Revisiting Justin Rogers' contract

[ctpatsfan77]

[This was inspired by the talk of current RFA Adam Seward.]

Last year, the Pats signed Justin Rogers to a three-year deal, unlike all the other rookies, who were signed for the maximum length of time (4-5 years).

If you think about it, it doesn't make much sense for either side to do this just for giggles: Rogers would be foregoing about $25K in the one time he'd be guaranteed any money at all, while for the team, they would risk either losing him after three years, or having to shell out more for his final year.

So, there has to be a reason for the Patriots to depart from their MO. Two plausible scenarios occurred to me (it could be a combination of both):

• Confidence on Rogers' part--he felt that he could stick on an NFL roster long enough that he was willing to risk the $25K or so for a chance at a larger salary in year 4 (either by being signed long-term or being given an RFA tender).
• Preparation on the Patriots' part--it is quite possible that the Pats knew they probably wouldn't be able to keep Rogers, but wanted to make it easier for them to 'reclaim' him if he proved himself. When the Cowboys claimed him off waivers, they inherited his Pats' contract; so, unless they redo the contract, he will be an RFA after the 2009 season.

Do either/both of these sound plausible? Or are there other possible scenarios I'm missing?

 

[Jimke]

[This was inspired by the talk of current RFA Adam Seward.]

Last year, the Pats signed Justin Rogers to a three-year deal, unlike all the other rookies, who were signed for the maximum length of time (4-5 years).

If you think about it, it doesn't make much sense for either side to do this just for giggles: Rogers would be foregoing about $25K in the one time he'd be guaranteed any money at all, while for the team, they would risk either losing him after three years, or having to shell out more for his final year.

So, there has to be a reason for the Patriots to depart from their MO. Two plausible scenarios occurred to me (it could be a combination of both):

• Confidence on Rogers' part--he felt that he could stick on an NFL roster long enough that he was willing to risk the $25K or so for a chance at a larger salary in year 4 (either by being signed long-term or being given an RFA tender).
• Preparation on the Patriots' part--it is quite possible that the Pats knew they probably wouldn't be able to keep Rogers, but wanted to make it easier for them to 'reclaim' him if he proved himself. When the Cowboys claimed him off waivers, they inherited his Pats' contract; so, unless they redo the contract, he will be an RFA after the 2009 season.

Do either/both of these sound plausible? Or are there other possible scenarios I'm missing?

I think the Pats just made a goof. Rogers was a conversion project

and conversions take time. The Pats didn't want to take up the

roster space until he was more of a finished product. They hoped to

continue his development on the practice squad and lost out when

the Cowboys picked him up on waivers. I think that the Pats are

going to have to keep any promising rookies on their 53 man roster.

Cuts are not automatic transfers to the practice squad any longer.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think the Pats just made a goof. Rogers was a conversion project and conversions take time.

Whether or not it was a goof to cut him, that still doesn't explain why they only signed him to a three-year contract in the first place. That wasn't an accident.

 

[Jimke]

Whether or not it was a goof to cut him, that still doesn't explain why they only signed him to a three-year contract in the first place. That wasn't an accident.

I think it may just be a quirk that happens every so often. The year

before Jeremy Mincey was signed to a 3 year contract. Before that

Gus Scott was signed to a 1 year contract.

It might also be a maneuver on the part of the player's agent

to get an offer from another team after the player becomes an RFA.