Pasquarelli: Pats in cap trouble

[mgteich]

The model of the patriots and the colts takes into account future changes in the CBA. The patriots rightly predicted that players would be overpaid last year (paid more than their value). They all but stayed out fo free agency. What they didn't expect was a walkout of someone under contract. That cost us big time. The patriots pushed 2006 money into this year, after extending Seymour and obviously did very well this year.

The "model" changes with each new event. I have suggested a potential structural change based on the new CBA. I suggest that the team should consider extending contracts for top players two years before they end, or even after the first two years of a first round rookie contract. That would allow top players to be locked in for longer periods.

What will Warren and Colvin and Warren do next year before their contract year? My position is that perhaps now is the time to extend these players. Apparently pioli doesn't agree. To my mind, next offseason is the right year to extend Brady.

Space, from what I could see, Stallworth and Washington have a "prove it" year this year. Moss obviously does, since there is (as of now) no 2008 for him. Welker is structured with more of the risk distributed to the team, for whatever reason (he got a better proportion up front.) If we cut Welker after 2007, it looks like we're on the hook for north of $6M total on his tab, if we cut him after 08, $11M (going by Miguel's "reliable source," so I will stipulate here that nobody has called this carved in stone.) So it looks like the Pats like him for a contributor on special teams, at receiver, both, and of course there is always the possibility of emergency kicker. His deal's front-loaded; unless he fizzles like a bottle rocket you left in the drizzle on the 3rd, he stays.

Stallworth, Washington, and Moss are all in the running for insane-receiver-of-the-year honors - along with Chad Jackson, pending his development. Well, Chad is pretty safe. But Stallworth, Washington, and Moss, as MGT says, are probably fighting for two spots. Washington is still not a big payout next year, but it is the "lion's share" of the deal. Moss would have the option of playing cheap again next year if it is Stallworth who really excels. If Stallworth does not prove extremely valuable... well, let's put it this way: 07 costs us a maximum of $3.6M. 08 costs us $11M... I think he really needs to kick butt and take names to stay.

I'm not sure if I phrased myself badly or not earlier. The point is, we can make up our minds about anybody but Welker without too much heartburn.

MGT, I don't see us as "in cap trouble." I do see the model as having changed, although the "model" may really be a media creation. It could well be that "acquiring best value" is the only model we can speak of, and it could also be that the model has changed in response to changes in the CBA which can be predicted to accelerate pretty rapidly well into the future.

PFnV

 

[ilduce06410]

the problem with samuel isn't about franchising him

Indy got lucky, as I've said on many occasions, that the cap inflated as much as it did with the new CBA - something no one could have predicted especially given the near stalemate on the CBA as well.
That being said, Indy's moves were a worthwile gamble at the time - as it stands even with the inflated cap they've still had to let some key players go - but to their credit Indy's done a good job replacing guys like Edgerin James with rookies.
The Pats meanwhile have hung way back on the cap and just this season, with the players that they WANTED, available and willing to sign they made their move. Unless AD turns out to be a major bust (not likely) its allworthwhile.
The main issue with the current cap situation is it makes it that much more difficult for the Pats to franchise Samuel two years in a row given the 20% bump he'd get (still worthwhile in terms of a one year contract in my opinion assuming he plays up to par this season - but again, difficult to squeeze into the cap since it can't be stretched out.)
The main thing here is that the Pats won't be in a situation where they will be taking a major risk by cutting a key contributor - they'll find cap relief elsewhere if they need to and keep the key players.

when BB/SP allow a player to go into his walk year (graham, the twig, andruzzi), he's good as gone.
IMHO samuel has become a franchise CB. he's not a classic shutdown guy but he plays hell with QBs' confidence.
seems clear that the FO doesn't see it that way. they'd have locked samuel into an extension last november if they'd decided to keep him.
(koppen, light, TB, seymour, jarvis green, etc.)

 

[JoeSixPat]

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

I suppose so... but let me ask you .... I believe the players association can opt out of this CBA early and call for new negotiations (is it 2010?)

So, assuming they do so, what do you think the Salary Cap will be under thefirst year of the NEXT new CBA?

