Interesting: warfield, hawkins, caldwell all signed for 2 yrs

[patsfan55]

this is kinda interesting
why not more?
obviously its a lot less of a risk when you sign a guy for less, cuz it will involve a smaller bonus, which would induce a smaller cap hit if you cut him, but its kinda interesting that all these guys were signed to 2 yrs
is there another underlying reason?

 

[Pats726]

this is kinda interesting
why not more?
obviously its a lot less of a risk when you sign a guy for less, cuz it will involve a smaller bonus, which would induce a smaller cap hit if you cut him, but its kinda interesting that all these guys were signed to 2 yrs
is there another underlying reason?

Not sure..someone more familiar with cap numbers might speculate...

 

[flutie2phelan]

Interesting observation.

I tend to think that the default case on reclamation players is one year.
Therefore, TWO years is something of a vote of confidence.
"We think you've got something. Show it to us ... and we'll be glad
to hold an option on you for another year, cheap."

 

[Pats726]

Interesting observation.

I tend to think that the default case on reclamation players is one year.
Therefore, TWO years is something of a vote of confidence.
"We think you've got something. Show it to us ... and we'll be glad
to hold an option on you for another year, cheap."

But also, that we don't have THAT much confidence for a 3rd year. It makes sense...not bad at all.

 

[patsfan55]

But also, that we don't have THAT much confidence for a 3rd year. It makes sense...not bad at all.

right
i guess im a lil surprised they didnt give a third yr to caldwell

the thing is if one (or two or three) of them do really well during that contract, then you're left with a decision whether or not to give him big money now
its almost like no matter what all these guys will be here for the max of two yrs

cuz if they outperform that contract, they'll prob look for bigger money elsewhere

if they dont do well, theyre gone

if they do so-so, then maybe they stay, but prob not, cuz you'll just bring in some rooks, or other guys like them to see if they'll outperform a small contract

 

[patsfan55]

right
i guess im a lil surprised they didnt give a third yr to caldwell

the thing is if one (or two or three) of them do really well during that contract, then you're left with a decision whether or not to give him big money now
its almost like no matter what all these guys will be here for the max of two yrs

cuz if they outperform that contract, they'll prob look for bigger money elsewhere

if they dont do well, theyre gone

if they do so-so, then maybe they stay, but prob not, cuz you'll just bring in some rooks, or other guys like them to see if they'll outperform a small contract

in other words its like a two year lease
and you know you're prob not gonna buy out the car at the end

you'll just get another lease

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

I think it's just as much a player decision as it is a team decision. None of the three players signed for big money so why agree to a 4,5 or 6 year contract when it's not paying you that much? This gives the player a little security, the team a little security, and it also gives the player another shot at a good contract if he does well.

 

[patsfan55]

I think it's just as much a player decision as it is a team decision. None of the three players signed for big money so why agree to a 4,5 or 6 year contract when it's not paying you that much? This gives the player a little security, the team a little security, and it also gives the player another shot at a good contract if he does well.

ya i know that
but if they up the ante a lil more they can get them in for three yrs, so i was just trying to figure out why they didnt do that for any of them
but i kinda answered my own question with my "lease" answer

 

[patsfan55]

Exactly.

And, for the record, while it seemed for a while that we wernt going to do anything... now we have made some very significant signings, not big names, not big marquee type names, but just what this team needed to fill in a few holes....now a couple more here and there, a good draft and Miami in February has nice ring to it.

emphasis on good draft

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

From the Pats angle it gives them protection incase the player bombs but the Pats also know that guys with short contracts are usually highly motivated because they need to perform well to be sure they will get another good contract. Now that's real incentive...

 

[Miguel]

It could be that the Pats wanted to use cap space. By giving these players a two year deals, the players then became ineligible for vet min consideration.

 

[ilduce06410]

another possibility

ya i know that
but if they up the ante a lil more they can get them in for three yrs, so i was just trying to figure out why they didnt do that for any of them
but i kinda answered my own question with my "lease" answer

could very well be that BB is planning to do something else after 2 years.

 

[GoWhalers]

Although I'm sure there's some significant capology behind the 2-year contract, another possibility might be that they want the negotiating security of an extra year under contract in case a player blossoms in the Patriots' system.

An example would be Andre Davis -- he didn't exactly play lights out for us -- but he was on a 1 year contract last year. BB and company brought him in for a draft pick, so they obviously thought he might fit in our system, but he was immediately exposed to free agency upon the end of the season, and signed with the Bills.

I think that the Pats would've preferred to have him under contract for an extra year, in order to have more time to negotiate a longer-term contract, or determine a replacement option. From the player's perspective, it's a bad thing -- if they step up and perform well in their first year, of course they would want to be free to test free agency and cash in on it.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I don't think 2 year deals are all that surprising - we all know that none of these guys are top tier free agents - though there is potential.

BB has no problem spending money for guys with the right track record - but these guys don't fit that criteria

These guys are probably a band aid until the top tier free agents ARE available.

At that point all the teams that spent wildly right now will be in the throes of a fiscal hangover, and BB will waltz in and clean up, restocking his team for another 5 year dynastic run

 

[spacecrime]

An example would be Andre Davis -- he didn't exactly play lights out for us -- but he was on a 1 year contract last year. BB and company brought him in for a draft pick, so they obviously thought he might fit in our system, but he was immediately exposed to free agency upon the end of the season, and signed with the Bills.

Actually, we cut him at the beginning of the season. No one signed him, and we later resigned him. THEN after the season and we didn't sign him for another year, then the Bills (or whoever) signed him.

 

[Miguel]

At that point all the teams that spent wildly right now will be in the throes of a fiscal hangover, and BB will waltz in and clean up, restocking his team for another 5 year dynastic run

Which koolaid do you favor, grape or cherry??

 

[DarrylS]

Have heard Curran speak of the concept of "bridge players", maybe this is their role to teach some of our youngun's how to play the position...