Fine points of a Peppers deal...

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by AzPatsFan, Mar 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    If the rumored Peppers to Pats deal is true, there are fines subtle points that should be made.

    The deal pretty clearly can't be a sign-the-tender, trade, and new deal signing. That would require the Pats to have $17 million in cap space, except for the one day exception, that would nullify that restriction.

    There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player.


    Because, if 2010 is an Uncapped year, the Pats would be unable, as a probable playoff team, to sign a FA without losing a player first. That might make the loss of a Seymour, a Wilfork or a Mankins, almost mandatory, as a playoff team would be unable to sign a FA until they had lost as many FAs equal to anyone singed in 2009 or 2010 that qualifies as a FA signing, from another team. They can resign as many of their own FA as they wish, after that restriction is recognized for signing other team's FA players. So far there are ZERO in that category. I expect the Pats will be minimally active in FA ,other than for their own in 2010.

    Instead, the Pats appear to be carefully signing only players who carry no FA signing restriction with them. IOW, they wait until the players, Galloway, Springs, Bodden, Johnson, Baker, Taylor, etc, have been cut or waived, depending on the player's years of service, to be certain that they will incur no penalty in 2010 free agency. In reviewing their actions I think that this is NOT an accident.

    The Pats appear to be clearly deciding and acting as if 2010 will be an Uncapped year.

    They have not re-signed their stars. They appear to be prepared to wait until 2010. Then will offer their primary stars a typical deal in 2010, but the amortizable/depreciable "Signing Bonus" term in their new contracts will be converted to the term "Option Bonus" or "Roster Bonus" and thereby apply all in 2010 accounting-wise. So that the CAP consequences in future years is minimal to non-existent when/if a new CBA is signed.

    They will be unconstrained from using their three tags in 2010 if needed; nor prevented from signing their own FA players; nor constrained by a limited CAP to sign all their good stars. The Pats would not have to chose between them, they could sign them all.

    For the players, they get the same money up front, but it is just called something different. There are just more players participating in their individual good fortunes.

    The Peppers deal should be structured no different. It doesn't change a thing, except paper wise, but it might be worthwhile enough for the Pats, for them to sweeten the pot to Carolina, (extra pick?), for doing it that way.:eek::cool:
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2009
  2. yopats

    yopats Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Good stuff!
  3. spacecrime

    spacecrime Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Coincidence. BB will sign the players he thinks will help the team.

    NEVER try to guess BB's philosophy based on what he did in any one year. Or even over the year's. Or you will end up saying (as I did) that BB doesn't draft interior lineman or linebackers in the first round.
  4. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt Supporter Supporter

    Good well-thought out post! Plus it supports my theory that where there's a will there's a way; if BB wants him they'll figure a way to get him:rocker:
  5. Clonamery

    Clonamery Supporter Supporter

    Huh, I took the message as: BB is typically preparing for every contingency. Huh.
  6. RoughingthePasser

    RoughingthePasser Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Man, you know your stuff!
  7. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 Supporter Supporter

    #3 Jersey

    Sorry to rain on your parade. . . . :(

    The Final Eight plan you're referring to makes no such distinction.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Pats reach the AFCCG, and thus are under the more onerous set of restrictions. It makes no difference how long the player has been with the team; if he leaves via free agency, he can be replaced.

    Moreover, there is no restriction in 2010 on signing UFAs who are waived by their old teams.

    That may well be true, but the main area where this will matter is in comp picks; their signing only cut UFAs this year has no direct impact on their ability to do so next year.

    Two tags: one extra transition-only tag plus the one normal tag.
  8. mayoclinic

    mayoclinic Supporter Supporter

    Terrific analysis. You've raised a lot of good points, including some I hadn't thought of, and you've obviously thought much more about the uncapped year scenario than I have. Nice job.

