"Uncertainty Theory": How the Pats Do Business?

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

PFT reports that Cleveland is likely to name Brandon Weeden the starting QB prior to the beginning of training camp:

Brandon Weeden may be named Browns’ starter before camp | ProFootballTalk

That's the kind of thing that I think is hard to imagine happening on the Pats. Imagine BB saying "we drafted Chandler Jones in the first round for a reason, of course he's going to be our starting DE right away". Not.

Weeden may turn out to be great, or he may be a bust. But why not evaluate how he does with pads on and under pressure before making that decision?

The Patriot situation is the minority in the NFL.

Cleveland, Denver, and the Jets all do things that pay homage to the fact they sit with looming uninterested or disheartened fan bases.

It's hard to believe starting Tebow last year was done totally independent of the fanbase desires.

This is similiar in Cleveland. Drafting a 29 year old in the 1st round to sit would have the fanbase in borderline riot mode or....worse....turned off mode.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Patriot situation is the minority in the NFL. Cleveland, Denver, and the Jets all do things that pay homage to the fact they sit with looming uninterested or disheartened fan bases.

I understand your points about Cleveland and Denver wanting to generate some excitement. I can understand that kind of thinking applying to some extent in places like Detroit, Tampa Bay and Buffalo. But there are lots of teams that simply choose to operate differently. The Lions and Bengals continue to invest in players with questionable motivation and character issues. The Jets, Cowboys, Redskins and even Eagles are all teams that have deep pockets and rabid fan bases, and who run their business in a way extremely different from the Pats, signing high priced outside free agents and handing out huge long term deals, and creating a culture of entitlement. They may be financially successful, but it's very questionable from a team productivity perspective.

For example, this offseason Dallas has invested heavily in their secondary, signing FA Brandon Carr and trading up for Morris Claiborne. And they currently are having issues with both Scandrick (who has publicly said he does not want to consider playing a hybrid CB/FS role) and Jenkins, who has pushed for a trade because he is upset at losing his starting position. Do you think that Dallas would have the balls to do what BB did last year, cutting Leigh Bodden, James Sanders and Brandon Meriweather in training camp and bringing in some hungry young players to fight it out? I can't imagine another team just cutting a former 1st round draft pick and 2 time Pro Bowler simply because they've decided that he's more of a negative than an asset to the team. That kind of move sends a message. Players know they have to put out, and work harder. It separates the wheat from the chaff. Guys like Rob Ninkovich and Kyle Love thrive in that Pats' system whereas guys like Albert Haynesworth and Shawn Springs sink, and are quickly discarded. The selection process is never going to be perfect, but most of the time the errors are sorted out fairly quickly, and dealt with without remorse.

I think - and it's purely speculation on my part - that BB got really pissed off by the 2009 debacle and with underproducing players. The MNF loss in New Orleans and the playoff loss to the Ravens were embarrassing, as were the 2nd half meltdowns, inconsistent effort, and lack of improvement as the season progressed. Adalius Thomas was let go as soon as was fiscally prudent. Shawn Springs and Chris Baker weren't re-signed. Derrick Burgess was unceremoniously cut during training camp in 2010. Ben Watson was let walk to Cleveland. Randy Moss and Laurence Maroney were traded early in the 2010 season. I think BB's been extremely careful about how he's built the team since then, and about getting the "right" kind of players and not getting too committed to those who are potential "risks". He's rolled the dice a few times, but they've always been calculated risks with limited investments on which he could cut his losses if necessary, as he did in the case of Albert Haynesworth. No big money long term contracts with big signing bonuses thrown at outside players, especially those with red flags or a history of inconsistent effort. No high draft picks with character issues. Guys with non-stop motors who love football and who are going to play their hearts out. Other than Haynesworth, was there a malingerer on the roster last year? With that one exception - who was dumped as soon as he came an obvious problem - I can't think of a single player that didn't embrace their role, buy into the program, and work their butt off. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL who can make that claim. There was no entitlement, and no disharmony. And while some of the individual and unit performances weren't up to expectations, the overall team effort was outstanding, and led to a super bowl appearance.

