Wilfork wants Seymour money

[Miguel]

The Pats are sticklers for having players complete their rookie contracts.

Brady, Seymour, Koppen, Light, and Warren have to disagree

 

[bagwell368]

You don't 'lose 2.9M in a cap hit', that money is "sunk cost". Its gone whether hes on the roster or not. Its irrelevant.

Wait. Miguel's page lists 2009 Cap Hits. Vrabel is listed as $1,036,000.00 - meaning that of $128,884,466 which is the current adjusted cap, that money is unusable. There is a total of $2,235,721.00 (1.72% of the Pats cap) all together can not be used for other contracts in 2009.

We can't just cut guys constantly and not run up against it. Obvious the current 1.72% is not a big deal, but throw in $2.9M for Green, $800k for Neal, $1.8M for Sanders, $600k for Galloway, $750k for Morris, $667 for Wheatley, $526k for Watson, $600k for Bruschi then at some point it could get to be a big deal.

Obviously we will make cuts balanced between value provided and costs. But it can't go forever, and it isn't of no importance. AT for instance carries a $13.2M hit for '09 if he is traded. So that's highly unlikely to happen, even if we get 3 #1's back.

 

[The_Riddler]

I think Seymour should donate a major portion of his over-payed salary over the last 4 years to Big Vince, that will even out the pay/production ratio per player scale................

 

[Miguel]

If Wilfork wants $8 million a year, that is fine. Except that Seymour got over $10 million a year and until Haynesworth's new deal was the highest paid defensive player in the league on a per year basis (it was made to look lower since part of the agreement was that he fulfilled the final year of his rookie deal for immediate bonus money). In fact, Seymour is making more per year than Brady when you factor it in being a 3 year deal rather than a 4 year deal as it is portrayed.

I consider it a 4-year deal because Seymour got the signing bonus money in 2006 AND the Patriots were able to prorate it over 4 years.

 

[Deus Irae]

Holding mgteich to a higher standard than you hold yourself to

Not at all. Mgteich said it could be done, I said it couldn't. You just wanted me to give Wilfork a contract when I had no idea what he was asking for at the time. You'll notice that Mgteich pointed to other moves needing to be made to make it happen. That was my point all along. From reading what he's said on this thread, it seems that he was actually thinking the same that I was, but he worded it differently. The Patriots do NOT have enough cap room to be signing the key players. In order to get that room, moves would need to be made (Jarvis Green getting cut, etc....).

If they make no other moves between now and the beginning of the season, they are o.k. for this year and in a pretty precarious position for next year (Bidding wars and overpaid players or a significant talent dropoff). If they want to give Wilfork that extension and toss him a $25 million dollar signing bonus, sign players like Mankins, Seymour, Neal et al., or bring in a high priced player like Burress this season, they are not ok.

 

[APatrioticVirginian]

If the Patriots don't meet Vince's number, Cleveland, Denver, Dallas, Miami, NYJ, or KC would do that contract in a second.

I agree thats why those teams suck. Like Bill Gates said I didnt get rich writing checks

 

[bigjon7501]

crap i dont wanna lose big daddy v. i love this man!

 

[Synovia]

Wait. Miguel's page lists 2009 Cap Hits. Vrabel is listed as $1,036,000.00 - meaning that of $128,884,466 which is the current adjusted cap, that money is unusable. There is a total of $2,235,721.00 (1.72% of the Pats cap) all together can not be used for other contracts in 2009.

You're totally missing the point, and Vrabel is actually a good example. The 1M cap hit was on the books whether or not Vrabel stays, which is why its irrelevant to the decision making process. That money was lost the second they signed the contract a couple years back. The decision is made based on the money that is still avoidable, in most cases, the actual salary.

We can't just cut guys constantly and not run up against it. Obvious the current 1.72% is not a big deal, but throw in $2.9M for Green, $800k for Neal, $1.8M for Sanders, $600k for Galloway, $750k for Morris, $667 for Wheatley, $526k for Watson, $600k for Bruschi then at some point it could get to be a big deal.

NO, IT DOESN'T. You are paying that money whether or not the player is on the team. ITS ALREADY GONE. Whether or not you cut bruschi makes no difference on that 600K. ITS GONE. His salary is all that matters. The decision to pay those monies was made when the contracts were signed.


you really need to learn about "sunk cost"

From Wiki:

In economics and business decision-making, sunk costs are costs that cannot be recovered once they have been incurred. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with variable costs, which are the costs that will change due to the proposed course of action, and prospective costs which are costs that will be incurred if an action is taken.

In traditional microeconomic theory, only variable costs are relevant to a decision. Traditional economics proposes that an economic actor does not let sunk costs influence one's decisions, because doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits.

