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

[arrellbee]

Folks may not realize just how heavy the Pats roster is with players that the Patriots drafted or signed as undrafted rookies.

36 Players - slightly over 2/3 of the roster:
There are 29 players who were drafted in the NFL draft.
There are 7 players who were signed as undrafted rookies by the Pats.

17 Players - slightly under 1/3 of the roster:
There are 14 players who were signed as free agents.
There are 3 players who were acquired by trade.

With next years numerous draft picks, it will be interesting to see if the ratio tips even more toward players originally signed by the Patriots.

 

[I'm Ron Borges?]

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.

Other teams like the Eagles and Steelers follow the same blueprint as the Patriots do and they spent to the cap. The Patriots got caught with their pants down and misjudged the market badly. Now they are trying to save face by saying them didn't want any of the free agents. Funny, they offered four or five players contracts this year and they all signed elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Pats brought in Eric Warfield and re-signed Chad Brown. Great spending method there.

 

[Pats726]

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.

Very true...but when people keep saying that the FO didn't do anything..I think they miss it..

 

[shmessy]

They did incredibly well to pick up Seau, Caldwell and Gabriel in free agency.

Gabriel was obtained in a trade.

 

[shmessy]

Other teams like the Eagles and Steelers follow the same blueprint as the Patriots do and they spent to the cap. The Patriots got caught with their pants down and misjudged the market badly. Now they are trying to save face by saying them didn't want any of the free agents. Funny, they offered four or five players contracts this year and they all signed elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Pats brought in Eric Warfield and re-signed Chad Brown. Great spending method there.

Do you tell outright lies all the time?

It was WIDELY reported (by journalists unlike you) this week that Jonathan Kraft stated unequivocally that they had the cap money available because they made earnest plans at Ty Law (a free agent this offseason, last time I checked) and Deion Branch. When did they say they didn't want any of the free agents?

You have ZERO credibility on this board when you come up with crapola like that.

 

[captain stone]

Here's some more math...

Like every other team, the pats FO, using their best judgement based on production and potential, places a value, relative to the salary cap, on a particular player. Before the new CBA, that value was "x". After the new CBA, which raised the cap 20% (from $85M to $102M), that value, relative to the new salary cap, for the same player, is now x + 20%x, or 120%x. Even if that same player did not improve 20%, or at all, during the offseason. So a position (e.g., a #1 WR) which used to cost $5M, now costs $6M. The bottom line is: The Holdout is not as overpaid as we think he is. He still is, just not by as much.

The pats FO was not "caught with their pants down"; they may have been slow to zip them up, however. One of the bigger challenges now facing the FO is: to correctly identify those players truly deserving of being paid as a #1 at his position, relative to the ever-increasing salary cap. A great hedge against eventual miscalculations is to draft wisely, thereby replenishing the roster with young, inexpensive talent. This upcoming FA period and draft will go a long way towards determining the future success of the NEP. Will the FO recalibrate their value chart to reflect the new cost of doing business? That answer may be partly determined by what happens during this season, which, in some respects, begins tomorrow.

 

[onegameatatime]

Folks may not realize just how heavy the Pats roster is with players that the Patriots drafted or signed as undrafted rookies.

36 Players - slightly over 2/3 of the roster:
There are 29 players who were drafted in the NFL draft.
There are 7 players who were signed as undrafted rookies by the Pats.

17 Players - slightly under 1/3 of the roster:
There are 14 players who were signed as free agents.
There are 3 players who were acquired by trade.

With next years numerous draft picks, it will be interesting to see if the ratio tips even more toward players originally signed by the Patriots.

This is an uncompared statistic -- do we know that this is "heavy" with draft picks, or light, or average? And whether teams with higher percentage of draftees are better? My assumption would be that they are better -- most Steelers seem to be draftess as are the best Colts on offense. 7 undrafted rookies sounds like a lot, but again, it's hard without comparative data.

 

[Pats726]

Will the FO recalibrate their value chart to reflect the new cost of doing business? That answer may be partly determined by what happens during this season, which, in some respects, begins tomorrow.

