If there is a new agreement

[mgteich]

EFFECT ON THE PATRIOTS
1. Players at minimum (vet and regular) will get more money.
2. Money will be available for extensions so that at least a couple these players can make more now (Seymour, Koppen, Branch, Graham and Samuel).
3. Free agency will have a one-year cost bubble. The
patriots will be very likely to sign any top free agents, or any at much above the new minimum.
4. Other teams will waste cap money.
5. Extensions are easier because contract length can be as much as seven years, instead of four (three year extension). This certainly affects Brady's contract and perhaps a couple of others.
6. The patriots will be relatively worse off in 2006 and benefit thereafter. After all, some of those who overpay will be adding major contributers.

 

[JR4]

EFFECT ON THE PATRIOTS
.......
6. The patriots will be relatively worse off in 2006 and benefit thereafter. After all, some of those who overpay will be adding major contributers.

Worse off than than without a CBA? Is that what you mean?
Why? Please explain your reasoning here.

 

[Ring 6]

Im not sure. The 7 year amortization could give us a lot of beneift this year. Tohse extensions can free up cap money. We can rework Bradys bonus to gain a bunch, and the cost of singing FAs will be cheaper.
If the cap number is set at what they are saying we would have something like 10-12mill (??) under the cap, then gain more on a McGinest restr, plus these issues.
Im not convinced the new CBA wont put BB into a position to pretty much sign whoever he would like to. But Im not comfortable with all of the facts either.

 

[mgteich]

The patriots will be better off with a contract signed. The seven year provision will provide longer estensions, increasing the cap TO ALL teams by more than the $10-15M.

Free agency will have almost the same number of free agents without a new CBA. If anything restuctures will pull some players out.

First, from a macro level, there will be say $10M a more a team available for free agency TO PAY THE SAME FREE AGENTS!!!!! Not I said $10M, not the actual increase in cap effect which will be larger beacause of using monies for other than free agency, and the additional bonus of the extra years. This is a on-time (perhaps two-time) shot. After this year (or perhaps next), the monies will be spread among the entire rosters, much in same percentages as various teams do now. If there is say 20% more in total avialble, then next year or the year after, there will approximately 30% more available to free agents.

I would NOT (and bb will not) overpay just because there is an artificial bubble in the amounts available for free agency. SOME other teams will overpay. As we all know, it only takes one team to take away each of our free agents.

In addition, there will be teams that were tight to the cap, and will now have $10M to overpay for that one or two key players. It WILL be tempting to overpay. May one of them needs a wide receiver or a kicker.

I understand that it is aj's philosophy that the team will keep anyone that they really want to keep. Personally, I think such a position is sophistry. We really wanted to keep Patten and Andruzzi. If we didn't want to, we should have. If the $3M we had left over for the season had been given to them, the team would have been better off.

I am not questioning past decisions. I just think that, in 2006, the patriots have a better chance to reach to the SB without an agreement than with.

just my opinion

Worse off than than without a CBA? Is that what you mean?
Why? Please explain your reasoning here.

 

[JR4]

The patriots will be better off with a contract signed.
.......
...........
I just think that, in 2006, the patriots have a better chance to reach to the SB without an agreement than with.

just my opinion

I am confused? These two statements seem to be contradictory.
What am I missing?

 

[Pats726]

The patriots will be better off with a contract signed. .......... I just think that, in 2006, the patriots have a better chance to reach to the SB without an agreement than with.

just my opinion

I am confused...better off with a CBA but better chance to reach the SB without CBA??? I really don't understand at all...but that is OK. From what I have heard the last days, many think whether they reach an agreement or not, the Pats are in a great position. And I tend to agree...One thing that was talked about yesterday on EEIt...TC and others that if there was no CBA, many teams would be hampered in signing free agents...thus by June, there might be many good FAs on the table. The thought was that FAs even like a Ty Law would sign a 1 year deal, knowing that in the uncapped year, they could possibly make good money. So why not come to a team like NE,play for a year and then go for the money. It makes sense. I am not sure with a CBA the Patriots will be all that worse off though. Teams will have more money to overpay players and the Pats can sign those that one, care more about a ring than money and two, some of the lesser known players that do the job and don't have the rep. I think also they'll be able to get extensions done easier..Seymour, Branch, Koppen etc.

 

[mgteich]

We are better off long-term because we will not waste the money, but we are worse off short-term since some teams will better themseleves this year by overpaying.

I am confused? These two statements seem to be contradictory.
What am I missing?

 

[Pats726]

We are better off long-term because we will not waste the money, but we are worse off short-term since some teams will better themseleves this year by overpaying.

With the CBA that is right??
That makes sense...I think..I guess I don't see tehm in a bad position either way.

 

[hwc]

1. Players at minimum (vet and regular) will get more money.

I had assumed so. But, now I'm not convinced that Upshaw isn't selling the rank n' file down the river. Compared to the overall increase in the cap over the last seven years, the vet minimums have barely budged. Basically, the cap increases have mostly gone to the top tier players.

Has anybody heard one peep out of Upshaw about vet minimums? Or any indication at all that he is concerned about anyone but the big-dog agents and the marquee players they represent?

 

[Pats726]

I had assumed so. But, now I'm not convinced that Upshaw isn't selling the rank n' file down the river. Compared to the overall increase in the cap over the last seven years, the vet minimums have barely budged. Basically, the cap increases have mostly gone to the top tier players.

Has anybody heard one peep out of Upshaw about vet minimums? Or any indication at all that he is concerned about anyone but the big-dog agents and the marquee players they represent?

Bingo!!...I haven't...that is more of a concern..

 

[Ring 6]

Why do you consider it an ARTIFICIAL BUMP?


Let me rephrase something....BB can sign whoever he wants WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CAP PHILOSOPHY.

What I mean is that rather than being limited in who he can sign by lack of cap room, he can end up with enough to sign whoever he feels fits at a reasonable price.
Every year there are more players he would like to have (you mention Andruzzi and Patten) but cant because of the cap. The cost of that player means a lot more when you are out of room than when you have it.

Example: If BB had 50mill of cap room, he would overpay for players. Overpay being compared to what he thinks fair value is up until now. In other words, if with 10mil of cap room player x is worth 4mill because you have other needs also, and the market for him is 5mill, assuming he is an important target BB would outbid everyone with 50 mill of cap space in the bank.

I agree COMPETITIVELY there isnt a difference, but regardless of anyone elses cap position having 10-15mill of cap space instead of 2-3 results in signing more players.