 

[condon84]

everyone is replaceable......you could replace everyone on the pats roster with everyone on the lions roster.......

everyone eventually gets replaced on every team......but the notion of everyone being replaceable is intended with the notion that everyone is replaceable and the result will still be the same.......for the last 5 years, that obviously has not been true...........

deion branch was not replaceable.......if he was, the pats would have won an SB in 2006

daniel graham was not replaceable.......if he was, the pats would have won an SB in 2007

it's been obvious that the LB core has not been replaceable

brady is not replaceable

am I missing anyone??????

The point of my original post was that I doubt the Pats will break from their MO and resign one of their players, who they value at a certain salary, a reasonably higher salary that the player wants or what he can command in the open market. Look at all the players the Pats have resigned, most of them took a discount. The players that have wanted more have left. Now, Wilfork and the Pats may agree on a contract, but I commented on the discussion that Wilfork wanted Seymour type of money, the Pats are balking, and that's the reason why there hasn't been much of a negotiation. This was my post:

Everyone is replaceable. I love Wilfork, but is Bill really going to invest that type of money on a two-down player? This could get ugly. If we do end up losing him, I hope it's via trade and we get some draft picks.

More than likely, the Pats are going to stick to their guns and not overpay, based on the history of the Belichick era. Which could mean that Wilfork might be on the move. Thus my comment about "everyone is replaceable." Whether this will result in a SB victory, who knows.

Now, what Don took from my original post was me saying, "hey let's replace Brady, Moss, and Welker because everyone's replaceable!" To me, that's asinine. I understand if you're a 6 year old kid you might have that type of comprehension, but he's not a 6 year old kid.

 

[Synovia]

Look at all the players the Pats have resigned, most of them took a discount. The players that have wanted more have left.

Like who? Brady makes $15M a year. Seymour didn't. He was the highest paid DL in the NFL for a bit. Moss is making $10M a year. Ty Warren still had two years left on his rookie contract, so of course hes going to get less than market.

 

[VJCPatriot]

We don't know what we have in Brace yet. BB drafted 3 NTs in preparatiion for Wilfork's possible departure. How many here wish he had done the same before Samuel left or before Branch left? At least the Pats are FULLY prepared with a Plan B this time. If Wilfork won't sign a new contract that is palatable to the Pats they will plug in someone else.

Now don't get me wrong. I really like big Vince and would love to have him continue being a Patriot for the forseeable future, however this is the salary cap age. Some guys will have to leave if the money they want doesn't fit what the team sees as the best value for their cap dollars.

 

[BionicPatriot]

If we already let Asante go, and now we're going to let Vince go, who the hell are we saving for? In this salary cap era, you have 2 guys on each side of the ball that you lock up period. Offense is Brady and Moss, defense is who? I thought they were saving money letting a stud in Asante go, now they're going to be cheap with Wilfork here? I can't explain that logic.

If you're going to let a CB go, that's fine. But you can't let your pillar go, period. Not in the 3-4. We need to lock him up.

 

[RayClay]

Wilfork wanted Seymour type of money, the Pats are balking, and that's the reason why there hasn't been much of a negotiation.

Wilfork has a whole year left on his contract. Nobody knows what he's asking, or what they might offere, as far as I know.

It's to Wilfork's advantage and the teams disadvantage, to sign a long term deal with a year to go. He could get hurt.

No reason for the team to sign him early. If he gives them reason (hometown discount) they very well might rap him up, otherwise, he's under contract, why should they risk future money?

 

[mgteich]

The patriots can choose not to try to sign Wilfork early as they did Brady, Seymour and Warren. The message will be clear and Wilfork will be playing elsewhere next year, or even this year if he holds out.

The patriots must choose whether to give Wilfork the same treatment as Seymour and Warren. Either they think Wilfork is worth it or not.

If the team doesn't wish to risk injuries, then they should sign players to one year contracts rather than trying to get long-term commitments.

If the team isn't interested, I would expect Wilfork to sit out for awhile as Seymour did and get a commitment of no franchise to come back

We don't know what we have in Brace yet. BB drafted 3 NTs in preparatiion for Wilfork's possible departure. How many here wish he had done the same before Samuel left or before Branch left? At least the Pats are FULLY prepared with a Plan B this time. If Wilfork won't sign a new contract that is palatable to the Pats they will plug in someone else.

Now don't get me wrong. I really like big Vince and would love to have him continue being a Patriot for the forseeable future, however this is the salary cap age. Some guys will have to leave if the money they want doesn't fit what the team sees as the best value for their cap dollars.

 

[condon84]

Wilfork has a whole year left on his contract. Nobody knows what he's asking, or what they might offere, as far as I know.

It's to Wilfork's advantage and the teams disadvantage, to sign a long term deal with a year to go. He could get hurt.

No reason for the team to sign him early. If he gives them reason (hometown discount) they very well might rap him up, otherwise, he's under contract, why should they risk future money?

