My take on "Cap is Crap"

[JarOfMayo51]

You do realize that Woody Johnson had 50 million in cap space and was going to top Any and every offer the Patriots made, right?

Yup, Woody was on a mission because he wanted to get them back for filing the tampering charges. Like a billionaire little kid, he wanted to take his ball and go home..

The Patriots were not going to land Revis once he hit free agency. This off season was the Jets Super Bowl, there was absolutely no way they would have allowed the Pats to outbid them

 

[McClusky]

Fletcher and McClain have nothing to do with it, try giving up Hightower,Jones, and Solder and you will be closer to the truth, and that's if you were just going by the offer he took , had the Patriots offered a little more then Johnson would have kept going, he wasn't going to lose a bidding war when he had unlimited room to win it. The reason Johnson's public tamper mattered so much is because Johnson was the one who shipped Rebids out and wouldn't let Idzik bring him back, once he went public the Patriots had no chance.

Not really, I doubt any of those aforementioned players would be in danger if Revis was on the team. Remember the Pats only have $109 million in salary cap commitments in 2016 and a good chunk of that is tied up in contracts that were signed in 2012 and 2013 with little relative gtd money left on them. Just not signing Sheard and letting go of Mayo next year would open up around $13-14 million in cap space in 2016 which could be used to pay for the majority of Revis. Hightower and Jones have 5th year options for a combined ~$15 million, and Solder is looking at a contract around $9million APY.

And even if it did ultimately cost one of the above guys, we're talking a 1st ballot HOF vs. a couple of fringe pro bowlers. Albeit younger ones.

 

[Ivan]

Not really, I doubt any of those aforementioned players would be in danger if Revis was on the team. Remember the Pats only have $109 million in salary cap commitments in 2016 and a good chunk of that is tied up in contracts that were signed in 2012 and 2013 with little relative gtd money left on them. Just not signing Sheard and letting go of Mayo next year would open up around $13-14 million in cap space in 2016 which could be used to pay for the majority of Revis. Hightower and Jones have 5th year options for a combined ~$15 million, and Solder is looking at a contract around $9million APY.

And even if it did ultimately cost one of the above guys, we're talking a 1st ballot HOF vs. a couple of fringe pro bowlers. Albeit younger ones.

Then we just disagree, I wanted Revis back as much as anyone but keeping him would have kept them from resigning their best young players and I think those suggesting otherwise are buying into the Felger cap is crap theory, which has proven to be complete and utter bullsh.t. The bottom line for me is that not one team has successfully bought a championship, the teams that win Lombardi's are not the ones going all in in free agency, those honors go to the potential losers. Of teams could win with the cap is crap approach everyone would be using it.

 

[McClusky]

Seems pretty absurd to me. $16 million a year for 3 years when the franchise tag number for a CB is $13.075 million and the highest paid CB in the league are at $14 million.

The structure of deals is very important. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Revis only has decent security for 2-3 years because he is older. He got more upfront, but he's also highly unlikely to make the money on the back end of his deal, which is why Sherman, Haden, and Peterson got guarantees throughout whereas Regis's were 85% done by the end of year 2. That is why his first years are higher.

 

[Ivan]

The structure of deals is very important. It's not an apples to apples comparison. Revis only has decent security for 2-3 years because he is older. He got more upfront, but he's also highly unlikely to make the money on the back end of his deal, which is why Sherman, Haden, and Peterson got guarantees throughout whereas Regis's were 85% done by the end of year 2. That is why his first years are higher.

Name a team that has used a cap is crap approach to win a Super Bowl?

 

[McClusky]

Then we just disagree, I wanted Revis back as much as anyone but keeping him would have kept them from resigning their best young players and I think those suggesting otherwise are buying into the Felger cap is crap theory, which has proven to be complete and utter bullsh.t. The bottom line for me is that not one team has successfully bought a championship, the teams that win Lombardi's are not the ones going all in in free agency, those honors go to the potential losers. Of teams could win with the cap is crap approach everyone would be using it.

I don't subscribe to cap is crap. 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.

 

[Ivan]

I don't subscribe to cap is crap. 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.