And I'm asking you because I think you're smarter than Polian.

Now I'd expect you can guess - but it wouldn't even be much of an educated guess not knowing what parameters will be in the new CBA. If you were a GM and actually basing your contract decision on that guess and turned out to be right, I'd consider you pretty lucky.

So what will the Patriots cap be under the next CBA assuming the players association opts out of this one early?

By the same token, did Polian know for sure what new revenues would be included, what formula would be used, and whether the teams would go along with it?

Absolutely not. He guessed, assumed the best, not the worst (no new CBA) and wasn't that far off.

Luck.

 

[mgteich]

Not luck, any more than any other business analysis.

I suppose so... but let me ask you .... I believe the players association can opt out of this CBA early and call for new negotiations (is it 2010?)

So, assuming they do so, what do you think the Salary Cap will be under thefirst year of the NEXT new CBA?

And I'm asking you because I think you're smarter than Polian.

Now I'd expect you can guess - but it wouldn't even be much of an educated guess not knowing what parameters will be in the new CBA. If you were a GM and actually basing your contract decision on that guess and turned out to be right, I'd consider you pretty lucky.

So what will the Patriots cap be under the next CBA assuming the players association opts out of this one early?

By the same token, did Polian know for sure what new revenues would be included, what formula would be used, and whether the teams would go along with it?

Absolutely not. He guessed, assumed the best, not the worst (no new CBA) and wasn't that far off.

Luck.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Not luck, any more than any other business analysis.

OK - so what will the Pat's cap be at the next CBA? What new revenues will be included? And will all the owners agree to it? Will the players support it?

You can analyze things all you want - no one can know what the cap will be with so many moving parts.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, business planning is difficult. Few are ggod at it. With regard to the cap, the colts and the pats are head and shoulders above the rest.

Most throw up their hands, as you have, and declare that it's a mystery (as the nuns used to say) or it's too hard.

OK - so what will the Pat's cap be at the next CBA? What new revenues will be included? And will all the owners agree to it? Will the players support it?

You can analyze things all you want - no one can know what the cap will be with so many moving parts.

 

[solman]

Pasquarelli is an idiot. The net effect of the Brady restructuring is less than $1.4M/year for three years. (plus the 2009 hike which I'll discuss later)

Its just plain stupid to say that $1.4M/year will kill the Patriots (or any team) cap wise.

This analysis ignores the fact that the $4M isn't gone, just reallocated. Unless the Patriots actually spend that money on a player, it will be pushed into next year via LTBE incentives.


As far as the 2009 hike, it looks like Brady's people said:

"Sure we'll do the restructuring, but you have to give us a long term extension before the 2009 season or pay a price."

If the Patriots fail to do this, they will have to pay a penalty of a few million dollars at that time.

This is still an uncharacteristic move for the Patriots, since the few million dollars will increase Tom Brady's leverage at the time of the negotiation. I look at Belioli's decision to do this as saying: "We put together your last deal based on mutual respect, and without the use of hardball negotiations. We're commited to doing the same with your long term extension. Since your next contract will be determined by mutual respect, a few million dollars of additional leverage will have no effect."

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

I hope he is wrong.

 

[solman]

Yes, business planning is difficult. Few are ggod at it. With regard to the cap, the colts and the pats are head and shoulders above the rest.

Most throw up their hands, as you have, and declare that it's a mystery (as the nuns used to say) or it's too hard.

I don't know how anybody can look at the Colt's current cap situation and say that they are head and shoulders above the rest of the NFL. The Colt's are royally screwed.

Being forced to replace starters only via the draft, having to give up your #1 pick for a mid second rounder in a weak draft and not being able to sign free agents are very bad things that are symptomatic of the Colt's poor cap management.

If they make the playoffs this year, it will be a testament to how well they drafted and how well they are coached.

 

[TouchdownColts]

I don't know how anybody can look at the Colt's current cap situation and say that they are head and shoulders above the rest of the NFL. The Colt's are royally screwed.

Being forced to replace starters only via the draft, having to give up your #1 pick for a mid second rounder in a weak draft and not being able to sign free agents are very bad things that are symptomatic of the Colt's poor cap management.

