Pay Wilfork and Mayo Their Contract Amounts

[Rob0729]

Both Vince and Mayo absolutely have to restructure. Neither have a lot of leverage to fight a restructure. But the Pats need them to restructure to make other moves.

Vince's restructure didn't ultimately hurt him financially this year because he made all or most of his incentives and made about the same amount of money he would have made without the restructure.

 

[mgteich]

Let me clarify---they don't necessarily have to be rookies to replace the player who may leave, simply cheap first time contracts who may offer improved value.

In other words, it's quite possible that our first round pick from last year (Easley) is able to step up and contribute more in 2015, 2016, and 2017--before taking up significant cap space on the assumed 5th yr option in 2018.

While we "only" saw rookie contribution from Fleming and Stork, we also had valuable rotational reps and defensive scheme experience from Easley, who should be much better next season. Obviously Malcolm Butler would be another who provided good value as well.

We saw another example by moving on from L.Mankins, even if guys like Kline and Fleming didn't see the amount of gameday reps that we'd have liked during the first year of replacing him. We very well could continue to see one of the 2 adding rotational reps in the interior line + a mid/high round draft pick as well. All of those options would be a good example of seeing better value on cheap first time pacts vs. someone like Mankins, who was a fan favorite and very good LG, but needed to be moved on from in order to save precious cap space.

A guy like Dan Connelly could be another example, as could one/both of Ridley or Vereen, with Jonas Gray and James White in the background as potential replacements.

We both understand the principle of bringing in youngsters to replace older players. However, I would note that there are some limits to our thinking that this can keep happening every year. After all, we are the youngest team to even win a Super Bowl. We well know and understand the team that brought us to the Super Bowl, and the challenges of keeping or replacing those that will go.

The great challenge is to maintain the quality of the team. Let us look at the offense. Who are the veteran expensive players that will be replaced? Let's look at the list.

OFFENSE
Vereen (White or a draft pick)
Ridley (Gray, Gaffney, a draft pick or another UDFA)
Connolly (a top draft pick, Kline or move Wendell to LG, playing Fleming at RG)
Amendola - my addition (Dobson, Tyms)

QUESTION - Do you believe that this offense would be stronger than the 2014 offense, given that the youngsters we have will be more experienced? I don't. My guess is that we can keep Connolly if Solder signs a long-term contract. Even then, we will have holes at WR and RB, that is, we will likely we weaker at theses positions. Perhaps DA will come back at a lower contract, and Ridley will sign a one year deal, and then we might be as good as in 2014.

I expect that restructures (Brady, Gronk, Vollmer) will cover the late costs (usually about $7M).

 

[mgteich]

Let me clarify---they don't necessarily have to be rookies to replace the player who may leave, simply cheap first time contracts who may offer improved value.

In other words, it's quite possible that our first round pick from last year (Easley) is able to step up and contribute more in 2015, 2016, and 2017--before taking up significant cap space on the assumed 5th yr option in 2018.

While we "only" saw rookie contribution from Fleming and Stork, we also had valuable rotational reps and defensive scheme experience from Easley, who should be much better next season. Obviously Malcolm Butler would be another who provided good value as well.

We saw another example by moving on from L.Mankins, even if guys like Kline and Fleming didn't see the amount of gameday reps that we'd have liked during the first year of replacing him. We very well could continue to see one of the 2 adding rotational reps in the interior line + a mid/high round draft pick as well. All of those options would be a good example of seeing better value on cheap first time pacts vs. someone like Mankins, who was a fan favorite and very good LG, but needed to be moved on from in order to save precious cap space.

A guy like Dan Connelly could be another example, as could one/both of Ridley or Vereen, with Jonas Gray and James White in the background as potential replacements.

We both understand the principle of bringing in youngsters to replace older players. However, I would note that there are some limits to our thinking that this can keep happening every year. After all, we are the youngest team to even win a Super Bowl.

We well know and understand the team that brought us to the Super Bowl, and the challenges of keeping or replacing those that will go.

DEFENSE
Let's say we keep Revis and save the $9M of cap room, as I think that you suggested. That puts us $5M. We need to pay Gost and re-sign Casillas. There's no reason to do anything with Browner and Arrington. We have just put together the best secondary in the league. This is not the place to cut corners now.

So, in the base case, we part ways with Ayers and Branch.

