The Patriots Cap Performance Stands out, but not in a good way

[upstater1]

Here's something fans aren't appreciating about the Patriots approach of locking in 90% of your cap and keeping the last 10% for late season bonuses to spend "up to the cap." It creates incentives for players. Instead of having players with a ton of guaranteed money in your bank account, you make players work for their money. As long as they're willing to work, they make MORE in New England than they would elsewhere. This naturally creates a more cohesive team when you know all your teammates are working hard. Check out Edelman and Amendola talking about incentives here:

 

[Wozzy]

What did the Rams and Patriots have in common in 2023?

The large majority of their roster was young and still on their rookie contracts.

So yeah… their average contract would be smaller than the league average. You don’t pay rookies more just so you don’t appear cheap… that’s not how this works.

Good grief…

 

[venecol]

The NFL has such huge turnover, managing the salary cap is very much related to how much you pay your stars, especially the QB.
On average 50% of the roster is different every 2 years. You need a core of a few star players.
For 2026 season, currently there is an average of 16 players per team signed.
The Patriots #1 Cap hit for 2024 is Judon under $15 million,
Patriots are the ONLY team in the NFL without a $20 million cap hit player on the roster for 2024.
Patriots have not drafted, nor signed star players, Thuney is the one guy with a big contract they let go that has played great. Judon is the only free agent that lived up to a large contract.
Guys like Onwenu you need to sign long term and pay up. They just have not had many good players and thus the lower spending.

For this team they need a couple years to add talent so if the guy is not under 28, they should not resign them.
That leaves Bryant, Wilson, Uche, Jennings, Reagor, Onwenu, as the only guys that have played NFL snaps regularly and are under 28. Everyone else, just let them go.

Team has no TEs. Henry is one of the better ones in FAcy and he's been a top 3 producer on offense since he signed in '21. I would re-sign him or get Shultz who is younger. Still need 2 more, and Pharaoh should be cheap.

 

[festy1986]

Super Bowls gone

Been gone. Was already half way towards our longest drought.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

For this team they need a couple years to add talent so if the guy is not under 28, they should not resign them.
That leaves Bryant, Wilson, Uche, Jennings, Reagor, Onwenu, as the only guys that have played NFL snaps regularly and are under 28. Everyone else, just let them go.

This argument would make more sense if two things weren't true:
(1) If they just had 2021 Mac Jones as QB this team could've made the playoffs or at worst finish 8-9/9-8.
(2) I'm pretty sure Robert Kraft wants to see this team win in the playoffs again before he shuffles off this mortal coil.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

I suspect Bill had a paper thin staff helping out with the financial aspects of cap management. Although adding void years isn't new (actually introduced by Bledsoe's agent), it's been more and more common in recent years. Patriots use them sparingly, unlike other teams, that don't mind the eventual dead money hit to bring in talent.

If I'm Kraft, I would try to bring in some FO personnel from the Bucs or Rams who've done an incredible job of using void years and negotiating contracts to bring in and retain talent.

Talk about revisionist history. The Rams put themselves so deeply in cap jail that their superstar coach wanted to quit. If we are taking anything from that team it should be how they assembled a bunch of scraps into a decent team to get themselves back to the playoffs so quickly after the purge. How they replace Stafford in a couple of years will be the real test.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

Been gone. Was already half way towards our longest drought.

That is the very sad reality, I don't see the team competing for championships any time in the near term. The only good news is that the team is truly starting over. Since the last years of TB12 there have been too many well intentioned "compromises" in philosophy, roles and people made in the attempt to extend the magic that created a dysfunctional organization. It was time to move forward with a clean slate.

 

[KCSVEN]

This argument would make more sense if two things weren't true:
(1) If they just had 2021 Mac Jones as QB this team could've made the playoffs or at worst finish 8-9/9-8.
(2) I'm pretty sure Robert Kraft wants to see this team win in the playoffs again before he shuffles off this mortal coil.

Cap space will go pretty fast if you sign a few players, so you need to prioritize. I'm just saying you should use the cap on some younger players. Save the money and re-allocate it to younger players.
Players nearing 30, on average tend to start to fall off.

I don't think the idea of letting older players go to sign a good younger player necessarily makes you worse, maybe in year 1.