If they make the playoffs this year, it will be a testament to how well they drafted and how well they are coached.

Seriously, do you know what your talking about? The Cols draft strategy for the past several years has been to build a core of players through the draft, let defensive FA's walk and replace them through players groomed to take their position one day. Ever heard of Mike Peterson? How about David Thorton? Those two starters we lost this year, David and Harper, both low round draft choices. Cato June? Same thing. Montae Reagor?? You guessed it. How about Bradys new found friend Marlin Jackson? Yeah you bet. I can list names forever, Antoine Bethea, Kelvin Hayden...

Go ahead and name me a year where the colts plunged heavily into FA since they have been on their strech of playoff appearences. Besides Corey Simon and AV, the colts have ALWAYS BROUGHT IN LOWER DRAFT PICKS AND GROOMED THEM INTO STARTIING POSITIONS. What about this do *some* pats fans not understand? Do you desire the fall of the colts so bad that you completely ignore their recent draft history and come to false conclusions that the sky is suddenly falling.

BTW Ugoh was a STEAL of a pick and will be a foundation in the Colts OL for 10 years to come

 

[spacecrime]

Seriously, do you know what your talking about? The Cols draft strategy for the past several years has been to build a core of players through the draft, let defensive FA's walk and replace them through players groomed to take their position one day

colts have ALWAYS BROUGHT IN LOWER DRAFT PICKS AND GROOMED THEM INTO STARTIING POSITIONS.

That's a good philosophy, but for it to work, you must do as you say: "replace them through players groomed to take their position one day."

You haven't done this. This year you lost guys for which you have not previosuly drafted and groomed replacements. You let players go and then drafted their replacements. Since not all, or even most, low round picks become quality starters, relying on rookies to start is not a good bet.

The only guy you drafted this year that fits your p[hilosophy mold is that guard/tackle you traded your first pick of next year for. He can be groomed. The other draft picks you made are needed this year. That is hardly doing what you say you do: groom players to take someone's position one day.

Nobody knows better than Pats fans that losing players does not mean a bad next season. We have been dribbling out players for a while and always keep in the hunt.

But we also know what happens when you lose a guy before his replacement is in house, and it isn't pretty. It happened at LB a couple years ago, and with WR last year.

It is possible for low round picks to work out in the first year. We've had Samuel, Wilson, Light, Koppen, etc show up well in their first year. But those are exceptions. Most players don't really contribute until their second year, sometimes their third.

Jackson is a guy who did not exactly impress anyone his first year, nor did David. It would have been rough if you had to force them into the lineup as rookies, as you most likely will with Coe and/or Hughes.

We do not dispute the philosophy of building a team through draft picks. That is why the Colts, Steelers and Pats and in the playoffs year after year. What we are saying is that you lost guys for whom you have no replacements groomed. Both the Pats and Steelers also have found themselves in that position. It calls for a temporary stop gap, and that is free agency. You should have filled a those positions with free agents last March, guys who could come in and do a credible job while the rookies got up to speed, and/or come in when the rooks hit the rookie wall around week 10-12, as over half the rookies who start their first year seem to do.

So, don't tell me your philosophy in general terms. Tell me who you groomed over the last year or two to replace the guys you lost earier this year.

 

[solman]

Seriously, do you know what your talking about? The Cols draft strategy for the past several years has been to build a core of players through the draft, let defensive FA's walk and replace them through players groomed to take their position one day. Ever heard of Mike Peterson? How about David Thorton? Those two starters we lost this year, David and Harper, both low round draft choices. Cato June? Same thing. Montae Reagor?? You guessed it. How about Bradys new found friend Marlin Jackson? Yeah you bet. I can list names forever, Antoine Bethea, Kelvin Hayden...

I give the Colts credit for drafting and coaching well.

Their salary cap management sucks.

Grooming rookies to replace FAs is a very good thing. Not having the option to retain FAs is a very bad thing.

BTW Ugoh was a STEAL of a pick and will be a foundation in the Colts OL for 10 years to come

In a year when there were supposedly only 17 first round caliber players in the draft, Ugoh was taken 42nd. For that the Colts lost a first round pick in 2008, quite possibly a high first round pick.