BB has the luxury of being able to do things his way and not having to give a sh*t about what the media, fan base, or anyone else thinks. He focuses on building a team rather than on collecting talent, and that philosophy pervades his approach to the draft, free agency, roster building, and contract management. It's definitely not the norm in the NFL, but given the results, maybe it should be.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I understand your points about Cleveland and Denver wanting to generate some excitement. I can understand that kind of thinking applying to some extent in places like Detroit, Tampa Bay and Buffalo. But there are lots of teams that simply choose to operate differently. The Lions and Bengals continue to invest in players with questionable motivation and character issues. The Jets, Cowboys, Redskins and even Eagles are all teams that have deep pockets and rabid fan bases, and who run their business in a way extremely different from the Pats, signing high priced outside free agents and handing out huge long term deals, and creating a culture of entitlement. They may be financially successful, but it's very questionable from a team productivity perspective.

For example, this offseason Dallas has invested heavily in their secondary, signing FA Brandon Carr and trading up for Morris Claiborne. And they currently are having issues with both Scandrick (who has publicly said he does not want to consider playing a hybrid CB/FS role) and Jenkins, who has pushed for a trade because he is upset at losing his starting position. Do you think that Dallas would have the balls to do what BB did last year, cutting Leigh Bodden, James Sanders and Brandon Meriweather in training camp and bringing in some hungry young players to fight it out? I can't imagine another team just cutting a former 1st round draft pick and 2 time Pro Bowler simply because they've decided that he's more of a negative than an asset to the team. That kind of move sends a message. Players know they have to put out, and work harder. It separates the wheat from the chaff. Guys like Rob Ninkovich and Kyle Love thrive in that Pats' system whereas guys like Albert Haynesworth and Shawn Springs sink, and are quickly discarded. The selection process is never going to be perfect, but most of the time the errors are sorted out fairly quickly, and dealt with without remorse.

I think - and it's purely speculation on my part - that BB got really pissed off by the 2009 debacle and with underproducing players. The MNF loss in New Orleans and the playoff loss to the Ravens were embarrassing, as were the 2nd half meltdowns, inconsistent effort, and lack of improvement as the season progressed. Adalius Thomas was let go as soon as was fiscally prudent. Shawn Springs and Chris Baker weren't re-signed. Derrick Burgess was unceremoniously cut during training camp in 2010. Ben Watson was let walk to Cleveland. Randy Moss and Laurence Maroney were traded early in the 2010 season. I think BB's been extremely careful about how he's built the team since then, and about getting the "right" kind of players and not getting too committed to those who are potential "risks". He's rolled the dice a few times, but they've always been calculated risks with limited investments on which he could cut his losses if necessary, as he did in the case of Albert Haynesworth. No big money long term contracts with big signing bonuses thrown at outside players, especially those with red flags or a history of inconsistent effort. No high draft picks with character issues. Guys with non-stop motors who love football and who are going to play their hearts out. Other than Haynesworth, was there a malingerer on the roster last year? With that one exception - who was dumped as soon as he came an obvious problem - I can't think of a single player that didn't embrace their role, buy into the program, and work their butt off. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL who can make that claim. There was no entitlement, and no disharmony. And while some of the individual and unit performances weren't up to expectations, the overall team effort was outstanding, and led to a super bowl appearance.

BB has the luxury of being able to do things his way and not having to give a sh*t about what the media, fan base, or anyone else thinks. He focuses on building a team rather than on collecting talent, and that philosophy pervades his approach to the draft, free agency, roster building, and contract management. It's definitely not the norm in the NFL, but given the results, maybe it should be.

Teams reflect their owners.

Look back to 2007. When Romo was dating that Simpson girl, she was all over the game coverage and very public.

Have you ever seen Gisele?

Besides, 2009 was the transition for roster rebuilding. If the 2010 Brady played in 2009, the record would have been much better. Once WW went down it was time to turn the lights out.

 

[crew1954]

So would it be correct to say that the first step in getting handed a job with the Jets is to get your foot in the door?

Isn't the correct expression " getting your foot in the crack'?

 

[mayoclinic]

It's interesting that the Pats locked up Jerod Mayo long term last year, and are apprently trying to do so with Gronk now, with 2 years still left on his rookie deal. Smart move, and a departure from some of the short-sidedness of the past. Even if this is just a "good faith" move to augment the last 2 years of his contract, it's a good move. If it's anything more than that, it's a great move.

