Vince Wilfork...on WEEI...

[Rob0729]

please.......stop with the dramatics.......if you don't see a team in decline, then you're still drunk on the kool-aid....currently, under contract: ONE starting caliber DL (warren) and ONE starting caliber LB (mayo)

the only thing is happening is that wilfork is regretting not making a stink a year ago. but he did not make a stink solely on the same kind of principle I try to teach my kids....being a man of your word (which he is).....one thing I can tell you for sure, is that Belichik (as great a football mind as he is) can not hold a match to wilfork when it comes to character and principle. to deny that is to again be wasted on the kool-aid

I see a team in transition. I am not sold the run is over. I expect the Pats be very active in free agency this year because with or without a cap, they are set up to make moves. The Pats went to the AFC Championship game in 2006 with arguably less talent than the Pats have now. This team needs to make some moves this offseason, but the right moves will put them right back into contention. Stop being overly dramatic yourself.

As for Wilfork's character and principle, how do you know what it is? Besides, dollars and cents will have him back in a Patriots uniform come September. No matter how much I try, I have never been able to buy groceries or pay my bills with character and principles. Seriously, he's not Norma Rae fighting for the factory workers trying to make a decent wage and a livable work condition, he is a football player trying to be one of the highest paid players in the league. That has little to do with character and principles.

The next stop for the Patriots bandwagon is just around the bend, if you want.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

If I remember correctly, you were the same person who killed the Pats for not giving Seymour whatever he wanted and guess what they gave him exactly what he wanted.

It is assinine to say the Pats are being cheap and playing hardball with Wilfork without knowing what their offers are, but you are basically saying that. I think based on recent deals for Seymour, Thomas, Welker, and Thomas (not to mention at a lesser level the above market deals for Stallworth, Fred Taylor, Shawn Springs, etc); the Pats get a bad rap for their negotiations.

Just because the Pats are tough negotiators doesn't mean they can't be fair. They gave above market deals to the players I listed. Their reputation is overstated.

well, you remember incorrectly because I think the trading of seymour was a very shrewd move.....lets not even get into the fact that I wasn't posting here when seymour's deal was in question.....

you are wrong about what I am saying.......if the pats offered a market deal, wilfork would have either signed it or would at least be behaving in a manner that at least some respect had been put out there. all I am saying is that I would be much more likely to trust wilfork than BB.

so are the pats in decline?

 

[zeke mowatt]

wilfork aint worth it.

What, you don't remeber the 83 yd TD right through the spot Vince got his ass removed from?

You dont remember Brace and Wright making his absence negligible?

Wilfork either takes the franchise designation and the millions that go with it, or needs to be shown the door. He's not that good.

 

[mgcolby]

that and the fact that he probably would have torn you limb from limb

not that your comment (or Robs for that fact) is in any way relevant to the wilfork contract situation

Right.... But please enjoy your incessant whining in your little world void of perspective. Lord knows you have plenty of company.

 

[Rob0729]

you're talking in circles......stop acting like you know what is going to happen

and whatever wilfork does will not be based whatever you have to say.

I know what I would do......

It is easy to say you would give up $4 million on character and principles when it is a hypothetical $4 million. It is far harder when it is really is $4 million. So you say you would stick to your principles when you have nothing really on the line is a little disingenuous.

I am going on history here. There have been plenty of players who have been franchised. Many of them have been as upset as Wilfork and some have even had more character and principles than him too. This decade, none of them have sat out. I think the Pats are playing with house money if the gamble on whether Wilfork would end an holdout by the end of the season.

Again, we have six weeks until free agency, this who thread may be an exercise in futility because Wilfork could have a deal before free agency even starts.

 

[Metaphors]

the other thing to note is that if there actually was a cap, only 3 or 4 teams would currently have more cap space going into next season (I think the pats would be 45M or something below the cap if there would be one)....and you can add another 10M in cap savings if the pats cut thomas

$$$$ from the pats end is in no way any kind of excuse to not be signing wilfork.

You are absolutely correct and that is the part I don't understand about most of the posts on this subject. It seems to be the consensus that the Pats won't re-sign Wilfork, Watson, Mankins, Ghost or Bodden. Even if they extended Brady (which they should), that would leave the Pats waaaaaaaaay under the "cap", dangerously shallow at key positions and not enough UFA's to spend all that money on anyway.

Now I would never advocate for signing a player just because you have money to burn, but my assumption is that the Pats would like to keep all those players (Watson not so sure about). I have no reason to believe that any of those players really want to leave (again, unclear with Watson). Why on earth would anyone believe that Kraft/Belichick is going to nickel-n-dime their roster when they have never done that in the past? Do people really believe that Kraft, once free of a salary floor, will turn all KC Royals on us?

The Pats FO has said repeatedly that they need to know the rules of the game before doing any big-money deals. While the rules for 2010 are spelled out in the current CBA, there is still time for a new CBA to trump them. At some point after the SB and before major roster decisions need to be made, the league will have to make a formal announcement on rules that won't change for 2010. At that point, the status of Mankins and Ghost will be clear. Then attention can turn to Wilfork, Watson and Bodden. If any of those guys walk, it will be because the Pats think they can do better...not because they are too expensive.