It is possible that most of the 41 teams that picked ahead of the Colts were idiots who failed to accurately evaluate Mr. Ugoh. It is more likely that the Colts made an error.

For a team that, by your own admission, depends on the draft to replace the players they can't afford due to cap reasons, losing a first round pick in next years draft is a serious blow.

 

[Miguel]

And I'm asking you because I think you're smarter than Polian.

I may be book smarter than Polian but Polian knows more MUCH MORE about the cap and the business of the NFL than I do.

By the same token, did Polian know for sure what new revenues would be included, what formula would be used, and whether the teams would go along with it?

Absolutely not. He guessed, assumed the best, not the worst (no new CBA) and wasn't that far off.

Luck.

Like I said before, the NFL pays people to project the cap. I guess that the NFL, the best-run business in sports, is wasting their money.

Prior to the last year, the CBA was last extended in 2002.

If you asked me in 2003, what would be the chances that the CBA would not be extended in 2006. I would have said zero because I would have believed that the NFL owners and the NFLPA would not have been stupid enough to kill the golden goose. Ditto for 2004. Ditto for most of 2005. It was only until 2006 that I would have even thought that it was even possible that the CBA would not be extended. Even then I still thought that it would be extended. You seem to be saying that it would have been wrong for anyone to make decisions in 2003/2004/early 2005 working under the premise that the CBA would be extended even though there was no talk of the CBA not being extended at the time. You make it sound like it was widely known/reported in 2003/2004/early 2005 that the CBA would not be extended. Let's say that a person thought in 2003/2004 that it was a slim chance of the CBA not being extended. Is it really lucky to follow the advice of the people paid to project future cap numbers??? The same people who ended up being right???


As for not assuming the worst, I guess that it is just pure luck that the Colts were indeed able to redo the deals of Manning and Harrison even after they lost the special master ruling and without going to court. I guess that it was pure luck that the Colts structured Freeney's contract so as to give him an incentive ($$$$$) to agree to an extension in 2006 thereby lowering his 2006 cap number if 2007 was going to be uncapped. If 2007 was uncapped, then Freeney would not be an UFA this year because he would not have 6 years of free agency under his belt. His 2007 salary would have been just $1 million rather than the current value of $9 million.

 

[Miguel]

You can analyze things all you want - no one can know what the cap will be with so many moving parts.

And yet the NFL pays people to project future cap numbers. Imagine a group of successful billionaires throwing their money away.

 

[He Ban Me]

That's a good philosophy, but for it to work, you must do as you say: "replace them through players groomed to take their position one day."

You haven't done this. This year you lost guys for which you have not previosuly drafted and groomed replacements. You let players go and then drafted their replacements. Since not all, or even most, low round picks become quality starters, relying on rookies to start is not a good bet.

The only guy you drafted this year that fits your p[hilosophy mold is that guard/tackle you traded your first pick of next year for. He can be groomed. The other draft picks you made are needed this year. That is hardly doing what you say you do: groom players to take someone's position one day.

Nobody knows better than Pats fans that losing players does not mean a bad next season. We have been dribbling out players for a while and always keep in the hunt.

But we also know what happens when you lose a guy before his replacement is in house, and it isn't pretty. It happened at LB a couple years ago, and with WR last year.

It is possible for low round picks to work out in the first year. We've had Samuel, Wilson, Light, Koppen, etc show up well in their first year. But those are exceptions. Most players don't really contribute until their second year, sometimes their third.

Jackson is a guy who did not exactly impress anyone his first year, nor did David. It would have been rough if you had to force them into the lineup as rookies, as you most likely will with Coe and/or Hughes.

We do not dispute the philosophy of building a team through draft picks. That is why the Colts, Steelers and Pats and in the playoffs year after year. What we are saying is that you lost guys for whom you have no replacements groomed. Both the Pats and Steelers also have found themselves in that position. It calls for a temporary stop gap, and that is free agency. You should have filled a those positions with free agents last March, guys who could come in and do a credible job while the rookies got up to speed, and/or come in when the rooks hit the rookie wall around week 10-12, as over half the rookies who start their first year seem to do.

