PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Pasquarelli: Pats in cap trouble


Status
Not open for further replies.
If the CBA was not extended, the cap would not have been $87 million but $94.5 million or $96.5 million. I can' t remember which.

Please note that the Colts use the phony LTBE move in 2006 on at least 2 players to push out at least $2 million in cap space into 2007 so they did not even use the entire $102 million to build their team.

Would the 2006 Colts have looked different if the CBA was not extended??Yes, but so would every other team in 2006.

So the Colts used $100M. Had the CBA not been extended they would have been screwed for fair though because not only was that $5M+ more than the cap would have been, they would not have been able to restructure Manning and Harrison's deals under the terms of an expiring CBA as I recall. At least not without a Federal lawsuit Polian was threatening. So they would have been upwards of $17M over the cap. Which means no Adam and no Booger McFarland (whom they traded for in October I believe) and no Reggie Wayne extension (making him a 2006 UFA they could not have retained) since the league voids deals to mandate teams get under the cap in season.

We would have looked different, but not nearly that different.
 
If he thinks we're in cap trouble because of Brady's first restructure under this deal, Pastabelly must think the Colts are totally screwed...

Not only does Manning have a higher cap number than Brady but Carson Palmer had a higher 2008 cap number (14.2 million) than Brady before this move. I can't recall any predictions of an extension for either Manning or Palmer by Len P.
 
So the Colts used $100M. Had the CBA not been extended they would have been screwed for fair though because not only was that $5M+ more than the cap would have been, they would not have been able to restructure Manning and Harrison's deals under the terms of an expiring CBA as I recall.

Your recollection is incorrect.
 
Brady can and likely will be extended. He's only 33 in 2010. Manning must be extended and he's 35 in 2010.

Please stop misleading this board or please stop holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.;)
Manning's DOB is 3/24/1976.
Brady's DOB is 8/3/1977.
 
I
As to "credit card thinking," this premise does not seem to fit what the Pats have done here. We have one guy's contract being restructured to make a comparatively small amount of room, and other guys coming in for below market rate.

Bingo, I just do not get how anyone in May, 2007 can opine that the Pats have to extend Brady in April, 2008.

Does Len P provide any facts??
1.) He says that Brady's 2008 cap number would be prohibitive but I do not recall anyone saying that Brady's 2006 cap number was prohibitive. I hate to repeat myself but I have said several times that simply focusing on how much one person takes up of a team's cap is idiotic. It, IMO, is beyond surreal to focus on Brady's since he makes the other players on the team better.
2.) Besides that flimsy rationale, Len P does not explain why the Pats have to extend Brady next year.

He could have reported that the Pats are projected to be over the 2008 cap but did not.

He could have reported that Brady will be demanding more than $8 million in new money but he did not.
 
Your recollection is incorrect.


Oddly I recall the league said no can do to simple restructures and Polian blew a fuse. Manning and Harrison were going to have to actually take pay cuts or watch several teamates get cut,as I recall. Somehow I doubt those would have come without some future price, the details of which I don't believe we ever saw since the ratification got them off the hook and those re-done deals were immediately scrapped scrapped in favor of standard restructures.
 
Please stop misleading this board or please stop holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.;)
Manning's DOB is 3/24/1976.
Brady's DOB is 8/3/1977.

Fair enough. I was trying to avoid an awkward comparison with a 17 month age difference, so let's just say Brady will be 33 when the 2010 season ends while Manning will be within weeks of turning 35. ;)
 
Not only does Manning have a higher cap number than Brady but Carson Palmer had a higher 2008 cap number (14.2 million) than Brady before this move. I can't recall any predictions of an extension for either Manning or Palmer by Len P.

FYI - Anyone can download my numbers for Brady, Manning, and Palmer at
http://www.patscap.com/top3qbs.xls

This Excel workbook does not have any macros.
 
This is all ridiculous.

1. Brady makes a lot more real money than his teammates do. Who, exactly, has a problem with that?
2. The Pats cleared around $5 million MORE in cap space for Moss than they'll actually pay him, due to a technicality (they had to accomodate his old contract). Or more if he doesn't hit his incentives. The Pats will claw that back from future cap years.
3. The Pats have extra picks going forward. That it worth a bit of cap room.

Like every other team in the league, the Pats have enough back-end loaded deals to be somewhat borrowing from the future for today's team. I doubt any of us here -- even Miguel -- knows a precise ranking of where the various teams in the league fit by that metric. But I'd be surprised if the Pats were in any kind of unusually bad shape.
 
Oddly I recall the league said no can do to simple restructures and Polian blew a fuse. Manning and Harrison were going to have to actually take pay cuts or watch several teamates get cut,as I recall. Somehow I doubt those would have come without some future price, the details of which I don't believe we ever saw since the ratification got them off the hook and those re-done deals were immediately scrapped scrapped in favor of standard restructures.

On March 6th IndyStar.com reported that the Colts redid the deals of Manning and Harrison which the redoes happened on the 5th. You are referring to a special master ruling that happened a week earlier. The owners and the NFLPA approved the new CBA on March 8th. Reggie Wayne signed his deal much earlier than that.
 
