Why does everyone ignore the fact that the salary cap jumped by $15M+?

[TomBrady'sGoat]

There is so much whining about the Pats being below cap, not paying Deion what he wanted, and losing free agents without signing any. What annoys me is that rarely does anyone mention that NFL teams just received a huge bump to their salary caps due to the recent CBA and that this is a one-time event that hurt the Patriots more than most other teams.

Not that I need to tell Pats fans, but the team is built on smart spending. The Pats do not overpay for free agents, instead picking up those players other teams undervalue or can no longer afford to pay.

The salary cap bump meant that other teams could overpay for our free agents. The only way to re-sign Givens was to overpay, because the Titans found themselves with cap room burning a hole in their pocket. It also meant that teams didn't have to cut guys whose cap numbers were getting higher. Refusing to overpay and slim free agency pickings due to so few guys being cut forced the Pats into a situation where they lost players w/o bringing many in.

Why not adjust and overpay? Because this was a one-time event and it would ruin precedent. The Pats dealt with Bruschi, Harrison, Brady, Seymour, Vrabel, etc. under the pretense that they don't overpay. They will in the next few years deal with their free agents under the same pretense. Would it have been wise to blow this all up so they could compete for free agents this one off-season?

When the cap doesn't increase by $15M next year things will return to normal. The Pats will lose free agents, but not to contracts quite as ridiculous as those signed by Givens and Branch. Good players will become available when their teams need to cut them for cap purposes. Rinse and repeat.

If any, the mistake the Pats made was not trying to lock guys up before the new CBA. Their success was stockpiling draft picks, minimizing their needs in free agency.

Now stop whining. Considering the disadvantage at which the Patriots were operating, I think things look pretty good.

 

[Gumby]

That is a very good point.

To take it from the Chayut-Branch point of view: this very much helps explain why he took the position of holding out.

They knew the money would not be there next year to pay exhorbitantly. .

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I initially mentioned the Branch situation and decided to cut it out because it made the post a little haphazard. I think Branch/Chayut were brilliant to demand a new contract. 'Reggie Wayne money' will probably be much harder to come by next year.

 

[mgteich]

The parties agree to a $15M increase in the cap and then some teams don't spend it. I guess the players need to negotiate better next time, and have a higher mandatory use of cap. The idea of a $15M average increase in cap is that the players would actually receive the money, not that the owner would pocket it.

There is so much whining about the Pats being below cap, not paying Deion what he wanted, and losing free agents without signing any. What annoys me is that rarely does anyone mention that NFL teams just received a huge bump to their salary caps due to the recent CBA and that this is a one-time event that hurt the Patriots more than most other teams.

Not that I need to tell Pats fans, but the team is built on smart spending. The Pats do not overpay for free agents, instead picking up those players other teams undervalue or can no longer afford to pay.

The salary cap bump meant that other teams could overpay for our free agents. The only way to re-sign Givens was to overpay, because the Titans found themselves with cap room burning a hole in their pocket. It also meant that teams didn't have to cut guys whose cap numbers were getting higher. Refusing to overpay and slim free agency pickings due to so few guys being cut forced the Pats into a situation where they lost players w/o bringing many in.

Why not adjust and overpay? Because this was a one-time event and it would ruin precedent. The Pats dealt with Bruschi, Harrison, Brady, Seymour, Vrabel, etc. under the pretense that they don't overpay. They will in the next few years deal with their free agents under the same pretense. Would it have been wise to blow this all up so they could compete for free agents this one off-season?

When the cap doesn't increase by $15M next year things will return to normal. The Pats will lose free agents, but not to contracts quite as ridiculous as those signed by Givens and Branch. Good players will become available when their teams need to cut them for cap purposes. Rinse and repeat.

If any, the mistake the Pats made was not trying to lock guys up before the new CBA. Their success was stockpiling draft picks, minimizing their needs in free agency.

Now stop whining. Considering the disadvantage at which the Patriots were operating, I think things look pretty good.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The parties agree to a $15M increase in the cap and then some teams don't spend it. I guess the players need to negotiate better next time, and have a higher mandatory use of cap. The idea of a $15M average increase in cap is that the players would actually receive the money, not that the owner would pocket it.

