Question for Miguel...

[Patsbacker]

Can you explain the advantage of having an 18.66 million option on Seymour's contract for next year...thanks.

 

[Miguel]

Can you explain the advantage of having an 18.66 million option on Seymour's contract for next year...thanks.

There is no advantage. Apparently there is a rule in place that prohibits increasing a player's cap number twice within a 12-month period. The option bonus was the way the Pats and Seymour chose to work around this prohibition.

Apparently the Patriots and Seymour thought it was worthwhile to get the deal now as opposed to in August.

Possible reasons for the Pats
1.) The deal dispels any notion that the Pats are cheap.
2.) The deal dispels any notion that the Patriots will not make a player the highest-paid player at his position.
3.) The deal eliminates any possibility of a holdout by Seymour
4.) The Pats still are under the cap by $16.9 million. Branch, Samuel, Graham, TBC, Koppen and Pass have to be happy with that piece of news. IMO, the Pats still have enough cap space to extend these 6 players.

Possible reasons for Seymour
1.) He is getting paid like the best defensive lineman in the game.
2.) He passes on the injury risk to the Pats
3.) There is value in getting money now as opposed to August
4.) He is getting 80% of his deal in the 1st 2 years of his contract.
5.) It is only after 6/2/2008 that it becomes cheaper on the cap to release Seymour than to keep on the roster. And even then Seymour would be a $7.55 million dead money in 2008 AND 2009. So Seymour knows that it is very likely that he will see all of the money due him in this contract.

 

[NE39]

Possible reasons for Seymour
1.) He is getting paid like the best defensive lineman in the game.
2.) He passes on the injury risk to the Pats
3.) There is value in getting money now as opposed to August
4.) He is getting 80% of his deal in the 1st 2 years of his contract.
5.) It is only after 6/2/2008 that it becomes cheaper on the cap to release Seymour than to keep on the roster. And even then Seymour would be a $7.55 million dead money in 2008 AND 2009. So Seymour knows that it is very likely that he will see all of the money due him in this contract.

Add on the Seymour side that he is due for FA again after 2009, and he will not yet have turned 30. Thus, if he is still playing at a high level, he will still be a very attractive FA and could sign another huge contract.

I have another question for you Miguel.

From what I've read of the new CBA, there is an opt-out provision for after the 2008 season, with 2009 being an uncapped year if the NFL elects to opt out of the deal.

Do you think that had a bearing on the Pats only adding 3 years to Seymour's existing contract? I find it curious that they are only signing guys to shorter-term deals. This could just be an organizational philosophy (the back-ends of those big deals are never really intended to stay untouched), or maybe it is the Krafts maintaining the maximum payroll flexibility in case the CBA is opted-out and the market becomes very uncertain.

I'll be watching the contracts the Pats pay to Branch, Koppen, Graham and the like (and perhaps what they do with their draft picks) to see if the short-term philosophy is maintained.

 

[Miguel]

Add on the Seymour side that he is due for FA again after 2009, and he will not yet have turned 30. Thus, if he is still playing at a high level, he will still be a very attractive FA and could sign another huge contract.

I have another question for you Miguel.

From what I've read of the new CBA, there is an opt-out provision for after the 2008 season, with 2009 being an uncapped year if the NFL elects to opt out of the deal.

Do you think that had a bearing on the Pats only adding 3 years to Seymour's existing contract? I find it curious that they are only signing guys to shorter-term deals. This could just be an organizational philosophy (the back-ends of those big deals are never really intended to stay untouched), or maybe it is the Krafts maintaining the maximum payroll flexibility in case the CBA is opted-out and the market becomes very uncertain.

I think that you answered your question. I think that the deal is through the 2009 because Seymour wanted to be able to get one more big contract. I do not think that opt-down provision in the new CBA will affect any deals this year.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay, so the extension is signed, and structured to leave Seymour as a constant this year, making next year the "big hit" to cap money.

