A little early, but: should the Patriots try to re-sign Wes Welker?

[Double TE]

Nice try, but you can't claim that a deal signed in march 2010 cost them a player they traded in September 2009. Seymour was unhappy in NE and wasn't going to get the money he wanted here regardless of what they were going to do with anyone else.


I do give you credit for trying though, I have a feeling that very few are going to do so because there simply is no evidence that it has happened. It will be interesting to see in anyone can come up with players they lost because of those deals because in all honesty i really can't think of one.

Actually there was a story on Kraft or Billy where they discuss just that. We can pay Vince or Richard? They chose Vince. I swear I saw it, hopefully someone can back me up on this. Although they did trade Seymour for Solder (well turned out to be Solder).

 

[The Brandon Five]

Actually there was a story on Kraft or Billy where they discuss just that. We can pay Vince or Richard? They chose Vince. I swear I saw it, hopefully someone can back me up on this. Although they did trade Seymour for Solder (well turned out to be Solder).

"A Football Life: Bill Belichick".

 

[Double TE]

Was that it? Great, thanks.

See I am not crazy!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Actually there was a story on Kraft or Billy where they discuss just that. We can pay Vince or Richard? They chose Vince. I swear I saw it, hopefully someone can back me up on this. Although they did trade Seymour for Solder (well turned out to be Solder).

I think you're mis remembering. There was a clip of Bill, Robert, Jonathan, Caserio and Floyd sitting around talking about where they stood with Vince (I think Robert posed the question) where someone stated that he really wanted to stay (either Floyd or Nick) and Jonathan interjected that it was good they had the tag for leverage. It was after Seymour had been traded. Think it was part of the BB A Coaches Life which was filmed throughout the 2009 season. Bill never opened his mouth during the clip, probably because he knew it was something of a set up being filmed.

 

[Double TE]

Then it was something else but I saw something where I think Kraft stated we could sign Vince or Richard. They chose Vince. I swear to you I saw something like this!!!

 

[kennyb]

troll..............

not at all. THey signed players to huge contracts, which leaves less money for guys they want to sign like....wes welker. You can only have so many guys making top FA money. You can't pay everyone 10 million + per year.

 

[Huckleberry1]

not at all. THey signed players to huge contracts, which leaves less money for guys they want to sign like....wes welker. You can only have so many guys making top FA money. You can't pay everyone 10 million + per year.

Total crap, they have blown millions and millions on players like Ocho, and Haynesworth,and Fanene, and the deals they made a few years ago with Brady and Wilfork have in no way constrained them from making a deal with Welker.

 

[kennyb]

Total crap, they have blown millions and millions on players like Ocho, and Haynesworth,and Fanene, and the deals they made a few years ago with Brady and Wilfork have in no way constrained them from making a deal with Welker.

They have blown millions on useless players, but the contracts to brady, wilfork, MANKINS, and mayo DO constrain their signings long AFTER those contracts were signed. Do you not understand that? It's not the cash that they spent, it's the cap hits which are still ongoing. Since the cap is a constraint, they can't very well sign an infinite amount of their own players to FA money contracts.

So yes, those high cap contracts DO constrain their ability to sign more high cap contracts TODAY. Even though they were signed years ago. If they had let Mankins walk, then maybe Welker would have gotten his money. And if welker is signed then contracts with vollmer, talib, mccourty, spikes, etc. etc. will be constrained as in possibly non-existent.

So your original point that they should sign welker to however much money it takes to sign him and that it won't possibly impact the team in any way vis a vis future contracts to FAs is WRONG. It's total crap, in your words.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I think you're mis remembering. There was a clip of Bill, Robert, Jonathan, Caserio and Floyd sitting around talking about where they stood with Vince (I think Robert posed the question) where someone stated that he really wanted to stay (either Floyd or Nick) and Jonathan interjected that it was good they had the tag for leverage. It was after Seymour had been traded. Think it was part of the BB A Coaches Life which was filmed throughout the 2009 season. Bill never opened his mouth during the clip, probably because he knew it was something of a set up being filmed.