Since, we are even with the board, we COULD decide to save some money for 2016 by cutting Wilfork. We would be PLANNING to end the year with a cap surplus. Or we could use the money from a cut to sign Vereen.

To me cutting Mayo makes no sense, especially with the injury guarantee. Linebackers do get injured. Having Mayo, Hightower and Collins for the next three years would give us the best linebacking corps in the NFL (or at least one of the very best).

DEFENSE - BOTTOM LINE
We can afford to keep everyone but Branch and Ayers. We might want to cut Wilfork. I wouldn't, but Belichick might. In any case, we should draft a DT in the first couple of rounds, yet again. If we do cut Wilfork, we should sign Branch to a 3-year contract as a backup while the youngster develops. Having DT's of Siliga, Branch, Jones, Easley and a draftee would be OK.

 

[supafly]

We both understand the principle of bringing in youngsters to replace older players. However, I would note that there are some limits to our thinking that this can keep happening every year. After all, we are the youngest team to even win a Super Bowl. We well know and understand the team that brought us to the Super Bowl, and the challenges of keeping or replacing those that will go.

The great challenge is to maintain the quality of the team. Let us look at the offense. Who are the veteran expensive players that will be replaced? Let's look at the list.

OFFENSE
Vereen (White or a draft pick)
Ridley (Gray, Gaffney, a draft pick or another UDFA)
Connolly (a top draft pick, Kline or move Wendell to LG, playing Fleming at RG)
Amendola - my addition (Dobson, Tyms)

QUESTION - Do you believe that this offense would be stronger than the 2014 offense, given that the youngsters we have will be more experienced? I don't. My guess is that we can keep Connolly if Solder signs a long-term contract. Even then, we will have holes at WR and RB, that is, we will likely we weaker at theses positions. Perhaps DA will come back at a lower contract, and Ridley will sign a one year deal, and then we might be as good as in 2014.

I expect that restructures (Brady, Gronk, Vollmer) will cover the late costs (usually about $7M).

Lots of good analysis and fair points here.

While the team may/may not stay the same on offense, I certainly think that they will remain consistently powerful as usual barring catastrophic injury at important positions which I won't even bother to bring up.

They can certainly overcome a turnover at some of the positions that you've brought up, such as interior OL (they may even continue to get better there), and RB. The biggest challenge in my opinion, will be replacing 3rd down back Shane Vereen, should he end up leaving.

 

[supafly]

We both understand the principle of bringing in youngsters to replace older players. However, I would note that there are some limits to our thinking that this can keep happening every year. After all, we are the youngest team to even win a Super Bowl.

We well know and understand the team that brought us to the Super Bowl, and the challenges of keeping or replacing those that will go.

DEFENSE
Let's say we keep Revis and save the $9M of cap room, as I think that you suggested. That puts us $5M. We need to pay Gost and re-sign Casillas. There's no reason to do anything with Browner and Arrington. We have just put together the best secondary in the league. This is not the place to cut corners now.

So, in the base case, we part ways with Ayers and Branch.

Since, we are even with the board, we COULD decide to save some money for 2016 by cutting Wilfork. We would be PLANNING to end the year with a cap surplus. Or we could use the money from a cut to sign Vereen.

To me cutting Mayo makes no sense, especially with the injury guarantee. Linebackers do get injured. Having Mayo, Hightower and Collins for the next three years would give us the best linebacking corps in the NFL (or at least one of the very best).

DEFENSE - BOTTOM LINE
We can afford to keep everyone but Branch and Ayers. We might want to cut Wilfork. I wouldn't, but Belichick might. In any case, we should draft a DT in the first couple of rounds, yet again. If we do cut Wilfork, we should sign Branch to a 3-year contract as a backup while the youngster develops. Having DT's of Siliga, Branch, Jones, Easley and a draftee would be OK.

I think we have the same very similar conversations on the forum just about every single year, and while we're always concerned about losing important players, Belichick has proven that we're normally in a pretty decent position when all is said and done.

Yes--attempting to keep players such as Ayers and Branch would be nice in a perfect world, just the same as we wanted to keep 10 sack LB Mark Anderson back in the spring of 2012. Does anyone know whatever happened to him? I mean...however in the world could we afford to lose a 10 sack player? Wasn't that the big question that year?

