Woody Paige on the Cassel/Cutler fiasco

[Deus Irae]

Are you kidding me? The fact that they couldn't make an offer is at least as bad as making one and not having the cap room.
Without making the trade, they couldn't sign Bodden. How can it not be a huge problem that you are unable to make an offer?

How more clearly can this be broken down? A poster claimed an offer had been made. An offer had, in fact, NOT yet been made (at least to the best of our knowledge). They aren't "exactly the same". It's bad enough that people are using conjecture and speculation when none is needed. Do we now just ignore completely incorrect items now, as well, just to make you feel better about the situation?

 

[Ring 6]

It's not exactly the same thing at all. It's not on the same page. It's not in the same book. It MIGHT be in the same town.

However, why the hell would I find anything "wrong with that" in your analogy? Are you seriously going to claim that Kraft wouldn't just veto that move if he didn't like it?

Your argument now amounts to:

I am right. Anything anyone else says to refute it is irrelevant.

The argument is that you feel BB did Pioli a favor by trading with him when other, better offers were available, or at the least, refused to work for other better offers as a favor.
That is taking an asset of the New England Patriots that he is in charge of and selling it for less than the value.

As far as your last sentence, WTF?
Now you are saying that you wouldn't have a problem with an employee colluding with a friend to sell a company asset at less than value, because someone should have vetoed it, so theft and negligence is acceptable when it isn't caught?
Its also a ridiculous analogy because it you think Bob Kraft signs off on football moves, you haven't been paying attention, so Kraft didn't endorse, veto or even ask for the opportunity to do either in trading Matt Cassel.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it is very interesting that we have (more or less) 2 basic points of view here:

A) BB got less than the best deal as he was doing a deal with a friend (Pioli) and you don't get the best deals when trading with a friend (goodwill and such).

B) Because of FA (clock ticking), Vrabel roster bonus March 1 (clock ticking) and Pats tight against the Cap due to Cassel; BB took the best deal available RIGHT THEN that could be executed immediately. Time pressure and if you have ever scalped tickets 1 hour before game time (at less than optimal value) then you know exactly what I mean - or wait til 5 minutes before game time (to hopefully get a higher price) and risk NO Sale and being stuck with the ticket(s).

But I have not seen mentioned a third possibility. NFL is not just about 'fantasy' football drafts and trades and such. It is about 'wins and losses'. And maybe BB rationalized he would rather take less of an trade value (pick #34) and trade to a mediocre team (KC) than take a better value (1st round pick) and have 2 playoff caliber teams (DEN / Tampa) BOTH possibly get better. Also as NE plays both Denver AND TB this season. Why (potentially) help 2 decent teams get better when you are going to play them both soon? Give the better value to the lousy team and move on with all the cap money freed up to concentrate on the FA market. Is the possibly of gaining 15 spots in the draft worth missing out on some free agents AND also helping two future opponents (possibily) get better?

We're told by Andy that it's absolutely impossible for BB to have anything but the highest of picks in mind, because anything else would somehow mean that BB is a scumbag who's hurting the Patriots. Sadly, the weighing of other factors apparently makes one a clear hater of BB and all things Patriots.

 

[Ring 6]

How more clearly can this be broken down? A poster claimed an offer had been made. An offer had, in fact, NOT yet been made (at least to the best of our knowledge). They aren't "exactly the same". It's bad enough that people are using conjecture and speculation when none is needed. Do we now just ignore completely incorrect items now, as well, just to make you feel better about the situation?

I'm not talking about the semantics of his posts.
I am saying that if Bodden was in NE on 2/27 and we could not sign him without making a trade is exactly the same issue as to whether we had urgency to make the trade as whether we made an offer.
If you were arguing the specifics of his language, then I was responding to something else, which was the point of the discussion, that there was immense urgency to make the trade.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your argument now amounts to:

I am right. Anything anyone else says to refute it is irrelevant.

The argument is that you feel BB did Pioli a favor by trading with him when other, better offers were available, or at the least, refused to work for other better offers as a favor.
That is taking an asset of the New England Patriots that he is in charge of and selling it for less than the value.