Some days you really confound me. I guess the Pat's should just go out and find a stiff or two to get this money spent down on. Overpay them if you must just spend that money damnit.

hwc has a point you know when he says if we had offered some player more, say Ty Law or Deion Branch - they would just have used that increase against us as leverage with their other bidder. At the 11th hour on the verge of the last capped season scenario the NFL had the largest increase in available cap in one of the piss poorest FA markets in recent history where by most expert accounts the most significant player available was our former 34 year old PK.

The league and this franchise will be here at least through 2008, hopefully longer. Belioli plan for that contingency too.

 

[oldskool138]

The Pats are going to spend close to the cap this year. They're going to take what they have left and use it to pay off some guarantied money to Brady and Seymour. This will free up a bunch of money for them down the road, when other teams (i.e.- Seahawks and Titans) are still shelling out the big bucks on cap heavy contracts.

The Pats are not being penny-wise, pound-foolish here. They're letting other teams spend their money like drunken sailors while they're saving it for a better free agent signing in the future.

Blowing your cap on a player like Deion Branch is not financially smart. You can't pay a player based on past performances. You have to speculate how they will perform in the future. Piolli and Belichick do this very well.

 

[RAWKY]

This one time 15 million bump, I am sure contributed to the Dieon holdout as well.
He knew that this year was his best chance to cash in.

Many factors favored Branch this year and all were against the Pat's.

But that is life and we will move now on.

I appreciate that BB has the conviction and courage to do what he believes is best for the T E A M regardless of the preception in the media or the public.

This is a rare quality in leadership today and one most other teams suffer without.

 

[MagicMarker]

I've heard...

The league, as a whole, is well under the cap. Something like $200 M ($6M per team)

Because of that, most teams will lock up their free agents this year

Also, the cap could go up to $109M (another $7M increase) next year.

The cap will be around $150M by 2010.


If those are true, it makes sense to overpay your guys now to long term deals, because salaries will be 50% higher in 4 years.

Now, I don't remember where I heard those things (and I don't see how the cap goes up that much unless the TV deal has big jumps in it). Has anyone else heard this stuff?

 

[Miguel]

I've heard...

The league, as a whole, is well under the cap. Something like $200 M ($6M per team)

Because of that, most teams will lock up their free agents this year

Also, the cap could go up to $109M (another $7M increase) next year.

The cap will be around $150M by 2010.


If those are true, it makes sense to overpay your guys now to long term deals, because salaries will be 50% higher in 4 years.

Now, I don't remember where I heard those things (and I don't see how the cap goes up that much unless the TV deal has big jumps in it). Has anyone else heard this stuff?

MagicMarker's recall is correct.

Branch did not want to be franchised next year.

Why???

Because he knew that he would be the best wideout and probably the best offensive player available in free agency. The money is not going to dry up next year, folks. This year teams are required to dish 84% of the cap in cash to the players. Next year that figure goes up to 90%. On Sunday I said to the guys sitting in front of me at Gillette that Branch would get a $7 million per year contract in 2007. He got close to $6.5 million per year contract in 2006.

 

[Digger44]

The Pats are going to spend close to the cap this year. They're going to take what they have left and use it to pay off some guarantied money to Brady and Seymour. This will free up a bunch of money for them down the road, when other teams (i.e.- Seahawks and Titans) are still shelling out the big bucks on cap heavy contracts.

The Pats are not being penny-wise, pound-foolish here. They're letting other teams spend their money like drunken sailors while they're saving it for a better free agent signing in the future.

Blowing your cap on a player like Deion Branch is not financially smart. You can't pay a player based on past performances. You have to speculate how they will perform in the future. Piolli and Belichick do this very well.

Awesome awesome awesome post. This board needs new members to keep posting stuff like this.

 

[Pats726]

If any, the mistake the Pats made was not trying to lock guys up before the new CBA.

I agree with everything but this statement about locking them up before the CBA...The problem was that no one knew what the CBA would bring and negotiating before that was not easy for either side. Locking them up way before the CBA would have been too early; way too early and then, it was the CBA being more of a problem. Too many variables to assume too much. The CBA I think hindered signings before that and that was a large part of the problem this year..but more like to ignore that fact. I agree..this bump up is not happening every year...and to price up players because of that bump just sets standards at a higher level and whrn it is not there, the bar is already set higher than it hsould be. They have a good handle on it all.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

There is so much whining about the Pats being below cap, not paying Deion what he wanted, and losing free agents without signing any. What annoys me is that rarely does anyone mention that NFL teams just received a huge bump to their salary caps due to the recent CBA and that this is a one-time event that hurt the Patriots more than most other teams.

