Adalius Thomas league's worst linebacker

[supafly]

In regards to trading ADT.

The Jets cut there 1400 yard RB rather then pay him a guaranteed salary of around $6 million, should the Jets have traded Jones?

My feeling is Jones was untradeable considering his age and size of his contract. I am not saying that Jones has no value only that I think most would agree he is not worth $6 mil a year.

I see ADT in a similar situation, intriguing player like Jones on the wrong side of 30 with a contract that does not reflect his true value.

What does ADT's contract guarantee him for 2010? If it is under $4 million then he might be tradeable, I think I heard it was somewhere around $7 million,,, based on his performance the last few years, IMHO that makes him untradeable.

My guess is he gets cut and the Jets sign him for around $2.5 per year with incentives.

In the NYJ situation, their decision was made a lot easier with the emergance of Shonn Greene. In NE, we don't exactly have the same situation as of yet, hopefully the team can find another option first.

Of course, I am judging AD on his entire body of work here, not just last year, like many are. If it's going to be a repeat of last year, I'm sure BB would much rather pay a rookie and save millions.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

In regards to trading ADT.

The Jets cut there 1400 yard RB rather then pay him a guaranteed salary of around $6 million, should the Jets have traded Jones?

My feeling is Jones was untradeable considering his age and size of his contract. I am not saying that Jones has no value only that I think most would agree he is not worth $6 mil a year.

I see ADT in a similar situation, intriguing player like Jones on the wrong side of 30 with a contract that does not reflect his true value.

What does ADT's contract guarantee him for 2010? If it is under $4 million then he might be tradeable, I think I heard it was somewhere around $7 million,,, based on his performance the last few years, IMHO that makes him untradeable.

My guess is he gets cut and the Jets sign him for around $2.5 per year with incentives.

What's nice is this site has the info you're speculating about. Miguel has AD at a $4.9M salary, which a team he's traded to would have to pay that contract in a trade. If the Pats cut AD, likely at the end of camp with healthy alternaitves on the Pats roster, I think he signs elsewhere in the 2 millions with incentives. In the cut case, Kraft saves $4.9M. Tempting.

 

[supafly]

What's nice is this site has the info you're speculating about. Miguel has AD at a $4.9M salary, which a team he's traded to would have to pay that contract in a trade. If the Pats cut AD, likely at the end of camp with healthy alternaitves on the Pats roster, I think he signs elsewhere in the 2 millions with incentives. In the cut case, Kraft saves $4.9M. Tempting.

Forgive me if I am wrong Wicked, but doesn't the team still incur his additional salary of 4.5 to 5 million (approximate) if cut?

I was under the impression that it was a good time to cut him during the un-capped year due to not having a cap. In other words, it'll still cost the team almost 5 million to cut him, no?

Respects.

EDIT: so basically if we keep him, it'll cost the team about 9 million, but if they cut him they'll be saving 4.5 to 5 million, correct?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Forgive me if I am wrong Wicked, but doesn't the team still incur his additional salary of 4.5 to 5 million (approximate) if cut?

I was under the impression that it was a good time to cut him during the un-capped year due to not having a cap. In other words, it'll still cost the team almost 5 million to cut him, no?

Respects.

EDIT: so basically if we keep him, it'll cost the team about 9 million, but if they cut him they'll be saving 4.5 to 5 million, correct?

I am not Miguel so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the cash for his signing bonus was already paid to him years ago. That bonus is amortized over each year of the contract for cap accounting purposes. So the only new cash out of Kraft's pocket is the $4.9M 2010 salary, money he gets none of if cut. Real money (cash) Bob Kraft saves if BB cuts AD or trades him.

 

[eom]

it is a contract yr for him......who knows?

yeah, I think he's got 2 yrs left.

 

[supafly]

yeah, I think he's got 2 yrs left.

I believe you're right. His deal was 5 yrs, so that'd be 2007-2011, giving him this year and the next.

 

[jmt57]

Miguel's UNOFFICIAL 2010 Patriots Salary Cap Information Page

Thomas is signed through 2011.
His 2010 salary is $4.9 million.
His cap figure is irrelevant because this is an uncapped year.