The real number in the Revis deal is the 48 million for 3 years, and that was just what the Jets gave him, it would have taken substantially more to sign him and that's if they could have signed him at all. The only way they could have kept him was to pick up the option and he most likely would have held out had the Patriots tried to block him from becoming a free agent and kept him from the fifty million the Jets were promising him. Much as I wanted him it wasn't worth it, i would rather they stuck to the approach that's made them the most successful team in football this century.

 

[Oswlek]

I just don't think most fans really have an accurate picture of the Pats true long term cap situation.

I'm not sure how valid that argument is when one of the people who disagrees with you is the guy who runs the cap page for this site.

I'll agree with you that if the team was able to maneuver the cap space so that it landed primarily in 2016 it becomes a much easier pill to swallow. At the same time, you'd have to convince Revis to take that deal, which he may not want to since it would require a large bonus to be paid out in the second year of the deal.

All that said, there is still the point that virtually every imaginable contract is feasible.... but that doesn't mean it is wise.

 

[BWareofDWare]

DeMarcus Ware was cut by the Cowboys solely for salary cap reasons, and within 24 hours had a contract for over 20 million guaranteed elsewhere. The cap is most definitely not crap and if not signing Revis saves you guys any two out of McCourty, Solder, Hightower, Collins and Jones plus a depth player it seems like passing on him was a prudent move. Sometimes even the best one night stand ever could mean major issues in a long term relationship.

 

[Galeb]

I really don't think so. Im just challenging the basic premise of Miguel's question. The Pats didn't resign Revis because they didn't think the $ matched the value, not because of this huge cap crunch they faced. If you're asking me if I would give up Sheard, McClain, Fletcher in 2015 and then cut Mayo in 2016 to keep Revis then I'd absolutely do it. I think most people would. It was less about not being able to get to the number as opposed to the fact that the Pats didn't want to sign a 30 year old corner for 10% of their cap that they wouldn't be able to cut for the next 3 years. Guys like the ones I mentioned before are lower risk investments which keep flexibility open. As opposed to Revis which is a higher risk higher reward investment.

It goes back to the point I've made in the past about the Pats being more conservative than cheap.

Your analysis of the Revis contract makes no reference to guaranteed money. Such an exclusion betrays a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

 

[Galeb]

Not really, I doubt any of those aforementioned players would be in danger if Revis was on the team. Remember the Pats only have $109 million in salary cap commitments in 2016 and a good chunk of that is tied up in contracts that were signed in 2012 and 2013 with little relative gtd money left on them. Just not signing Sheard and letting go of Mayo next year would open up around $13-14 million in cap space in 2016 which could be used to pay for the majority of Revis. Hightower and Jones have 5th year options for a combined ~$15 million, and Solder is looking at a contract around $9million APY.

And even if it did ultimately cost one of the above guys, we're talking a 1st ballot HOF vs. a couple of fringe pro bowlers. Albeit younger ones.

LMAO! Yep, it had nothing to do with selling PSLs or the back page of NY papers.

 

[McClusky]

Your analysis of the Revis contract makes no reference to guaranteed money. Such and exclusion betrays a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

Sure it did. Read it again, it's implicitly implied in the point about the Pats not wanting th have a contract they couldnt get off of in the next 3 years. The point is that the Pats could have used guarantees in the form of an upfront bonus spread over a portion of the contract rather than guaranteed salary in the 1st 2 years. The player gets the same amount of money upfront, but the cap hits occur in later years. In all likelihood the Pats would eventually have to deal with some dead money similar to what they are currently experiencing with Revis and Mankind, but it's a way to drive down cap costs in year 1.

 

[Galeb]

Sure it did. Read it again, it's implicitly implied in the point about the Pats not wanting th have a contract they couldnt get off of in the next 3 years. The point is that the Pats could have used guarantees in the form of an upfront bonus spread over a portion of the contract rather than guaranteed salary in the 1st 2 years. The player gets the same amount of money upfront, but the cap hits occur in later years. In all likelihood the Pats would eventually have to deal with some dead money similar to what they are currently experiencing with Revis and Mankind, but it's a way to drive down cap costs in year 1.

If you cut or trade a player, the cap hit of the guaranteed money is accelerated. It was all about the guaranteed money, and if you don't understand that, you don't belong in the conversation.

