My take on "Cap is Crap"

[McClusky]

I actually find you quite mature and reasonable. Some of our reactions to you (mine included) are not so much the approach you are taking stating your opinion but based on years of us having had this same argument with the Belichick is a terrible GM crowd.

What you are seeing here, is a bit of a homer backlash. We just won the Super Bowl. But 6 weeks later the wannabe-GMs are railing against Belichick because he refused to get into a bidding war with a team that was probably going to pay any price to steal back Revis from us.

I simply disagree with you about some of your conclusions. But I respect the manner in which you've stated them.

Thanks, my take on this is not consistent with someone like Felger's, nor is it saying that I think BB is a terrible GM. I've largely moved on from the topic. I understand why BB went the way he did, and the benefits of having a team with as much cap space in 2016 as the young Patriots do. I disagree with BB on his valuation of his #1 corners, and do find it frustrating that we're had 4 leave in the past 11 years. To me it's a position we've struggled to draft, and it is also a position that has contributed to our undoing more than a few times. I'd prefer to leverage our strengths developing front 7 talent and OL talent, and reduce the cap burden there as opposed to risking CB in the next few years.

My whole point on this was less about the ultimate decision, but rather why the decision was made. I think it's disingenuous to say the Pats couldn't have matched the Jets contract in full guarantees standpoint. Miguel and others have since clarified their stance, but if it came down to actually matching Revis's 2015 Jets salary the Pats could have done it. I just don't think using the current snapshot as a starting point is fair.

 

[Miguel]

My whole point on this was less about the ultimate decision, but rather why the decision was made. I think it's disingenuous to say the Pats couldn't have matched the Jets contract in full guarantees standpoint. Miguel and others have since clarified their stance, but if it came down to actually matching Revis's 2015 Jets salary the Pats could have done it. I just don't think using the current snapshot as a starting point is fair.

Hold on, it is unfair to characterize my position as disingenuous then say the Patriots could have had Revis with a 21 million cap hit (16 million plus 5 million proration) - matching the Jets salary of 2016 and then also build a Super Bowl contender without showing how.

 

[ViperGTS]

Well to start you don't sign McCourty. You don't sign Sheard, Chandler, Fletcher or others as well as cut Browner. Possibly Mayo once he gets healthy. Basically replace those with one guy, Revis. Heck, to do the Jets deal they mightn't have had to make some other moves as well.

Yes there is a cap. It cannot be exceeded therefore it cannot be crap, right? Yes and no. With the way the Patriots structure deals with partially guaranteed money they can manipulate the room under the cap. This leaves room for renegotions and extensions. Revis and his wants could not sanely be matched by the Patriots. It isn't smart business. The main key is having a Hall of Fame QB on his rookie deal. Doesn't usually happen and therefore if the Jets ever get one Mevis will no longer be there. They could afford it, the Pats smartly could not.

 

[McClusky]

Hold on, it is unfair to characterize my position as disingenuous then say the Patriots could have had Revis with a 21 million cap hit (16 million plus 5 million proration) - matching the Jets salary of 2016 and then also build a Super Bowl contender without showing how.

A lot has happened since we began talking about a potential Revis extension. Vollmer got his contract reworked to hit incentives, Ninkovich and Bolden got raises, we signed Chandler and Sheard, Ghost got tagged, McCourty got extended, Chung and Cannon got extensions, ect. We just found out Mayo got reworked. I don't think saying we have $6 million in cap space, work with that to fit Revis's $16 million in is an accurate depiction of the choice the Pats faced when they were working on his extension.

I don't know the exact salaries Vollmer, Bolden, and Nink were at, but I'd assume we don't rework those, don't tag ghost, don't sign Sheard or Chander, and be a bit more proactive in trying to rework Mayo even if it cost us an extra million. There were a lot of ways to do it, but w/o writing a dissertation and going back to check every intimate detail it is hard to do.