They also said that Vince could be worked out now that the "Richard situation" had been worked out. What, in your estimation, was that "situation"?

 

[BrickPat]

As to the OPs note that it's a little early I say it's a little late. Welker's production hasn't exactly been a secret over the years...both sides should've swallowed their pride and hammered something out.

Obviously just speculation but Welker doesn't strike me as the type to demand a cap choking contract. Mankins literally called Kraft a liar and they worked out a deal so I'm hopeful they will get it done.

 

[BrickPat]

They have blown millions on useless players, but the contracts to brady, wilfork, MANKINS, and mayo DO constrain their signings long AFTER those contracts were signed. Do you not understand that? It's not the cash that they spent, it's the cap hits which are still ongoing. Since the cap is a constraint, they can't very well sign an infinite amount of their own players to FA money contracts.

So yes, those high cap contracts DO constrain their ability to sign more high cap contracts TODAY. Even though they were signed years ago. If they had let Mankins walk, then maybe Welker would have gotten his money. And if welker is signed then contracts with vollmer, talib, mccourty, spikes, etc. etc. will be constrained as in possibly non-existent.

So your original point that they should sign welker to however much money it takes to sign him and that it won't possibly impact the team in any way vis a vis future contracts to FAs is WRONG. It's total crap, in your words.

I don't disagree with this but as much as I hate to admit it Felger made a good point with his "the cap is crap" schtick in citing the Manning lead Colts. They never seemed impacted by the dreaded cap when it came to retaining their quality players.

 

[Ring 6]

Tip I'd be thrilled to get Volmer for that price.

I think Vollmer is gone.

 

[Huckleberry1]

So your original point that they should sign welker to however much money it takes to sign him and that it won't possibly impact the team in any way vis a vis future contracts to FAs is WRONG. It's total crap, in your words.

Back to my original response, you're a troll. You don't understand the argument I made and your response to it is irrelevant.

 

[Ring 6]

Nice try, but you can't claim that a deal signed in march 2010 cost them a player they traded in September 2009. Seymour was unhappy in NE and wasn't going to get the money he wanted here regardless of what they were going to do with anyone else.


I do give you credit for trying though, I have a feeling that very few are going to do so because there simply is no evidence that it has happened. It will be interesting to see in anyone can come up with players they lost because of those deals because in all honesty i really can't think of one.

But he is right. The choice was Seymour or Wilfork, they were not willing to pay both at the level they wanted. Seymour was traded a year earlier because he was under contract, and couldn't be traded in 2010 because he would have been a FA.
Every deal has consequences of other players not brought in or resigned. They don't line up one to one. A Seymour contract would still be affecting the cap here. Its not the first year, its all the years, and you can't just throw around your limited number of big money deals indiscriminately, unless you wish to be the Jets.

 

[ATippett56]

So yes, those high cap contracts DO constrain their ability to sign more high cap contracts TODAY. Even though they were signed years ago. If they had let Mankins walk, then maybe Welker would have gotten his money. And if welker is signed then contracts with vollmer, talib, mccourty, spikes, etc. etc. will be constrained as in possibly non-existent.

Sebastian Vollmer is not the be all and end all of right tackles for the New England Patriots. The New England Patriots won two Super Bowls with Tom Ashworth and Brandon Gorin playing right tackle during the 2003-2004 NFL Seasons.

 

[kennyb]

I don't disagree with this but as much as I hate to admit it Felger made a good point with his "the cap is crap" schtick in citing the Manning lead Colts. They never seemed impacted by the dreaded cap when it came to retaining their quality players.

I don't know that they ever had a lot of high FA contracts. But I think some teams got away with high contracts b/c the cap was growing. They were gambling that it would continue to grow and it did. Thus the prediction of "cap hell" never came true for many clubs.

