Source: Aqib Talib wants top-of-the-market deal

[TomNGisele]

I'm Torn...on the one hand, he is a top cornerback and really is important to our defense.



on the other hand, the last two AFCCG he has been injured and not on the field...not even giving it a go. and that killed us.



if you want quality players though you need to pay them. I would rather break the bank on talib than have to watch Dennard get burned time and time again by D.Thomas. Brady is coming to near the end of his career. Why keep letting these solid players go? What are we saving the money for? Lets try and go win one now.

It's time to take risks and mortgage a little bit of the future.... Honestly is anybody going to care if they are in cap hell in a couple of years when Brady retires? No. Especially if they win another title.

 

[Sicilian]

Pretty telling stat.



Talib is that much of a difference maker, but can we count on him?

That stat sums up both sides of the debate:

Pro-Talib = You can see the difference when Talib is on and off the field.

Anti-Talib = You can see the difference because Talib is on and off the field.

 

[TomNGisele]

If not Talib, fine.. But it has to be another top flight CB.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots are usually good at reading the yearly market. If they think they can get Shields (or Vontae Davis) and Ward for $12m instead of Talib for $8m-$9m, I'm all for it. If not, welcome back Mr. Talib. Any chance we can trim just a small sliver off that number in order to bring back your buddy L. Blount?

 

[Nunchucks]

It's time to take risks and mortgage a little bit of the future.... Honestly is anybody going to care if they are in cap hell in a couple of years when Brady retires? No. Especially if they win another title.

I am not a fan of mortgaging the future. I watch every game, I enjoy every game as long as it is competitive. To watch the patriots play poor football because the Patriots mortgaged the future to try and win a Superbowl would be frustrating to me, 16 weeks of frustration = a lot of frustration. Not winning the Superbowl isn't as bad. After all, I lived through the imperfect season, I can no longer feel that kind of disappointment.

Besides that, mortgaging the future is not guarantee that they will win a superbowl or even come close, injuries to star players become that much more glaring when the backups or the team around them is not as good.

 

[Deus Irae]

I am not a fan of mortgaging the future. I watch every game, I enjoy every game as long as it is competitive. To watch the patriots play poor football because the Patriots mortgaged the future to try and win a Superbowl would be frustrating to me, 16 weeks of frustration = a lot of frustration. Not winning the Superbowl isn't as bad. After all, I lived through the imperfect season, I can no longer feel that kind of disappointment.

Besides that, mortgaging the future is not guarantee that they will win a superbowl or even come close, injuries to star players become that much more glaring when the backups or the team around them is not as good.

Not "mortgaging the future" = paying no dividends since 2004

 

[TomNGisele]

You're going to be frustrated watching them play without Brady and Belichick anyways. Don't you want them to have the best chance to win NOW?!

 

[50-yard-line]

The Patriots are usually good at reading the yearly market. If they think they can get Shields (or Vontae Davis) and Ward for $12m instead of Talib for $8m-$9m, I'm all for it. If not, welcome back Mr. Talib. Any chance we can trim just a small sliver off that number in order to bring back your buddy L. Blount?

if there was one post I would hope Kraft, Casario and BB read here this off-season, it would be this one.

 

[Nunchucks]

Not "mortgaging the future" = paying no dividends since 2004

Say's you. I am quite pleased with the amount of entertainment I've had watching the Patriots these last 10 years. Sure, i would like to see a SB win, but I am not sure that mortgaging the future would have paid that dividend.

I'll take the 2 SB appearances and the 3 AFC championship games, thank you very much.

 

[Deus Irae]

Say's you. I am quite pleased with the amount of entertainment I've had watching the Patriots these last 10 years. Sure, i would like to see a SB win, but I am not sure that mortgaging the future would have paid that dividend.

I'll take the 2 SB appearances and the 3 AFC championship games, thank you very much.

Yes, says me. You're making the assumption that the only reason the Patriots have continued to win is that they've not spent more on big FAs. You have nothing to prove that assertion.

And if you'd rather have appearances than victories, I don't really know what to say, other than to note my strong disagreement with that position. I would rather be the Steelers, post-2004, than to be the Patriots post-2004.

 

[TomNGisele]

Say's you. I am quite pleased with the amount of entertainment I've had watching the Patriots these last 10 years. Sure, i would like to see a SB win, but I am not sure that mortgaging the future would have paid that dividend.



I'll take the 2 SB appearances and the 3 AFC championship games, thank you very much.

Ok but you're saying this like they've got a chance to be really good post Brady and they should prepare for that. Unlikely. Brady and Belichick are the reason we win, period. But we need more to be pushed over the top. When they're gone, they'll suck regardless of cap room or how many team friendly deals they have.

It's not like extending themselves a little more than they are comfortable doing or have done in the past guarantees a bleak, horrible future.

