Patriots CUTS

[goheels22002]

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, either. But I'd have to think if he was going to get cut, it would have been today.

What is the difference between today's cuts and tomorrow's? I was looking at the guys they released and it is a real mixed group of veterans, rookies and free agent pick-ups.

I think Tebow takes it in the neck tomorrow along with Adrian Wilson and several of the usual suspects.

 

[Ring 6]

Pretty sure rookies on the 53 for the first week are not guaranteed. Maybe not second year players either. So its not a butchered concept.

Of course it is. There is no evidence that BB has ever made a roster decision based upon guaranteeing a salary or not.
He will not risk losing a player he wants to save a few measly dollars.

Next we will hear about all the UDFAs that we have to keep over better players because they would never clear waivers.

 

[Ring 6]

Sure you do if the guy who you cut initially has a higher base salary. Keep a 1st year player for a week, guarantee his NFL minimum salary and then send him to the practice squad (assuming he clears waivers, if not you're off the hook for the contract anyway) and bring back the veteran (in this case, Tebow).

You only "gain nothing" if the salaries wash or the guy you cut to avoid guaranteeing the contract makes less than whomever you cut to bring that guy back (why would any team do that?)

No, you don't.
Veteran makes 640k (40k per game)
If he is on the roster all year, he costs 640k
Younger player makes 320k (20k per game)
You pay him 320k then bring back the vet and pay 600 of his 640

It actually costs money.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah that's true, not that it would ever happen but logistically speaking we aren't required to have the roster be at the full 53 correct?

We were at 51 or 52 week 1 a couple of years ago.

 

[mgteich]

Will you be shocked if we re-sign Fells in a couple of weeks? Why is it unreasonable to believe that guaranteeing salary is an issue in the case of Fells. All off-seeason, folks have been talking about making a choice between Hooman and Fells for money reasons. With his injuries, it seems appropriate to not guarantee a full year's.

It may indeed be the wrong decision to cut Fells, but I don't think it terribly unreasonable.

Of course it is. There is no evidence that BB has ever made a roster decision based upon guaranteeing a salary or not.
He will not risk losing a player he wants to save a few measly dollars.

Next we will hear about all the UDFAs that we have to keep over better players because they would never clear waivers.

 

[Brady6]

So these 2 weren’t waived outright:

Anthony Rashad White (DT) Reserve/Injured from Waived/Injured; Not Against 90 (reserve/injured from waived/injured; not against 90).
Brice Schwab (T) Reserve/Injured from Waived/Injured; Not Against 90 (reserve/injured from waived/injured; not against 90).

 

[Ring 6]

Will you be shocked if we re-sign Fells in a couple of weeks? Why is it unreasonable to believe that guaranteeing salary is an issue in the case of Fells. All off-seeason, folks have been talking about making a choice between Hooman and Fells for money reasons. With his injuries, it seems appropriate to not guarantee a full year's.

It may indeed be the wrong decision to cut Fells, but I don't think it terribly unreasonable.

I won't be shocked if he is back, but BB is not going to cut a player he wants to save a few dollars.
"Folks talking about it" is a reason it is a misunderstood phenomena, not proof it exists.
Again, if there were ever evidence that BB cut a player he wanted to keep in order to save on a salary guarantee, you might have a point, but there is not.

 

[kennyb]

What is the difference between today's cuts and tomorrow's? I was looking at the guys they released and it is a real mixed group of veterans, rookies and free agent pick-ups.

I think Tebow takes it in the neck tomorrow along with Adrian Wilson and several of the usual suspects.

Your lips to god'd ears. Please god, have Timmy take one in the neck tomorrow.

 

[kennyb]

Of course it is. There is no evidence that BB has ever made a roster decision based upon guaranteeing a salary or not.
He will not risk losing a player he wants to save a few measly dollars.

Next we will hear about all the UDFAs that we have to keep over better players because they would never clear waivers.

well first you said a rookie in the first week would be guaranteed. That is wrong. You cut him after a week you only pay the rookie for that game. Now you're using an example of a vet making minimum when many make much more.

