Patriots dead money and cap management

[Biffins]

I'm all about cutting players when they don't seem a good enough fit, but do the Pats FO appropriately account for the sunk cost element. A lot of the times we release players that many not be worth what we're paying them, but could still be better than the alternative which is to release them, take the dead money hit, and find a replacement. That dead money hit has to be accounted for in the cost of the replacement. We now have more than 10% of our cap space in dead money.

I still don't see what we gained from releasing someone like Arrington, even if his contract was a bit too rich. Infact everyone on this board was shocked at the 4 yr contract when Arrington signed it for being just an average player. But once the contract was done, why release him a few years later and take the dead money hit when the replacement + that dead money cost would only be lesser value. Most frustrating is when we bring players in and then release them before they even see the field. I almost half expect them to release Reggie Wayne now and eat another $0.5m in dead money that we just guaranteed him. We can add the $150k hit from McClain who we just released before he ever saw the field. It keeps adding up.

Another contract everyone on this board was shocked by was Marcus Cannon's contract. And all I see is a future dead money hit in the waiting.

While I fully understand that Pats spend $$$ all the way to cap every year and don't leave money on the table, it seems some of the use of cap is mismanaged with all this constant drain from dead money. Anyone else have a view on this?

 

[DaBruinz]

The Patriots are known as some of the best cap managers in the business and you are questioning the "dead money" from Signing bonuses??

Arrington was more than an average player. He was one of the best special teams gunners in the league. He also saw a good number of defensive snaps as the "STAR" CB.

The Patriots took bigger cap hit on Revis (who was tampered with) than they have on Arrington, Wayne or McClain.

 

[eom]

I think this is kind of hysterics that ignore most of the situations.

some of that deadcap is simply cap borrowed from last year, like revis -- revis is 5m, and there was never any expectation of picking up that option.
alternative would have been structuring a 1 yr deal so we account for the 5m last year instead, but then we'd lose out on a 3rd round comp pick for free when jets signed him away, and the 5m we saved last year simply rolls over into this year, essentially covering that 5m 2015 deadcap you're complaining about -- so, the complaint is kind of nonsensical.

mankins accounts for another 4m of this deadcap, bring our total to 9m, and while he's reportedly not looking so great this preseason, the guy we got with that pick, trey flowers, has been a beast + is on the 1st year of a rookie deal.
mankins would have cost us another 6m this year above what we pay shaq, and we currently have about 2m in cap space, so again, I have no idea what your complaint could possibly be here.
you'd prefer cutting 6m worth of players + flowers to get mankins back.

another ~4.5m in dead $ comes from guys who got hurt over the summer and placed on ir.
not sure what your suggestion is there, either.

I honestly don't think you have any idea what you're talking about

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Dead cap money can be a symptom of bad cap management. It also can be a symptom of good cap management. In short, the correlation is small.

Allocating 10% of the team's cap to dead money isn't unusual for the Patriots.

Bad cap management is when it costs more/virtually the same to keep an unproductive player versus cutting him. Or overpaying for a player in general.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Dead cap money can be a symptom of bad cap management. It also can be a symptom of good cap management. In short, the correlation is small.

Allocating 10% of the team's cap to dead money isn't unusual for the Patriots.

Bad cap management is when it costs more/virtually the same to keep an unproductive player versus cutting him. Or overpaying for a player in general.

Good post. I've also come to the conclusion that they are operating as they have in past years.

Clearly the $5m carry-over from the Revis deal is what is sticking in people's craw. They aren't just saying it. IMO a cost well-worth the derived benefit.

 

[eom]

Good post. I've also come to the conclusion that they are operating as they have in past years.

Clearly the $5m carry-over from the Revis deal is what is sticking in people's craw. They aren't just saying it. IMO a cost well-worth the derived benefit.

as I mentioned, that is just bookkeeping semantics
if they had structured his deal as a 1 yr contract instead, ate the 5m last yr, carried over 5m less this year, and forfeited the 3rd round comp pick would people be any happier?

that 5m in dead $ was simply borrowed last year and rolled back over into this year while garnering a 3rd rounder in simple interest.

I don't even understand why people are talking about this

 

[RobertWeathers]

as I mentioned, that is just bookkeeping semantics
if they had structured his deal as a 1 yr contract instead, ate the 5m last yr, carried over 5m less this year, and forfeited the 3rd round comp pick would people be any happier?

that 5m in dead $ was simply borrowed last year and rolled back over into this year while garnering a 3rd rounder in simple interest.

I don't even understand why people are talking about this

Because its something to ***** about because when you win a SB and your QB just stuffed a broomstick up the NFLs butt you need something to complain about.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Will the Patriots receive any cap relief for the contract of a certain ex-TE???

 

[pdangle]

No, its more to understand it.

 

[Biffins]

as I mentioned, that is just bookkeeping semantics
if they had structured his deal as a 1 yr contract instead, ate the 5m last yr, carried over 5m less this year, and forfeited the 3rd round comp pick would people be any happier?

that 5m in dead $ was simply borrowed last year and rolled back over into this year while garnering a 3rd rounder in simple interest.

I don't even understand why people are talking about this

Sorry I was just trying to understand this better.

 

[eom]

Sorry I was just trying to understand this better.

haha...np -- you just sounded a little critical of the greatest franchise in the history of the sport.
what the pats do is amazing, and not only should fans watch them + learn, but so should the other 31 teams, and I'd have to think those teams know somewhat more than we do already

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Sorry I was just trying to understand this better.

No need to apologize; these are legitimate questions and the salary cap can be a confusing thing. I do enough accounting work in my career such that it's helped me understand what's going on.

At the end of the day, eom and robertweathers are right - the salary cap rules themselves are nothing more than an accounting trick. Actual cash payments to players can significantly fluctuate from year to year, so the cap tries to smooth these payments out on the team's ledgers to allow for predictability. You can view the cap amounts such that over, say, a 5 year period a team can't pay more in cash to players than the sum of these 5 years of salary caps. The Pats are usually near the top here.

The real keys are 1) making sure contracts are structured so it doesn't cause higher cap hits to cut a player than to keep him at the point where he's expected to not be as productive, and 2) not overpaying in general. I look at the actual cash paid to Arrington and Mankins under their last deals and think that the Pats messed up and overpaid. On the other hand, Revis and Wilfork both have dead money hits but they were totally worth their last deals, if not underpaid. But fortunately, in all cases, it still cost less to cut/trade them than to keep them, so the Pats weren't hamstrung into keeping them if they didn't want to.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Will the Patriots receive any cap relief for the contract of a certain ex-TE???

I think Miguel's cap page gives a $1 million credit this year for "him who shall not be named".