Info on Seymour's option bonus

[Miguel]

Miguel, Have you posted an estimate anywhere of how much the Pats could easily pull cap money forward on existing contracts, as opposed to: 1. True new contracts? 2. The mid-season unrealistic LTBE incentives trick?

Ni, I have not. I never thought that the Pats would be in this position.

 

[Miguel]

is the LTBE trick alive and well in the new CBA

It is still alive since agents are now prohibited from agreeing to it.

 

[Miguel]

It is still alive since agents are now prohibited from agreeing to it.

More information - Agents are now prohibited from agreeing to insert any incentive clause in a player's contract which is primarily inteded to help the club meet its ninety(90) requirement and is not of any significant value to the player. If a player informs his agent that he wished to agree to such a clause, the agent must show the NFLPA that he counseled the player that agreeing to the clause could significantly undermine the minimum cap protections for players under the new extension agreement. Please also note that rookies are prohibited from redoing their deals for 2 years. I now expect the NFLPA to fight the insertion of these phony LTBE incentives. As far as I can tell, the Pats have not yet spend $85.68 million (84% of $102 million) in cash this year so I would expect the NFLPA to advise Patriot players not to agree to the insertion.

Footnote:
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/CBA/2006_CBA_Extension_Term_Sheet.pdf

 

[mgteich]

Then the strategy can be in two parts.

1) Spend additional monies to be over the $85.86M mark, and then
2) Use the LTBE trick as we have done in the past

Also, what if a player was compensated $500K for allowing the FO to put the clause in their contract. I would think that this would be fine with the NFLPA.

More information - Agents are now prohibited from agreeing to insert any incentive clause in a player's contract which is primarily inteded to help the club meet its ninety(90) requirement and is not of any significant value to the player. If a player informs his agent that he wished to agree to such a clause, the agent must show the NFLPA that he counseled the player that agreeing to the clause could significantly undermine the minimum cap protections for players under the new extension agreement. Please also note that rookies are prohibited from redoing their deals for 2 years. I now expect the NFLPA to fight the insertion of these phony LTBE incentives. As far as I can tell, the Pats have not yet spend $85.68 million (84% of $102 million) in cash this year so I would expect the NFLPA to advise Patriot players not to agree to the insertion.

Footnote:
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/CBA/2006_CBA_Extension_Term_Sheet.pdf

 

[kolbitr]

Did he say "spent" or "used"??

There is a big difference.

It doesn't take much effort to find the quote from Jonathan Kraft which was in Reiss's blog dated Sept. 15, 2006.

'“It’s not a conscious intention to be under the cap,†Kraft said. “First of all, the season is not over. Clearly, monies were being held for [Deion Branch’s situation]. It’s publicly known we were looking at the Ty Law situation at the time. Those two situations would have taken up a fair amount of the money. And there are some other things we’ll be able to do potentially between now and the end of the year.â€'

Neither word was used.

 

[RayClay]

Did he say "spent" or "used"??

There is a big difference.

They're synonyms in my dictionary.

I don't want to get in an argument with you because I don't understand the possibilities for "use" of this money.

If you'd like to share your knowledge, that's fine. If not that's fine too.

 

[shakadave]

I see your point, but at the same time a dollar is a dollar regardless of whose name is attached. So if they front-loaded contracts for the likes of Koppen and Samuel or even Gabriel instead, it's still roughly the same savings three years down the line. And it's far better for the team because you've actually added new long-term players rather than just shuffling money around. (Not to mention spreading around the benefits in the clubhouse--don't you think there would be some grumbling if the way the Pats spent their cap excess was just to give it all to Brady?)

On a side note, I suspect that Brady's slice of the pie won't look so unreasonable in three years, given the level the cap should reach by then.

Brilliant post! Our locker room needs a good rub of money for morale.

 

[RayClay]

I don't pretend to understand the salary cap, but I appreciate good management and the Patriots have it. Results are proof.

Apparently many teams are way under the cap. Over half the teams 8 million or more? Depends what you read. No matter what, I don't think the Patriots are unique.

Spend for spending sake? I think The trio of Caldwell, Gabriel and Jackson will more than compensate for the loss of our 2 receivers.

So what's the real issue? The players already have agents and a union. Let them protect their interests. I root for the New England Patriots.

The Krafts have built the Stadium and provide the team with the best facilities and support possible IMO. I believe they've proved to be more competent than any management/owner combination in football.

I would tend to believe they know what they are doingand that their goal is to put the best team on the field year after year and that's all I ask.

 

[Miguel]

They're synonyms in my dictionary.

I don't want to get in an argument with you because I don't understand the possibilities for "use" of this money.

If you'd like to share your knowledge, that's fine. If not that's fine too.

If the Pats employ the phony LTBE move, they could use up all of their cap but not have spent up to their cap.

 

[p8ryts]

RayClay, I'm with you, well said.

 

[RayClay]

If the Pats employ the phony LTBE move, they could use up all of their cap but not have spent up to their cap.

I'm aware of this maneuver and think it's ridiculous also. Nevertheless, if it is legal we're crazy not to use it.

It does allow us to "forward" the money, I believe and with all the high draft picks we've incoporated lately, we're going to need it IMO.

We could also sign a number of players, no?

I read we have 17 F.A.s though some are restricted and some, frankly, aren't worth re-signing.