As far as your last sentence, WTF?
Now you are saying that you wouldn't have a problem with an employee colluding with a friend to sell a company asset at less than value, because someone should have vetoed it, so theft and negligence is acceptable when it isn't caught?
Its also a ridiculous analogy because it you think Bob Kraft signs off on football moves, you haven't been paying attention, so Kraft didn't endorse, veto or even ask for the opportunity to do either in trading Matt Cassel.

Oh, for crying out loud. The analogy is ridiculous because selling off the stadium is a piss poor analogy to trading a player. As for the rest, you've just lost your mind. People sell things at a lower than highest possible re-sale amount all the time, and for various reasons which don't need to include theft, negligence or being a scumbag.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Would he have had the cap room to sign Taylor and Baker if he had waited another 48 hours?

In another 48 hours, Vrabel's 1M roster bonus would have kicked in. So the Pats were either sending him to KC along with Cassel or cutting him. They decided to spare his dignity and send him to KC along with Cassel. That's another aspect of the trade timeframe that gets overlooked.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not talking about the semantics of his posts.
I am saying that if Bodden was in NE on 2/27 and we could not sign him without making a trade is exactly the same issue as to whether we had urgency to make the trade as whether we made an offer.
If you were arguing the specifics of his language, then I was responding to something else, which was the point of the discussion, that there was immense urgency to make the trade.

"The semantics of his posts" was what was being quoted. "The semantics of his posts" was referring to part of the timeline. If you can't figure that out, there's no sense continuing with this particular avenue of discussion.

As for the "immense urgency", what day and time did BB tell you this and, when he did, what were his given reasons?

 

[Sicilian]

I think it is very interesting that we have (more or less) 2 basic points of view here:

A) BB got less than the best deal as he was doing a deal with a friend (Pioli) and you don't get the best deals when trading with a friend (goodwill and such).

B) Because of FA (clock ticking), Vrabel roster bonus March 1 (clock ticking) and Pats tight against the Cap due to Cassel; BB took the best deal available RIGHT THEN that could be executed immediately. Time pressure and if you have ever scalped tickets 1 hour before game time (at less than optimal value) then you know exactly what I mean - or wait til 5 minutes before game time (to hopefully get a higher price) and risk NO Sale and being stuck with the ticket(s).

But I have not seen mentioned a third possibility. NFL is not just about 'fantasy' football drafts and trades and such. It is about 'wins and losses'. And maybe BB rationalized he would rather take less of an trade value (pick #34) and trade to a mediocre team (KC) than take a better value (1st round pick) and have 2 playoff caliber teams (DEN / Tampa) BOTH possibly get better. Also as NE plays both Denver AND TB this season. Why (potentially) help 2 decent teams get better when you are going to play them both soon? Give the better value to the lousy team and move on with all the cap money freed up to concentrate on the FA market. Is the possibly of gaining 15 spots in the draft worth missing out on some free agents AND also helping two future opponents (possibily) get better?

It's a possibility, and may have factored into it, but just as they would make moves with both this year and future years of their own franchise in mind, my guess is they never assume that the teams that were bad last year will not make major improvements down the road. I still think they would take the best deal for themselves, having confidence that if they field the team they want to, they can beat anybody.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

`?I//%&%@ In another 48 hours, Vrabel's 1M roster bonus would have kicked in. &&%"#¤2"#`^ the Pats were either sending him to KC along with Cassel or cutting him @£$£€/()>ÆØ. They decided to spare his dignity and send him to KC along with Cassel. #//¤><w[ That's another aspect of the trade timeframe that gets overlooked. &4=]++2#¤?´´-Ø

Sorry VJC Patriot - your message broke up. (These damn overseas communications). Please resend. URGENTLY! Hubba Hubba. It is suddently very hot in here!

 

[SunnyDenmark]

It's a possibility, and may have factored into it, but just as they would make moves with both this year and future years of their own franchise in mind, my guess is they never assume that the teams that were bad last year will not make major improvements down the road. I still think they would take the best deal for themselves, having confidence that if they field the team they want to, they can beat anybody.

Sure, I can see your reasoning. But we are not just talking about (helping) ANY other team - we are talking about helping the Denver Donkies which (for whatever reasons) have always been a thorn in BB's paw. Plus now they have a coach who knows BB's gameplans and players. Why do them any favors? Better for Cutler to learn a whole new offensive system than have Cassel and McDaniels up to speed with the same (NE) offensive system from day 1.