 

[supafly]

I am not Miguel so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the cash for his signing bonus was already paid to him years ago. That bonus is amortized over each year of the contract for cap accounting purposes. So the only new cash out of Kraft's pocket is the $4.9M 2010 salary, money he gets none of if cut. Real money (cash) Bob Kraft saves if BB cuts AD or trades him.

PWP--here is a link from the Boston Herald that explains the situation a little better. I believe they actually use Miguel as a source, along with another cap 'expert.'

It will indeed cost the team to cut him, that's why there is a lot of talk etc, because it is an uncapped year and it wouldn't really hurt them. What's interesting is that if they wait until after June 1st, they can spread the dead money over the next 2 years instead of just this year. Knowing that, I expect him to be cut after June 1st. (if they cannot reach a trade agreement and simply cut him at all)

EDIT: What you've been saying about the money already being paid is correct obviously, I was referring to the potential cost next yr with the future CBA. Apologies, Sorry to make a confusing situation even more confusing.

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive What if the Patriots cut Adalius Thomas after 2009? (Updated!)

 

[supafly]

Miguel's UNOFFICIAL 2010 Patriots Salary Cap Information Page

Thomas is signed through 2011.
His 2010 salary is $4.9 million.
His cap figure is irrelevant because this is an uncapped year.

Thank you for the info. I found a recently updated article from the Herald that explains it in the previous post. Not being even close to a cap expert, it gets a bit confusing for cap morons like myself.

 

[jmt57]

PWP--here is a link from the Boston Herald that explains the situation a little better. I believe they actually use Miguel as a source, along with another cap 'expert.'

It will indeed cost the team more to cut him, that's why there is a lot of talk etc, because it is an uncapped year and it wouldn't really hurt them. What's interesting is that if they wait until after June 1st, they can spread the dead money over the next 2 years instead of just this year. Knowing that, I expect him to be cut after June 1st. (if they cannot reach a trade agreement and simply cut him at all)

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive What if the Patriots cut Adalius Thomas after 2009? (Updated!)

I know we're getting into semantics here, but I'd rather see another word than 'cost', as in 'it will indeed cost the team more to cut him'. It would count more against a cap to cut him - but there no longer is a salary cap. The numbers that would make it 'cost' more to cut him have already been paid in full: the 2007 signing bonus and the 2008 option bonus. That's real money that has been paid and is never coming back. The only actual cost would be money literally paid out byt the team in 2010.

As far as money, saving money, and costing the team, the only question is whether or not the Pats want to pay him $4.9 million to play for them in 2010, and if they do that whether or not they want to pay him $5.9 million to play for them in 2011.

There is no salary cap in 2010, so it does not 'cost' anything for a team to cut a player this year. The only way it will 'cost' a team to cut a player this year is if (a) first, a new CBA is agreed upon for the 2011 season, and (b) that new CBA includes language that is identical to the old CBA in regards to amortizing contracts for the purposes of the salary cap.

 

[supafly]

I know we're getting into semantics here, but I'd rather see another word than 'cost', as in 'it will indeed cost the team more to cut him'. It would count more against a cap to cut him - but there no longer is a salary cap. The numbers that would make it 'cost' more to cut him have already been paid in full: the 2007 signing bonus and the 2008 option bonus. That's real money that has been paid and is never coming back. The only actual cost would be money literally paid out byt the team in 2010.

As far as money, saving money, and costing the team, the only question is whether or not the Pats want to pay him $4.9 million to play for them in 2010, and if they do that whether or not they want to pay him $5.9 million to play for them in 2011.

There is no salary cap in 2010, so it does not 'cost' anything for a team to cut a player this year. The only way it will 'cost' a team to cut a player this year is if (a) first, a new CBA is agreed upon for the 2011 season, and (b) that new CBA includes language that is identical to the old CBA in regards to amortizing contracts for the purposes of the salary cap.

