League Low In Cash Payroll

[Joker]

do you ever actually ATTEND a game?...you know, get in the stands with the rest of the Patriots fans and scream for the Pats?..or is everything about finding these negative little warts and blowing them up into elephantiasis?...jeezus krist, give it a friggin' break.

 

[Oswlek]

I am not "jaded toward our roster building this year". I have supported almost every decision the team made in the off-season up until we traded Mankins. Belichick made many great decisions at many positions.

What I disagreed with is the combination of the Mankins trade and the moving so much of the cap money saved into 2015.

The trade of Mankins is been proven to be yet another prescient move by Bill. The only quasi-compelling argument against it at this point is, "it looks like a total win right now, but I want to see what happens in the playoffs!"

Even beyond that, though, the cap space from trading Mankins didn't appear on the books until a few days before week 1. What other choice did they have but to push it towards 2015? Any extension you might have wanted them to do is still on the table.

The more you write about this the less it makes sense to me. You can't say moving on from Mankins was a bad move and that they should have done more with the cap space it created. If you feel they could have spent more, then you have to take the position that they should have moved Mankins early enough to act in this past off season.

 

[chasa]

I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at spreadsheets, so I'm not entirely sure what the complaint of this thread actually is.

The patriots in the off season brought in arguably the best corner back in the league, part of the superbowl winners Best tandem, a WR that is playing incredibly well, extended one of the staples of the Dline, and more recently traded for extra depth on the defensive side of the ball.

Basically I'm seeing a lot of complaints about what the patriots did, and not a whole lot of suggestions on what they should have done.

So to the OP I guess I'll direct the same question i have directed at other forum posters, and hopefully you have a better answer then "strawman argument"

What would you have done this past offseason as patriots GM that would make the forum thread you created no longer exist? You have complete controll over the team and its finances. What do you do?

 

[Oswlek]

The patriots in the off season brought in arguably the best corner back in the league, part of the superbowl winners Best tandem, a WR that is playing incredibly well, extended one of the staples of the Dline, and more recently traded for extra depth on the defensive side of the ball.

As well as re-signing their top WR and starting RG.

 

[Ring 6]

1) Miguel's blog is below. You can show me where Miguel recommends a $9.5M cap after the beginning of season.

Umm, in the title.

2) I am NOT the one who is saying the injury reserve should be less. The $2M suggested by Miguel (as he has for years) is fine with me, as long as there is also a cushion for NLTBE bonuses which cushion can be used if there are more injuries or opportunities (like Branch). The rental of Ayers and Casillas cost about $1.1M total, normal for in-season pickups.

I'm pretty sure that Miguel will tell you that is an estimate that he made and doesn't really reflect his suggestion of Belichick should manage his cap.

Miguel made a suggestion in July. Most of us agreed with it. In September, Belichick chose to maintain an additional $3.5M. Miguel explained what purposes Belichick might use the cap money.

How can 'most of us agreed with it' mean anything, ever, much less when it wasn't based upon facts.
When 'we' all agreed on a number did 'we' all study the actual NLTBEs?

I don't understand your need to maintain that Miguel always suggested $9.5M or that somehow $9.5 was somehow essential.

Good because I do not need to and actually didn't maintain that.

3) I don't understand your idea that if we had spent an additional $2M on a backup, it would mean that Vellano, Moore and White wold get more reps. For example, if the money had been spent on a DT, perhaps Branch would not be needed. And yes, if a backup DE were signed, then perhaps Moore wouldn't have gotten the reps that he got when Jones was injured.

Who says it would have been spent there?

4) Most folks on this board were disappointed when Belichick chose to have a roster with 6 safeties instead of signing an additional backup in the front seven.

again, who are 'most folks' and why is that relevant to anything?

I haven't a clue why it is now such a huge controversy for me to suggest that we might have used $2M of the $9.5 for such a backup. Ayers and Casillas were fine pickups. Perhaps they will be part of the the team going forward, perhaps not.

You tell me. You create the controversy.

5) The bottom line is that the strategy that almost all of thought was reasonable in July and August is unacceptable today. I applaud the ability to find 3 subs who seem to fit in: Walker, Ayers, and Casillas.
Presuming that 3 continue to work out, I guess we can say in 100% hindsight that subs weren't needed.

Bottom line?
Please give me a list of all of the people or show me all of the posts that were aware that we will get hit with 7mill or more in NLTBEs and said that they want us to spend that this year and take a hit next year to mortgage the future.