I guess you can look at this as a flexibility issue, but only if re-configuring the document is possible once the draft is over (or even into the season.)

In other words, if I am Kraft and on the hook for the money anyway, and I can spend some 2006 cash on the 2007-2009 hits, I want to do that, especially since Kraft/BB/SP incur so much risk in the contract (via the guaranteed money) to begin with.

However, I also want maximum flexibility for the remainder of my off-season moves.

So, there's no cost to the Pats side if they plan to pay Richard out in part using remaining expendable 2006 cap dollars. From Seymour's point of view, it's just a chunk of change that much sooner.

My question is, when is the latest this season the Pats can throw some of Sey's 2007 money at him, and have it hit the 2006 cap?

Is the assumption now that they won't, or that they're preserving their latitude?

Once again, I know I am the board rookie at this... just don't know how they plan to make 16 million bucks worth of splash at this point, although of course having flexibility when signing your draft picks is much nicer than crying all the way to training camp...

PFnV

 

[Miguel]

I do not think that the Pats can throw 2007 money into 2006 because I think that the 12-month window reset when Seymour signed the deal but we will have to wait until the new CBA is on the NFLPA.org site.

 

[patsox23]

Once again, I know I am the board rookie at this... just don't know how they plan to make 16 million bucks worth of splash at this point, although of course having flexibility when signing your draft picks is much nicer than crying all the way to training camp...

PFnV

Thank you for articulating questions so many of us non-rookies surely have. And welcome aboard. It's been a helluva debut. Post more, please.

 

[hwc]

I do not think that the Pats can throw 2007 money into 2006 because I think that the 12-month window reset when Seymour signed the deal but we will have to wait until the new CBA is on the NFLPA.org site.

If they wanted to move future cap money into 2006, they could, of course, easily do it. In any player contracts for the rest of the off-season, simply pay roster bonus or salary dollars instead of signing bonus dollars.

I'm not sure where this idea of the Pats moving big cap hits forward into 2006 came from. I've never seen any evidence that the Pats are terribly fond of that strategy. There is some evidence to suggest they may prefer somewhat more even proration of dollars over the length of a contract, although I'm not even sure about that. They've certainly done a lot of simple restructures to push cap money out over the years.

 

[hwc]

On this Seymour deal:

It strikes me as a solid-businesslike alternative to three years of franchise tags for both the Pats and Seymour.

The Pats save an average of a couple million a year in cap money compared to franchise tagging Seymour through 2009. And, they free up the tag to use on somebody else.

Seymour benefits by transferring the entire injury risk off his shoulders to the Pats. He also removes the possibility of a career-killing tag and trade to a truly dreadful backmarker franchise.

Both sides benefit by not having to go through the yearly round of holdouts and bellyaching associated with repeated franchise tagging.

At the end of the 2009 season, the Pats will have gotten nine great years from Seymour and can either sign him again or shake his hand if he goes for the big free agent retirement contract, knowing that they have gotten full value from a 1st round draft pick.

I like deals where both sides sit down and allow the realities of the options available guide them to a deal. I appreciate that the Pats knew they had to cough up top of the market bucks and that Seymour wasn't greedy enough to force the Pats into the franchise tag route. Seymour understood that the value to the Pats of the final low-cost year in 2006 and the consecutive franchise tag option (with no injury risk) had to be factored into a successful negotiation. The Pats clearly recognized the value to Seymour of having another shot at the free-agent bonanza.

The length of the contract was probably the key to making it work...and the reason why I suspect both sides were looking at the realities of the franchise tag option. I wish more agents encouraged their players to treat negotiations as a business deal rather than an ego-gratification exercise.

 

[Miguel]

If they wanted to move future cap money into 2006, they could, of course, easily do it. In any player contracts for the rest of the off-season, simply pay roster bonus or salary dollars instead of signing bonus dollars.

I was specifically talking about Seymour's deal.

I'm not sure where this idea of the Pats moving big cap hits forward into 2006 came from.