If the 2010 cap hit would've been almost 9 million, then it'll still 'cost' or take money from Kraft's pocket to make up anything after his 4.9 salary (about 4 million). So there will still be about 4 million that it will 'take' to get rid of him. That 4 million can be split into 2 years if cut after June 1st.

Is this not what the story says?

 

[jmt57]

Thank you for the info. I found a recently updated article from the Herald that explains it in the previous post. Not being even close to a cap expert, it gets a bit confusing for cap morons like myself.

It's bad enough trying to figure it out in previous years. Trying to make sense of it now with no CBA in place, and guessing what wording the next CBA will have is almost an exercise in futility. The way I see it 2010 is uncapped, so don't worry about the effect of cutting or trading a player with time left on his contract; you either do or do not want him on the team for what you will pay him in 2010.

 

[jmt57]

If the 2010 cap hit would've been almost 9 million, then it'll still 'cost' or take money from Kraft's pocket to make up anything after his 4.9 salary (about 4 million). So there will still be about 4 million that it will 'take' to get rid of him. That 4 million can be split into 2 years if cut after June 1st.

Is this not what the story says?

The other money has already been paid. Thomas physically received 100% of his signing bonus in 2007, but for accounting purposes 20% gets charged against each year, including 2010. Thomas physically received 100% of his option bonus in 2008, but for accounting purposes 25% gets charged to each of four years, including 2010 and 2011. None of that money moves from Kraft's bank account to Thomas' bank account this year or next. If Thomas is cut tomorrow or on August 31st will make no difference in terms of actual money out of the Kraft's bank account and into Thomas' pockets.

The splitting of the money that Rapoport and McIntyre talk about is a cost to the salary cap. It's bookkeeping figures with no actual exchange of money. But since there is no salary cap in 2010, it is not costing the Pats any salary cap space.

Assuming a new CBA is agreed upon and it includes verbage the same as the old CBA, then cutting Thomas could possibly count against a 2011 salary cap. But on the other hand for all we know, the next CBA could also say for salary cap purposes all teams start with a clean slate. The article focused on salary cap figures assuming a new CBA would be agreed upon with the same rules regarding bonuses and the salary cap.

 

[supafly]

The other money has already been paid. Thomas physically received 100% of his signing bonus in 2007, but for accounting purposes 20% gets charged against each year, including 2010. Thomas physically received 100% of his option bonus in 2008, but for accounting purposes 25% gets charged to each of four years, including 2010 and 2011. None of that money moves from Kraft's bank account to Thomas' bank account this year or next. If Thomas is cut tomorrow or on August 31st will make no difference in terms of actual money out of the Kraft's bank account and into Thomas' pockets.

The splitting of the money that Rapoport and McIntyre talk about is a cost to the salary cap. It's bookkeeping figures with no actual exchange of money. But since there is no salary cap in 2010, it is not costing the Pats any salary cap space.

Assuming a new CBA is agreed upon and it includes verbage the same as the old CBA, then cutting Thomas could possibly count against a 2011 salary cap. But on the other hand for all we know, the next CBA could also say for salary cap purposes all teams start with a clean slate. The article focused on salary cap figures assuming a new CBA would be agreed upon with the same rules regarding bonuses and the salary cap.

So that is what they mean when talking of the 'cost' it would take to cut him then. Technically, it will still be somewhat of a price to pay, unless they'd somehow continue playing without a cap--which isn't going to happen. Likely, there is some kind of price to pay next year then, and that's what people mean by talking of the 9 million etc. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the future CBA agreed to everyone having a clean slate, I'm not sure I agree that's a possibility.

I think you helped simplify things by stating that everything's already been paid etc--something I believe PWP was trying to portray also. I'll go back and correct my post to him. Thanks again. I appreciate the explanation and patience.

 

[jmt57]

So that is what they mean when talking of the 'cost' it would take to cut him then. Technically, it will still be somewhat of a price to pay, unless they'd somehow continue playing without a cap--which isn't going to happen. Likely, there is some kind of price to pay next year then, and that's what people mean by talking of the 9 million etc. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the future CBA agreed to everyone having a clean slate, I'm not sure I agree that's a possibility.

