So according to your numbers we have $8M to "play with". Does that number consider the fact of costs later in the season (rookies, Player 52, Player 53, Practice Squad, replacement fund and reserve for incentives)? I keep on mentioning this because this is a significant number (about $6M or so after reducing the total for the benefit on lower priced players making the final roster). It seems that we have used about $6M as our guess in the past. When we added this up on another thread, the estimate seems about right.
I am not criticizing. I just want to know whether we are using any cap monies in addition to a zero net cap transactions. If I understand you correctly, you think that we will have a couple of million more than Miguel does. BTW, Miguel has already posted with regard to the increased costs for McCourty and Gregory.
No. We've been over this ground recently, so let's not re-invent the wheel in each new thread. Specifically, we've had conversations in 2 of your recent threads that are relevant:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...pend-11m-priorities-budget.html#.UuCpdpH0D1o
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ense-zero-sum-game-capwise.html#.UuCpQZH0D1o
It should be fairly clear form the previous discussion, but let me summarize my point of view:
1. We don't know exactly what the 2014 cap will be. The league hasn't announced it. Ian Rapoport has reported a preliminary cap figure of $126.3M, which is what Miguel is currently using. The official number in the past has come in slightly higher than the preliminary reported figure (that was definitely the case last year), and there have been reports that the cap should be more in the range of $128M. So there's about a $2M difference depending on which number you use.
2. The Pats currently have about $120M+ in committed cap money for 2014 (salaries and bonuses for 55 players totaling just under $115M, including the adjusted numbers for McCourrty and Gregory, plus $5.6M in dead money). That leaves about $6M. They also have about $4M in carryover from $2013, which makes that figure about $10M, or about $12M if you use the higher projected cap number.
3. We all agree that there needs to be money to pay the rookies and PS, and some money in reserve. I think your $6M estimate is reasonable. That would leave $4M left over, or roughly $6M if you use the higher cap number.
4. You have suggested a "zero sum game" for defensive signings in which the cost of any new signings or re-signings (including Talib and Fletcher) would have to be offset by salary reductions from cuts or re-structurings of Wilfork, Sapoaga (likely cut) and Adriana Wilson (likely cut). I think this is reasonable.
With those preliminaries set, that would leave the following players who might be cut, re-structured or extended to save cap money for 2014:
1. Dan Connolly, OL. $4M cap hit in 2014, $2.5M savings if cut. Signed through 2014.
2. Steve Gregory, S. $3.5M cap hit in 2014, $2.3M savings if cut. Signed through 2014.
3. Stephen Gostkowski, K. $3.8M cap hit in 2014, $2.5M savings if cut. Signed through 2014.
4. Tommy Kelly, DT. $2.65M cap hit in 2014, $1.7M savings if cut. Signed through 2014.
5. Matt Slater, ST. $2.3M cap hit in 2014, $1.1M savings if cut. Signed through 2014.
6. Logan Mankins, OG. $10.5M cap hit in 2014, $2M savings if cut. Signed through 2016.
I include Mankins last because he is signed the longest, and has the least cap savings relative to his contract if cut.
I do not include Vince Wilfork, Isaac Sapoaga or Adrian Wilson because the cap savings from cutting/restructuring/extending them was discussed in your "zero sum" defense thread, and I am allocating them for that purpose.
Whether it is prudent to do anything with those 6 contracts can be discussed, but they are the only 6 which would produce any significant savings that can be used for 2014. Theoretically, cutting the first 5 players listed above would save slightly more than $10M, in addition to the $4-6M remaining as discussed above. That would leave roughly $14-16M (or $16-18M if you cut Mankins; again, the higher number reflects a higher 2014 cap than the $126.3 preliminary figure) in 2014 cap space to re-sign Edelman and Blount and sign any external offensive free agents, again, assuming the discussion of the "zero sum" defensive threat that you started. Again, I'm not advocating that these players necessarily be cut or restructured, just identifying them as contracts to be considered, and listing what the maximum 2014 cap savings would be.
So that's where I start.