 

[Sicilian]

Say's you. I am quite pleased with the amount of entertainment I've had watching the Patriots these last 10 years. Sure, i would like to see a SB win, but I am not sure that mortgaging the future would have paid that dividend.

I'll take the 2 SB appearances and the 3 AFC championship games, thank you very much.

I think if the Patriots could mortgage the future for a guaranteed Super Bowl win, they would do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, it never works that way. The Eagles dream team didn't even make the playoffs.

I'm not afraid of mortgaging the future to win now. I'm afraid of mortgaging the future and still NOT winning the SB.

 

[TomNGisele]

That eagles dream team didn't have Tom Brady and Bill Belichick.

As you've said yourself this team is right there every year. They just need to keep the players that succeed here and make them better and add a piece here or there... They don't need to add 5 key top free agents.


They may need to overpay a bit for Talib and Edleman and find a way to pay a decent safety, but they'll be better for it. Being cheap and going with more unproven young players will not result in a superbowl. Don't you want to give them the best chance?

 

[goheels22002]

It's time to take risks and mortgage a little bit of the future.... Honestly is anybody going to care if they are in cap hell in a couple of years when Brady retires? No. Especially if they win another title.

How, precisely do the Patriots do that?

These kinds of posts make little sense without specifics as to the players, their contract terms and the people that have to be released to make room for these new guys under the 2014 cap.

The Patriots are somewhere in the range of $12 million under the cap with Talib, Edelman and Blount unsigned and Wilfork looming as an $11 million cap hit. You need to leave about $8 million un-spent to pay for rookie deals and to have $4 million available during the season for street free agent signings due to injuries.

So what risk would you take that would improve the Patriots from a team that's been to one Super Bowl and two AFC Championship games in the past three years?

 

[ralmat55]

I am not a fan of mortgaging the future. I watch every game, I enjoy every game as long as it is competitive. To watch the patriots play poor football because the Patriots mortgaged the future to try and win a Superbowl would be frustrating to me, 16 weeks of frustration = a lot of frustration. Not winning the Superbowl isn't as bad. After all, I lived through the imperfect season, I can no longer feel that kind of disappointment.

Besides that, mortgaging the future is not guarantee that they will win a superbowl or even come close, injuries to star players become that much more glaring when the backups or the team around them is not as good.

Why does giving Talib $8 million a year with 2 years guaranteed equate to mortgaging the future? The Pats are not the Cowboys or Steelers borrowing cap space from 2016 to guarantee an 8-8 record. They can afford a Grimes-like contract for Talib within their salary cap without having to backload it. You pay it and pray he'll be on the field more than not and especially when the games count.

If the Patriots don't get Talib resigned, it will be another example of their intransigence in contract negotiations in the name of value costing them more money in the long run and hurting the team competitively- This is the real reason this team has obtained a status of elite mediocrity since 2004.

 

[Nunchucks]

Yes, says me. You're making the assumption that the only reason the Patriots have continued to win is that they've not spent more on big FAs. You have nothing to prove that assertion.

And if you'd rather have appearances than victories, I don't really know what to say, other than to note my strong disagreement with that position. I would rather be the Steelers, post-2004, than to be the Patriots post-2004.

Have the Steelers mortgaged the future to win a SB? Your premise is faulty because they have not. in fact, how many of these mortgaged the future teams have won a SB? Are they not less likely to win one?

 

[Deus Irae]

Have the Steelers mortgaged the future to win a SB? Your premise is faulty because they have not. in fact, how many of these mortgaged the future teams have won a SB? Are they not less likely to win one?

My premise was not faulty. Your post was just not thought out, at all.

 

[Nunchucks]

My premise was not faulty. Your post was just not thought out, at all.

So, you are saying that the Steelers mortgaged the future to win those two superbowls?

Was that not your premise? Or was your premise that you would rather be a steelers fan?

 

[kennyb]

IF they mortgage the future, they might not win. If they don't, they'll be even less likely to win.

Brady is gone in 3 years at most anyway. Breaking in a new QB you probably won't be contending then anyway.

But it depends on how far into "mortgaging the future" you want to go?

As for Talib, they'll probably say "Top of the morning" to your "top of the market" and wish him farewell. He might not get what he wants in FA though.

 

[Deus Irae]

So, you are saying that the Steelers mortgaged the future to win those two superbowls?

Was that not your premise? Or was your premise that you would rather be a steelers fan?

I'm saying that your argument sucked. You didn't actually define "mortgage your future", but you mentioned appearances in the AFCCG and SB. I pointed to a team that's missed the playoffs 4 times, post-2004, but who's results I'd much rather have than what I've seen from the Patriots.

Your response "But did they mortgage the future?" when they've had to make tough moves to get under the cap the past couple of seasons, may well have to cut Ike Taylor and Lamar Woodley in order to free up space, and when people here were talking about overpaying Sanders last year because the Steelers would possibly not have been able to match due to their cap situation, is funny stuff, though.