I've been arguing for a while that Gronk is a special enough players that regular contract rules don't apply. I think you can make an argument that Gronk is the biggest impact player of BB's tenure with the Pats apart from Brady. He is a Lawrency Taylor kind of "truly rare, game-changing talent", and 31 teams would be clamoring for his services if he hit the open market.

IF (and it's still a huge "if") the Pats could figure out a way to extend Gronk beyond 2013, I think there's a good chance that a long term deal with Welker would follow shortly. Consider where the Pats currently stand with their key offensive players:

- Brady: signed through 2014
- Gronk: signed through 2013; and extension would lock him up through 2014 or longer
- Hernandez: signed through 2013; if Gronk gets signed long term then the Pats can use the franchise tag on Hernandez to keep him at least through 2014
- Fells: signed through 2014
- Welker: signed through 2012, but if Gronk gets locked up then a long term extension becomes easier to deal with
- Lloyd: signed through 2014
- Gaffney: signed through 2013, though I suspect extending him another year wouldn't be difficult if the team desired it
- Slater: signed through 2014 (mainly a STer)
- Vereen: signed through 2014
- Ridley: signed through 2014
- Mankins: signed through 2016
- Connolly: signed through 2014
- Solder: signed through 2014, with an option year for 2015
- Vollmer: signed through 2012
- Cannon: signed through 2014

Almost every key member of the offense is signed through 2014. If Gronk can be extended another year or longer, which would free up the franchise tag to be used on Hernandez, and if Welker's and Solder's contracts can be addressed, the Pats would have their current offense locked up for the next 3 years.

The Pats also seem to be in good shape for the next 3 years regarding core players on defense:

- Wilfork: signed through 2014
- Love: signed through 2012 but will be an RFA in 2013
- Fanene: signed through 2014
- Jones: signed through 2015 with an option year
- Bequette: currently unsigned, but should sign a standard rookie 4 year deal through 2015
- Mayo: signed through 2017
- Hightower: currently unsigned, but should sign a standard rookie 4 year deal through 2015 with an option year
- Ninkovich: signed through 2013
- Spikes: signed through 2013
- McCourty: signed through 2014
- Dowling: signed through 2014
- Gregory: signed through 2014
- Wilson: signed through 2015
- Dennard: signed through 2015
- Moore: will be an ERFA in 2013 and a RFA in 2014

Patrick Chung is a question mark, and Spikes/Ninko/Love will likely get extensions. But most of the core of the defense is locked up through 2014 as well.

Given that the Pats have normally turned over about 1/3 of the roster the past several years, the core of the team on both sides of the ball seems pretty well set up for at least a 3 year SB run. Extending Gronk would actually set the team up in incredibly good shape.

 

[mayoclinic]

NFL.com's Gregg Rosenthal jumps on the bandwagon about how the Pats are more efficient than other teams at dealing with personnel failures:

Every team makes personnel mistakes, especially when acquiring aging veterans. The New England Patriots are no exception. (Some would argue that Bill Belichick has actually made more free agency mistakes than most of late.)

No team, however, survives mistakes quite like the Pats.

Bill Belichick expert at covering up personnel mistakes - NFL.com

I'm not quite sure what Rosenthal means in terms of "covering up" personnel mistakes. The Pats don't hand jobs to players, so playing time has to be earned. And the Pats cut losses relatively quickly and move on. So I would say, in keeping with the theme of this thread, that the Pats operate in a way that exerts "damage control" and limits the cost and impact of personnel mistakes. But they don't cover them up in any way that I can see. Far from it, they admit it and move on.

 

[mayoclinic]

It's interesting that the Pats locked up Jerod Mayo long term last year, and are apprently trying to do so with Gronk now, with 2 years still left on his rookie deal. Smart move, and a departure from some of the short-sidedness of the past. Even if this is just a "good faith" move to augment the last 2 years of his contract, it's a good move. If it's anything more than that, it's a great move.

I've been arguing for a while that Gronk is a special enough players that regular contract rules don't apply. I think you can make an argument that Gronk is the biggest impact player of BB's tenure with the Pats apart from Brady. He is a Lawrency Taylor kind of "truly rare, game-changing talent", and 31 teams would be clamoring for his services if he hit the open market.