    But wouldn't the "easiest" scenario be for Peppers to agree to allow Carolina to sign him to a long term deal (according to terms worked out between the Pats and his agent) and then trade him for a previously agreed upon consideration? In that case we would be trading for a player rather than signing a FA (or cut player), so no FA signing issues would arise. Why wouldn't that work just as well, and more easily than allowing Peppers to become a FA (cut or otherwise)?
  9. borg

    borg In the Starting Line-Up

    Can you clarify this point for me.

    "There is another fine point however. The Pats would MUCH RATHER have the deal consist of a draft(s) picks, for "future considerations" and Carolina withdrawing the tender. And to INCLUDE a direct cut of Peppers. Where upon the Pats announce a signed offer sheet is in existence for Peppers as a waived/cut player."

    In this scenario, Carolina cuts Peppers yet receives future considerations from NE in the form of draft picks. Not sure how the league would treat such a bypass since no trade actually took place.
  10. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks Supporter Supporter

    Shssssh...AZ is wingin' it as is his way lately...

    He can't clarify this because it's a pipedream scenario fashioned around a lot of his own misunderstandings.

    The sad thing is while others will come along and correct those, no one will notice.
  11. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    That would work also, PROVIDED that the new contract that Carolina signed with its present player Peppers was not constrained by the 30% Rule for Uncapped years.

    Any deal the Pats would create would be with a brand new player to them, and I am led to believe that such are not constrained by the 30% Rule. Otherwise the Haynesworth contract could never have been approved by the NFL Office.

    I frankly don't think the Pats could structure any deal to Peppers that would not envision lots of money into a 2010 option bonus that WOULD NOT ordinarily violate the 30% Rule.
  12. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! Supporter

    For anyone that is is a Q and A that the NFL released about the changes that would take affect in an uncapped 2010.

    Q and A about the NFL's upcoming uncappedseason - Cincy Jungle

    One of the interesting things is that a player's income can only increase 30% from 2009 but what I didn't see or notice is if that includes any bonus received in 2010 or if it is straight salary.
  13. solman

    solman Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Any compensation that is treated as a signing bonus is explicitly exempt from this limitation. Option bonuses are exempt. Roster and incentive bonuses are not.
  14. Shockt327

    Shockt327 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me either.

    What I also don't get is, what "restriction" would the Pats face in 2010 by signing Unrestricted Free Agents in 2009? The only downside would be how it factors into the Compensation-Pick equation for 2010.
  15. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks Supporter Supporter

    Please stop this. You're doing nothing but confusing people with hairbrained musings that have no basis in fact. A teams 2009 FA signings have no impact on their ability to do 2010 FA signings, and ALL 2009 contracts are covered by the CBA whether the player is new or not...

    The Hainesworth contract was approved by the NFL therefore it doesn't violate the 30% rule...although some of the descriptions of it likely do. Unless you read the entire contract, and few mediots see them in their entirety, they are just reporting on what has been spun to them by a FO or an Agent.

    And teams can't compensate another team for cutting a player who is then free to sign with anyone...and would be insane not to then take a long look at his options.
  16. mayoclinic

    mayoclinic Supporter Supporter

    I'm sure if this somehow happened if would generate intense scrutiny and would likely be voided.

    Again, as I mentioned above, wouldn't it be much simpler for the Pats to simply negotiate an acceptable contract with Peppers' agent, get Carolina (either directly if Peppers is allowed to authorize teams to talk to Carolina, or indirectly through his agent) to agree on compensation, and then have Carolina sign him and trade him to the Pats? Why go through all this complicated rigamarole of cutting him and trading a pick for "future considerations" of which there are none?
  17. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    There is a controversy as to whether there are one Franchise and either one or two Transition tags or a total of three. The only thing certain is that there is only one Franchise tag.
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2009
  18. bucky

    bucky 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    I'm with you on this.
  19. robertweathers

    robertweathers Pro Bowl Player

    This is exactly what needs to be done. See Jared Allen Chiefs to Vikes
  20. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru Supporter

    #75 Jersey

    Al Johnson was an UFA.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page