Ty Law Question

[Ring 6]

I think it is pretty safe to assume that we know Law's priority, and what his decision will be based on. I wouldn't exactly say he would play for any team or any coach regardless just for the money, but his #1 concern will be money.

I have seen many comments saying "I'd like Law back.............for the right price"

My question is this:

Considering our cap position, have double-digit millions in cap room after signing rookies, and having plenty of room after extending anyone we would choose to, does "for the right price" even matter?

What if in order to sign Law, would in many peoples opinions, I think, would be the best addition we could find at this point, we had to overpay. We had to win a 'bidding war' but we had the cap room to do it? Shouldn't we still do it? Wouldnt the alternative be to just not spend the cap money? I dont know where else we would use it (and my question presupposes we wouldn't).

Example:

Our latest offer to Law costs 5mill on the cap (all hypothetical made up #s) the Chiefs offer cost 6mill. Wouldnt we outbid the Chiefs, given that we have the cap room, and wouldnt be spending it otherwise?

Of course the other consideration is the cost in future years, but it appears from everything I have seen we are in excellent cap shape going forward as well.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

First off, I think this thread should be merged with the other new thread.

But to answer the question, I feel that the Pats gave Ty their 'value' offer a while ago, like when he had the physical exam, and he is simply waiting for somebody else to beat it. He announces to the Kansas City media that signing in NE is a possibility, because I think he already has a fair value offer from Pioli.

Like with Adam, Ty is being left to do as he pleases. But if he doesn't get much more from elsewhere, I believe that he will try to get the Pats to match or beat the offer (unlike Adam, for reasons previously discussed Ad Nauseum).

I agree that the Pats could step up to the plate and sign him, but I think that he is currently playing hard to get, and probably knows what he is worth to the Pats. Hopefully, he will come back with a reasonable request and the Pats will sign him. But he is apparently talking to Kansas City media about this, and not the Boston media.

All speculation on my part.

 

[pats60]

I agree with you the money is not coming out of
my pocket.
With what they spent on Poole, Sparks, and both scotts we could have
spent it on ty

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Pats60: To build on what you say about the scrubs we had last year:

I will always believe that if we kept Ty and Keith Traylor last year we may have made it to the superbowl.

Ty helps us win a couple more games, like against the Broncos in the regular season. Traylor fills in much better for Seymour for a few games as a Line of Scrimmage veteran. He keeps Wilfork focused with a little guidance. We win an extra game. Suddenly, we have home field during the playoffs.

Crazy, yes, but that's what I feel could have happened last year. We essentially went 11-5 (10-6) without the extra help of two quality players at positions of need.

Traylor also took out Koppen last year.

 

[smg93]

I would pay a little more for a proven commodity in our system. Ty Law is is one such player who has proven his worth in the Patriots system. Sign him. He'll be an integral part of another superbowl run IMHO. If it takes 6 million to do it, that would be just fine with me.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Doesn't it seem likely that the Pats already tried to sign him when he came and took the physical, and that the reason that he is not signed, but talks about returning to NE, is because he is trying to get a better offer in Kansas City by stirring up the competitive juices?

It's not like he said this to the Boston media. Why would the Pats flat out have not tried to sign him already if he came and got checked out? He is playing hard to get.

 

[hughthehand]

If we could sign Law to a short term deal, they I would not have a problem spending big money on him.

I do not like the idea of giving him big money up front. Any contract for Law I would hope would be a pay as you go type deal. Keep some incentives in the deals to keep Law hungry.

I think I would be ok with $21mil over 3yrs.

$6mil Roster Bonus upon signing, to put cap charge in '06.
$3mil Salary in '06 with Incentives to earn another $2mil
$3mil Salary in '07 with Incentives to earn another $2mil
$4mil Roster Bonus as of 3/1/08, so the Pats have to decide to Keep him or cut him right at the start of Free Agency. $2mil Salary in '08 with Incentives to earn another $2mil. This would basically make it a 2 year deal with a 3rd year option.