So, don't tell me your philosophy in general terms. Tell me who you groomed over the last year or two to replace the guys you lost earier this year.

I guess I am missing your point. Why did they spend early picks on:

Hayden (CB, round 2, 2005)
Jackson(CB, round 1, 2005)
Jennings(CB,round 2, 2006)
And follow up with:
Giordono(S,round 4, 2006)
Bethea(S,round 6, 2006)

Add Hughes to the mix, and I think Colts are going to be fine. In order to refer to it as "grooming", does the guy have to ride the pine a minimum number of years(?), or if he's a legit starter after 1 year (Bethea), does that count?

Polian obviously drafted for the future in '05 and '06 (with reference to the secondary).
Here's what Schein thinks:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6785232

 

[He Ban Me]

I give the Colts credit for drafting and coaching well.

Their salary cap management sucks.

Grooming rookies to replace FAs is a very good thing. Not having the option to retain FAs is a very bad thing.



In a year when there were supposedly only 17 first round caliber players in the draft, Ugoh was taken 42nd. For that the Colts lost a first round pick in 2008, quite possibly a high first round pick.

It is possible that most of the 41 teams that picked ahead of the Colts were idiots who failed to accurately evaluate Mr. Ugoh. It is more likely that the Colts made an error.

For a team that, by your own admission, depends on the draft to replace the players they can't afford due to cap reasons, losing a first round pick in next years draft is a serious blow.

41 other idiots? Well, how many teams are set at LT? How many teams needed a franchise:

QB
RB
WR

How many teams needed to address defense first? To say every pick ahead of Ugoh was either wrong, orthe Colts were wrong is about the most assinine thing I have ever read on a MB. Your priviledges should be revoked!

 

[Miguel]

OK - so what will the Pat's cap be at the next CBA? What new revenues will be included? And will all the owners agree to it? Will the players support it?

You can analyze things all you want - no one can know what the cap will be with so many moving parts.

Please reconcile that assertion with Scott Pioli's quote "To me it's amazing, because we're not building just for the 2007 season, we're building for '08, '09, '10, '11, '12. This is long-term."

 

[PonyExpress]

Miguel,
The posters continually deriding Polian and the Colts' cap situation represent a small but vocal segment of Patriot fans as a whole. I'm not sure why you spend time trying to justify the Colts' strategy, when their SB victory was justification enough. If posters are so ideological as to find fault with an organization as successful as Indy, I doubt your thoughtful arguments will persuade them otherwise, if that is the desired effect.

 

[spacecrime]

Miguel,
The posters continually deriding Polian and the Colts' cap situation represent a small but vocal segment of Patriot fans as a whole. I'm not sure why you spend time trying to justify the Colts' strategy, when their SB victory was justification enough.

Win another one, then you can be as smug as you want. The reason the Pats fans seem a minority, is that this board is overrun with Colts fans who are trying desparately to convince us how great their team is.

You don't have to. You won. Enjoy the title from now until Next February.

You don't have to come here and build yourself up any more. Don't broadcast your insecurity.

If Pats fans think that they will topple you next year, it's because they are Pats fans. It's what fans think about their team.

You're coming over here won't change anyone's mind, any more than it I went to your board. If I went to a Colts board and started yammering about how great the Pats were, you'r probably think of me the way I think of you right now.

You won. Why be a bad winner? We weren't overrun by Steelers fans the other year. But then, Steeler fans aren't insecure.

Go ahead, you and HE BONK ME tell me again why we Pats fans should think the Colts are so great, and how they will win it all again, and all that other stuff.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Please reconcile that assertion with Scott Pioli's quote "To me it's amazing, because we're not building just for the 2007 season, we're building for '08, '09, '10, '11, '12. This is long-term."

How do I reconcile that with predictions of a possible new CBA and new salary cap formula? Well let me ask you, - exactly how many of the Patriots are currently signed through 2012 and what is our cap committment for 2012?

The fact is that the Colts got a $7 million salary cap "gift" when the most recent CBA was signed - because as everyone knows that 11th hour negotiation could have easilly gone the other way.

As it was, even with the $102 million cap the Colts had to cut James. How many other players would need to be let go to shave another $7 million off?