1) Let's remove Gregory from our discussions of the offense. He may be cut. Many would welcome that happening. The kicker is that we want a better safety to replace him. In any case, we are discussing the offense here.
3) JAG's like Collie, Svitek and Hooman really are just part of doing business. We always have our share on the 53. For the purpose of this thread, we can ignore low-cost players. the cap effects are minimal. You will likely go ballistic when we tender Aiken before signing him to a long-term deal.
Why make these assumptions? Why "remove Gregory from our discussions" or assume that "JAG's like Collie, Svitek and Hooman really are just part of doing business"?
If I were the FO, I would be scrutinizing very carefully every nickel that was spent and particular every contract that could result in a 2014 cap savings. We may in fact be stuck with Gregory, as it may not be cost-effective to cut him and try and find a substitute. But, OTOH, if Duron Harmon is ready to step up then cutting Gregory may make the difference in re-signing Edelman (or signing a quality UFA WR in his place). Similarly, Gostkowski had a great year for us. But is it prudent to spend $4M on a kicker, when UFA rookies have excelled in recent years for many teams? Could that cap savings be spent more wisely on a FA TE or OL?
We spend a fair amount of money on bottom of the roster guys like Collie, Svitek and Hooman. If some of these guys aren't likely to end up on the roster, why do it? Why tender a RFA long snapper at $800K when a UDFA rookie can do the job? Is Danny Aiken really that good? (I'm willing to snap the ball over Ryan Allen's head for half that amount. )
Again, I'm not passing judgment or making any conclusions. That's for BB and the FO to do. But I think it would be premature to make any assumptions about players being "safe" if cutting or restructuring them can save money and potentially help make the team better, even if they have performed well. And if they haven't out-performed their contracts then they've under-performed, and are even more at risk.
YOUR SUGGESTIONS
1. I agree that we should re-sign Blount. We'd have one RB signed past 2014.
2. You seem to have a better understanding than almost anyone who has posted regarding wide receivers. The patriots may not sign Edelman or another top receiver. We may get our usual parade of JAG's.
3) Alex Mack to replace Wendell? Sign me up! We'll see whether Belichick wants to have tow new starters on the OL, one of which will be gone next year. Of course, we would also not have any veteran backups if Connolly goes. I'd sign Mack AND keep Connolly as a backup, and draft a guard in the first three rounds as a 2015 starter.
4) Yes, a veteran TE would be ideal. There is a long list. Also, this is a great TE draft.
- I'm fine with extending Gostkowski and saving some cap room.
- I'm fine with extending Slater, although I don't think that it would save much cap room.
CONCLUSION
I agree with all your stated needs and your analysis. The only nitpick is that I think Connolly is needed as a backup. After all, Cannon might be needed as a backup OT as he has been every year since he got here. I understand that there seems to be almost no money to meet these four needs (five if you count the WR position as two as some do). We'll see how Belichick works his magic. After all, last year we re-signed Talib, Vollmer and found $6M for a WR. I never thought that we couple achieve all three.
I forgot to mention, but one thing I would consider is bringing back Nick McDonald as a backup OL. He was a surprise cut for injury issues this summer, and the Pats had him in for a look in December. If (and it's obviously a big "if") he's healthy, he is a 5 position lineman who is familiar with the team and the playbook and a quick learner. I think he'd be a much cheaper reserve lineman alternative than Connolly, and he's 5 years younger.
Sure, there will be changes. However, I don't think that Belichick will feel the need to shake the box after our 12-4, division winning season, especially considering all the injuries that we suffered. The reality is that a little shaking the box won't make us a better team than Denver. A little health might. I agree that if belichick thought that cutting a player would free up enough money to move forward with someone else, Belichick wouldn't hesitate.
That's my main point. I think that the FO will be fairly ruthless this offseason in assessing the status quo. In the past they haven't shaken things up that much. A bunch of depth signings. The last time they really shook things up was 2007 - coincidentally, the last time the lost to Manning in the AFCCG. The window is closing for Brady, there will be significant turnover in the coaching staff, and it's a good time to decide if tweaking the current roster is the way to go, or if more is needed. If the latter, some cuts will have to be made, including possibly some painful ones.
