Pats Rookie Signing Thread...

[Hok]

OooOOoooOOO .... $46,000! What a cap hit! What a risk!

(That would be all of a whopping .4% of the Pats' cap room!)

No need to be snippy. All I'm saying is that if Andrews was a typical 7th rounder (slim chance to make the final roster), he'd be given a one-year deal with a quarter of the bonus money. Belichick is nothing if not a shrewd cap spender. He's not going to waste $30,000 for no reason.

 

[pats1]

No need to be snippy. All I'm saying is that if Andrews was a typical 7th rounder (slim chance to make the final roster), he'd be given a one-year deal with a quarter of the bonus money. Belichick is nothing if not a shrewd cap spender. He's not going to waste $30,000 for no reason.

Let's examine both ends of the risk:

Best case scenario: Andrews makes the roster and performs very well, and the Pats have him essentially locked up for 4 years at cheap money.

Worst case scenario: Andrews fails and is cut. The Pats lose all of $45k.


VERY low risk, high reward.

 

[Hok]

Let's examine both ends of the risk:

Best case scenario: Andrews makes the roster and performs very well, and the Pats have him essentially locked up for 4 years at cheap money.

Worst case scenario: Andrews fails and is cut. The Pats lose all of $30k.


VERY low risk, high reward.

I mostly agree, but keep in mind that the Pats control Andrews for three years anyway as a league minimum EFA, and for a fourth year as a RFA, albeit at a potentially higher cost. Look at Givens. We signed him to one year deals for four years, three of them at the EFA tender.

Anyway, I'm glad that Andrews has a four-year deal, because our return game was woeful last year, and this means that Andrew has shown enough to stick.

 

[primetime]

Look at Givens. We signed him to one year deals for four years, three of them at the EFA tender.

And it's too bad we don't have him for a fourth year at the minimum. So you just proved your rebuttal... if Andrews works out, then they have him for 4 years at a minimum type deal and won't lose him to a big money contract like they did Givens.

 

[Hok]

if Andrews works out, then they...won't lose him to a big money contract like they did Givens.

Why not? He'll still be a UFA after 4 years, just like Givens.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that giving Andrews a 4 year contract is dumb, I'm just arguing that it means BB is sure about him. Otherwise, we'd give him the Givens treatment, as is the wise thing to do when you're unsure if a guy's a roster lock.

 

[VJCPatriot]

No need to be snippy. All I'm saying is that if Andrews was a typical 7th rounder (slim chance to make the final roster), he'd be given a one-year deal with a quarter of the bonus money. Belichick is nothing if not a shrewd cap spender. He's not going to waste $30,000 for no reason.

Well not to nitpick but I divided the $46,000 bonus by the Pats Cap Total of $100M. The percentage of the cap the bonus would represent is .046%. But please consider that bonus money is prorated over the life of the contract. So the real cap percentage is 1/4 of that or .0115% of the Pats total cap figure each season. (I could further go on by accounting for cap increases in future years but I don't want to divide that many fractions).

So over a period of 4 years the Pats will be burdened by Andrews .0115% bonus sucking up their cap room in each year.

Hey I know BB likes to micromanage, but I didn't know he was this much into whipping out his calculator!

So in all due fairness... In terms of financial risk 3 years versus 4 years makes an infinitesimally small difference in the big picture when dealing in numbers this relatively insignificant. (Please remember in football when you cut a guy the only thing left on the books is usually the signing bonus. Football is not big on guaranteed money unlike other pro sports.)

Hey for you or me 46k is a big deal, we could buy a new car with that. But not so much of a big deal in the world of pro football.

I will agree with one thing though. The Pats probably feel Andrews has a chance of making it. Or they wouldn't have given him a contract at all.

The upside to the 4 year contract? If Andrews becomes a premier ST player or returner the Pats get Andrews as dirt cheap as possible over those 4 years. The Pats won't risk losing him in year 4 to RFA for a measley 7th round pick... and they'll just let Snyder overpay and sign him to the 5M/year deal in 2010. At that time we draft another 7th rounder to replace Andrews... Rinse and repeat. That's how good teams stay good. And wannabe good teams stay bad.

 

[pats1]

Why not? He'll still be a UFA after 4 years, just like Givens.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that giving Andrews a 4 year contract is dumb, I'm just arguing that it means BB is sure about him. Otherwise, we'd give him the Givens treatment, as is the wise thing to do when you're unsure if a guy's a roster lock.

The signing bonus and length doesn't mean BB is more sure of him, and he's still far from a roster lock.