Not that I need to tell Pats fans, but the team is built on smart spending. The Pats do not overpay for free agents, instead picking up those players other teams undervalue or can no longer afford to pay.

The salary cap bump meant that other teams could overpay for our free agents. The only way to re-sign Givens was to overpay, because the Titans found themselves with cap room burning a hole in their pocket. It also meant that teams didn't have to cut guys whose cap numbers were getting higher. Refusing to overpay and slim free agency pickings due to so few guys being cut forced the Pats into a situation where they lost players w/o bringing many in.

Why not adjust and overpay? Because this was a one-time event and it would ruin precedent. The Pats dealt with Bruschi, Harrison, Brady, Seymour, Vrabel, etc. under the pretense that they don't overpay. They will in the next few years deal with their free agents under the same pretense. Would it have been wise to blow this all up so they could compete for free agents this one off-season?

When the cap doesn't increase by $15M next year things will return to normal. The Pats will lose free agents, but not to contracts quite as ridiculous as those signed by Givens and Branch. Good players will become available when their teams need to cut them for cap purposes. Rinse and repeat.

If any, the mistake the Pats made was not trying to lock guys up before the new CBA. Their success was stockpiling draft picks, minimizing their needs in free agency.

Now stop whining. Considering the disadvantage at which the Patriots were operating, I think things look pretty good.

If they had tried to lock guys up before the cba.... they could have shafted themselves because no one knew it was going to jump that much. If they had given contracts out that would have meant they might have had to release guys. The timing in the entire CBA matter hurt the Pats because Givens might not have been offered such a lucrative deal and the Pats might have been able to possibly compete. McGinest might have restructured. we'll never know.

 

[oldskool138]

Awesome awesome awesome post. This board needs new members to keep posting stuff like this.

Thanx!

I will continue to try making meaningful, rational contributions to these boards!

Go Pats!

 

[AzPatsFan]

Y'all forget that the CBA extension was not a done deal even early this year.

This is a one time bump that may not last. Don't forget that the CBA can expire in 2009.

Have any of you noticed that NFL football is now on Sundays, Sunday nights, Monday nights, Tuesday and Wednesday replays, Thursdays and the last half of the season on Friday and Saturday nights too.

More obnoxious, It seems that after every play there is an interruption, and is followed by two or three (or four or six) commercials. I am a dedicated fan following a Super bowl contender, but I found the commercials to be more annoying than ever; maybe it because they are so incessant and so many. If two commercials per play are not too obnoxious, does that mean you can continue to stuff six, eight or ten between every play? I think the NFL is in not in great danger of "overexposure". It is well passed that, and deep into "overexposure". Revenues and the cap will stop increasing and start decreasing, and soon.

When people say enough, I'm bored with football. I 'm interested in something else from video games to other programming NFL revenues plummet. The CBA and the other contracts are not fully ready for this.

Yes the total cap can decrease, since its set as a percentage of revenues, but individual contracts are not set up as a percentage of revenue, so many teams will have to end contracts to get below plunging caps.

 

[mgteich]

If Branch were signed for about $5M a year (or even more) by the pats, then the pats would have been geniouses for keeping him. If we brought in Stallworth for the same money, the patriots would have been heros. The FO is a hero no matter what they do, and should be, as long as they put a great product on the field. HOWEVER, I personally think it is silly to beliee that there was no one out there that shouldn't in hindsight have been signed. What hindsight? The hindsight of realizing that we were going to lose Givens, Branch, and McGinist; and not be able to sign Law.

Do you truly believe that the FO would not have signed anyone else if they KNEW at the beginning of free agency that these four players would be gone? Jonathan Kraft would never say that. They KEPT (didn't spend) the cap money BECAUSE they were hoping to sign Law and Branch. Do you believe Jonathan Kraft? I do. The FO miscalculated and lost their bet.