Here is an analogy to what you are saying:

Last April I built a new house that was 1000 square feet larger than my old house, but when I set my budget for heating, I kept it the same. I knew that it would be more, but that wouldn't show up until later. My utility company know that my last house was smaller, so they agreed with what I decided to budget.
Now that my bills are 40% higher, you would like me to call them and say we all agreed what it was going to be, so they should let me wait until next year to pay the real bill. After all, thats what we thought in april.

MIGUEL's BLOG FROM JULY 10
The cushion suggested was $6M, not the $9.5M that you now seem to think that we all favored. I certainly agree that once Belichick decided on the final cuts and the $9.5M, it was very reasonable to try to understand why Belichick would keep such a number. Miguel provided the many alternative uses for the additional cap money.

"Over the past couple of years the Patriots have used about 2 million dollars for in-season replacements.

I consider the Patriots to have at maximum 5.3 million in easily reached NLTBE incentives. Do not know if the Patriots leave themselves a cushion for those. Wanted to mention them since any reached NLTBE incentives in 2014 will likely lower the Patriots 2015 adjusted cap number. I am trying to guess at how the Patriots will handle having $5.3 million in NTLBE incentives. If they do not leave a cushion for them, the Patriots could end up with an adjusted cap number that is lower than the actual cap number. This is the first time I have seen the Patriots with so much easily attainable NLTBE incentives. Do the Patriots leave a 100% cushion? 0% cushion? Decided to split the difference. I am presuming that the Patriots do leave themselves a 100% cushion or $2,706,250 for the 46-man active roster bonuses and maybe have a 50% cushion ($1.3 million) for the other NLTBE incentives. That is, I guesstimate that the Patriots would like to leave themselves a 4 million cushion at the start of the regular season just to cover reached NLTBE incentives. Why a 100% cushion for the 46-man roster bonuses because as a player reaches that particular NTLBE incentive the amount of their incentive hits the cap the next week."

Read the bolded. Miguel is trying to guess at what the team will do, not suggesting a prefered approach.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with all that you say.

Let me try to clarify the apparent contradiction.

It seems that Belichick was committed to either moving on from Mankins or to having Mankins have a much lower cap hit. We fans didn't know that, but Bill did.

In that context, Belichick knew throughout July and August that he had $1M-$3M available to use on depth. There would be a need for cap money when the season started, but part of that could come from the reduction in cost for Mankins. So, I agree that there few other choices in the week before the season started (perhaps none). The choices were made much longer ago than that.

So, for me, Mankins didn't have to be moved early for Belichick to know that we was going to be moved. The $1M-$3M was always available as long as Belichick had already made the decision on Mankins.
==============
A POSSIBILITY
Folks could convince us that Mankins might have been kept at his high contract, and that it was the fine play of the OL in camp and the preseason that convinced him that Mankins should go.

The trade of Mankins is been proven to be yet another prescient move by Bill. The only quasi-compelling argument against it at this point is, "it looks like a total win right now, but I want to see what happens in the playoffs!"

Even beyond that, though, the cap space from trading Mankins didn't appear on the books until a few days before week 1. What other choice did they have but to push it towards 2015? Any extension you might have wanted them to do is still on the table.

The more you write about this the less it makes sense to me. You can't say moving on from Mankins was a bad move and that they should have done more with the cap space it created. If you feel they could have spent more, then you have to take the position that they should have moved Mankins early enough to act in this past off season.

 

[Ring 6]

fair enough

I am not "jaded toward our roster building this year". I have supported almost every decision the team made in the off-season up until we traded Mankins. Belichick made many great decisions at many positions.

What I disagreed with is the combination of the Mankins trade and the moving so much of the cap money saved into 2015. Belichick has often gotten rid of a player a year early, so that is not my issue. I can understand that Belichick didn't think Mankins was worth his salary, and that Belichick received more than adequate compensation for TB. It don't follow that almost all of the cap savings should have pushed into 2015.

IMHO, we needed depth help at DE and LB (and some would say RB). We all thought that this couldn't happen because we were close to the cap, needing a $2M injury fund plus a cushion for NLTBE bonuses.

We all supported the idea of the cushion. We've had one since the SB years. It was the high size of the cushion that is interesting to me. Others wanted to spend $5-$7M on a difference maker in the defensive front seven or at WR. I never supported that. I understood, after our reminders from Miguel, that we needed the cushion.
=======
The DIFFERENCE in opinion now is that before the Mankins trade, we needed a cushion of $4M. After the trade (including the acquisition of a TE), somehow the need for a cushion went up to $7.5M (plus the $2M injury reserve).