This would be between 18-24 mil over 3 yrs. (or 12-16 over 2yrs) Make the '06 Bonus LTBE (if possible) to create $11mil in used cap space for '06.

My 2cents

 

[Mike the Brit]

Excellent question, as usual.

The question falls into two parts: how much should we pay for Ty? and, what else should we do with the money?

The second is the more important question.

and having plenty of room after extending anyone we would choose to

Is that true? Remember, we're in a period of slack because the cap has just gone up by a lot but the going rate for players hasn't caught up. We should be taking advantage of that as much as we can. Immediately, there's Graham, Koppen and Branch to deal with. I'd make keeping all three a priority over signing TL.

Then there's what happens after this coming season.

Of course the other consideration is the cost in future years, but it appears from everything I have seen we are in excellent cap shape going forward as well.

Looking quickly at Miguel's Future Cap Hits, there are several players with sharply escalating cap numbers in 2007 (Seymour, Colvin, Vrabel, Faulk -- though Brady goes the other way) and large signing bonuses outstanding (notably Corey Dillon). I hate it when we have to cut a player because of phony numbers at the end of a deal (Troy, Ty, Willie). We could address some of those issues.

But if all of that can be taken care of, and the Patriots are convinced that Ty would improve the team significantly, then I'm with you. The answer to the first question becomes: whatever it takes that we can afford. I don't think that "overpaying" comes into it if you're in an auction. You pay what something (in this case, someone) is worth to you -- and unused cap room is worth nothing (except, of course, $$ in the Krafts' bank account).

 

[usmcmgb]

Well, not that this is adding anything that everybody isn't already aware of, but ESPN Radio is reporting at lunchtime today that Ty is "waiting for the legitimate offers to come in" before making a decision, probably right at the start of camp or shortly thereafter. According to the report, KC and NE are the only serious players so, will NE get into a bidding war with KC just because they have the cap room? Nah, not a chance. Depending on how serious Piolichick deems the secondary situation, they might, might, overpay slightly but only slightly. I don't remember what the cap situation was last year but if they were willing to let him go to a division rival last year, they certainly won't have any problem letting him go to KC this year. If KC is willing to throw ridiculous money at him it's buh bye and thanks for the memories Ty. Bottom line for me is, I'd like to see him back but I'm not totally uncomfortable with our secondary mix going into camp today.

 

[mgteich]

I would "overpay" for Ty. I agree that we would have been two games better last year with Ty and traylor on the team. I believe that we would be better off this year with Ty Law and a quality NT backup on the team. I don't know what overpay means. Would I give him $21 over 3 years? Sure! The argument would be about the timing of bonuses. More? Maybe.

However, you assume that the alternative is not to spend the cap money. To me rolling into next year is indeed spending the cap money, although I would rather use the money for a couple of free agents, including Ty.

BTW, I would be very surprised if more than $6M isn't paid to Seymour. Otherwise the 2007 cap for him is very high.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that we know Law's priority, and what his decision will be based on. I wouldn't exactly say he would play for any team or any coach regardless just for the money, but his #1 concern will be money.

I have seen many comments saying "I'd like Law back.............for the right price"

My question is this:

Considering our cap position, have double-digit millions in cap room after signing rookies, and having plenty of room after extending anyone we would choose to, does "for the right price" even matter?

What if in order to sign Law, would in many peoples opinions, I think, would be the best addition we could find at this point, we had to overpay. We had to win a 'bidding war' but we had the cap room to do it? Shouldn't we still do it? Wouldnt the alternative be to just not spend the cap money? I dont know where else we would use it (and my question presupposes we wouldn't).

Example:

Our latest offer to Law costs 5mill on the cap (all hypothetical made up #s) the Chiefs offer cost 6mill. Wouldnt we outbid the Chiefs, given that we have the cap room, and wouldnt be spending it otherwise?

Of course the other consideration is the cost in future years, but it appears from everything I have seen we are in excellent cap shape going forward as well.