I have suggested that the Pats will move some of Colvin's 2007 and 2008 money into 2006 just like Pats once did with McGinest.

I've never seen any evidence that the Pats are terribly fond of that strategy.

Read my capfootnotes page regarding McGinest.

 

[dryheat44]

My question is, when is the latest this season the Pats can throw some of Sey's 2007 money at him, and have it hit the 2006 cap?

Is the assumption now that they won't, or that they're preserving their latitude?

PFnV

I'm not one-eigth as cap-savvy as Miguel, but there is an accounting date at some point during the season before which future monies can be applied to current cap space, but I don't know the ins and outs.

It would seem a better way to achieve this end would be to contain a healthy amount of LTBE incentives in the rest of the contracts they sign this offseason. It will be harder to do since we're not coming off a championship, but I'm sure they could figure something out if they were so inclined.

Welcome. And together we'll wait for Miguel to tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[Miguel]

Is the assumption now that they won't, or that they're preserving their latitude?

My assumption is that they won't.

Basis -

1.) Reasonable presumption - The Pats and Eugene Parker have talking awhile on this deal. So the Pats had enough time to know whether or not they could trust Parker and Seymour
2.) Fact - The Pats could have released Seymour. And the next minute/day sign him to a new deal that would not be affected by the 12-month rule.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Add on the Seymour side that he is due for FA again after 2009, and he will not yet have turned 30. Thus, if he is still playing at a high level, he will still be a very attractive FA and could sign another huge contract.

I have another question for you Miguel.

From what I've read of the new CBA, there is an opt-out provision for after the 2008 season, with 2009 being an uncapped year if the NFL elects to opt out of the deal.

Do you think that had a bearing on the Pats only adding 3 years to Seymour's existing contract? I find it curious that they are only signing guys to shorter-term deals. This could just be an organizational philosophy (the back-ends of those big deals are never really intended to stay untouched), or maybe it is the Krafts maintaining the maximum payroll flexibility in case the CBA is opted-out and the market becomes very uncertain.

I'll be watching the contracts the Pats pay to Branch, Koppen, Graham and the like (and perhaps what they do with their draft picks) to see if the short-term philosophy is maintained.

Just a nitpick but the Globe and Herald writers are math challenged today - Richard was born in October 1979. So he will be neither on the right side or dreaded wrong side of 30 when this deal expires - he will be either "just" or "already" 30 - depanding on who is discussing his status and how he is performing.

The Krafts may prefer from a long term sound business standpoint to primarily pay as you go. Sometimes the need for short term flexibility dictates you cannot do that based on team needs and contract status and injury misfortunes. And in some ways the rules under which this hard cap operates invite postponing the inevitable as a means to closing a perceived gap (usually created by some combination of bad luck and bad decisions) when you really cannot afford to. Having won 3 of the last 5 league championships makes it easier to persue sound financial decisionmaking going forward than it is for an ownership or management team chasing even one in a given player or management sensitive window. We were that team in 2000-2002 and we used the system judiciously as needed to get over that hump. Going forward, particularly with our big ticket talent (and that is really limited to a haldful of players) they will likely strive to avoid over-reliance on the old credit card.

It's hard to say what will happed in 2009-2010 given what transpired just a month ago. But the Krafts and Belioli likely want to be in a position to deal with whatever is to come. Some are already opining that if the Wilson's of the league succeed at pushing the envelope on the revenue distribution model the growing list of haves (with all the new stadiums coming on line) may decide enough is enough. And with new leadership at the helm of both the league and the union it could come to that.

I know some are still grappling with the who can we spent to the cap on issue. Maybe there will yet be a signing or two that require or allow for substantial use of 2006 cap. But as a team generally dealing with a downward adjustment each season, I don't see why they cannot simply balance the books once the dust settles and use some LTBE restructures elsewhere on the roster to push any remaining cap space forward account for future cap hits on both Richard's and Tommy's contracts. The Vikings did it for years, although probably not for the appropriate reasons.