IF (and it's still a huge "if") the Pats could figure out a way to extend Gronk beyond 2013, I think there's a good chance that a long term deal with Welker would follow shortly. Consider where the Pats currently stand with their key offensive players:

- Brady: signed through 2014
- Gronk: signed through 2019
- Hernandez: signed through 2013; the Pats can use the franchise tag on Hernandez to keep him at least through 2014
- Fells: signed through 2014
- Welker: signed through 2012, with Gronk gets locked up then a long term extension becomes easier to deal with
- Lloyd: signed through 2014
- Gaffney: signed through 2013, though I suspect extending him another year wouldn't be difficult if the team desired it
- Slater: signed through 2014 (mainly a STer)
- Vereen: signed through 2014
- Ridley: signed through 2014
- Mankins: signed through 2016
- Connolly: signed through 2014
- Solder: signed through 2014, with an option year for 2015
- Vollmer: signed through 2012
- Cannon: signed through 2014

Almost every key member of the offense is signed through 2014. If Gronk can be extended another year or longer, which would free up the franchise tag to be used on Hernandez, and if Welker's and Solder's contracts can be addressed, the Pats would have their current offense locked up for the next 3 years.

The Pats also seem to be in good shape for the next 3 years regarding core players on defense:

- Wilfork: signed through 2014
- Love: signed through 2012 but will be an RFA in 2013
- Fanene: signed through 2014
- Jones: signed through 2015 with an option year
- Bequette: currently unsigned, but should sign a standard rookie 4 year deal through 2015
- Mayo: signed through 2017
- Hightower: currently unsigned, but should sign a standard rookie 4 year deal through 2015 with an option year
- Ninkovich: signed through 2013
- Spikes: signed through 2013
- McCourty: signed through 2014
- Dowling: signed through 2014
- Gregory: signed through 2014
- Wilson: signed through 2015
- Dennard: signed through 2015
- Moore: will be an ERFA in 2013 and a RFA in 2014

Patrick Chung is a question mark, and Spikes/Ninko/Love will likely get extensions. But most of the core of the defense is locked up through 2014 as well.

Given that the Pats have normally turned over about 1/3 of the roster the past several years, the core of the team on both sides of the ball seems pretty well set up for at least a 3 year SB run. Extending Gronk would actually set the team up in incredibly good shape.

Updated. $54M is fairly cheap to lock Gronk up through 2019. Very smart move by the Pats, with enough money left to address other needs.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Never underestimate the value of 3 Lombardis and 5 Super Bowl appearances in a decade. That gives Bill that luxury you correctly mentioned. Few other teams have anything approaching that. Pittsburgh, probably. Giants possibly. Everyone else is recently too close to one and done or none and done.

 

[mayoclinic]

Never underestimate the value of 3 Lombardis and 5 Super Bowl appearances in a decade. That gives Bill that luxury you correctly mentioned. Few other teams have anything approaching that. Pittsburgh, probably. Giants possibly. Everyone else is recently too close to one and done or none and done.

That's a very fair point.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Gronk contract is a great example of the team converting an uncertain situation into a more certain one, on several levels. The actual money breakdown is relatively unimportant. As Mo points out elsewhere, the actual number could be any of several alternatives, not all of them calculable at this juncture. What is important is that the Pats have contractural rights to Gronk through 2019, and quite possibly longer. If injury or other issues affect his performance they are reasonably protected, and if he continues to perform at his current level he will outperform his contract and probably end up getting extended for even more years. Either way, barring a holdout the Pats have converted uncertainty in Gronk's situation into relative certainty as a reasonable cost, which is an impressive feat.

The Gronk contract also potentially allows the team to address long term stability in other ways as well. The dividends of that may allow them to more easily address Welker's and Hernandez' long term situations as well. They can use the franchise tag on AHern if necessary to keep control over him beyond 2013. If Welker's contract can be addressed the Pats would conceivably have Welker, Lloyd, Gronk and Hernandez effectively locked up for the next 3 years. And given the relatively reasonable value of Gronk's contract, there's a not unrealistic possibility that the Pats could tie up both Gronk and AHern for the equivalent of Calvin Johnson money, which would be a tremendous coup for the team. As good as Megatron is, he won't likely be able to to meet the production of Gronk and Hernandez combined. And diversifying the cost over 2 players instead of one decreases the impact of injury to any one player. However you look at it, it's a great example of risk management and managing uncertainty by the team.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Jake Ballard situation is another good example of how the Pats do business differently from the NFL. Most teams are too busy trying to survive the immediate future to worry about the long term. But the Pats consistently make moves that show advanced planning. Even though - based on Tom Coughlin's public comments - the Giants viewed Ballard as an important long term asset, they were willing to subject him to waivers to put him on IR now rather than keep a roster spot for him. And 30 teams passed. TE-needy teams like the Vikings and Jets, who certainly could have benefited from adding a 24 year old 6'6" 275# behemoth who averaged 15.9 YPC last year. Only the Pats were willing to pay $540K and give up a 90th roster spot to a guy who will almost certainly spend the year on IR, and who will be an ERFA in 2013.