Anyway suppose you cut the vet in week 5. If he's not on the roster the first week then you save the rest of his salary is you don't pay it. Your way you have to pay him for a whole year when he was a marginal player on the 53.

Its not the same as cutting better players over lesser ones as you'd be in the same boat with either ice either gets picked up.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Of course it is. There is no evidence that BB has ever made a roster decision based upon guaranteeing a salary or not.
He will not risk losing a player he wants to save a few measly dollars.

Next we will hear about all the UDFAs that we have to keep over better players because they would never clear waivers.

No, you don't.
Veteran makes 640k (40k per game)
If he is on the roster all year, he costs 640k
Younger player makes 320k (20k per game)
You pay him 320k then bring back the vet and pay 600 of his 640

It actually costs money.

Deion Branch was cut last Aug 31st and brought back Sept 18th, it may have been more about roster flexibility than actual dollars saved but guaranteed money is part of the equation with these vets because of age, health or productivity. He was cut again on Nov 17, making the decision not to guarantee his salary a wise one.

Using your numbers they would have saved 240k by not guaranteeing his salary for the six games he was not on the roster and would have spent only 120k on the younger player. It would be 520k total (400k for Branch @ 40k x 10 games and 120k for the younger @ 20k x 6 games. The younger player's salary would not be guaranteed because he would not be a vested veteran (4 years service time). If he was on the roster week one and then cut it after that week his salary would be the fully guaranteed @640k + the cost of the replacement (300k). It is a factor for a questionable vet.

 

[Ring 6]

Deion Branch was cut last Aug 31st and brought back Sept 18th, it may have been more about roster flexibility than actual dollars saved but guaranteed money is part of the equation with these vets because of age, health or productivity. He was cut again on Nov 17, making the decision not to guarantee his salary a wise one.

If he was cut for the purpose of not guaranteeing his salary, he would have been brought back after game 1.

Using your numbers they would have saved 240k by not guaranteeing his salary for the six games he was not on the roster and would have spent only 120k on the younger player. It would be 520k total (400k for Branch @ 40k x 10 games and 120k for the younger @ 20k x 6 games. The younger player's salary would not be guaranteed because he would not be a vested veteran (4 years service time). It is a factor for a questionable vet.

Thats $120,000 of savings.
If you really think BB will cut a player he wants, and risk losing him, in order to save $120,000 on the cap, I'm not sure what to say. He spends more than that to overpay a guy he wants on the practice sqaud.
By the way, just because you say the replacement player would be too young to have his salary guaranteed does not mean that would be the case.

Branch is not a valid example of this.

 

[Ring 6]

well first you said a rookie in the first week would be guaranteed. That is wrong. You cut him after a week you only pay the rookie for that game. Now you're using an example of a vet making minimum when many make much more.

Since it has never happened, picking apart the example is kind of silly.
Do you want to give me an example of a vet making a lot more who was cut just to avoid a salary guarantee?

Anyway suppose you cut the vet in week 5. If he's not on the roster the first week then you save the rest of his salary is you don't pay it. Your way you have to pay him for a whole year when he was a marginal player on the 53.

You still need a player in the spot.
The point is wanting a player and cutting him before the first game so you can play games with guaranteeing his salary and risk losing him so that you can save a few measley dollars in the event he is cut later in the year is a ridiculous reason to make such a decision.

Its not the same as cutting better players over lesser ones as you'd be in the same boat with either ice either gets picked up.

The argument is only relevant if you cut a better player over a lesser one, otherwise he would have been beaten out, and you werent cutting the guy to cheap out on guaranteeing his salary.
This is why it has never happened and never will.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

If he was cut for the purpose of not guaranteeing his salary, he would have been brought back after game 1.


Thats $120,000 of savings.
If you really think BB will cut a player he wants, and risk losing him, in order to save $120,000 on the cap, I'm not sure what to say. He spends more than that to overpay a guy he wants on the practice sqaud.
By the way, just because you say the replacement player would be too young to have his salary guaranteed does not mean that would be the case.