Who else would be our resident expert? Just about eveyone on this board who makes a cap comment first checks with your website. :D

If ESPN were smart (ha ha), they'd run articles that talk to the cap by you or someone like you. Then they wouldn't call a $14 mil cap number prohibitive. Large, sure, but prohibitive? For a franchise QB? I think not. Especially since cap limits have come up quite a bit in the last couple years.

For those new to this board, spacecrime is referring to me. Background - since Manning signed his contract in 2004 I have posted on this board numerous times in 2004/2005/2006 that his contract would not prevent the Colts from winning the Super Bowl.

As spacecrime said, I do not have a problem with Manning's 2008 cap number. I do not have a problem with Brady's 2008 cap number. I do not believe that Brady's contract will not prevent the Patriots from winning the Super Bowl. Earlier today I said in a reference to this article -"Big deal. Brady's 2006 cap number accounted for 13.8% of the team's adjusted cap number.The Pats did not extend Brady then. Why should they be forced to do so in 2008???"
 
As for 08, using Miguel's figures, there are 39 guys under contract, accounting for a little more than $104M of the projected $116M cap. Unless something changes, your final roster of 53 guys includes 14 guys (plus practice squad and in-season replacements etc.), all together accounting for $12M. So, at somewhere south of $1M a piece for the year, these 14 guys:

A) Must all be JAGs,
B) Must be dependent on some departures from among our current signees (AKA cuts,) or
C) Must be dependent on some degree of restructuring.
Why? Even in the highly unlikely event that one or more of the high-cap-number guys aren't cut, and no one's contract is extended, figure seven of the 14 will be rookies, with a total first year cap hit of about $4 mil. Figure four FA at the vet minimum for a total of $2 mil (cap hit for vet min is less than salary). That leaves $6 mil for 3 guys.

What's wrong with that?

(Practice squad players get $5,000 a week, a total of about $600,000 for the entire year. Hardly worht worrying about)
 
So the Colts used $100M. Had the CBA not been extended they would have been screwed for fair though because not only was that $5M+ more than the cap would have been, they would not have been able to restructure Manning and Harrison's deals under the terms of an expiring CBA as I recall. At least not without a Federal lawsuit Polian was threatening. So they would have been upwards of $17M over the cap. Which means no Adam and no Booger McFarland (whom they traded for in October I believe) and no Reggie Wayne extension (making him a 2006 UFA they could not have retained) since the league voids deals to mandate teams get under the cap in season.

We would have looked different, but not nearly that different.


So without all the stars aligning and all the various factors that were up in the air until literally the last minute on the new CBA, its doubtful the Colts would have signed any free agents and might have even had to cut some players.

The chances of the new CBA negotiations falling apart was a VERY real possibility with a major stalemate in the NFL. That was something people were predicting too.

I guess Polian just decided that it was best to assume the best and plan accordingly. I get the feeling that Belichick is one who prefers to plan for the worst and then take advantage of the situation improves.
 
No one should worry about NE's ability to handle the salary cap.
 
Why? Even in the highly unlikely event that one or more of the high-cap-number guys aren't cut, and no one's contract is extended, figure seven of the 14 will be rookies, with a total first year cap hit of about $4 mil. Figure four FA at the vet minimum for a total of $2 mil (cap hit for vet min is less than salary). That leaves $6 mil for 3 guys.

What's wrong with that?

(Practice squad players get $5,000 a week, a total of about $600,000 for the entire year. Hardly worht worrying about)

Okay first I'll disagree then agree in a way... but possibly just out of ignorance.

1) you're assuming you'll get anything other than a JAG at veteran minimum, for 4 guys. This is assuming a continuation of the "take the cut to play for the Pats" phenomenon which spiked this year... it is not something you can count on. Last year it became the "everyone knows NE is cheap" model. It might again at any time. Practice squad, as you say, absorbs 600K - which out of a total of $12M, is worth worrying about. What about in-season replacements? It doesn't look like a lot of room to work with on that front... you have to think keeping a million or two for a rainy day is a good idea.

2) I like your reliance on lotsa rooks... this could be the pressure that makes it a "use the picks" year, with a relatively subdued FA on the Pats part. We've got the draft ammo... why not. We'll also have 4 guys (Moss, Welker, Washington, Stallworth) all attempting to prove their status, with only Welker structured in such a way that we lose a bunch up-front to cut him. So, if something we throw at the wall this year doesn't stick, we may end up with yet more draft ammo, and a slight reduction in the cap.

3) Dillon's dead money due to retirement - I do not know the status of this. (Miguel -- assist?) There is a big dead money hit next year, and I first assumed that's tied to money already paid (bonuses) which the team is on the hook for. But I also see we're not liable under the cap for his salary this year, once CD is officially retired. So the hit for 08 might include dead money that isn't really dead once CD is not paid his salary on 6/2. That could be a huge difference in money to spread around.

4) Haven't gone back to pinpoint what hits when... but you know someone becomes an RFA or UFA in 08. Somebody you want to keep. Yes, you can absorb much of that hit in later years... or not. But this too figures into that cap math.