As discussed in the OP, the Pats are much more willing to pay for depth than most teams in the NFL. They may not pay top dollar for a big name FA, but they will pony up for a guy who could give them incredible depth and new possibilities at the TE position, when combined with the talent already in house.

 

[mayoclinic]

Note sure where this fits. But it's in keeping with BB's "team first" philosophy, just like introducing the squads as a unit at the SB instead of individual players:

New England Patriots' Bill Belichick is the ultimate master of team building - ESPN Boston

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This would seem to figure into the uncertainty theory too. Adding multiple fullbacks to the 90 man roster wouldn't seem to guarantee more than cursory use of the position. They will have to prove capable of making the roster via position versatility including ST functionality.

The potential return of the fullback was brought up to Bill Belichick during his Thursday news conference, and his answer provided insight on the team's thinking.

In short, Belichick is open to carrying a player who is more of a traditional fullback, whether it's Larsen, Fiammetta or Eric Kettani. But a big factor in whether any of them stick will be a combination of their contributions on special teams, and whether keeping a fullback is more valuable than a linebacker, tight end and possibly even a running back.

So for those thinking the Patriots might be looking to establish more of a smash-mouth approach with a lead-blocking fullback based on the Larsen and Fiammetta moves, not necessarily.

So they've invested a few bucks and a couple of expanded off season roster spots purely in an effort to assess options. Other teams don't have that luxury for a variety of reasons not the least of which is cap space. The Ravens for example are just $500K under at this juncture and somewhat hamstrung dealing with other looming issues (Suggs injury, Reed's absence as he debates retirement vs. need for extension, McKinney's weight - again, QB extension).


Insight on 'the return of the fullback' - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

This would seem to figure into the uncertainty theory too. Adding multiple fullbacks to the 90 man roster wouldn't seem to guarantee more than cursory use of the position. They will have to prove capable of making the roster via position versatility including ST functionality.



So they've invested a few bucks and a couple of expanded off season roster spots purely in an effort to assess options. Other teams don't have that luxury for a variety of reasons not the least of which is cap space. The Ravens for example are just $500K under at this juncture and somewhat hamstrung dealing with other looming issues (Suggs injury, Reed's absence as he debates retirement vs. need for extension, McKinney's weight - again, QB extension).


Insight on 'the return of the fullback' - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

"Accomplished people provide answers, more accomplished people provide options"- patsfaninpittsburgh

 

[FalconHeavy]

Playing the devils advocate, how does this principle play in terms of a player mindset. Do we have instances where an accomplished player simply said "Thanks but no thanks" and go elsewhere.

I know it is all business and nothing personal but I would assume the road goes both ways..

Any insights ?

 

[mayoclinic]

This would seem to figure into the uncertainty theory too. Adding multiple fullbacks to the 90 man roster wouldn't seem to guarantee more than cursory use of the position. They will have to prove capable of making the roster via position versatility including ST functionality.

So they've invested a few bucks and a couple of expanded off season roster spots purely in an effort to assess options. Other teams don't have that luxury for a variety of reasons not the least of which is cap space. The Ravens for example are just $500K under at this juncture and somewhat hamstrung dealing with other looming issues (Suggs injury, Reed's absence as he debates retirement vs. need for extension, McKinney's weight - again, QB extension).

I think this is spot on. The Pats manage their cap space carefully in order to give them flexibility and options. Those options have allowed them to sign 2 fullbacks - as you note, without any guarantee that they will necessarily carry any on the roster, more in an attempt to explore options on offense. It's also allowed them to claim TE Jake Ballard off waivers and carry him for a year on IR if necessary, and to extend Rob Gronkowski.