Branch is not a valid example of this.

Yes he is.

And it's a hypothetical 120k savings on Branch's salary of 640k + 6 games of another player as opposed to your original premise of a guaranteed salary for Branch plus a guaranteed salary for his replacement 640k +320k. The reason the 320k salary would not be guaranteed would be at that amount he'd be a 1st or 2nd year player. And your numbers are way off for vet minimums, the difference in numbers would be more drastic if you used the actual minimum salaries for a rookie (about 400k) vs a 10 year vet (about 950k). Say they split 8 games apiece, 200k for rookie + 475k for Branch = 675k vs 950k for guaranteed vet + 200k for 8 games of rookie = $1,150,000. It would be a 475k savings.

Believe what you want to believe.

EDIT: Branch's 2012 salary was $1,325,000, so about $83,000 a game for the six games he wasn't on the roster. A total of $496,875 worth of savings against a guaranteed salary.

 

[belichick010405]

For the purposes of cap implications - I always recommend asking Miguel considering his preeminence in understanding the cap implications.

With that said - Deion Branch is a guy that the Patriots could have flexibility with because of his long-term ties to the team. I highly doubt that someone like Adrian Wilson would be willing to sit around for a phone call.

With Tebow - I would guarantee that he would be more than happy to sit around and wait for the phone call for all of the reasons that are obvious (i.e. no one wanted him prior to being signed by the Patriots, Josh McDaniels, "being a team first guy", "willing to do whatever it takes attitude", etc...)

 

[Miguel]

For the purposes of cap implications - I always recommend asking Miguel considering his preeminence in understanding the cap implications.

Do I think that teams have released veterans so as to avoid the Week 1 guarantee of the year's salary? Yes.

Can I prove it? Of course, not. I have never been in a NFL front office. No team is ever going to state that as the reason.

Here's some links about termination pay from a person who used to work in a NFL front office and from a former agent

Leadoff at Lambeau | National Football Post
Cold Cuts | National Football Post
Agent's Take: Understanding the next few days of the NFL calendar - CBSSports.com


Does it make sense to do so? I think so.
Reward - increased cap flexibility.
Risk - veteran signs elsewhere.

 

[JoeSixPat]

If they cut him they no longer have to guarantee his 2013 salary correct? In which case I would cut him no matter if they want him or not, there is no reason to guarantee his contract, I see no chance of someone else scooping him up.

I've been open to Tebow making the roster from Day One but am inclined to agree.

That being said, I've been assuming that Belichick may have certain situational football plays in mind using Tebow which he feels can be effective.

Other teams may have a similar view that Belichick and McDaniels actually value Tebow - even if the vast majority of the fans do no.

If that's the case, I can imagine a rival - even a team like the Bills - deciding they want to act the spoiler. They certainly have the roster space as teams going no where this season.

Making a division rival weaker is the next best thing to making your own team stronger.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Do I think that teams have released veterans so as to avoid the Week 1 guarantee of the year's salary? Yes.

Can I prove it? Of course, not. I have never been in a NFL front office. No team is ever going to state that as the reason.

Here's some links about termination pay from a person who used to work in a NFL front office and from a former agent

Leadoff at Lambeau | National Football Post
Cold Cuts | National Football Post
Agent's Take: Understanding the next few days of the NFL calendar - CBSSports.com


Does it make sense to do so? I think so.
Reward - increased cap flexibility.
Risk - veteran signs elsewhere.

This!
I really REALLY hate to quote Skip Bayless but he was spot on the other day when talking about BB and what many think BB should/should not have done with AH. Skip said "BB is not in the business of saving souls, he's in the business to win Super Bowls, period" (actually it's a paraphrase). Exactly! And it applies here too. Do I think BB would cut a guy and risk losing him to save a season of guaranteed money? Abso-friggin-lutely. Anyone who is surprised by BB cutting a guy just to avoid the guarantee has turned a blind eye to our long time coach/captain of the NEP. BB tries to get EVERY advantage possible, every advantage. And he goes about that in a cold, calculating, automaton like way. Bottom line: if he doesn't think you're worth the money, worth the guarantee, worth ????....you're gone. You're probably gone coldly and unceremoniously too.
Look I see the other side, the side that says the player/the veteran is getting the short end of the stick with this kind of move. Which then creates the question, "do you want to enjoy winning more often or do you want to be able to say the NEP are swell bunch of guys as they lose more often??".