As VJC just said, the effect on the cap is compeltely negligible. $46,000 is just too small of a number to draw conclusions from.

You're trying to argue that giving him a long term contract with a signing bonus is showing financial obligation and thus exhibiting BB's promise for the player, but that's simply not the case. With numbers so small, the Pats have much bigger things to deal with in Branch - any deal for a late-rounder is going to be in the team's favor (non-guaranteed salary), so it's just getting the deal done and having him in camp which is their main interest.

 

[Hok]

We'll agree to disagree, I guess. I understand that $46,000 prorated over 4 years is a small amount when there's a $100 million cap. I just think that, given how easy it is to lock up a player for 3 years at minimum salaries through ERFA (and for a fourth year through RFA at a higher, but still reasonable, cost), it makes little sense to give a guy a longer contract and more guaranteed money unless you're fairly certain he's going to stick.

Call it a case of differing business philosophies.

 

[pats1]

We'll agree to disagree, I guess. I understand that $46,000 prorated over 4 years is a small amount when there's a $100 million cap. I just think that, given how easy it is to lock up a player for 3 years at minimum salaries through ERFA (and for a fourth year through RFA at a higher, but still reasonable, cost), it makes little sense to give a guy a longer contract and more guaranteed money unless you're fairly certain he's going to stick.

Call it a case of differing business philosophies.

It's the RFA that matters, not the ERFAs. That 4th year in the contract is crucial, and the Pats avoided him entering restricted free agency if he performed well enough to last that long.

It's easier just to get the thing done and over with now, instead of having to deal with RFA tenders, draft compensation, etc.

 

[spacecrime]

Why not? He'll still be a UFA after 4 years, just like Givens.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that giving Andrews a 4 year contract is dumb, I'm just arguing that it means BB is sure about him. Otherwise, we'd give him the Givens treatment, as is the wise thing to do when you're unsure if a guy's a roster lock.

It doesn't mean BB is sure. It means BB learned from the mistake of Givens' contract. If Givens had the contract the Andrews just signed, Givens would have played for 600K in year 4, not for 1.4MIL.

The 46K signing bonus is meaninless. Andrews'd get about 20-30K even if he signed a 2-year bonus. So we are talking about a difference of 10 or 20 thousadn dollars to potentially save almost a million.

If he doesn't work out, the Pats can cut him without worry. If he works out, he will be here for three years at rookie min and one year at low tender prices BUT no team will be able to sign him to an offer. He won't be an RFA, he'll just get low tender money.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

The signing bonus for a 7th rounder surprises me. Not that its huge against the cap, but that it must eat into the rookie pool somewhat. From what I have read, the new CBA up'ed the min rook salary, but the pool didn't go up by a corisponding amount.

Perhaps someone who knows more about the rook cap can enlignten me?

 

[arrellbee]

I really am intrigued by Willie Andrews. He came across as a neat kid in an interview I saw. But he has to overcome the fact that he is SMALL - 5'9 and 182#. That makes him an inch shorter and 13# lighter than Eugene Wilson who is the next smallest safety. If he has the skill set to play CB, he's very close to Ellis Hobbs who is 5'9 and 188#. But we don't quite know for sure that Hobbs can survive at that size, altho things look VERY optimistic. The other thing is - no matter how eagle eyed Belichick is in evaluating talent from college and minimum contact rookie camp, it doesn't seem that even he could really tell if the kid can be a pro returner until you get into full contact flat out training camp. Willie along with all of the other rookies will be fascinating to watch and see what happens.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

It's the RFA that matters, not the ERFAs. That 4th year in the contract is crucial, and the Pats avoided him entering restricted free agency if he performed well enough to last that long.

It's easier just to get the thing done and over with now, instead of having to deal with RFA tenders, draft compensation, etc.

Just to add...

Because Givens was a RFA, the Pats had to give him the mid-level tender (1st round comp) which was $1.3mil, which is more than the Pats would have paid if they gave him a 4 year deal. Very likely we'll see fewer RFAs in the NFL from now on.

JMHO

 

[Pats726]

2 down 8. to go...Is Miguel around for a quick q????

Looks like Stevenson is in the fold....I like him..he's versatile and big!! I know they compared him to another Andruzzi...THAT would be great!!! I love it...I am still a bit worried that they will all fit in in the alloted spaces...
Miguel..are you worried at all about that??? Fitting all of them in??? I know PFT was speculating that given the rise in the cap and such...some may not have space for all draftees. Just wanted your thoughts ON that...and the Pats with 10..the most may be in a squeeze...