 

[Pats726]

Pats60: To build on what you say about the scrubs we had last year:

I will always believe that if we kept Ty and Keith Traylor last year we may have made it to the superbowl.

Ty Law was how much cap space??? I thought THAT was the reason he was cut..a LARGE bloated salary...That sounds good in theory until you realize it would have cost a LOT of money...who do you wish they NOT have had???? If you are going to add Ty Law..who do you subtract?? THAT really is the key to what you are saying...I don't know what the deal was with Traylor..why they dropped him..But I do not think his being with the squad would have made a big difference..SOME yes..but not really earth shattering...enough for a Superbowl. Law would have been a good addition..but NOT at the 10 mil plus number.

 

[Ring 6]

The point I was really driving at was the qualifying wanting Law back with 'at the right price'.

Wouldnt the right price be what we can afford on the cap?
And given our cap situation we should be able to outbid other teams.
That would end up being more than the 'right price' if we didn't have excess cap room.

Put another way, if in a vacuum Laws value to the Pats is 5mill a year, and the market dictates it will take 8 mill to sign him, if we could afford 8mill under the cap, wouldn't 8mill be the right price?

I may not be saying this very clearly.

I guess I am trying to distinguish between wanting Law only if we can afford, or wanting Law only if we "Win the negotations".
If Ty Law has us by the b@lls in negotations, and forces BB to pay more than he deems Law's value to be, but what he can afford, do you do it?
Better to overspend by a mill or to get the guy who will help you or refuse to overpay and get no one?

 

[Ring 6]

Ty Law was how much cap space??? I thought THAT was the reason he was cut..a LARGE bloated salary...That sounds good in theory until you realize it would have cost a LOT of money...who do you wish they NOT have had???? If you are going to add Ty Law..who do you subtract?? THAT really is the key to what you are saying...I don't know what the deal was with Traylor..why they dropped him..But I do not think his being with the squad would have made a big difference..SOME yes..but not really earth shattering...enough for a Superbowl. Law would have been a good addition..but NOT at the 10 mil plus number.

I dont get the Traylor thing. He was CUT, it had nothing to do with $$.
BB decided that he did not want Traylor on his team.

Why would we have been better with him?
Personally, I thought he was horrible in 2004 anyway. He was not a good fit for our system. He would show up making some plays in the backfield, but the truth is that was because free lanced and didnt keep his gap discipline.
For every play in the backfield he made, there were 2 more where he freelanced his way out of position and hurt us.

 

[CrazyDave]

The point I was really driving at was the qualifying wanting Law back with 'at the right price'.

Wouldnt the right price be what we can afford on the cap?
And given our cap situation we should be able to outbid other teams.
That would end up being more than the 'right price' if we didn't have excess cap room.

Put another way, if in a vacuum Laws value to the Pats is 5mill a year, and the market dictates it will take 8 mill to sign him, if we could afford 8mill under the cap, wouldn't 8mill be the right price?

I may not be saying this very clearly.

I guess I am trying to distinguish between wanting Law only if we can afford, or wanting Law only if we "Win the negotations".
If Ty Law has us by the b@lls in negotations, and forces BB to pay more than he deems Law's value to be, but what he can afford, do you do it?
Better to overspend by a mill or to get the guy who will help you or refuse to overpay and get no one?

Interesting question. This is how I feel about Branch.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting question. This is how I feel about Branch.

If you mean the cost of Branch, whatever it is, outwieghs the potential damage of losing him I agree.

Heres another way to look at it.

Brady is the best QB in the NFL. Hypothetically, and if he wasnt who he is, being the best means he costs $2mill more than the 2nd best. But he wants 3 mill more.
Do you want Brady plus what you can use the 3mill on or the 2nd best QB.

IMO, there are players that you need to overpay. Not necessarily because they are a Brady, but also because of the gap to the replacement.

The discussion on trading Branch fits this. Lets say we could trade Branch for a #1 next year, or let him play out his contract and become a FA next year.