I'd overpay for Pittman or Marquise Brown vs paying a little less for Beckham, or Evans or Ridley.
I'd rather give Josh Allen from Jax a big contract than Spend 28 million a year on Chris Jones
Rather spend $20m on Justin Madubuike than extend Judon.
The team needs to get a younger core.

We will have a rookie QB (or a journeyman with rookie backup) and a rookie coach. The Texans aside that generally means year 1 is not a playoff team.
Why give 3-4 years to a 30-year-old when you're not really likely to contend until year 2?
Give it to a younger player who will likely produce more in year 2-4 overall than the aging veteran.

 

[TommyD4207]

Cap space will go pretty fast if you sign a few players, so you need to prioritize. I'm just saying you should use the cap on some younger players. Save the money and re-allocate it to younger players.
Players nearing 30, on average tend to start to fall off.

I don't think the idea of letting older players go to sign a good younger player necessarily makes you worse, maybe in year 1.

I'd overpay for Pittman or Marquise Brown vs paying a little less for Beckham, or Evans or Ridley.
I'd rather give Josh Allen from Jax a big contract than Spend 28 million a year on Chris Jones
Rather spend $20m on Justin Madubuike than extend Judon.
The team needs to get a younger core.

We will have a rookie QB (or a journeyman with rookie backup) and a rookie coach. The Texans aside that generally means year 1 is not a playoff team.
Why give 3-4 years to a 30-year-old when you're not really likely to contend until year 2?
Give it to a younger player who will likely produce more in year 2-4 overall than the aging veteran.

Ideally you'd never sign a FA over the age of 28.

The only problem the Patriots are going to run into here - is if the younger players actually want to come here, or just the older players looking to get their last bag?

 

[KCSVEN]

Ideally you'd never sign a FA over the age of 28.

If you are one of the top 4 teams in the NFL, adding a veteran here and there in an area of need is great. Some positions, like QB and O Line tend to play well into the 30's.
In Patriots situation they need to think about 2 years out when choosing who to sign.

 

[TommyD4207]

If you are one of the top 4 teams in the NFL, adding a veteran here and there in an area of need is great. Some positions, like QB and O Line tend to play well into the 30's.
In Patriots situation they need to think about 2 years out when choosing who to sign.

I completely agree. I just fear the Patriots aren't in the position of being able to snag a Matt Judon or Rosey Colvin like they were in the past.

 

[upstater1]

Ideally you'd never sign a FA over the age of 28.

The only problem the Patriots are going to run into here - is if the younger players actually want to come here, or just the older players looking to get their last bag?

The 28 number is the wrong # though because of kids coming into the league at age 23 and 24. If they're 1st rounders, they're 29 coming into their second c0ontract.

I mean, you're not going to resign Barmore, Dugger and Onwenu who have only been in the league 4 yrs because of some arbitrary cutoff?

 

[CPA_MM]

How are you accounting for contracts that have cap hit less than cash for the entire duration, but with large dead money after the contract has expired?

For example, I wouldn’t say that a two year, $30M contract with cap hits of $6M and $11M with $13M dead money the following year is better than just $8M and $22M and then no dead money. It’s just a conscious decision to do it differently.

How are you accounting for contracts that have cap hit less than cash for the entire duration, but with large dead money after the contract has expired?

For example, I wouldn’t say that a two year, $30M contract with cap hits of $6M and $11M with $13M dead money the following year is better than just $8M and $22M and then no dead money. It’s just a conscious decision to do it differently.

Teams with higher player contract values tend to win more games than teams with lower total contract value. Teams that use aggressive cap accounting in 2023 (Bills- Browns- Jets- Chargers- Eagles) will be able to afford player contracts $40M to $60M higher than conservative clubs. (Patriots, Colts, Chiefs).

The $30M contract with $13M in dead money in year 3 means the club can afford more player contracts in year 1 & 2 than they otherwise would.

 

[venecol]

Talk about revisionist history. The Rams put themselves so deeply in cap jail that their superstar coach wanted to quit. If we are taking anything from that team it should be how they assembled a bunch of scraps into a decent team to get themselves back to the playoffs so quickly after the purge. How they replace Stafford in a couple of years will be the real test.

