a contract he's happy with.

So a team is going to trade Day 1 pick(s) for Cassel without reaching a long-term deal with him. I just do not see happening. Matt Millen is no longer a GM.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Here's a hypothetical surrounding this issue:

If the trade were with Detroit, would you rather get the Dallas #1 and Detroit's #2, or would you rather get the #1 overall pick in the draft?

#1 pickin the Draft, easy. If Belichick can't parley that into a perennial probowl player, and a couple of more high picks, he is off his feed.

 

[BelichickFan]

So a team is going to trade Day 1 pick(s) for Cassel without reaching a long-term deal with him. I just do not see happening. Matt Millen is no longer a GM.

He would be signed for two years, that is plenty of time to get him, play him, evaluate him and in the case of teams like Minnesota, get a QB upgrade with him.

If I were Minnesota and I could trade the #23 pick for Cassel knowing I'd have him for two years and have to re-visit after that, I would do it barring other QB becoming available. I get a good QB for two years and exclusive negotiating rights during that time if he makes a good impression. What's my choice ? Josh Freeman from Kansas St. ???

 

[Miguel]

He would be signed for two years, that is plenty of time to get him, play him, evaluate him and in the case of teams like Minnesota, get a QB upgrade with him.

If I were Minnesota and I could trade the #23 pick for Cassel knowing I'd have him for two years and have to re-visit after that, I would do it barring other QB becoming available. I get a good QB for two years and exclusive negotiating rights during that time if he makes a good impression. What's my choice ? Josh Freeman from Kansas St. ???

Who is going to pay Cassel a signing bonus in 2009??

That detail is rather important.

 

[dhamz]

Well I don't agree. A two year contract that's structured to be tradable sets Cassel up very well to play - for us if Brady is out or for someone else. Playing under the one year Franchise complicates it because Cassel the new team and the Patriots would all have to find common ground. If Cassel has a contract in place then only the Patriots and the new team have to agree because Cassel is already signed for two years to a contract he's happy with.

I'd say regardless of if he signs here for 2 years and is traded, signs the tender and is traded, or is let go as an URFA, Cassel would be playing in 2009 and 2010, he'd be the unquestioned starting QB based on the investment the team made in him.

I'd also say if Matt Cassel is in a Pats uniform and Tom Brady is injured stll, Matt Cassel is the Pats starting QB - no matter what deal he is on.

The only way he sits in 2009 is if he is in a Patriots uniform and Tom Brady is healthy - that is also the same no matter 1 or 2 year deal. The only way he sits in 2010 is he is in a Patriots uniform and Brady is healthy. That is only possible with a 2 year deal.

A 2 year deal would be great for the team. Depending how it is structured it might make some cash strapped owners like the Vikings see Cassel as more attractive with a cap friendly deal and increase his trade value. I just don't see any way it makes it more likely to be a starting QB in the NFL over those next 32 Sundays.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

[BelichickFan]

I guess we will agree to disagree.

Yep, all these ifs, and, and buts don't work for me - I just know that it should be able to work out well for all concerned.

 

[Miguel]

Here's the killer part for me.

Cassel is widely considered to be a better QB than Derek Anderson but he is supposed to take a lesser deal than Derek Anderson.

 

[Miguel]

More nice research, Miguel.

Thank you.

It is always nice to get a compliment.

 

[lamafist]

Here's the killer part for me.

Cassel is widely considered to be a better QB than Derek Anderson but he is supposed to take a lesser deal than Derek Anderson.

Honestly, I've never for one second understood was Savage was thinking about when he made that deal. Anderson was only a RFA -- the Browns could keep him around for '08 for $2 1/2 million, and if another team wanted to offer him more, they'd have to give a 1st and a 3rd round pick. This seems to me a great scenario to be in when you've got your #10-overall-pick QB sitting on the bench, counting his signing bonus.

Instead, they signed him to a 3 year, $24 million deal, paying him significantly more for the year than he would have made on his RFA tender, and rendering him at this point untradable under his current deal. Brady Quinn will be the '09 starter, and Anderson will be released and net the Browns nothing in return. Savage needed to realize that once you draft a QB early in the first round, he's going to be your guy sooner or later, that Anderson would eventually need to be traded, and that his value could only lower if he played out 2008.

How does this relate to the Cassel situation? Tangentially, at best, I suppose, in that you can't really compare the Anderson contract to the Cassel contract because the Anderson contract was a strange and stupid act by a GM making short-sighted, desperate moves to make fans happy and keep his job. That's not how the Patriots do business.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Here's the killer part for me.

Cassel is widely considered to be a better QB than Derek Anderson but he is supposed to take a lesser deal than Derek Anderson.

I'd say "two years, $20M+" is more money than "three years, $24M," especially if it's unlikely Anderson actually sees about half that sum.

 

[mgcolby]

I personally wouldnt mind Detriot's #20(from Dallas) and their #3, or even #20 and a future pick in 2010. Then the Lions could draft Andre Smith or Michael Oher to protect him with the #1 over all. That's what I'm hoping for.

I have been saying this for a while too. Draft a LT #1 and then trade for Cassel with the 20th pick and suddenly you have a damn good offense. But they are the Lions so who knows they will probably draft Crabtree with the first pick.

 

[Miguel]

Honestly, I've never for one second understood was Savage was thinking about when he made that deal. Anderson was only a RFA -- the Browns could keep him around for '08 for $2 1/2 million, and if another team wanted to offer him more, they'd have to give a 1st and a 3rd round pick. This seems to me a great scenario to be in when you've got your #10-overall-pick QB sitting on the bench, counting his signing bonus.

Instead, they signed him to a 3 year, $24 million deal, paying him significantly more for the year than he would have made on his RFA tender, and rendering him at this point untradable under his current deal. Brady Quinn will be the '09 starter, and Anderson will be released and net the Browns nothing in return. Savage needed to realize that once you draft a QB early in the first round, he's going to be your guy sooner or later, that Anderson would eventually need to be traded, and that his value could only lower if he played out 2008.

How does this relate to the Cassel situation? Tangentially, at best, I suppose, in that you can't really compare the Anderson contract to the Cassel contract because the Anderson contract was a strange and stupid act by a GM making short-sighted, desperate moves to make fans happy and keep his job. That's not how the Patriots do business.

Fair enough. I just do not see why Cassel would agree to a lesser deal than most top free agents get. They get their money upfront. They do not agree to put their destiny dependent on another player's injury situation.

Jared Allen got $15 million upfront and a $7 million salary. How is it in Cassel's best interests to agree to much less???

 

[lamafist]

Miguel -- a question: if the Patriots franchise Cassel, and Cassel signs the tender, would any team interested in MC have to clear out the ~$14 million in cap '08 cap space in order to trade for him, or could they work out a multi-year deal in advance of signing him, and thus avoid ever having the ~$14 million in '08 salary on the books?

If the former is true, then couldn't Cassel be willing to sign a slightly disadvantageous 2-year deal if it would increase the number of teams that could be interested in him?