The bottom line is that we're tremendously blessed as a fanbase to have such a great GM/HC with Belichick, and I think the "usual" 13-3 or 12-4 record every year speaks volumes about his ability to overcome some roster turnover. As you mention, the much bigger questions will be with Mayo/Wilfork. I hope to keep at least 1 of them.

 

[rads2005]

Let's be clear. Mayo is 29 and should want to be paid. If the patriots want him to leave, they can cut him, after he passes a physical. I don't see that happening. If the patriots don't pay him, someone else will. Mayo has 3-5 years left, not the 1-2 that Wilfork has.

There will be teams willing to take a flier for a low salary, but the Pats would too. He's coming off a torn patellar tendon. That's not easy to come back from, and I highly doubt he'll regain his speed/explosiveness until the season after. Unfortunately, he's also going to be 30 at that time and will be starting to lose some speed due to Father Time (IMO lately he hadn't been as fast as his early years anyway). Coupled with his injury history the past couple years, and I don't think teams are going to pay him any more than the Pats would offer.

 

[A man named Brady]

Collins and Donta have pretty much made mayo expendable

Whether Vince comes back or not id like to see us draft a DT.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Collins and Donta have pretty much made mayo expendable

Whether Vince comes back or not id like to see us draft a DT.

Hightower will be coming off torn-labrum surgery and iffy to start the season. You just don't save enough to release Mayo right now. I'm sure he'd be amenable to a re-structure given his injury situation.
We're in a run-heavy division right now. Might be playing a lot more 4-3 base than one would expect. Not to mention that out of division teams on sked are run heavy too; Dallas, Pittsburgh and Houston.

I'd like to wait a year on guys like; Arrington, Amendola and Mayo. See what we have behind them. A lot less dead money if we wait a year.

We can bring most of the gang back with a Revis extension. Slight re-working by VW and Mayo.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I think we can sign Revis to 5/75 with 45m guaranteed. Which he'll get in the first 3 years. 25m signing bonus. Salaries of 1, 9 and 10 guaranteed. First year cap hit would be 11m. 5m carryover, 5m pro-rated and salary. We save 14m off his current number

I think Supa brought up already that the 5M would count no matter what, but I think he's missing that you dropped him to 1M for year 1 salary, b/c of the big $25 m payday. IOW, you have included the 5M pro-rated, if I understand his objection.

We "save" (move) 14 m this year, but that's only because the "placeholder" is 25M (and we drop him to a cap number of 11M in a year where his bank account gets $26M bigger). So 5/75 w/45m guaranteed sounds a lot like his previous paydays, structured elsewhere without the type of security this idea would entail. (I think TB paid him $13M for one year then cut him when he was going to cost $16M/yr. (?))

I think we'd have to get 3 stellar years out of him, backload the non-guaranteed money, and see how he looks at age 32. So in '16 and '17 he's locked in at 14M and 15M respectively, which is absorbable. If he declines with age, he costs $5M per year for 2 years, dead money (or does it become one big $10M cap hit in '18?). Now let's do the math of what we need in '18 and '19 - By now he's already got his $25M up-front. Salaries bring him up to $45M (fully guaranteed I take it?)

So we've got $30M to pick up for '18 and '19 if we keep him, plus $10M remaining signing bonus? Tell me if I've screwed up somehow, but we've got $20M APY at the end of the deal, w/$10M of that guaranteed (the remaining signing bonus). If he's playing at his customary high level, by 2018, I don't see how he doesn't get that somewhere (though it could be restructured again to spread out the hit). It would only be a matter of whether he's 1/8 - 1/10 of team cost (depending on league inflation).

Hard to guess whether we'll be looking at lower QB hits by then (something we all dread) or whether Brady's threat to the rest of the league to play well into his 40s comes true

It looks like a sound way to deal w/the Revis numbers, as hard as that is to see myself type. God DAMN these guys make some coin

 

[patsfaninpa]

The players deserve every penny they get. The NFL is a money-making machine. The ones sacrificing their bodies deserve the rewards.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yeah, I don't dispute that, patsfaninpa... more to the point they're worth it in supply/demand terms based on how many people can play at that elite level (somewhere around 1500 every year in a country of 300 million).

The question is which elite athletes we retain at what cost and who we'll therefore have to lose, not whether we demand that they play flag football and have their salaries limited to a million a year or anything... sorry if I left the opposite impression