I think you helped simplify things by stating that everything's already been paid etc--something I believe PWP was trying to portray also. I'll go back and correct my post to him. Thanks again. I appreciate the explanation and patience.

One last thing from that Herald article, they focused on what Thomas' cap number would be if he was still on the team: $9.4 million in 2010 and $10.4 million in 2011. The actual cap hit there would theoretically be to the 2011 salary cap would be much less since the Pats would not be paying him that salary. I believe that would be $4.4 million ($2.4 signing bonus + $2.0 option bonus) though Ron Borges figures it to be $3.9 mil ($8.8 - $4.9). Either way, it's not enough to be a concern against what would theoretically be about 2% of the team's 2011 salary cap.

 

[supafly]

One last thing from that Herald article, they focused on what Thomas' cap number would be if he was still on the team: $9.4 million in 2010 and $10.4 million in 2011. The actual cap hit there would theoretically be to the 2011 salary cap would be much less since the Pats would not be paying him that salary. I believe that would be $4.4 million ($2.4 signing bonus + $2.0 option bonus) though Ron Borges figures it to be $3.9 mil ($8.8 - $4.9). Either way, it's not enough to be a concern against what would theoretically be about 2% of the team's 2011 salary cap.

The whole question was 'where' this potential hit would've been. You'd be surprised at the number of posts I've read that actually states potential trading teams would need the full 9 million, which I obviously knew was BS.
I realized we'd save the 4.9 salary, but I wasn't sure how the spread money was used etc. You (and PWP) stated it best when you said not to even think or worry about it, obviously since there's no cap.

I simply couldn't figure out why these writers etc were worried about the potential cap number, seeing as how there isn't even a cap. I guess it's the probability of the cap coming back next year, and how much the team(s) would have to 'eat,' so to speak. You stated it best by saying the potential 4 million wouldn't be a concern due to its low percentage of the overall future cap. I still think they wait to cut him if that even happens, for a number of reasons.

 

[jmt57]

The whole question was 'where' this potential hit would've been. You'd be surprised at the number of posts I've read that actually states potential trading teams would need the full 9 million, which I obviously knew was BS.
I realized we'd save the 4.9 salary, but I wasn't sure how the spread money was used etc. You (and PWP) stated it best when you said not to even think or worry about it, obviously since there's no cap.

I simply couldn't figure out why these writers etc were worried about the potential cap number, seeing as how there isn't even a cap. I guess it's the probability of the cap coming back next year, and how much the team(s) would have to 'eat,' so to speak. You stated it best by saying the potential 4 million wouldn't be a concern due to its low percentage of the overall future cap. I still think they wait to cut him if that even happens, for a number of reasons.

Yep, a lot of poor information out there. If a team wants to trade for him, it will cost them his 2010 salary of $4.9 mil. Beyond that they can cut him, pay him his 2011 salary, or extend him - or even cut him before the season starts and it won't cost them a penny.

The other dynamic to consider not only for Thomas but for a lot of NFL vets is that with no salary cap there is no pressure on teams to cut players in order to free up cap space. That makes this season totally unlike any other since the advent of free agency and the salary cap. There's no need to cut players until about September 4th, when teams have to get down to a 53-man roster. Even before that date, they only have to get down to a 75-man roster August 31, so unless a player has a big roster bonus clause in his contract prior to training camp there is little incentive for teams to cut players that would have normally been cut June 1 or March 1.

At this point it's tough to say if that's a good thing or a bad thing. On one hand the Pats did well plugging in vets earlier in the decade, but sometimes not quite so well the last couple of years. It's also been said that it takes longer to learn the Pats' playbook so adding a player late would hurt the Pats more than a late arrival to a team with a simpler system.

On the other hand Belichick is usually ahead of the curve when it comes to rule changes (e.g., adapting to building a winning team within the constraints of the salary cap) so it wouldn't surprise me if he's two or three chess moves ahead of most of the league in terms of what happens with those final roster cuts; hopefully he is.

 

[eom]

PWP--here is a link from the Boston Herald that explains the situation a little better. I believe they actually use Miguel as a source, along with another cap 'expert.'