I understood (with pain) bringing in JAG after JAG that were found wanting because we couldn't afford the $1M-$3.5M that better additional depth might cost. What we (and the OL coach) found out at the end was that the cap squeeze didn't exist. The $1M-$3.5M was available. Belichick had decided to increase the NTLBE cushion to $7.5M.
============
I don't know why it so controversial to suggest that a million or two might have been used for a LB, DE or DT backup or two, when that position was the position of the vast majority throughout the off-season. Perhaps folks think that we had an absolute need for six safeties.
=============
Maybe it won't matter. Maybe we'll win the SB anyway (someone mentioned 2001). Perhaps, Walker, Ayers, Casillas and Branch will all be serious contributors and difference makers until Siliga and Jones come back at 100% for the playoffs.

Wait. You are saying everything is fine, except you expected them to find stud players on the market to spend the Mankins savings on after every teams rosters were finalized?
That makes no sense to me. You seem to want them to spend it at a time they didn't know they had it.

 

[Oswlek]

It seems that Belichick was committed to either moving on from Mankins or to having Mankins have a much lower cap hit. We fans didn't know that, but Bill did.

Fair enough. That is a reasonable assumption (though a lesser cap hit might have been a whole lot less savings than how much they actually received). I am still interested in hearing specifically who they should have targeted though.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with all that you say.

Let me try to clarify the apparent contradiction.

It seems that Belichick was committed to either moving on from Mankins or to having Mankins have a much lower cap hit. We fans didn't know that, but Bill did.

In that context, Belichick knew throughout July and August that he had $1M-$3M available to use on depth. There would be a need for cap money when the season started, but part of that could come from the reduction in cost for Mankins. So, I agree that there few other choices in the week before the season started (perhaps none). The choices were made much longer ago than that.

So, for me, Mankins didn't have to be moved early for Belichick to know that we was going to be moved. The $1M-$3M was always available as long as Belichick had already made the decision on Mankins.
==============
A POSSIBILITY
Folks could convince us that Mankins might have been kept at his high contract, and that it was the fine play of the OL in camp and the preseason that convinced him that Mankins should go.

Perhaps, that projected cap savings on Mankins was what he knew would cover the NLTBEs that are at an record high level.

 

[chasa]

So, for me, Mankins didn't have to be moved early for Belichick to know that we was going to be moved. The $1M-$3M was always available as long as Belichick had already made the decision on Mankins.
==============
A POSSIBILITY
Folks could convince us that Mankins might have been kept at his high contract, and that it was the fine play of the OL in camp and the preseason that convinced him that Mankins should go.

I think part of the problem with this logic is that BB may have only been willing to part ways with mankins as part of a trade, meaning that cutting him just wasn't a viable option(seeing Mankins go to the an AFCE rival could have been bad news)

So now you need to factor in which teams want an expensive guard, and which teams have something we need in return(TE, LB, DL) I think Tampa may have been the only REAL option in parting ways with Mankins this season, while also getting good pieces in return, which i think Wright is.

Now on to picking up depth with that extra money, 2-3 million is not a ton of cash to pick up a player before week 1(guaranteed season salary) Akeem Ayers looks like a guy that may fit in well with what we do here, sure it was vs a BAD bears team but we will see more of him this sunday. I don't think we get ayers if we try to trade for him at the start of the season. The titans needed time to know that he was not a fit for them.

 

[mgteich]

Read the bolded. Miguel is trying to guess at what the team will do, not suggesting a prefered approach.

I agree. Miguel did not suggest a preferred approach.

Miguel analyzed all the factors, as he did almost every week. And yes, some of us, including you, read some of those blogs. Miguel gave us his guess. Some of us though that Miguel's guess was actually a good idea. Apparently you were not one of those folks (or were you?).

As I have said all along, one approach for fans is to see what Belichick does and then decide that this is the preferred approach. There is a tremendous advantage in this mode of analysis. First, we can never be wrong in our speculations. Second, we can never be wrong after the fact, since Belichick certainly has more information when making his decisions that we will ever have, and we agreed with Belichick.

 

[mgteich]

Perhaps, that projected cap savings on Mankins was what he knew would cover the NLTBEs that are at an record high level.

Agreed. That is the decision that Belichick made.

Belichick decided to cover 100% of the NLTBE bonus and carry even more into 2015.

 

[Miguel]

Umm, in the title.

The title is "7 possible reasons for the Patriots to have about 9.5 million in cap space on September 13, 2014".

That was NOT a recommendation to have $9.5 million in cap space.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree. Miguel did not suggest a preferred approach.

Then why are you using Miguel as a way to say something was done wrong?

Miguel analyzed all the factors, as he did almost every week. And yes, some of us, including you, read some of those blogs. Miguel gave us his guess. Some of us though that Miguel's guess was actually a good idea. Apparently you were not one of those folks (or were you?).