It's not that we couldn't do it, or that we would have to bail on a McCourty, Solder, or someone else. It's that the Pats went depth over a star. Not ultimately a bad strategy, I just don't agree with the it was basically impossible type tone.

 

[Miguel]

Do not know how my position can be considered disingenuous when I truly believe that the Patriots would be greatly hampered by matching the structure of the Jets offer leading to a 21 million cap hit or picking up 25 million option.

 

[McClusky]

Do not know how my position can be considered disingenuous when I truly believe that the Patriots would be greatly hampered by matching the structure of the Jets offer leading to a 21 million cap hit or picking up 25 million option.

I don't think the position is disingenuous, that is a very valid opinion. The question you posed itself is. It takes a retrospective question and puts a prospective spin on it. Moves thst have and havent happened were a direct result of Revis leaving. The Pats would have been hampered by signing Revis. They're also hampered by not signing Revis. The degrees to which each is relative is subject to everyone's opinion.

By posing the question the way you did takes the Pats further away from the starting point they actually or could have been facing.

 

[rochrist]

A lot has happened since we began talking about a potential Revis extension. Vollmer got his contract reworked to hit incentives, Ninkovich and Bolden got raises, we signed Chandler and Sheard, Ghost got tagged, McCourty got extended, Chung and Cannon got extensions, ect. We just found out Mayo got reworked. I don't think saying we have $6 million in cap space, work with that to fit Revis's $16 million in is an accurate depiction of the choice the Pats faced when they were working on his extension.

I don't know the exact salaries Vollmer, Bolden, and Nink were at, but I'd assume we don't rework those, don't tag ghost, don't sign Sheard or Chander, and be a bit more proactive in trying to rework Mayo even if it cost us an extra million. There were a lot of ways to do it, but w/o writing a dissertation and going back to check every intimate detail it is hard to do.

It's not that we couldn't do it, or that we would have to bail on a McCourty, Solder, or someone else. It's that the Pats went depth over a star. Not ultimately a bad strategy, I just don't agree with the it was basically impossible type tone.

In other words, gut the team for one over 30 players.

 

[McClusky]

In other words, gut the team for one over 30 players.

Not really, a Ghost, Sheard, Chandler, and Fletcher exchange for Revis doesn't really constitute a gutting of the team.

Substituting those 4 for the next 3 on our roster saves us about $11 million. We had $6 million in cap space and just got an additional 4 with Mayo. We pretty much just fit a HOF talent at CB for a #2 TE, a rotational DE, a very good kicker, and someone we wouldn't need with Revis. A tough exchange, but you're really only subtracting one player from last year's team. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way, but I think saying it would have "gutted" the team is catastrophizing the situation a bit.

 

[rochrist]

Not really, a Ghost, Sheard, Chandler, and Fletcher exchange for Revis doesn't really constitute a gutting of the team.

Substituting those 4 for the next 3 on our roster saves us about $11 million. We had $6 million in cap space and just got an additional 4 with Mayo. We pretty much just fit a HOF talent at CB for a #2 TE, a rotational DE, a very good kicker, and someone we wouldn't need with Revis. A tough exchange, but you're really only subtracting one player from last year's team. It doesn't necessarily have to be this way, but I think saying it would have "gutted" the team is catastrophizing the situation a bit.

If you don't replace them they do. What about Browner? Do you're calculations allow for him? And if not, then he has to be replaced. And then what happens next year?

 

[McClusky]

If you don't replace them they do. What about Browner? Do you're calculations allow for him? And if not, then he has to be replaced. And then what happens next year?

They'd presume Browner would be gone as well. I think the #1 corner is a uniquely difficult position for the Pats to fill. They didn't have a great option at that spot as a contingency plan to Revis, whereas I think the Pats have some decent options at #2 in Dennard or Butler. Dennard's passing splits as the #2 in 2013 compared favorably to Browner's in 2014.