 

[mayoclinic]

Playing the devils advocate, how does this principle play in terms of a player mindset. Do we have instances where an accomplished player simply said "Thanks but no thanks" and go elsewhere.

I know it is all business and nothing personal but I would assume the road goes both ways..

Any insights ?

It probably works both ways. A player might be less enthusiastic about signing for a situation where they will have to fight for a spot, as opposed to being pretty much written in to a team's plans. But the flip side is that a player knows he will have the option to get a spot by proving his value. Most guys who are competitors will welcome the competition, and guys who don't and who have a sense of entitlement are probably guys who wouldn't fit on the Pats anyway.

I also think that players know that a lot of guys cut by the Pats get picked up elsewhere, and that they will probably be the better for the competition. It doesn't seem to stop the Pats from getting tons of mid-range and lower-level FAs. It's more the big names that go elsewhere, where they can possibly get more money and perhaps more stroking for their egos.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

It probably works both ways. A player might be less enthusiastic about signing for a situation where they will have to fight for a spot, as opposed to being pretty much written in to a team's plans. But the flip side is that a player knows he will have the option to get a spot by proving his value. Most guys who are competitors will welcome the competition, and guys who don't and who have a sense of entitlement are probably guys who wouldn't fit on the Pats anyway.

I also think that players know that a lot of guys cut by the Pats get picked up elsewhere, and that they will probably be the better for the competition. It doesn't seem to stop the Pats from getting tons of mid-range and lower-level FAs. It's more the big names that go elsewhere, where they can possibly get more money and perhaps more stroking for their egos.

There was good article a few months back following the Fanene signing.

The article discussed how targetting the mid level, "depth" guys early makes the Patriots much more desireable bucause that player segment always has inherent worry about their contracts.

The higher end guys would be more problematic. Adalius Thomas being the prime example. Rosie C noted in an interview how from the start, he had a certain opinion on what he should have been doing.

Bigger money tends to correlate with more opinion.

 

[mayoclinic]

The Ravens for example are just $500K under at this juncture and somewhat hamstrung dealing with other looming issues (Suggs injury, Reed's absence as he debates retirement vs. need for extension, McKinney's weight - again, QB extension).

Interesting note from Michael David Smith at PFT today on McKinney's [lack of] condition:

Last year, left tackle Bryant McKinnie showed up out of shape to the Vikings’ training camp and was released. This year, McKinnie showed up out of shape to the Ravens’ minicamp. Does that mean his job is in jeopardy? It seems awfully unlikely that the Ravens would release McKinnie. First of all, they’ve already paid him a $500,000 roster bonus this offseason. And more importantly, they’d have a big hole on their offensive line if they let McKinnie go: Michael Oher could move from right tackle to left tackle, but they wouldn’t have a good candidate to replace Oher on the right side.

And Ravens coach John Harbaugh was reportedly unhappy with members of the media who labeled McKinnie out of shape, telling reporters, “It’s not as simple as some of you guys want to make it.” But the reality is that McKinnie was held out of minicamp practices so he could focus solely on conditioning. That can’t be a good sign.

Bryant McKinnie’s conditioning raises eyebrows in Baltimore | ProFootballTalk

Lack of depth + lack of cap room = lack of options. Not a good place to be, especially when making a sizeable financial investment in a player with a history of a poor work ethic.

 

[fester]

It probably works both ways. A player might be less enthusiastic about signing for a situation where they will have to fight for a spot, as opposed to being pretty much written in to a team's plans. But the flip side is that a player knows he will have the option to get a spot by proving his value. Most guys who are competitors will welcome the competition, and guys who don't and who have a sense of entitlement are probably guys who wouldn't fit on the Pats anyway.

Agreed,the situation with the Patriots --- play well and get time --- probably appeals to guys who think they are undervalued and fring(ish) roster players during the off-season as they can honestly believe that if they perform, they will play and get paid by the Patriots, while other teams may not be willing to cut loose a higher profile/more expensive/highly drafted player who got beaten out on the field and on tape by the marginal roster player. Mid-season replacement players are a different boat entirely, as they have already been shown that they are marginal roster memebrs, and any phone call is better than going to the gym by oneself for another day.