Where does Miguel say how much he would set aside? All I see is a long list of reasons to have 9.5 mill in cap room.

As I have said all along, one approach for fans is to see what Belichick does and then decide that this is the preferred approach.

Deus Irae mode again? I would like you to flat out tell me that you are saying that it is your opinion that I do not think for myself and simply look at what BB does and say thats what I would do. Or STFU.

There is a tremendous advantage in this mode of analysis. First, we can never be wrong in our speculations. Second, we can never be wrong after the fact, since Belichick certainly has more information when making his decisions that we will ever have, and we agreed with Belichick.

Well, the reason you are wrong is because you do not have facts and seem to think that what should be done is what 'we' thought should be done when we didn't know the facts.

 

[Ring 6]

Agreed. That is the decision that Belichick made.

Belichick decided to cover 100% of the NLTBE bonus and carry even more into 2015.

Even more? how so?

The title is "7 possible reasons for the Patriots to have about 9.5 million in cap space on September 13, 2014".

That was NOT a recommendation to have $9.5 million in cap space.

Right, because there is no recommendation in there, despite your valiant effort to pretend there is.

 

[mgteich]

I think part of the problem with this logic is that BB may have only been willing to part ways with mankins as part of a trade, meaning that cutting him just wasn't a viable option(seeing Mankins go to the an AFCE rival could have been bad news)

So now you need to factor in which teams want an expensive guard, and which teams have something we need in return(TE, LB, DL) I think Tampa may have been the only REAL option in parting ways with Mankins this season, while also getting good pieces in return, which i think Wright is.

Now on to picking up depth with that extra money, 2-3 million is not a ton of cash to pick up a player before week 1(guaranteed season salary) Akeem Ayers looks like a guy that may fit in well with what we do here, sure it was vs a BAD bears team but we will see more of him this sunday. I don't think we get ayers if we try to trade for him at the start of the season. The titans needed time to know that he was not a fit for them.

If the Mankins cap money were only going to be available with a trade, then you are correct. We all could speculate. I think that when Belichick decides that a player is worth high money, then it's over. Of course, many things could have happened. I just don't think that Mankins playing for us for $7M was a possibility that Belichick was considering. BTW, I think that trading within the division or conference is a bigger issue for fans than for Belichick.

 

[ATippett56]

Personally, I could care less about cash payroll.

It's all about the salary cap.

 

[mgteich]

OK, let me post this yet again, form Miguel's July 10th blog. I week understand that after season started, Miguel gave POSSIBILITIES for the many uses of the $9.5M.

I have no argument whatsoever with any statements made by Miguel in either this blog post or the one after the season started. I apologize if I have mischaracterized either of the blog postings.

I don't know why this is such a big deal.
Belichick decided to carry more forward and use less for backups signed in the off-season. I suggested that a bit more might have been used during the off-season for a player in the defensive front seven. The attack was on. I suggested the same at the time, but we really didn't have the cap money. WE FANS didn't know then that Mankins would be moved.
============================================
"Over the past couple of years the Patriots have used about 2 million dollars for in-season replacements.

I consider the Patriots to have at maximum 5.3 million in easily reached NLTBE incentives. Do not know if the Patriots leave themselves a cushion for those. Wanted to mention them since any reached NLTBE incentives in 2014 will likely lower the Patriots 2015 adjusted cap number. I am trying to guess at how the Patriots will handle having $5.3 million in NTLBE incentives. If they do not leave a cushion for them, the Patriots could end up with an adjusted cap number that is lower than the actual cap number. This is the first time I have seen the Patriots with so much easily attainable NLTBE incentives. Do the Patriots leave a 100% cushion? 0% cushion? Decided to split the difference. I am presuming that the Patriots do leave themselves a 100% cushion or $2,706,250 for the 46-man active roster bonuses and maybe have a 50% cushion ($1.3 million) for the other NLTBE incentives. That is, I guesstimate that the Patriots would like to leave themselves a 4 million cushion at the start of the regular season just to cover reached NLTBE incentives. Why a 100% cushion for the 46-man roster bonuses because as a player reaches that particular NTLBE incentive the amount of their incentive hits the cap the next week."

 

[Miguel]

Right, because there is no recommendation in there, despite your valiant effort to pretend there is.

Are you talking to me or mgteich?

 

[Miguel]

The funny thing about all of this is that it is now clear to me that I should have predicted that Mankins would have been released/traded once I realized that Stork would not be the Week 1 starter and I could have supported my prediction stating that the Patriots needed the cap space to provide a cushion for the incentives.