Recalibrate??? Whose valie??? I don't understand...There is NO WAY
Branch was worth what he wanted..He will NOT be the MAN in Seattle...just a piece..of some puzzle althought the MONEY says more..

 

[onegameatatime]

Some interesting stuff on this thread. If the minimum percent is going up and the cap is going up and a number of teams will spend to the cap, we have significant inflation. This could also be referred to as a liquidity-driven bull market in salaries where more money is chasing the same product. In a stock market scenario, however, the liquidity tends to snap back. Here, it seems like the increase will last a while.

Unless the minimums rise as quickly as the cap, and assuming many players are signed at or near the minimum, it means that an increasingly higher remainder of dollars is chasing the stars.

So we (and the Pats) will have to rapidly adjust our expectations about what a reasonable salary is for the best players because others will have the liquidity. What seems to be "overpaying" now may be rational in a more highly inflationary environment because of the need to lockup now. It looks like it may start to resemble what's happening in baseball with starting picthing.

Seems to me that the best way to deal with this is to lock up the talent with extensions, and I'd like to see the Pats do this with Graham and Koppen in particular.

 

[mgteich]

Well-stated! I would add Banta-Cain to your list and Wilson.

Some interesting stuff on this thread. If the minimum percent is going up and the cap is going up and a number of teams will spend to the cap, we have significant inflation. This could also be referred to as a liquidity-driven bull market in salaries where more money is chasing the same product. In a stock market scenario, however, the liquidity tends to snap back. Here, it seems like the increase will last a while.

Unless the minimums rise as quickly as the cap, and assuming many players are signed at or near the minimum, it means that an increasingly higher remainder of dollars is chasing the stars.

So we (and the Pats) will have to rapidly adjust our expectations about what a reasonable salary is for the best players because others will have the liquidity. What seems to be "overpaying" now may be rational in a more highly inflationary environment because of the need to lockup now. It looks like it may start to resemble what's happening in baseball with starting picthing.

Seems to me that the best way to deal with this is to lock up the talent with extensions, and I'd like to see the Pats do this with Graham and Koppen in particular.

 

[captain stone]

Well-stated! I would add Banta-Cain to your list and Wilson.

Well stated, indeed. I would hate to see the NFL go the way of MLB or the NBA. The Pats need to accurately assess the marketplace before their young players become FAs; they then need to present, negotiate and sign extensions with those young players. The fewer headaches, the better.

 

[WV-Colt]

This is an uncompared statistic -- do we know that this is "heavy" with draft picks, or light, or average? And whether teams with higher percentage of draftees are better? My assumption would be that they are better -- most Steelers seem to be draftess as are the best Colts on offense. 7 undrafted rookies sounds like a lot, but again, it's hard without comparative data.

that's usually a sign of a team that will be successful over the long run.

if my quick count is correct the colts have 43 players who were either drafted by the team, or signed as FA's their rookie year.

 

[Miguel]

Some interesting stuff on this thread. If the minimum percent is going up and the cap is going up and a number of teams will spend to the cap, we have significant inflation. This could also be referred to as a liquidity-driven bull market in salaries where more money is chasing the same product. In a stock market scenario, however, the liquidity tends to snap back. Here, it seems like the increase will last a while.

Unless the minimums rise as quickly as the cap, and assuming many players are signed at or near the minimum, it means that an increasingly higher remainder of dollars is chasing the stars.

So we (and the Pats) will have to rapidly adjust our expectations about what a reasonable salary is for the best players because others will have the liquidity. What seems to be "overpaying" now may be rational in a more highly inflationary environment because of the need to lockup now. It looks like it may start to resemble what's happening in baseball with starting picthing.

Seems to me that the best way to deal with this is to lock up the talent with extensions, and I'd like to see the Pats do this with Graham and Koppen in particular.

FWIW - Minimunm players will go by $10,000 for each level of credited seasons.

That is, a rookie makes a minimum salary of $275,000 this year.
In 2007 a rookie will make a minimum salary of $285,000.