If you are going to give a better deal to any team (due to time pressures of FA) give it to the worst team not the better team(s) - DEN & TB. (which NE is also going to play both in 2009).

 

[Sicilian]

Sure, I can see your reasoning. But we are not just talking about (helping) ANY other team - we are talking about helping the Denver Donkies which (for whatever reasons) have always been a thorn in BB's paw. Plus now they have a coach who knows BB's gameplans and players. Why do them any favors? Better for Cutler to learn a whole new offensive system than have Cassel and McDaniels up to speed with the same (NE) offensive system from day 1.

If you are going to give a better deal to any team (due to time pressures of FA) give it to the worst team not the better team(s) - DEN & TB. (which NE is also going to play both in 2009).

Eh, but again, how do you really know? Two years ago, if we had traded a rising star QB to Miami (god forbid) at 1-15 instead of Jacksonville at 10-6 or whatever they were, on the surface that would seem the "smart" move due to improving the worse team. But as we saw this year, teams can make drastic turnarounds in both directions, and it's really hard to predict that year to year. The only thing really in your control is your own team, so you make deals to put the team you want on the field and let the other chips fall as they may.

 

[spacecrime]

1.) The deal was made less than 18 hours into free agency (a friday).

Irrelevant. People keep acting like BB waited a day then pulled the trigger. When free agency started is irrelevant because Cassel wasn't a free agent. He was franchised, and the Pats had been shopping him around for three weeks.

The idea that BB turned down a better offer is ludicrous. He had a deal in princple done with the Chiefs. THen other teams were trying to put together a deal. Not that they had a deal ready. No one has said that. THey were trying to put together a deal.

If BB made a commitment to the CHiefs, he was bound to keep it. Not only did he owe it to a guy who heped him over the years, but a deal is a deal.

Had he backed out of the deal with Pioli in order to try to work a better deal with the Bucs, BB would have taken heat from BSPN and the media talking heads and this time I would have agreed with them.

Plus, who knows if the Bus/Lions/Broncos could put it together? What if BB reneged on his deal with the Chiefs and the other deals fell apart? Are people unaware of what is going in Denver right now?

No, I'm sorry. Teams had three weeks to work a deal with the Pats, or to put a multi-team deal together. They only started when it was announced that the Pats and Chiefs had an agreement in place.

 

[Deus Irae]

Irrelevant. People keep acting like BB waited a day then pulled the trigger. When free agency started is irrelevant because Cassel wasn't a free agent. He was franchised, and the Pats had been shopping him around for three weeks.

The idea that BB turned down a better offer is ludicrous. He had a deal in princple done with the Chiefs. THen other teams were trying to put together a deal. Not that they had a deal ready. No one has said that. THey were trying to put together a deal.

If BB made a commitment to the CHiefs, he was bound to keep it. Not only did he owe it to a guy who heped him over the years, but a deal is a deal.

Had he backed out of the deal with Pioli in order to try to work a better deal with the Bucs, BB would have taken heat from BSPN and the media talking heads and this time I would have agreed with them.

Plus, who knows if the Bus/Lions/Broncos could put it together? What if BB reneged on his deal with the Chiefs and the other deals fell apart? Are people unaware of what is going in Denver right now?

No, I'm sorry. Teams had three weeks to work a deal with the Pats, or to put a multi-team deal together. They only started when it was announced that the Pats and Chiefs had an agreement in place.

The time the deal was made is not irrelevant. Again, you must know this. That you claimed it irrelevant just makes the rest of your post....

well, irrelevant.

 

[spacecrime]

As for the "immense urgency", what day and time did BB tell you this and, when he did, what were his given reasons?

Not to speak for Andy, but the immense urgency was to finalize the signings of FAs. The Pats were so tight they re-did Moss's deal to free up $750,000 needed to sign Taylor.

You guys need to put on tin foil hats and become BSPN talking heads. You are inventing conspiracies where none exist, and looking for reasons why BB did wrong yet again.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not to speak for Andy, but the immense urgency was to finalize the signings of FAs. The Pats were so tight they re-did Moss's deal to free up $750,000 needed to sign Taylor.