In terms of 2016 the Pats would be alright. Right now Sheard and Chandler are scheduled to count $10 million against the cap vs. Revis's $17 million. The Pats have plenty of good options as a lot of players are scheduled for cap hits in 2016 that are probably in excess of their actual value. The squeeze wouldn't be nearly as tight as it was this season.

 

[Miguel]

By posing the question the way you did takes the Pats further away from the starting point they actually or could have been facing.

Just to clarify, what do you think my question is? What would be a fair question to ask those who contend that the Patriots should have picked up the $25 million option?

 

[McClusky]

Just to clarify, what do you think my question is? What would be a fair question to ask those who contend that the Patriots should have picked up the $25 million option?

The $6 million in cap space is the issue. If the Pats were considering picking up Revis's option or meeting the Darrelle Revis's gtd salary demand in year 1, the off season would have played out very differently. You would really need to look at the Pats cap from the middle of the season and go from there. So much has happened since then that makes it more difficult from a cap perspective. Notably things like Vollmer, Ninkovich, Bolden, Brady, Sheard/Chandler/McClain/Fletcher, Cannon, Chung, McCourty, the Mayo restructure, ect. It would have taken a fundamentally different approach from October going forward.

Taking today's snapshot which is so far removed from the actual decision isn't a good starting point. Most Pats fans don't have a saved cap page from October to start with, which makes it hard for them to answer tour

 

[Miguel]

The $6 million in cap space is the issue. If the Pats were considering picking up Revis's option or meeting the Darrelle Revis's gtd salary demand in year 1, the off season would have played out very differently. You would really need to look at the Pats cap from the middle of the season and go from there. So much has happened since then that makes it more difficult from a cap perspective. Notably things like Vollmer, Ninkovich, Bolden, Brady, Sheard/Chandler/McClain/Fletcher, Cannon, Chung, McCourty, the Mayo restructure, ect. It would have taken a fundamentally different approach from October going forward.

Taking today's snapshot which is so far removed from the actual decision isn't a good starting point. Most Pats fans don't have a saved cap page from October to start with, which makes it hard for them to answer tour

Don't see an answer to
"What would be a fair question to ask those who contend that the Patriots should have picked up the $25 million option?"

 

[McClusky]

Don't see an answer to
"What would be a fair question to ask those who contend that the Patriots should have picked up the $25 million option?"

How would you have gone about picking up Revis's $20 million option?

It's simpler, and doesn't lead people to today's cap page to work back from. Bringing in today's look makes the task appear more daunting than it actually would have been when we were initially discussing Revis's option because contracts exist that didn't at the time. Many of the respective cap numbers were assigned with the knowledge that Revis's option was not going to be picked up. You can't get $20 million in space with today's roster without absolutely cleaving the roster because there are guarantees that didn't exist then.

For example:
Brady's cap number is higher by $1 million than it was before he restructured.
Ninkovich's is $750k higher than it was before.
Vollmer and Bolden's are around 500k higher than they were before.
Ghost's number is probably unnecessarily high and currently unmovable
Ect. Ect. Ect.

That is the entire issue I had with the way you posed the question. The answer today appears more unpalatable than it would have in October. If the Pats approached the off season knowing that worst case scenario they'd pick up the option, they wouldn't have tweaked those contracts because they would have known 2015 cap space would be at a premium, and quite possibly would have made a more concerted effort to extend Solder and restructure Mayo. I'm not arguing that I would have picked up the option because I wouldn't have, but I don't think the question as it was posed was the most straightforward way to look at the issue. Decisions have been made since the Pats made a conscious choice not to pick up that option.

Miguel I get that you're a numbers guy, so am I which is why I understand why you would want a quantifiable answer. Unfortunately the best possible outcome to picking up Revis's option is not quantifiable because every contract that has been negotiated before and since that option date would look different if the Pats took the strategy to excersize Revis's option. Which means the further out from the decision we get, the less relevant the question gets.

