Mike Lombardi: Cassel to be franchised [merged]

[BradyManny]

I guess what I don't understand about all this is what leverage the Pats have here? Unless there are multiple bidders for a Cassel trade, at the end of the day, don't teams know that we have to trade him? We can't possibly actually start the year and be competitive with both Brady's and Cassel's salaries taking up cap room, can we?

Perhaps, we probably could. I don't have the signing of many - if any - free agents in my own vision for the Patriots offseason. The real to-do for the offseason will be to re-sign their own and extend their own. That gives them some leeway, this can be done once Cassel is off the books, and especially the extensions - can wait until the Cassel situation has played out. And in reality, it could probably even be done to a certain extent with him on the books. Re-signing our own FA and extending our own FA will not result in expensive cap hits for the 08/09 season, and we can restructure some players (Seymour comes to mind) to lessen their cap hits.

That said, I don't see any real way he is on the squad come next season, b/c I agree with you in principle, its just too much to tie up in one position. But again, if the Patriots can make it sound like Brady coming back 100% is not a sure thing, and they float the idea of carrying them both, that gives them some leverage.

 

[BPF]

From Andrew Brandt @ NFP, this is what I've written in the past and his "One final note on Cassel" is the best point yet:

The National Football Post | Monday Money Matters

As to our story that the Patriots intend to use the franchise tag on Matt Cassel in 2009, the question in my mind is: How could they not? Why would they let an incredibly valuable asset like Cassel leave without compensation? They can have rights to Cassel while monitoring two developments: Tom Brady’s rehabilitation and trade offers for Cassel. Yes, it will cost them Cap room, perhaps as much as $16M, but they now have only $105M of commitments on a projected $123M Cap. However, the cost is greater the other way. Players at that position with that talent are scarce; it makes perfect sense to protect that asset.

One final note on Cassel. As it stands now, with 2010 an uncapped year due to the NFL owners opting out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, six years of service will be required for unrestricted free agency. Cassel, should he play for the franchise tag number in 2009, will be a restricted free agent in 2010, his services still controlled by the New England Patriots. This presents another reason why the Patriots have to tag him.

 

[patchick]

From Andrew Brandt @ NFP, this is what I've written in the past and his "One final note on Cassel" is the best point yet:

The National Football Post | Monday Money Matters
[/B]

Yes, the possible RFA status for 2010 is a peculiar complication. One thing to note (credit to Miguel, who brought this up when I raised the issue a while back): Cassel's RFA 2010 tender at any level would be 110% of his prior year salary. So a franchise year + RFA year would be plenty pricy.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Yes, the possible RFA status for 2010 is a peculiar complication. One thing to note (credit to Miguel, who brought this up when I raised the issue a while back): Cassel's RFA 2010 tender at any level would be 110% of his prior year salary. So a franchise year + RFA year would be plenty pricy.

On the flip side, the salary cap should go up as well, so it won't be significantly worse, and more importantly, he would not be an unrestricted free agent.

 

[Miguel]

Re-signing our own FA and extending our own FA will not result in expensive cap hits for the 08/09 season, and we can restructure some players (Seymour comes to mind) to lessen their cap hits

I think that you are underestimating the effect the 30% rule will have in 2009.

Future increases in a player's salary is limited to 30 percent of a player's base salary in 2009 plus his LTBE incentives. Example - A player whose 2009 base salary was 1,000,000, the maximum increase from year to year for the rest of his contraact could be no more than 300,000(30% of 1 million). Paraphrasing eaglescap - "for the purposes of the 30% rule salary is defined as base salary, plus roster bonus, plus LTBE incentive. Signing bonuses do not count in calculation for the 30% rule, but prorations from option bonuses do. Adamjt13 pointed out that this 30% rule will apply to every contract that extends from the final capped season into an uncapped season.

If one takes into account the 30% rule, how does one come with a deal that lessen Seymour's 2009 cap hit without paying him a great deal less than his market value??

 

[Miguel]

On the flip side, the salary cap should go up as well, so it won't be significantly worse, and more importantly, he would not be an unrestricted free agent.

He would be a rather expensive RFA in a year
when Seymour, Neal, Watson, Faulk, Green, and Wilfork are scheduled to be UFAs
when Hobbs, Mankins, Thomas, O'Callaghan, Kaczur, and Gostkowski are all scheduled to be RFAs
when Brady and Moss are both scheduled to be in the last year of their contracts.

Even in an uncapped year Bob Kraft is looking at shelling out a lot of cash in 2010 just to keep his players.

 

[BPF]

He would be a rather expensive RFA in a year
when Seymour, Neal, Watson, Faulk, Green, and Wilfork are scheduled to be UFAs
when Hobbs, Mankins, Thomas, O'Callaghan, Kaczur, and Gostkowski are all scheduled to be RFAs
when Brady and Moss are both scheduled to be in the last year of their contracts.

Even in an uncapped year Bob Kraft is looking at shelling out a lot of cash in 2010 just to keep his players.

That's why hopefully Brady is ok and the Pats can trade Cassel for some picks to replenish the roster in the positions where the FAs are coming due. You can't keep 'em all.

 

[jsull87]

there are some pretty big pesamists on this thread. of coarse the staff wont let us go into 2010 with all those players fa's. and as for cassel if we are all so worried about the future what would a 1st in 09 and a conditional 1st/2nd do for our future when we trade him

 

[JoeShmoe]

What's peoples view on trading for a player rather than picks? I still think we dont get any better than a 2009 2nd and maybe a 2010 third so unless it;s say Detroits or SF's 2nds (i.e. high) then would we better trying to trade for a player and a lower pick?

Just thinking who on the list of possibles (TB, SF, Lions, Bears, Vikes etc) we could look at -esp in the secondary?