You guys need to put on tin foil hats and become BSPN talking heads. You are inventing conspiracies where none exist, and looking for reasons why BB did wrong yet again.

For hopefully the last bloody time..........


I DON'T THINK BB DID "WRONG YET AGAIN". I DON'T RECALL ANYONE ON THIS THREAD CLAIMING THAT BB DID WRONG. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH BB DOING A 'SOLID' FOR A FRIEND/COMPANION/TRADING PARTNER. THERE IS NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, WRONG WITH HIM DOING SO, AS A GENERAL RULE.

 

[patfanken]

Im sorry I didn't have time to read everry post in this thread, so if my point has been made already, I apologize.

First of all the very concept of the term Woody Paige and inside scoop is the biggest oxymoron I can think of. No national writer of note has gotten more things wrong over a longer period of time than Woody Paige.

But the key think I think people keep on getting fuzzy on is the timing. The fact is that the Pats had Matt Cassel on the market SINCE JANUARY. Teams had the entire month of Feburary to talk with the Pats about potential trades. The Fact was that on that Saturday the best offer the Pats had gotten was the one they had from KC

Woody also fails to recognize that the Pats HAD to dump Cassel's contract by that weekend or they would have been effectively put out of the initial phase of the FA market.

Woody fails to acknowledge that even if the Pats agreed to work with Denver in a 3 way trade THAT SATURDAY, the BEST possible time frame for a deal to be completed have been at least a week, perhaps longer. Think of the logistics. First Denver would have to work out a LT deal with Cassel (Woody forgot that KC DIDN'T make that demand) Then the obviously tempermental Cutler would have to agree to go to TB, and they probably would mean HE'D have to agree to a LT deal. LT deals, especially for QBs aren't done overnight. They are measured in INCHES not pages.

IF there is any blame for the Pats not getting a better deal, then it should go to the TB's and Denvers of the world. Everyone knew the Pats had to act quickly. They had a lot of time to get their ducks in order BEFORE that weekend. They weren't ready and KC was.

BUT think about it. The Pats managed to garner the 34th pick in the draft for a guy who, by all rights was going to be a FA this off season. Instead they picked up a pick that SHOULD get them a guy with a first round grade....if not a first round number.

GET OVER IT.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Giving up some value isn't necessarily not in the best interest of the team.


Sometimes its in the best interest to trade down/up despite the fact that you're getting less than equal value back.

I don't disagree with what you said, I just don't see how it's relevant to what Zeus or I said. I might be misunderstanding you though. Are you saying that BB had another trade with better value actually on the table, and that he chose the lesser of the two? I don't think that's what you're saying, but if it is, I disagree. I think the market sets the value and BB took the best offer that was on the table, when he needed to make the deal.... but that's all going further Zues' point that I was agreeing with.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't disagree with what you said, I just don't see how it's relevant to what Zeus or I said. I might be misunderstanding you though. Are you saying that BB had another trade with better value actually on the table, and that he chose the lesser of the two? I don't think that's what you're saying, but if it is, I disagree. I think the market sets the value and BB took the best offer that was on the table, when he needed to make the deal.... but that's all going further Zues' point that I was agreeing with.

Ok, quick question...... if the deal waits 24 hours, what disaster happens?

 

[Patriots Nation NY]

I stopped reading right after Woody said .. "McDaniels wanted Cassel".. How the F does he know ..

 

[Ring 6]

We're told by Andy that it's absolutely impossible for BB to have anything but the highest of picks in mind, because anything else would somehow mean that BB is a scumbag who's hurting the Patriots. Sadly, the weighing of other factors apparently makes one a clear hater of BB and all things Patriots.

What part of that do you dispute?
1)Is BBs job to do the absolute best he can for the Patriots?
2)Is helping Pioli AT THE EXPENSE OF #1 not a direct and complete conflict?

I really don't understand how you can conclude that BB would make a trade that wasnt the best one for the Patriots, and then see no problem with that.

Are you really saying its OK for BB to let Pioli underpay because helping his friend is a valid reason for doing less than the best for the Patriots?