Rams went all in and won a SB just 2 years ago. Now they're #14 in cap space w/ very little dead money. They were a blown DPI away from making it into the DIV RD, just 2 years later. They have a good base, talented QB, talented players, and good coaches. No revisionist history at all. As far as Stafford goes, he's only 35. They'll continue to restructure his contract like so many teams do.

Bucs went all in and won a SB just 3 years ago. A year after the GOAT retired they're #8 in cap space w/ very little dead money (dead last). They won their division the last 3 seasons after winning the SB. They're still loaded with talented players.

I love it how Pats fans criticize the cap management of other teams that have been successful with their strategy, are still competitive, and have talented players. I remember when people here were adamant the Chiefs would pay dearly for the Mahomes contract. Lol

In contrast, Pats are #3 in cap space and #10 in dead money. That's great but we haven't won a division in 4 years and ended w/ the worse record in the AFC and worse since 1992. Oh, team is also devoid of talent with no QB and looking at a rebuild of their entire offense. You guys were praising Bill all along for his cap management savvy which worked fine with a franchise QB willing to keep his cap hit at <13% of the cap space. The last 3 years, the Patriots had one of the lowest QB cap hits in the league and some of the highest for receivers (WR/TE), yet we still have no QB or receivers. Bill did a great job of driving the team into a ditch.

 

[Stu Pidassle]

Rams went all in and won a SB just 2 years ago. Now they're #14 in cap space w/ very little dead money. They were a blown DPI away from making it into the DIV RD, just 2 years later. They have a good base, talented QB, talented players, and good coaches. No revisionist history at all. As far as Stafford goes, he's only 35. They'll continue to restructure his contract like so many teams do.

Bucs went all in and won a SB just 3 years ago. A year after the GOAT retired they're #8 in cap space w/ very little dead money (dead last). They won their division the last 3 seasons after winning the SB. They're still loaded with talented players.

I love it how Pats fans criticize the cap management of other teams that have been successful with their strategy, are still competitive, and have talented players. I remember when people here were adamant the Chiefs would pay dearly for the Mahomes contract. Lol

In contrast, Pats are #3 in cap space and #10 in dead money. That's great but we haven't won a division in 4 years and ended w/ the worse record in the AFC and worse since 1992. Oh, team is also devoid of talent with no QB and looking at a rebuild of their entire offense. You guys were praising Bill all along for his cap management savvy which worked fine with a franchise QB willing to keep his cap hit at <13% of the cap space. The last 3 years, the Patriots had one of the lowest QB cap hits in the league and some of the highest for receivers (WR/TE), yet we still have no QB or receivers. Bill did a great job of driving the team into a ditch.

Did you read my post, or do you just repost the same rants? Anyway the boom bust model is just that. Teams have won super bowls using that model some have not. Regardless of the results, teams then need to reset. The first rule of success is to make the extra investment to add to an established core that includes a franchise QB to go for the championship. Don't make that extra investment to make a bad team mediocre. That just makes a bad situation worse when the time comes to reset. When the time of reckoning comes, do a good job drafting and bringing in young free agents to rebuild around an established QB or find the next one. Since you brought up Brady, his contributions to the cap are a small part of his legacy. His willingness to help with the cap and performance on the field minimized the peaks and valleys allowing the Pats to stay in the championship hunt during the rebuild from the team that won the first 3 championships and the one that the last 3. Clearly the last rebuild cycle for the Pats has gone horribly wrong and BB paid with his job. That does not change what happened before that.

 

[mgteich]

Doesn't matter.

Only two things matter:

1.) Do we spend to the cap limit every year?

2.) Are we winning games?

For 2023, it was Yes and No.

This isn't quite the case.

The cap is an accounting mechanism, NOT the asset, and not the price of the asset.

Let us say a business had players as their assets. And, let us presume that all obeyed the rules.

Let us presume that each team could spend $200M each year.

BASIC LEVEL
One business might choose to control $200M AAV of contracts, with any backloading of long-term contracts matched by one year contracts.

Another business might choose to backload contracts as a matter of policy.

SITUATION ONE
I control $200 AAV.

SITUATION TWO
I might control MORE than $200M AAV. If I defer $40M every year on average. I would be controlling $240M AAV. This could be done on a permanent basis. A team could choose to defer 20% of annual cap value.