 

[McClusky]

If you cut or trade a player, the cap hit of the guaranteed money is accelerated. It was all about the guaranteed money, and if you don't understand that, you don't belong in the conversation.

I do understand that. In fact that very point is recognized in the post you quoted.

 

[Galeb]

I do understand that. In fact that very point is recognized in the post you quoted.

Then I misunderstood.

 

[McClusky]

I'm not sure how valid that argument is when one of the people who disagrees with you is the guy who runs the cap page for this site.

I'll agree with you that if the team was able to maneuver the cap space so that it landed primarily in 2016 it becomes a much easier pill to swallow. At the same time, you'd have to convince Revis to take that deal, which he may not want to since it would require a large bonus to be paid out in the second year of the deal.

All that said, there is still the point that virtually every imaginable contract is feasible.... but that doesn't mean it is wise.

I'm simply challenging the process. Miguel's preferred contract was essentially a 4 year $56.5 million with $26 million in full guarantees, if Revis made it to the 2nd year of his contract (which presumably he would have because the Pats would take a negative hit to their cap if they had cut him in year 2) he would have got $36.5 million in fully guaranteed money.

What Revis got was a 5 years $70 million with $39 million guaranteed.

Miguel wasn't really that far off with his initial offer. Fully guarantee that year 2 salary from the onset and tack on $3 million to that number, and throw on a dummy year at the end similar to the Jets and you're there from a true contract value standpoint.

Don't sign Sheard, Bradley, and Fletcher and you save $6.3 m against the 2014 cap presuming 2 guys are on the back end for about the minimum. Dump Hooman and you've paid for year 1.

Next year without Sheard, and releasing Mayo you've paid for 80% of Revis's year 2 number, and you can easily absorb the last amount with the cap space the Pats are projected to have.

After that the contract is virtually the same year to year as Miguel's sans the dummy year at the end.

That is why I have such an issue with the notion that the Pats simply couldn't afford Revis because the hit to the salary cap hit would have been too much. They didn't sign him because they didn't want to guarantee the money for a franchise type player in his 30's. They wanted flexibility rather than putting their dime down on that player. I'm not totally sure if I agree with that stance or not, but I do have concerns with our CB core and our ability to develop #1 type talent at that position. I just think it's the easy route for fans to say we couldn't afford it rather acknowledge the big risk the Pats took by not at least making a competitive offer for Revis. Especially when the Revis contract we near universally agreed upon in February was not all that far off in true value from what Revis actually got.

 

[Oswlek]

That is why I have such an issue with the notion that the Pats simply couldn't afford Revis because the hit to the salary cap hit would have been too much. They didn't sign him because they didn't want to guarantee the money for a franchise type player in his 30's. They wanted flexibility rather than putting their dime down on that player.

You are still bundling similar arguments and acting as if they are opposing. Very few people who say "the hits would have been too much" mean that it was impossible, they just mean that the flexibility was more important.... essentially the same argument you are making.

 

[Miguel]

It's not a fair question though for 2 reasons, one it assumes the roster would be exactly the same if we had kept Revis. Guys like Sheard, McClain, Fletcher, ect. Likely wouldn't be on it and that would open up space.

Fair enough. That is still not enough space to account for the players 52, 53, practice squad, players signed to replace players who go on injured reserve, reached NLTBE 46-man active roster bonuses..

Also it assumes that the Pats would have had to duplicate the Jets structure to give the player an equal $value. You can pro rate guarantees while still giving the player as big of a check up front as the Jets did.

I am just using the structure adopted by Patriots critics (match Jets' structure or retain Revis at $25 million.

I am surprised that Revis preferred a salary guarantee over a signing bonus because a signing bonus meant money in his pockets in March, not in September.

 

[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.

to a deal that involved a signing bonus which I had proposed for months ago. My point is that the Pats would be in cap jail if they had matched the structure of the Jets' offer or if they picked up Revis' option.

 

[McClusky]

You are still bundling similar arguments and acting as if they are opposing. Very few people who say "the hits would have been too much" mean that it was impossible, they just mean that the flexibility was more important.... essentially the same argument you are making.

I don't necessarily see the flexibility as being more important than a HOF caliber player at a position we have a history of struggling to fill, but with Miguel clarifying his stance I am more inclined to agree with him than with what I thought he was arguing.