In other words, once all is said and done, we might just be going to the credit cards, if the same mentality continues to pertain. All I can say is from the looks of things, the "middle" is migrating north for NE, with the Top (Brady) already having shot skyward, and one must assume, staying there for a while... I do like the large middle class NE continues to have (and in fact, it is growing.) But a scatterplot of our structure looks a lot more like other teams' than it looks like, say, our 2003 or 2004 structures.

This boils down the whole "fiscal discipline" difference to "looking for value," which I still maintain NE has done. But you can't get something for nothing, even if you CAN get it for cheaper (which puts you ahead of the game right there.)

I think we are seeing a "new model" going into effect which reflects the 2006-2010 era capwise. I think it is different from the pre-2006 model... I also think what I think is likely to be disproven by next season's moves.

It'll be great to look back at all this in 2020 and see what the Patriots of our age did, rather than try to keep up with what they are doing.

"In Bill We Trust."

QED,


PFnV
 
Okay first I'll disagree then agree in a way... but possibly just out of ignorance.
I don't think so. Your post was well thought out.

it is possible we each have different ideas, but for the sake of discussion, here is where I was coming from

1) you're assuming you'll get anything other than a JAG at veteran minimum, for 4 guys. This is assuming a continuation of the "take the cut to play for the Pats" phenomenon which spiked this year
a) I suspect we will get role players at vet minimum, same as we have since BB's been here. Not sure of your definition of a JAG is, but when you are talking about the last few positons on the roster, you don't get many ProBowl players. (You do get some former ProBowl players, though)

b) A spike is something that goes up and comes back down. A rising trend isn't a spike if it hasn't started back down yet.

c) All that said, I agree that the type of player that takes veteran minimum is probably a guy with something left but cannot find a home elsewhere.


2) I like your reliance on lotsa rooks... this could be the pressure that makes it a "use the picks" year, with a relatively subdued FA on the Pats part. We've got the draft ammo... why not. We'll also have 4 guys (Moss, Welker, Washington, Stallworth) all attempting to prove their status, with only Welker structured in such a way that we lose a bunch up-front to cut him. So, if something we throw at the wall this year doesn't stick, we may end up with yet more draft ammo, and a slight reduction in the cap.
Not sure what they'll do, but I figured 7 rookies with five first day picks and keeping the fourth and fifth rounders. No way to predict if we trade out to 2009 with our first and third again, but even trading out we usually get a decent pick for the current year and a better one the following year.

Are you saying that if Stallworth and Washington don't stick, we only get a slight cap reduction? I believe that their high second year salaries/bonuses are included in the 2008 figure we are working with. Cutting either one will release millions and make all cap trouble talk moot. Am I wrong in thinking that their contracts are not included?

3) Dillon's dead money due to retirement - I do not know the status of this.
Me, either. I think it's about four and a half million, and that the Pats can absorb it all this year, or push two-thrids of it off into next year.

I know there are two concurrent threads, one about what great cap shape the Pats are in, and one how bad their cap shape is. I think it is partially relative. As long as they are in better cap shape than most of the NFL, they will be able to sign FAs and maneuver personnel-wise more effectively than the ones with fewer options.
 
Last edited:
If everyone needs, I'm sure we can construct a roster and schedule of cap costs for 2008. There are zero issues with regard to the 2008 cap, unless you all think that we need to have a free agent spending spree next year. I think that the concern is a matter of misunderstanding. The last time I calculated, I kept Stallworth and Washington and didn't keep Moss. We may have that choice, but even then restructures and extensions will create the needed monies.

I am not saying that there won't be challenges in 2008. There definitely will be. The team will try to deal with Colvin, Warren and Sanders before the 2008 season starts.
 
3) Dillon's dead money due to retirement - I do not know the status of this. (Miguel -- assist?) There is a big dead money hit next year, and I first assumed that's tied to money already paid (bonuses) which the team is on the hook for. But I also see we're not liable under the cap for his salary this year, once CD is officially retired. So the hit for 08 might include dead money that isn't really dead once CD is not paid his salary on 6/2. That could be a huge difference in money to spread around.

FWIW - CD's 2008 dead money hit is really dead money.
 
So without all the stars aligning and all the various factors that were up in the air until literally the last minute on the new CBA, its doubtful the Colts would have signed any free agents and might have even had to cut some players.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots News 4-28, Draft Notes On Every Draft Pick
MORSE: A Closer Look at the Patriots Undrafted Free Agents
Five Thoughts on the Patriots Draft Picks: Overall, Wolf Played it Safe
2024 Patriots Undrafted Free Agents – FULL LIST
MORSE: Thoughts on Patriots Day 3 Draft Results
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots Head Coach Jerod Mayo Post-Draft Press Conference
2024 Patriots Draft Picks – FULL LIST
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots CB Marcellas Dial’s Conference Call with the New England Media
So Far, Patriots Wolf Playing It Smart Through Five Rounds
Wolf, Patriots Target Chemistry After Adding WR Baker
Back
Top