It will indeed cost the team to cut him, that's why there is a lot of talk etc, because it is an uncapped year and it wouldn't really hurt them. What's interesting is that if they wait until after June 1st, they can spread the dead money over the next 2 years instead of just this year. Knowing that, I expect him to be cut after June 1st. (if they cannot reach a trade agreement and simply cut him at all)

EDIT: What you've been saying about the money already being paid is correct obviously, I was referring to the potential cost next yr with the future CBA. Apologies, Sorry to make a confusing situation even more confusing.

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive What if the Patriots cut Adalius Thomas after 2009? (Updated!)

jmt already explained it, and there's no cap so all this is pointless, but if you check miguel's page you'll see that thomas has 8.8 remaining bonus money to be accounted for (in cap accounting).
that money has already been paid him, but they spread it out over the life of the contract for accounting purposes, so you can pay a guy a 20m signing bonus and not get hit for that 20m on your cap in a single year.
he's got 2 years at 4.4 per year left to account for, I believe it was.

----------------------
Meet Brian McIntyre. He runs Mac's Football Blog, and he figures cutting Thomas will mean an $8.8 million cap hit for 2010… if there is a cap, that is.

[Updated: Columnist Ron Borges makes an important point. The apparent “cap hit” is lessened by the fact that cutting Thomas would mean the team will not pay the salary it had already put on the books for 2010. It comes off the cap, because it’s not paid. So, the actual cap hit is ($8.8M -$4.9M unpaid salary), which equals $3.9 million. They no longer have to pay the $4.9 salary previously allocated for him. Got all that?]
----------------------

the "cap hit" brian's talking about is simply the remaining bonus unaccounted for in 2010 and 2011.
if you whack a guy before the end of his deal, that doesn't let you off the hook for unaccounted bonus against the cap --- you get charged the remaining unaccounted for bonus, which is 2(yrs)x4.4 = 8.8, in this case.

borges goes on to point out that you'd then be saving his yet to be paid 4.9m salary against the 2010 cap, but there's no cap --- so, whatever.

 

[supafly]

jmt already explained it, and there's no cap so all this is pointless, but if you check miguel's page you'll see that thomas has 8.8 remaining bonus money to be accounted for (in cap accounting).
that money has already been paid him, but they spread it out over the life of the contract for accounting purposes, so you can pay a guy a 20m signing bonus and not get hit for that 20m on your cap in a single year.
he's got 2 years at 4.4 per year left to account for, I believe it was.

----------------------
Meet Brian McIntyre. He runs Mac's Football Blog, and he figures cutting Thomas will mean an $8.8 million cap hit for 2010… if there is a cap, that is.

[Updated: Columnist Ron Borges makes an important point. The apparent “cap hit” is lessened by the fact that cutting Thomas would mean the team will not pay the salary it had already put on the books for 2010. It comes off the cap, because it’s not paid. So, the actual cap hit is ($8.8M -$4.9M unpaid salary), which equals $3.9 million. They no longer have to pay the $4.9 salary previously allocated for him. Got all that?]
----------------------

the "cap hit" brian's talking about is simply the remaining bonus unaccounted for in 2010 and 2011.
if you whack a guy before the end of his deal, that doesn't let you off the hook for unaccounted bonus against the cap --- you get charged the remaining unaccounted for bonus, which is 2(yrs)x4.4 = 8.8, in this case.

borges goes on to point out that you'd then be saving his yet to be paid 4.9m salary against the 2010 cap, but there's no cap --- so, whatever.

Yeah, this is the part that was a bit confusing. I've heard several different explanations, but am on the right page now. I wasn't sure about where this specific money went when the probable cap comes back. Anyway, thnx for the explanation.

 

[mgteich]

exactly right

I am not Miguel so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the cash for his signing bonus was already paid to him years ago. That bonus is amortized over each year of the contract for cap accounting purposes. So the only new cash out of Kraft's pocket is the $4.9M 2010 salary, money he gets none of if cut. Real money (cash) Bob Kraft saves if BB cuts AD or trades him.