Why is that so hard to believe? I find it much easier to believe than Kraft looking to pocket $50M and hamstring Belichick with a disgruntled, swiss cheese roster. And for those who believe a new CBA (maybe even a simple extension of the 2009 rules for a year) won't be put in place for 2010, when has any labor negotiation finished before backs were against the wall?

 

[mgcolby]

well, you remember incorrectly because I think the trading of seymour was a very shrewd move.....lets not even get into the fact that I wasn't posting here when seymour's deal was in question.....

you are wrong about what I am saying.......if the pats offered a market deal, wilfork would have either signed it or would at least be behaving in a manner that at least some respect had been put out there. all I am saying is that I would be much more likely to trust wilfork than BB.

so are the pats in decline?

Talking about facts? How can you make this statement with a straight face? How can you possibly make an assertive statement based on nothing more than your opinion of a man you don't know? And more importantly a situation in which you are not privy to a single fact, other than the two sides have yet to come to an agreement????

Actually, after re-reading your previous response to me, it appears you have a habit of making assumptions about situations to which you lack facts or any significant information at all.

Seems to be a good way to go through life.

 

[RichSeymour]

wilfork aint worth it.

What, you don't remeber the 83 yd TD right through the spot Vince got his ass removed from?

You dont remember Brace and Wright making his absence negligible?

Wilfork either takes the franchise designation and the millions that go with it, or needs to be shown the door. He's not that good.

Wow, just wow, I hope this is sarcasm!

 

[Rob0729]

well, you remember incorrectly because I think the trading of seymour was a very shrewd move.....lets not even get into the fact that I wasn't posting here when seymour's deal was in question.....

you are wrong about what I am saying.......if the pats offered a market deal, wilfork would have either signed it or would at least be behaving in a manner that at least some respect had been put out there. all I am saying is that I would be much more likely to trust wilfork than BB.

so are the pats in decline?

First, you have been on the ESPN board forever. Just because I post here doesn't mean I don't read the other boards.

As for how Wilfork has reacted, you have no clue how he would react if they gave him a market deal. I am betting that Wilfork and his people are working off Hanyesworth deal and wants more. That deal was so out of whack with reality, it is stupid. If that is his starting point, then the Pats could easily have offered him a market deal and still insulted Wilfork.

The Pats are not in decline until they go several years of decline with Brady as a starter. The Pats took a step back this year, but they did that in 2002 too and it worked out for them. The next few years will tell if they are in decline or they had a transition year.

 

[Metaphors]

so are the pats in decline?

"In decline" is a relative term. In decline from where? From 2000 or from the 2009 preseason? The Pats are on a serious upswing from those points in time.

The most convenient place to start comparisons like this is 2007. Are the Pats in decline from the 2007 season? You bet they are. The only things keeping that team from GOAT status was Goober Jr's jersey being too big and Tyree picking his nose and wiping it on the top of his helmet. If that is the starting point for comparison, this franchise will forever be in decline.

The more appropriate assessment is around how competitive the team is year after year. I would have to say that when healthy, the Pats have been championship caliber every year except 2000, 2002 and 2008. I see no reason, other than injuries, why they won't be competing for a championship for the next few years at least. What more do you want? A roster that guarantees a championship? No such thing.

Every team gets better or worse from year to year. Nature of the beast. Not every team has a legitimate shot at a title every year.

 

[Rob0729]

"In decline" is a relative term. In decline from where? From 2000 or from the 2009 preseason? The Pats are on a serious upswing from those points in time.

The most convenient place to start comparisons like this is 2007. Are the Pats in decline from the 2007 season? You bet they are. The only things keeping that team from GOAT status was Goober Jr's jersey being too big and Tyree picking his nose and wiping it on the top of his helmet. If that is the starting point for comparison, this franchise will forever be in decline.

The more appropriate assessment is around how competitive the team is year after year. I would have to say that when healthy, the Pats have been championship caliber every year except 2000, 2002 and 2008. I see no reason, other than injuries, why they won't be competing for a championship for the next few years at least. What more do you want? A roster that guarantees a championship? No such thing.

Every team gets better or worse from year to year. Nature of the beast. Not every team has a legitimate shot at a title every year.

I think he meant that are the Pats are trending out of being a contender at all over the next few years. I could be wrong. Of course the 2009 team wasn't as good as the 2007 team. Could the 2010 be better than the 2007 team? Possibly. Could the 2010 team continue the decline? Also possibly.

The Pats still had 10 wins this year even with their problems. A few key acquisitions and this team could go as high as a 12-13 win team. A few misteps and this team could go to 8-8 or worse. I have faith with Belichick to right the ship. He did it after the 2002 season. He did it after the 2006 season. Why can't he do it after the 2009 season with either a huge cap space if there is a cap or a very low payroll if there is no cap.

 

[juny]

The team should let him go if they can't agree to a long term deal. They already got more out of him than they should have by signing him to a 6 year rookie deal.

It will only make it harder to attract other players when a Wilfork-caliber player gets screwed with. Other teams have been able to sign free agents to big deals in the last year or two with the knowledge of the CBA being up in the air.