 

[ralmat55]

Sebastian Vollmer is not the be all and end all of right tackles for the New England Patriots. The New England Patriots won two Super Bowls with Tom Ashworth and Brandon Gorin playing right tackle during the 2003-2004 NFL Seasons.

Not to mention Greg Robinson-Randall in 2001.

 

[Huckleberry1]

But he is right. The choice was Seymour or Wilfork, they were not willing to pay both at the level they wanted. Seymour was traded a year earlier because he was under contract, and couldn't be traded in 2010 because he would have been a FA.
Every deal has consequences of other players not brought in or resigned. They don't line up one to one. A Seymour contract would still be affecting the cap here. Its not the first year, its all the years, and you can't just throw around your limited number of big money deals indiscriminately, unless you wish to be the Jets.

First, i have never argued that there are no consequences to big money deals, there is obviously a cap and they have to be under it, however i don't agree that he is right because i don't think Seymour was going to be re-signed under any circumstances, they knew he wanted too much and weren't going to pay it.

Second, I have never argued simply to give Welker anything they demand but have argued that he would take a very fair deal to the patriots, which would be in the 4-40 area, and possibly less.

Third, the question I posed was which re-signings did the Brady. Wilfork, and Mankins deals prevent from happening and still haven't seen evidence of any, other than conjecture that it led them to trade seymour long before signing a deal with Wilfork, which was actually contentious and may not have even happened, in which case you would be arguing that a deal that didn't exist cost them Seymour.

Fourth, they have blown tens and tens of millions of dollars on player moves that didn't help them, so if the concern is that they may overspend on Welker by a couple million a year then they should be able to make that meager amount up simply by being a little smarter in some of their riskieer moves.



Last point, the deal i recommended is 4-40, if you think that will break them by all means make that argument that they can't pay him that and why, i would be interested to see it.

 

[PP2]

I don't disagree with this but as much as I hate to admit it Felger made a good point with his "the cap is crap" schtick in citing the Manning lead Colts. They never seemed impacted by the dreaded cap when it came to retaining their quality players.

That's because they chose to play a high-risk game by putting most of their money into the 22 players that are on the field most of the time which meant a season-ending injury would be devastating to them.

We, on the other hand have used a "spread-the-wealth" approach which resulted in a deep bench and every time there's been a major injury to a player, that player was more often than not, adequately replaced.

 

[mgteich]

1) We can probably handle 4/$40M, but 3/$30M makes more sense. I would note that the first 2 years would likely need to be guaranteed.

2) We will need restructures by Brady and Wilfork this year or next.

3) Vollmer would likely be gone.

4) The open question is whether is how we will be able to afford to re-sign or replace 2 WR's and 2 CB's. We will draft for our needs at DL.

My gut feeling is that Welker will be franchised, or let loose, or both.

First, i have never argued that there are no consequences to big money deals, there is obviously a cap and they have to be under it, however i don't agree that he is right because i don't think Seymour was going to be re-signed under any circumstances, they knew he wanted too much and weren't going to pay it.

Second, I have never argued simply to give Welker anything they demand but have argued that he would take a very fair deal to the patriots, which would be in the 4-40 area, and possibly less.

Third, the question I posed was which re-signings did the Brady. Wilfork, and Mankins deals prevent from happening and still haven't seen evidence of any, other than conjecture that it led them to trade seymour long before signing a deal with Wilfork, which was actually contentious and may not have even happened, in which case you would be arguing that a deal that didn't exist cost them Seymour.

Fourth, they have blown tens and tens of millions of dollars on player moves that didn't help them, so if the concern is that they may overspend on Welker by a couple million a year then they should be able to make that meager amount up simply by being a little smarter in some of their riskieer moves.



Last point, the deal i recommended is 4-40, if you think that will break them by all means make that argument that they can't pay him that and why, i would be interested to see it.