But they eventually have to pay. That is the case only if the NFL ceases to exist.

So, one team chooses to control $200M of contracts. Another chooses to control $240M.

NOTE
1) The cap goes up over time.
2) There are risks associated with backloading contracts. Sure, perhaps a player isn't worth anything in his second year. But where was the risk. If I pay a player $10M a year and defer $5M of it from his first year to the second, I can still cut him and pay deferred money. I haven't lost anything.
==================
TEAMS GOING ALL IN
Yes, a team can use a strategy of try for a good couple of years, and pay for it with 4 bad years. That results when a large amount of current contract are deferred into the future. While a certain amount is almost permanent, an excessive amount end up with you haveing a cycle of say 3 year of very high amount of contract controlled, and then some years of having a lot of the defereed money and little in terms of contracts. This happens when the player doesn't play in the last years of the contract.

This strategy is NOT terrible, Some fans greatly prefer it. And the league seems to favor this strategy by giving teams who have 2-4 years at the bottom top draft picks.

SOME TEAMS GO WITH THE FLOW AND DEFER A NEAR AVERAGE AMOUNT OF CONTRACTS
Depending on many factors, these teams will be the norm. Some will be winning teams almost always (e.g. PITT)/ Some will be perpetual losers. BUT, it will not be the cap that it the cause. I would note that these teams will rarely be at the bottom.

AND THEN SOME ALMOST REFUSE TO DEFER
If the norm is deferring 20% and thus being able to control 120% of cap per year, these teams CHOOSE not to spend the 20%. They control less value in contracts. To be clear, on average their teams are worse because they CHOOSE, on average, to have less talent on their teams.

The extreme of this group is the New England Patriots.

 

[mgteich]

How are you accounting for contracts that have cap hit less than cash for the entire duration, but with large dead money after the contract has expired?

For example, I wouldn’t say that a two year, $30M contract with cap hits of $6M and $11M with $13M dead money the following year is better than just $8M and $22M and then no dead money. It’s just a conscious decision to do it differently.

let us use the extreme of $15M, $15M vs $10M, $10M, $10M with all contracts, forever. In the long run

In in the first case, I choose to control less value with say $30M of current cap money.

The gain isn't cumulative. However, it can be permanent.
==========
The choice is how much value in AAV to control with our cap. Other teams control more than we do.
=========
If all else is equal, having say 20% less of contracted talent is a HUGE disadvantage. In business, it is refusing to accept permanent interest free loans for equipment or labor.

 

[Hyped]

This isn't quite the case.

The cap is an accounting mechanism, NOT the asset, and not the price of the asset.

Let us say a business had players as their assets. And, let us presume that all obeyed the rules.

Let us presume that each team could spend $200M each year.

BASIC LEVEL
One business might choose to control $200M AAV of contracts, with any backloading of long-term contracts matched by one year contracts.

Another business might choose to backload contracts as a matter of policy.

SITUATION ONE
I control $200 AAV.

SITUATION TWO
I might control MORE than $200M AAV. If I defer $40M every year on average. I would be controlling $240M AAV. This could be done on a permanent basis. A team could choose to defer 20% of annual cap value.

But they eventually have to pay. That is the case only if the NFL ceases to exist.

So, one team chooses to control $200M of contracts. Another chooses to control $240M.

NOTE
1) The cap goes up over time.
2) There are risks associated with backloading contracts. Sure, perhaps a player isn't worth anything in his second year. But where was the risk. If I pay a player $10M a year and defer $5M of it from his first year to the second, I can still cut him and pay deferred money. I haven't lost anything.
==================
TEAMS GOING ALL IN
Yes, a team can use a strategy of try for a good couple of years, and pay for it with 4 bad years. That results when a large amount of current contract are deferred into the future. While a certain amount is almost permanent, an excessive amount end up with you haveing a cycle of say 3 year of very high amount of contract controlled, and then some years of having a lot of the defereed money and little in terms of contracts. This happens when the player doesn't play in the last years of the contract.

This strategy is NOT terrible, Some fans greatly prefer it. And the league seems to favor this strategy by giving teams who have 2-4 years at the bottom top draft picks.