 

[Joker]

Revis's cap hit for 2015 was slotted at 25 million dollars, not 20 million. It called for a guaranteed salary of 20 million PLUS a 5 million dollar cap hit rolled over from 2014. THAT is what Miguel is referring to.

"The Patriots were expected since he signed with them last March to decline the option. The second year of the two-year deal was viewed as a placeholder by both sides. It called for Revis to get paid $20 million this year with a salary cap hit of $25 million, which was unrealistic."

http://nypost.com/2015/03/09/patriots-decline-revis-option-setting-up-possible-jets-bidding-war/

 

[McClusky]

Revis's cap hit for 2015 was slotted at 25 million dollars, not 20 million. It called for a guaranteed salary of 20 million PLUS a 5 million dollar cap hit rolled over from 2014. THAT is what Miguel is referring to.

"The Patriots were expected since he signed with them last March to decline the option. The second year of the two-year deal was viewed as a placeholder by both sides. It called for Revis to get paid $20 million this year with a salary cap hit of $25 million, which was unrealistic."

http://nypost.com/2015/03/09/patriots-decline-revis-option-setting-up-possible-jets-bidding-war/

Right, but that $5 million is a sunk cost. We still have it on our books now with Revis off the team. It was a 1 year $20 million decision not a 1 year $25 million decision.

I'm not arguing that the Pats even should have picked up the option, or that they ever really planned to do it to begin with. I'm just saying picking up Revis's option was not some insanely impossible task, and asking people to quantify exactly what that would have looked like is an unfair task, because dozens of decisions were made with the knowledge that we weren't going to pick up the option, which would have been made differently had the Pats planned to pick up the option. The consensus needs to be that there would have been moderate to significant personnel losses, perhaps name some names of who you'd be willing to live without, and move on. Taking today's cap snapshot and saying find me $20 million is not the best way to frame a discussion on the viability of picking up that option.

 

[Oswlek]

Unfortunately the best possible outcome to picking up Revis's option is not quantifiable because every contract that has been negotiated before and since that option date would look different

If this is true and you have all the numbers, why is it not quantifiable?

 

[McClusky]

If this is true and you have all the numbers, why is it not quantifiable?

I'll use Devin McCourty's contract as an example. He has a $6 million cap hit this year. That number was negotiated with a 2015 Patriots cap excluding Revis's option in mind. Could the Pats have shaved $1.5 million off his gtd base salary salary this year and instead have given it to him as part of his signing bonus making his cap number $4.8 million instead of 6? Probably, but from a financial standpoint x Revis it made more sense for it to be $6 million.

To make it quantifiable in the current environment it means that to retain McCourty it's a $6 million cap number or no McCourty. Instead of acknowledging the gray area of cap options at the time, it's making it truly black and white as of 4/23. That's true for any of the contracts the Pats have touched since Revis signed his deal last off season.

 

[Miguel]

I tend to think of cap jail in a sense of you have to shed w/o adding, a la the Carolina Panthers last season. If we were adding Revis and subtracting from other parts of our roster, that's not cap jail to me, it's more substituting an important player instead of other important players like a McCourty or a Solder.

FWIW - When I first heard the rumor that the Patriots were planning to pick up Revis' 25 million option in late February/early March I tried to figure out how they could so. Could come up with several ways to get under the cap in March but could not figure how the Patriots could create the cap space needed for September. Snow and work prevented me from blogging about it.

 

[Miguel]

I just don't think most fans really have an accurate picture of the Pats true long term cap situation. The Pats would not be put into proverbial "cap jail" if they signed Revis. The Pats actually have a pretty low total of outstanding guarantees right now, which stems from their low cash spending numbers last year. Even this year's higher cash spend numbers have more to do with short term higher cap number deals than long term high guaranteed deals.

For the record, I think that I do have an accurate picture of the Patriots true long-term cap situation.