patchick said:
I'd throw in another variable...Givens is the Pats' #2 receiver, and their #1 receiver is in the last year of his contract. Knowing that the Givens deal sets the floor for Deion's shapes the positional value landscape. Even if the team thought shelling for Givens was worthwhile in and of itself, signing two young free agent WRs to their key, peak-of-the-career big-money contracts may not be feasible.
Yes, and there is one more.
I think it is very safe to say that over the past 5 years the Patriots have had the best players cumulatively in the NFL.
If you are playing every player exactly what he is worth, the team with the best players must pay more than the team with the worst.
When players then become free agents, the money available under the cap says that the worst team can afford more players at their value than the best team can. So the best team loses players because it must make decisions about which ones are most important because your players are too good to afford all of them.
When you add in the rookie contract factor, you see that the best teams have bargains in thier young players. When those players reach free agency the sum total of their market value exceeds the cap. It has to because your players have more value than anyone elses.
This brings up an interesting point:
The success of the Patriots in managing the cap is not based primarily on good FA decisions, frugal contracts, or players taking less than value. It is based upon DRAFTING, and having a strong group of players making contributions far and above their cost (outplaying their rookie contract) thereby freeing up more money for other players.
Example:
Lets assume a team has 33 key players and 20 jags
From the last 4 drafts, every team has 20 players left in their rookie contract.
Those players count an average of 800k vs the cap
Jags cost and average of 1mill
You have 90 mill on yur cap
Team X has 15 key players in the 'rookie contract' status, and 5 that are jags
Team Y has 5 keys and 15 jags.
Each team has spent 16mill on the rookie contract guys.
Team X needs 15 additional jags costing 15mill, They have now tied up 31 mill and have 59mill left to spend on the remaining 18 key players. (that is 3.28 mill per player)
Team Y needs 5 more jags at a cost of 5mill. They now have 69mill to spend on the other key players, but need 28 of them. The money available to spend for those other key players is only 2.46mill per player.
Which team will have a better group of key players? Team X is able to spend 33% more on its key players that are not in their rookie contracts.
(Team X may also choose to spend just the 2.46, but but upgrade their jags to key player levels)
This is how the Pats have done what they have done. They have gotten more from the 'cheap' players within their rookie contracts, by a long margin than any team has. (I think they fall in between better key players and better jags when spending the difference)
In the end you have a team (X) that has the ability to afford better players because their young players fill larger roles.
The rub? Look at that scenario and make all 20 player in their rookie contracts Free Agents. Team X doesnt have the cap room to keep them because a key player makes 4 times as much as a guy in his rookie contract, and you have 15 of them. If they leave, you have many holes, and not much money to fill them with. Team Y wouldn't be too concerned, because they are losing mostly jags. They should have much less problem retaining most of their key players.
David Givens has helped us win Championships in more ways than 1. His play has helped, but his play compared to his cap # (ie outplaying his contract) has reduced the big contract key players we need by 1, and freed up more money to upgrade the rest of the other 52.
At this point he would become one of high paid guys, that we do not need as many of, but do have top $$ to spend on, but already have a lot of.
Ironically, Givens, at least from this perspective, helped us win a lot more from 2002-2005 than he possibly could going forward, factoring in what paying him would cost us in what is available to other players.
