Helping the team

[mgteich]

If you could sign a player for a $6M hit a year for 5 years for a 5 year contract, with expectation that this player would me a major contributor to our SB chances, would you? Please explain you decision.

Personally, I jsut don't understand the position of many of you. I would sign such a deal in heartbeat, espceially given the rising cap space available in the future. If we are to tust the FO, we must believe that no such player was available or that such a contract would so disrupt our salary structure that we couldn't sign such a deal.

 

[RAWKY]

If you could sign a player for a $6M hit a year for 5 years for a 5 year contract, with expectation that this player would me a major contributor to our SB chances, would you? Please explain you decision.

Personally, I jsut don't understand the position of many of you. I would sign such a deal in heartbeat, espceially given the rising cap space available in the future. If we are to tust the FO, we must believe that no such player was available or that such a contract would so disrupt our salary structure that we couldn't sign such a deal.

There are two issues you and many others fail to address in this question. First the Pat's offered to pay Branch the amount of money you have asked for in your question. So 30 mill or 6 mill a year over 5 yrs was never the problem with these negociations.

The problem was how and when the money was to be paid...Branch wanted his orginal contract torn up and replaced.

Seattle had no porblem with that because it was not their deal and they would not have to deal with players in the future based on giving in to Dieon.

Pat's could not tear up his contract, and did not do so with even Seymore or Brady....yes they gave them a bump prior to the new contract kicking in but the orginal deals had to be fulfilled as a matter of course. Branch was offered a bump this year as well but it was not enough.

So your question makes no sense in context to the actual situation or the actual circumstances.

It is rarely ever this simple in real life and when MILLIONS are involved it never as simple as you protray it to be in your question.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

It depends. Is the guy a very good (but not great) player at a non-premium position? In that case a 1st round pick will do.

I'd rather re-sign two of our upcoming free agents (Koppen, Graham, Banta-Cain, Samuel) for the same price next year (any two in that group is more valuable than Branch alone). Oh, and I'd use the $6M saved this year for future cap relief. It sure would be nice to have an extra $2M in cap space each of the next three years, as an example.

 

[lobster]

Personally, I jsut don't understand the position of many of you.

I have no idea what you are talking about?

 

[brady2brown]

If you could sign a player for a $6M hit a year for 5 years for a 5 year contract, with expectation that this player would me a major contributor to our SB chances, would you? Please explain you decision.

Of course. I think we should sign 25 players (11 offensive starters, 11 defensive starters, 3 ST) each to $6 Mil 5 year contracts.

Explanation: WR is not the only position that would be a major contributor to SB chances. If it is a good idea, and it is, then we should do it. In fact, assuming that there will be injuries, we should sign key backups to $6 MIL a year, 5 yr contracts also. I think about 10 key backups ought to do it. The rest of the roster can be development players.

The only exceptions I would make are for guys like Brady and Seymour, who make more than that.

 

[RayClay]

Of course. I think we should sign 25 players (11 offensive starters, 11 defensive starters, 3 ST) each to $6 Mil 5 year contracts.

Explanation: WR is not the only position that would be a major contributor to SB chances. If it is a good idea, and it is, then we should do it. In fact, assuming that there will be injuries, we should sign key backups to $6 MIL a year, 5 yr contracts also. I think about 10 key backups ought to do it. The rest of the roster can be development players.

The only exceptions I would make are for guys like Brady and Seymour, who make more than that.

I'm not very good at this stuff, but seems you're 48 mil over (102 mil) with 28 more players to sign plus the practice squad and a reserve in case of injuries.

Maybe this isn't quite as easy as it looks.

Wait a minute, 10 backups too?

The good news is only 18 more players to sign plus PS.

Bad news, you're 108 million over the 102 million cap.

I don't think you can do that Mr. Snyder.

P.S. forgot the difference between 6 mil and what we pay Sey and Brady.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Personally....I think Branch feared Jackson would cost him money if he waited the year.

However...if he had a great year...very possible with the receivers we have now(assuming no Gabriel), maybe he could have received 6.5 or 7 million a year. I think he would have gotten $7 mil a year for 5 years because as an FA his value goes up.

So for the next 6 years he gets his 30 million + ? for the 6th year.

If he waited he would have received $1 mil + $35mil for a total of $36 million over 6 years.

Money today is worth more than $$$ tomorrow...but still .... he needs to Earn at least $3 mil to $4 mil in the 6th year to equal what he could have received here...with no Brady throwing to him...I say he never collects the full $30 million there anyways. So, in my mind he's losing @$10 million to say he held his head up high.

 

[pats1]

If the Pats believed the player is worth the money, then sure.

Period.

 

[rabthepat]

If you could sign a player for a $6M hit a year for 5 years for a 5 year contract, with expectation that this player would me a major contributor to our SB chances, would you? Please explain you decision.

Personally, I jsut don't understand the position of many of you. I would sign such a deal in heartbeat, espceially given the rising cap space available in the future. If we are to tust the FO, we must believe that no such player was available or that such a contract would so disrupt our salary structure that we couldn't sign such a deal.

Not for Deion. Seattle way over paid. He does not statitically warrant that kind of pay. We won a SB without him and we'll do it again.

 

[mgteich]

I did not even mention Branch. There are other receivers, linebackers and corners in the league that could possibly, or might have possibly made a considerable difference. Ignoring the draft choice, as I indicated last week, and Kraft indicated today, one of those players were indeed Branch and another was Law.

I have no problem with the result with regard to Branch. I would not pay a first plus $6M a year for three years for him, or the deal he got.

I would have tried very hard to sign Law. I think we did.

Not for Deion. Seattle way over paid. He does not statitically warrant that kind of pay. We won a SB without him and we'll do it again.

 

[mgteich]

I agree..........

If the Pats believed the player is worth the money, then sure.

Period.