There is certainly value in getting the #1 pick, but what does that do to this year?
Is sacrificing this year worth it to gain things in the future? To me it is not.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I personally don't really care how much Law would have cost to keep last year if it was at all able to be done, because I feel that if we beat the Broncos and one or two other teams during the regular season, we really would have had home field advantage and a bi-week. We would have been a game closer to the superbowl, and maybe not playing in Denver. I didn't say we would win it, but I bet we might have gotten there with Ty. To me, not being a cap expert or anything, I wish they kept him. Maybe Miguel knows all the numbers, and knows better!

As far as Traylor, he played good enough in the 2004 playoffs, and we only needed him for the games that Seymour went down. He would have helped in some of those games, and his cost was veteran minimum.

As far as signing Law this year, I just can't believe that the Pats wouldn't have tried already after having him for an exam, unless they just don't want him. Most likely, he already got an offer or at the very least, a 'ball park' offer over the phone to give him an idea of what the Pats consider reasonable, and is awaiting a larger counter-offer. If the Pats want him, they will match or beat Kansas's offer. Ty will make sure to let them beat it, because he won't leave a penny on the table.

Even if the Pats never hinted at any numbers, they are then waiting to find out what Kansas or other teams offer.

I feel that if we are willing to overpay him this year, then we should have been willing to last year. I don't know if we really would have had to replace other people on his behalf, but it may have been worth it, IMHO. I am willing to overpay him a little this year, if his physical was okay.

 

[fgssand]

If you mean the cost of Branch, whatever it is, outwieghs the potential damage of losing him I agree.

Heres another way to look at it.

Brady is the best QB in the NFL. Hypothetically, and if he wasnt who he is, being the best means he costs $2mill more than the 2nd best. But he wants 3 mill more.
Do you want Brady plus what you can use the 3mill on or the 2nd best QB.

IMO, there are players that you need to overpay. Not necessarily because they are a Brady, but also because of the gap to the replacement.

The discussion on trading Branch fits this. Lets say we could trade Branch for a #1 next year, or let him play out his contract and become a FA next year.

There is certainly value in getting the #1 pick, but what does that do to this year?
Is sacrificing this year worth it to gain things in the future? To me it is not.

When discussing using money to sign Branch, I feel Koppen, Samuels, Graham and other potential FA's fo rnext year should also be mentioned.

We have enough money to sign them all and Ty Law as well, if we want too.

We outbid the Ravens for Mason last year, so it is not a willingness to spend issue in my mind either.

Were it my decision to make, I would have Koppen and Branch resigned as well as Ty Law in camp from day one.

I am quite confident they already know exactly what they plan to do and are in process of putting it all together, there is no doubt that off the field - the Patriot brain trust is second to none. Is great to sit back and watch it al play out.

 

[belichickaholic]

I'm sick and tired fo Ty Law! I'm sick of him playing one team against the other as if all the NFL front offices are a bunch of 12 years olds. And what's this crap about him holding out until after training camp just so he doesn't have to work hard and go through two a days!

Screw' em! Didn't we win a sb without him? He's become too much of a prima donna! How can we ask other vets on the team to take vet min or less money, and then turn around and pay this jerk big money?

And I don't buy this crap about us winning another sb if we had him last year. He didn't help the jets very much! And I think it's pretty safe to say that if we had Seymour, Bruschi and Harrison we would have had a better chance to get there too.

Sign the players who've been working hard with the team these past couple of years! Branch, Koppen and them, They deserve it more than Mr Money Bags!

 

[Pats726]

I guess I am trying to distinguish between wanting Law only if we can afford, or wanting Law only if we "Win the negotations".
If Ty Law has us by the b@lls in negotations, and forces BB to pay more than he deems Law's value to be, but what he can afford, do you do it?
Better to overspend by a mill or to get the guy who will help you or refuse to overpay and get no one?

Andy...I agree with you now about Law...was trying to distinguish between last season keeping him for LARGE dollars and this year...I think this year we get Ty back...

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Ty Law with Jets: 10 interceptions

Patriots defense combined: 10 interceptions