I didn't say I know what he's asking for or how the negotiations are going.

 

[supafly]

Tonight on Comcast Sportsnet,, Michael Felger in discussing the Patriots OTA's with Tom Curran of NBC Sports claimed that Wilfork wants Seymour money. Wilfork, who is a regular on the show, communicated to Gary Tanguay, another anchor on the show, that he wanted $32 million over 4 years including $24 million in guaranteed money, according to Felger. With a DT franchise number of $6.0 million per, and Wilfork only being a two down player, Vince and the Pats are at an impasse.

Might explain why BB drafted (3) NT's this year.

This is THE exact number I have been guessing at in all posts related to this subject. After seeing other NT/DT's that signed for the same exact money, such as Stroud, Jenkins, S.Rogers, Hampton, etc.--I thought Vince would want to be paid 'fairly,' but not in excess.

A lot of people were taking guesses at 10, 11 million +, etc--and I thought that was ridiculous. Now that we have a number stating what he's asking, everyone will say it's absurd. The franchise number is 6 million, I would have absolutely no problem signing Wilfork to an average of 8 per year. I don't think that's excessive or being greedy, I believe that's what the market value is. If they let him walk, then they must feel that he isn't the #1 defensive player that some here think. But I see absolutley no reason that he shouldn't be paid as much as the same positional players on other teams are making.

That is what should be deemed 'fair,' and market value. I even have a hard time comparing that to Seymour's contract because it was signed a few yrs ago, (consider inflation, etc) and it also made him one of the highest paid at his position. I do not think this is the 'Haynesworth' type money that people have been worried about. One of our mods (you know who you are) even suggested recently that the Pats would need approx. 100 million EACH for Seymour and Wilfork, if we intended on keeping both. I came back with the thought of signing both for about 80-90 total money, and Wilfork's asking price is even better than I first thought. I trust our coach and FO, but I think they'd be dropping the ball on this one--as IMO, the asking price is certainly fair/market value.

 

[RayClay]

I didn't say I know what he's asking for

Wilfork wanted Seymour type of money

or how the negotiations are going.

the Pats are balking, and that's the reason why there hasn't been much of a negotiation.

I'm going out on a limb and saying you said both.

 

[letekro]

The patriots can choose not to try to sign Wilfork early as they did Brady, Seymour and Warren. The message will be clear and Wilfork will be playing elsewhere next year, or even this year if he holds out.

The patriots must choose whether to give Wilfork the same treatment as Seymour and Warren. Either they think Wilfork is worth it or not.

If the team doesn't wish to risk injuries, then they should sign players to one year contracts rather than trying to get long-term commitments.

If the team isn't interested, I would expect Wilfork to sit out for awhile as Seymour did and get a commitment of no franchise to come back

With a salary cap, sometimes it doesn't matter whether you think the player is "worth it." Between Warren and Seymour, they have a ton of money tied up in the DL. The Pats may think VW is well worth $8M in a vacuum, but with the constraints of the salary cap, they might see Brace as an intriguing alternative to shelling $$ out to VW.

 

[Jimke]

This is THE exact number I have been guessing at in all posts related to this subject. After seeing other NT/DT's that signed for the same exact money, such as Stroud, Jenkins, S.Rogers, Hampton, etc.--I thought Vince would want to be paid 'fairly,' but not in excess.

A lot of people were taking guesses at 10, 11 million +, etc--and I thought that was ridiculous. Now that we have a number stating what he's asking, everyone will say it's absurd. The franchise number is 6 million, I would have absolutely no problem signing Wilfork to an average of 8 per year. I don't think that's excessive or being greedy, I believe that's what the market value is. If they let him walk, then they must feel that he isn't the #1 defensive player that some here think. But I see absolutley no reason that he shouldn't be paid as much as the same positional players on other teams are making.

That is what should be deemed 'fair,' and market value. I even have a hard time comparing that to Seymour's contract because it was signed a few yrs ago, (consider inflation, etc) and it also made him one of the highest paid at his position. I do not think this is the 'Haynesworth' type money that people have been worried about. One of our mods (you know who you are) even suggested recently that the Pats would need approx. 100 million EACH for Seymour and Wilfork, if we intended on keeping both. I came back with the thought of signing both for about 80-90 total money, and Wilfork's asking price is even better than I first thought. I trust our coach and FO, but I think they'd be dropping the ball on this one--as IMO, the asking price is certainly fair/market value.

The question is whether Wilfork's 2009 salary is part of the 4 year

32 million.

 

[mgteich]

If all Wilfork wanted was $32M over four years the contract would/should have been signed by now. If I am wrong and the patriots are balking at that price, then I would not be surprised to see Wilfork skipping a few minicamp and TC sessions as Seymour did.