SOME TEAMS GO WITH THE FLOW AND DEFER A NEAR AVERAGE AMOUNT OF CONTRACTS
Depending on many factors, these teams will be the norm. Some will be winning teams almost always (e.g. PITT)/ Some will be perpetual losers. BUT, it will not be the cap that it the cause. I would note that these teams will rarely be at the bottom.

AND THEN SOME ALMOST REFUSE TO DEFER
If the norm is deferring 20% and thus being able to control 120% of cap per year, these teams CHOOSE not to spend the 20%. They control less value in contracts. To be clear, on average their teams are worse because they CHOOSE, on average, to have less talent on their teams.

The extreme of this group is the New England Patriots.

By not deferring, we have the most flexibility.

And ask the Cowboys how they like Prescott counting 60M vs. the cap in 2024....

 

[mgteich]

By not deferring, we have the most flexibility.

And ask the Cowboys how they like Prescott counting 60M vs. the cap in 2024....

And you believe their record would have been better if the had cut $20M before last season?

DAL will defer money again, and again and again.

Yes, it takes a lot of work. But their base condition of deferring say $20 more than we do gives them gives them $20M more talent EVERY YEAR since the $20M is an addition to the available cap.
=============
The decision to pay so much for a top QB is a different decision entirely. Pay a top QB $40M a year and $60M for that player in a given year is "normal", no different than having a $24M cap hit for a $16M AAV player.
==========
WE HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY
Sure, there is more flexibility if you don't spend money and save it for the future. Theoretically, in 2024, we have the ability to defer lots more than others and could have an enormous effect on the amount of talent under contract. Some teams choose to have control more sometimes and less other times, have say 2-4 great years and 2-4 terrible ones. Personaly, I agree with Kraft approach of leveling the flow. HOWEVER, I disagree with the choice of not borrowing, and therefore CHOOSING to spend less on talent than the rest of the league.

BOTTOM LINE
The AAV the patriots spend on talent is among the very lowest in the NFL. In essense, everyone spends the same base, and other teams have talent EVERY YEAR paid for with more future money that will never be paid than does the patriots.

Everyone controls the cap plus an amount that is deferred, We CHOOSE to control less talent. As I have said, this is similar to a company that chooses to not borrow, knowing that the money need not be paid back.

 

[Hyped]

And you believe their record would have been better if the had cut $20M before last season?

DAL will defer money again, and again and again.

Yes, it takes a lot of work. But their base condition of deferring say $20 more than we do gives them gives them $20M more talent EVERY YEAR since the $20M is an addition to the available cap.
=============
The decision to pay so much for a top QB is a different decision entirely. Pay a top QB $40M a year and $60M for that player in a given year is "normal", no different than having a $24M cap hit for a $16M AAV player.
==========
WE HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY
Sure, there is more flexibility if you don't spend money and save it for the future. Theoretically, in 2024, we have the ability to defer lots more than others and could have an enormous effect on the amount of talent under contract. Some teams choose to have control more sometimes and less other times, have say 2-4 great years and 2-4 terrible ones. Personaly, I agree with Kraft approach of leveling the flow. HOWEVER, I disagree with the choice of not borrowing, and therefore CHOOSING to spend less on talent than the rest of the league.

BOTTOM LINE
The AAV the patriots spend on talent is among the very lowest in the NFL. In essense, everyone spends the same base, and other teams have talent EVERY YEAR paid for with more future money that will never be paid than does the patriots.

Everyone controls the cap plus an amount that is deferred, We CHOOSE to control less talent. As I have said, this is similar to a company that chooses to not borrow, knowing that the money need not be paid back.

The Piper always needs to be paid in the end.

I am OK with deferring money WHEN the team is on the cusp of a championship...and we want to keep the team together.

But given our current talent level, I am happy that we are not deferring....

For example, do we want to defer Davante Parker? Or just accept his 6M cap number this year....then cut him next year when he only counts for 1.5M in dead money? How about JuJu Smith-Schuster? 10M cap number this year...but only 2.6M dead money hit in 2025.

Those guys aren't worth deferring for..... I'd only do it for a handful of players like Judon for example...just to keep Judon around when we are close to a Superbowl contender while adding more talent.