Also, there is quite a bit of time before free agency ends, so hopefully the two sides can agree to something that won't piss off the other.

 

[BostonPats0220]

I'm new but had to throw in my opinion...

What I find interesting is that I believe that the opinions on this message board would be very different if the Patriots had "succeeded" this year (e.g., gone to the superbowl). Meaning that if the Pats were playing the Saints in the superbow and Wilfork was demanding to get paid in the offseason, then most pats fans would be quoting the "patriot way" and that we should not overpay for Vince. But since we were ousted in the first round, I think a lot of Pats fans are letting emotions dictate their affection for Vince and their desire to resign him to a long term contract.

Personally, I hope the FO doesn't react this way. I believe they should look at the Vince Wilfork signing in a vacuum and determine whether signing him to a long term contract for X dollars is a good team decision, WITHOUT SUCCUMBING TO EMOTION AND LETTING OUR EARLY EXIT from the playoffs dictate how we react in the offseason. I think that is why we have been so successful thus far.

 

[Nikolai]

Unless he wants to top Haynesworth money, sign the man. What's the alternative?

 

[mgcolby]

The team should let him go if they can't agree to a long term deal. They already got more out of him than they should have by signing him to a 6 year rookie deal.

Why would any team willingly give up their leverage, if they are willing to pay the franchise price? The Pats clearly were not willing to make Asante the highest paid DB in the league, and knowing this the year prior agreed to not franchise him a second time.

Not giving up your leverage would hold true in any business situation.

It will only make it harder to attract other players when a Wilfork-caliber player gets screwed with. Other teams have been able to sign free agents to big deals in the last year or two with the knowledge of the CBA being up in the air.

This is a misconception that has been spewed throughout this forum for years. Yet, every year the Pats bring in their fair share of targeted FA's. Trying to somehow turn one player's situation/attitude into how the players throughout the NFL as whole feel, has yet to work.

Also, there is quite a bit of time before free agency ends, so hopefully the two sides can agree to something that won't piss off the other.

:eat3: to that!

 

[upstater1]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

That contract wouldn't work, because, for cap purposes, the money would not be reflected as such- much of that first-year salary would be converted to a pro-rated bonus for accounting purposes. In the last scenario that you gave, I'm pretty sure that that means that of his $10M Y1 salary, some portion of it would be converted to signing bonus. I *believe* (not sure, Miguel would know) that the rule is that a player's salary can't decline by more than 20% in one year, so if he was being paid 5.75M in Y2, then his Y1 salary would be $7.2M, and the remaining $2.8M would be prorated.

Nope, the rule is that his contract can't decline by more than 50%. That's why I used these numbers. None of the $10 million would be converted into a bonus.

 

[Wolfpack]

The team should let him go if they can't agree to a long term deal. They already got more out of him than they should have by signing him to a 6 year rookie deal.

I disagree. The franchise tag is a legitimate move for a team to make and they should darn well franchise him. Not too many people in this economy are going to shed tears for Wilfork getting a $7 million "slap in the face."

It will only make it harder to attract other players when a Wilfork-caliber player gets screwed with.

This is just a cliche and a very inaccurate one. There isn't a single big name free agent that would pass over the Patriots because they franchised Vince Wilfork.

 

[carolinatony]

If we do not give Wilfork the security of a long term contract and franchise him, expect the worst from an already unstable locker room dynamic. Especially if they bring in some high profile free agent and not take care of their own guys.

losing wilfork literally, or losing him from a figurative (no longer dedicated to the team) stantpoint, will ultamately put the seymour trade in perspective no longer favorable to the pats.

Simply put... Sign the man, hes the last true playmaker on the team, the only one that opposing teams gameplan for and have to truely account for. Why take ten steps back to take 2 steps foward. the team has gotten a bargain given his 6 year rookie contract compared to his output.

I agree. SIGN HIM .

 

[Wolfpack]

but then again, the pats have never tested the mettle of a someone as forthright and principled as wilfork. people with principle are much less likely to 'fall into line'

What are you basing this statement on? I don't see anything to suggest Wilfork is any more or less likely to act in a certain way unlike every single other disgruntled franchise recipient.

as an NT and the wear and tear and risk of injury, I know that I would hold out until the last moment in order to get my due and security.

That could be cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you are a franchise player, then it's still a contract year. Go overboard with doing the bare minimum and there won't be any big money offers down the road.

The Patriots are in a position of strength that they should not bargain away. Make him a reasonable offer and if he doesn't take it, franchise him.

 

[capetide]

I agree. SIGN HIM .

I bet Wilfork's agent wishes you were running the Patriots. Just sign him. Give him whatever he wants, Even if he asks for double what Haynewsorth makes. Doesn't matter how it impacts signing Mankins or Ghost (if free agents this year) or Brady et al when free agents next year. Sign him. Don't use the franchise tag and upset him (even if it's within the teams rights and even if other teams use it). Why not just let him go with no compensation? That would be great for the franchise! The locker room would surely be better off without a rich but disgruntled franchised NT. Jeez.