After the losses, they moved to Plan B and Plan C. They did incredibly well to pick up Seau, Caldwell and Gabriel in free agency. Maybe they will be duds. I don't think so. Those who don't like this off-season are nuts, given the draft, the re-signing of Seymour, other re-signings, the signing of the key free agents, and the timely return of Light, Harrison, Gay and Koppen from injuries.

Note that I did not include Vinitieri. I don't think they had much intention of keeping him this year. It was time to move on at that position.

In the end, we don't know who was available when, and for what price to the patriots, only that the patriots did not pull the trigger and sign any of the available receivers, linebackers or defensive backs. If we truly look at all the contracts to top free agents, and consider that all are overpaid, then one of two things are true: 1) We will just choose to spend our monies elsewhere or 2) that the patriots refuse to understand that the average salaries for players in the market has really increased by 15-20% with new CBA. In the long run, if we refuse to pay the 15-20%, we will have the cap excess every year, and will spend it or push it forward. In the end, it doesn't help at all to push money forward if the cap keeps increasing, if we have a reasonable cap strategy.

We don't need to be major players in free agency. That has never been bb's style. However, if we are not, we need to do better at locking in players earlier, two years rather than one year before the end of their contracts.

Some days you really confound me. I guess the Pat's should just go out and find a stiff or two to get this money spent down on. Overpay them if you must just spend that money damnit.

hwc has a point you know when he says if we had offered some player more, say Ty Law or Deion Branch - they would just have used that increase against us as leverage with their other bidder. At the 11th hour on the verge of the last capped season scenario the NFL had the largest increase in available cap in one of the piss poorest FA markets in recent history where by most expert accounts the most significant player available was our former 34 year old PK.

The league and this franchise will be here at least through 2008, hopefully longer. Belioli plan for that contingency too.

 

[oldskool138]

Okay, it's really simple to understand how the FO works. I'll show you using a little math.

"a" is the price or value the Pats put on a player.
"b" is the price other teams are willing to pay for said player.
"c" is signing the player
"x" is they do not sign the player

If a > b = c.
If b > a = x

Obviously if the player is willing to take a home-town discount, they sign him.

 

[mgteich]

This strategy could produce a team with no players except our own draftees.

Okay, it's really simple to understand how the FO works. I'll show you using a little math.

"a" is the price or value the Pats put on a player.
"b" is the price other teams are willing to pay for said player.
"c" is signing the player
"x" is they do not sign the player

If a > b = c.
If b > a = x

Obviously if the player is willing to take a home-town discount, they sign him.

 

[Gon_Trevil]

I agree with everything but this statement about locking them up before the CBA...The problem was that no one knew what the CBA would bring and negotiating before that was not easy for either side. Locking them up way before the CBA would have been too early; way too early and then, it was the CBA being more of a problem. Too many variables to assume too much. The CBA I think hindered signings before that and that was a large part of the problem this year..but more like to ignore that fact. I agree..this bump up is not happening every year...and to price up players because of that bump just sets standards at a higher level and whrn it is not there, the bar is already set higher than it hsould be. They have a good handle on it all.

Took the words right out of my keyboard. I would only add that, before the CBA, it was mostly the players who didn't want to sign extensions because of the potential for uncapped years.

 

[oldskool138]

This strategy could produce a team with no players except our own draftees.

Not necessarily. Look at Rodney Harrison, Mike Vrabel, and Cory Dillon. We valued these players more than the Chargers, Steelers and Bengals did. The Chargers thought Harrison was done so we got him for decent dollars. Same thing with Cory and the Bengals. Vrabel didn't fit in with Cowers' defense and we got him relatively cheap. I'd say that the Pats have a great mix of free-agents and draftees. No?

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

FWIW, the line "If any, the mistake the Pats made was not trying to lock guys up before the new CBA." was a simple concession to anyone who would look at the initial post as blindly supporting the front office. I don't believe the FO really made any mistakes, hence the weak disclaimer at the beginning of the line.

The statement is still true though, even if it greatly benefits from hindsight. Deion was eying hitting the market in the uncapped year, but Givens was a FA a year too soon and you have to assume he would have signed for less than 5/$24M. At the time everyone thought the Colts were nuts when the Reggie Wayne contract was signed; they now look like they knew what they were doing.