What's wrong with these deal??

[PatsFanInVa]

Duh, me forgot motivation. Me simple salary cap rookie. Me still learning.

Two good points were raised affecting my "increase the early hit" idea. (mainly they were in response to the original plan, but apply doubly to the increased bonus concept.)

1) That money is gone if Seymour breaks his spine in TC and never plays a down again, and

2) who wants to play when most of the money is in your pocket?

First, reactive reasoning: It looks like he'd still be among the league's elite even by salary standards, for a D lineman - and he wouldn't be able to say squat about not getting paid, because he got so much up front. 4-6.5 million a year is still nothing to sneeze at, even with your 20-odd million in the bank.

Now some reasoning to address the objections -

The point is still a very good one. Seymour seems to have been burned by escalators, so I'm not sure that you could incentivize the actual play. Besides, it's already hard to put down measurables for what Sey brings to the table - eating up blockers and containing on many downs, but also "making the plays" on others.

But how else to incentivize and indemnify from injury, while also using some of this year's money to lock down Sey? It would be possible to put the most guaranteed money ever for a non-QB out there - which has to be a nice thing to hear - and from then on, carefully sculpt heavily incentivized play for the remaining years.

So salary becomes even less, but LTBE incentives become much greater. This would mean making it very very clear that they're not picking random LTBEs, and hammering out those clauses very carefully. Whatever didn't work last time would have to be addressed. I think if I am shown a LOT of guaranteed money, and the promise of more if I perform well, and have input on what constitutes performing well up-front, I could stomach the incentives.

Sey has to give something to get something though. Specifically, he'll have to work within an incentive laden year-by-year deal, in exchange for so much guaranteed money up front, if the guaranteed money is even increased over Miguel's original pot. He'd end up with low salary, monster incentives, monster bonuses.

I would not agree with doing it this way. I think keeping the salaries as the guarantor of continued performance is the way to go, because of the chance of an LTBE hissy fit based on the history.

Or, as Arrelbee points out, they could let Sey go.

Alternately, the Pats could do other "front-loading" elsewhere, and forget doing it on Seymour's contract (and then we're back to the original model, or even one with less up-front money.) This might make the best business sense, if 6 million bucks isn't enough to get a guy to put in an honest day's work anymore! :enranged:

PFnV

 

[PatsSteve1]

Very insightful and well thought out post arrelbee. People can get a little defensive due to their own viewpoint or koolaid intoxication. I find it's best to ignore them when something I say doesn't sit well. Most of the better posters here welcome genuine discussion of all the issues and understand that there are seldom the absolutes with this team that fans so passionately presume.

* Mo you da man. There is definetly koolaid censorship here. BB "never does this" or "always does that" only until he does something different. He's a man of surprises. I have hope Seymour is signed to a deal and they aren't saying anything, if it's already agreed to, because of the August thing.
As to Bb never making anyone the highest paid at a position or not giving a 20 mill SB, that could very well be his next surprise.

 

[arrellbee]

Brady got the best deal ever for a player with two years left on his contract. I know that it is not the same thing but one, IMO, should take into account the fact that Brady was able to pass on the injury risk to the Patriots two years early.

Thanks for info !! I hadn't caught the info about extension with two years to go. It certainly is significantly interesting that the Patriots were willing to pick up that extra injury risk.

7 million out of 109 million is not over 10%. 9 million is not going to be over 15% of the cap in 2008.

Thanks !! for catching my really bad mess up with your numbers. I can't imagine what I was doing. But whatever it was I did, I was putting out some really misleading info.

In 2004 Ty Law took up 12.67% of the Patriots' adjusted cap and they were still able to win a Super Bowl.

It was interesting to see that happen. From your numbers, it would have cost the Pats 5.4M dead money to cut him. So they basically kept a top CB for about 4.8M net which was pricey but probably a sound choice.

But, in effect, you also raise a very intriguing consideration. The Pats actually did have some top performers at their positions - playmakers if you will - even tho in most cases they were at cap values that were reasonably favorable to the Pats. So if the Pats are to win one or more additional superbowls, can they do it as a completely middle class team without several playmakers ?? ?? ?? That's a pretty significant question and I certainly don't presume to know what the answer might be.

If a few playmakers are a key ingredient:
- one way the Pats could actually get a number of playmakers without paying top dollar would be if they continue to be successful in finding the Harrisons and Vrabels and Dillons and do as well or better in getting playmakers from the draft. That really puts a premium on the talents of Belichick and Pioli in finding solid plus players that other teams overlook.
- Otherwise, they might have to pay some top dollar for a few playmakers - which would pose the interesting questions of - how many playmakers are needed - and WHICH positions are the key positions for a FEW playmakers. And you would presumably have to cut down a little bit on some mid-level players - and WHICH positions could you do that with and still win a superbowl.

I think those kind questions are why Belichick and Pioli are making the big bucks !! One of the fascinating things about being a Pats fan is to see how Belichick and Pioli evalute the tradeoffs and the choices they make.

Thanks for the feedback and info, Miguel.

 

[Miguel]

- Given this years funny-money cap jump, Seymour and agent would most likely be looking for a 'higher than any other player' contract to be 'higher' in terms of the excessive jumps that have occurred this year. If that were to be the case, which seems highly likely, it seems very unlikely that the Patriots would come to those terms when they look ahead to next year and judge that after this year's spending frenzie, there is going to be a lot less money floating around next year for free agents.

I will just point out that John Abraham's deal is the best deal ever for a defensive lineman in terms of new money over the 1st 3 years of a deal and over the 1st 5 years of a deal. All of the proposals listed in this thread greatly exceed what Abraham received so I consider them worst-case scenarios in terms of cap impact.

 

[spacecrime]

The way I see it, the Pats are trying to set up there roster for another prolonged run which doesn't include this year and maybe not even next.

Why would you say this? Because they lost a kicker and #2 WR?

They are in as good a shape or better than at this time of year before any of the SB wins.