 

[Ring 6]

This!
I really REALLY hate to quote Skip Bayless but he was spot on the other day when talking about BB and what many think BB should/should not have done with AH. Skip said "BB is not in the business of saving souls, he's in the business to win Super Bowls, period" (actually it's a paraphrase). Exactly! And it applies here too. Do I think BB would cut a guy and risk losing him to save a season of guaranteed money? Abso-friggin-lutely. Anyone who is surprised by BB cutting a guy just to avoid the guarantee has turned a blind eye to our long time coach/captain of the NEP.

On the contrary. Anyone who thinks BB would risk losing an important player that he wants on the roster to save a nominal pretty much useless amount of money has not been paying attention.
The risk is losing the player THAT YOU WANT ON YOUR TEAM. The gain is saving a few game checks if you don't want him any more.
Its a football decision and the football decision is its stupid to expose the guy to waivers to potentially save an amount of money thaat is miniscule in the big picture.

BB tries to get EVERY advantage possible, every advantage. And he goes about that in a cold, calculating, automaton like way. Bottom line: if he doesn't think you're worth the money, worth the guarantee, worth ????....you're gone. You're probably gone coldly and unceremoniously too.

No one is saying it is out of kindness. It is just a terrible decision to expose a player you want to waivers for nothing or next to nothing.

Look I see the other side, the side that says the player/the veteran is getting the short end of the stick with this kind of move. Which then creates the question, "do you want to enjoy winning more often or do you want to be able to say the NEP are swell bunch of guys as they lose more often??".

Thats not the other side. The other side is you may lose a player who is one of your best 53.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes he is.

And it's a hypothetical 120k savings on Branch's salary of 640k + 6 games of another player as opposed to your original premise of a guaranteed salary for Branch plus a guaranteed salary for his replacement 640k +320k. The reason the 320k salary would not be guaranteed would be at that amount he'd be a 1st or 2nd year player. And your numbers are way off for vet minimums, the difference in numbers would be more drastic if you used the actual minimum salaries for a rookie (about 400k) vs a 10 year vet (about 950k). Say they split 8 games apiece, 200k for rookie + 475k for Branch = 675k vs 950k for guaranteed vet + 200k for 8 games of rookie = $1,150,000. It would be a 475k savings.

Believe what you want to believe.

EDIT: Branch's 2012 salary was $1,325,000, so about $83,000 a game for the six games he wasn't on the roster. A total of $496,875 worth of savings against a guaranteed salary.

Branch did not make the team. If he did make the team and the move was solely to not guarantee his salary he would have been back the day after game 1.
Cutting him had the same impact as the ficticious move you suggest, but it clearly was not for that purpose.

 

[Ring 6]

Do I think that teams have released veterans so as to avoid the Week 1 guarantee of the year's salary? Yes.

Can I prove it? Of course, not. I have never been in a NFL front office. No team is ever going to state that as the reason.

Here's some links about termination pay from a person who used to work in a NFL front office and from a former agent

Leadoff at Lambeau | National Football Post
Cold Cuts | National Football Post
Agent's Take: Understanding the next few days of the NFL calendar - CBSSports.com


Does it make sense to do so? I think so.
Reward - increased cap flexibility.
Risk - veteran signs elsewhere.

My point is that if you want the player on your team, the risk far outweighs the reward. Once you bring him back you will be paying him any way.
I can't imagine there are a lot of players that you want on your team, but don't care whether someone else claims them. When you factor in the savings is not real, it is only potential, and you would have to plan on cutting the guy in the future to think it was real.
I would consider that guy cut, just as I would if his cap number was higher than his value.
If the cheaper player you keep in his place is so close that you don't care if the cut player gets claimed, why even bring him back.