TE Matt LaCosse Opts Out

Joey007 · Aug 2, 2020

Delanie Walker would be a nice nice addition. Let the old vet be a teacher to the young guys.

Ice_Ice_Brady · Aug 2, 2020

Please opt out, Sanu.

Deus Irae · Aug 2, 2020

LaCosse pretty much opted out last season, too, so this won't be much of a change from the team's perspective.

Jimke · Aug 2, 2020

Time to, at least, replenish the players that have been lost. Every player
they sign is probably entitled to a minimum amount of conditioning before
they can practice.

Ross12 · Aug 2, 2020

luuked said:
This doesn't make much sense because unless those players are in a high risk group they will have to pay those 150k back next year. It is an advance and not new money.

I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back. Multiply that situation against 10+ players on all 32 teams and it's a substantial amount of money... though you'd think the NFL can afford it, regardless.

IMO - it could happen for some players - but the fact the player is restricted from opting back in also might dissuade many others. Yeah you could opt out for $150k but then in 3 weeks when the team you spent camp with needs a guy at your position because their guy got hurt/sick/etc you're not able to come back and get signed for more potentially. So realistically it only makes sense for some few JAG level players who are at the very end of their careers.

TheRainMaker · Aug 2, 2020

Ice_Ice_Brady said:
Please opt out, Sanu.

Why? Billy isn't doing anything with the $20M already handed to him.

TheRainMaker · Aug 2, 2020

Ross12 said:
From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back.

Yeah, the NFL is not getting that money back from players like Vitale and LaCosse who probably won't get another job. And it would be a bad look for the NFL trying to get $150k from a player who wasn't a high earner and opted out in fear of the virus.

And now the NFL is fearing players are going to abuse this option and opt out.

One-If-By-Sea · Aug 2, 2020

Jake Burt will surprise as a blocker.

SHOWTIME15 · Aug 2, 2020

NBD, Asiasi and Keene are better,,,

hornetfb85 · Aug 2, 2020

Ras-IR Dowling said:
Jordan Reed still thinking about playing?

With all those concussions, I just hope he’s still thinking in general.

luuked · Aug 2, 2020

Ross12 said:
I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back.

I don't understand what you are saying. They have to pay it back the same way that you'd have to pay back any loan. The teams will be able to just go to court and litigate that. Do you think those players will be able to go off the grid and change their names or something ?

I mean they have still about 40-50 years of working life ahead of them if they can't make any NFL roster.

The league is just spinning this into a non existing problem when in reality they are just scared that more players will opt out and make the league look like the bozos they are once they have been in the facilities and have a better idea what this year will look like.

Uptown · Aug 2, 2020

luuked said:
Only thing true is that he is cheaper. He shouldn't even sniff the roster.

Izzo is in fact a better blocker, but at the end of the day who cares..they both ultimately suck

Patsfanin Philly · Aug 2, 2020

Boomer B said:
I was reading on PFT that teams are worried that guys not likely to make the roster will start opting out to ensure a paycheque.

Could be the case here.

I thought I read that the $150K/$350K was not a grant but an advance/loan that must be paid back.. Granted I'd like to see them get it from cut players ......

Ice_Ice_Brady · Aug 2, 2020

TheRainMaker said:
Why? Billy isn't doing anything with the $20M already handed to him.

So I don’t destroy my now rare plasma television.

Hyped · Aug 2, 2020

Ross12 said:
I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back. Multiply that situation against 10+ players on all 32 teams and it's a substantial amount of money... though you'd think the NFL can afford it, regardless.

IMO - it could happen for some players - but the fact the player is restricted from opting back in also might dissuade many others. Yeah you could opt out for $150k but then in 3 weeks when the team you spent camp with needs a guy at your position because their guy got hurt/sick/etc you're not able to come back and get signed for more potentially. So realistically it only makes sense for some few JAG level players who are at the very end of their careers.

150K is nothing when compared against a 175M minimum cap.....that is like 1/1100th of the cap. Give me 10 guys opting out for 350K each and it is still only 2% of the cap. Not even worried about it. I see these as "contract extensions with no wear and toll on our players" and we get them back next year cheaper vs. having to re-sign them.

Taco · Aug 2, 2020

luuked said:
Unless the Pats sign a veteran like Delanie Walker you will now have to deal with Izzo making the team instead. I'd much rather would have had a healthy LaCosse.

Izzo is a good blocker. I’ll take him at TE 3.

Ring 6 · Aug 2, 2020

Ross12 said:
I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back. Multiply that situation against 10+ players on all 32 teams and it's a substantial amount of money... though you'd think the NFL can afford it, regardless.

IMO - it could happen for some players - but the fact the player is restricted from opting back in also might dissuade many others. Yeah you could opt out for $150k but then in 3 weeks when the team you spent camp with needs a guy at your position because their guy got hurt/sick/etc you're not able to come back and get signed for more potentially. So realistically it only makes sense for some few JAG level players who are at the very end of their careers.

It’s not a matter of the league affording it. It comes off the cap, so ultimately it affects other players not owners.

Ring 6 · Aug 2, 2020

Taco said:
Izzo is a good blocker. I’ll take him at TE 3.

Izzo has the potential to be a good blocker. Last year he stank. Badly.

Bill Lee · Aug 2, 2020

luuked said:
I don't understand what you are saying. They have to pay it back the same way that you'd have to pay back any loan. The teams will be able to just go to court and litigate that. Do you think those players will be able to go off the grid and change their names or something ?

I mean they have still about 40-50 years of working life ahead of them if they can't make any NFL roster.

The league is just spinning this into a non existing problem when in reality they are just scared that more players will opt out and make the league look like the bozos they are once they have been in the facilities and have a better idea what this year will look like.

As mentioned in another thread, I heard Andrew Brandt's podcast (former Green Bay director of football operations) and his response to getting the money back was "good luck". Sure you can litigate but that costs the team thousands of dollars of legal fees and results in bupkis. He said in the past the team has given players advances etc and then cut them and they know they will not see that money ever again in most cases. He's said he's been pleasantly surprised in a few cases, but only a few.

Ross12 · Aug 2, 2020

luuked said:
I don't understand what you are saying. They have to pay it back the same way that you'd have to pay back any loan. The teams will be able to just go to court and litigate that. Do you think those players will be able to go off the grid and change their names or something ?

I mean they have still about 40-50 years of working life ahead of them if they can't make any NFL roster.

The league is just spinning this into a non existing problem when in reality they are just scared that more players will opt out and make the league look like the bozos they are once they have been in the facilities and have a better idea what this year will look like.

Not saying I think it’s likely or reasonable, I am just saying what I’ve seen said. IMO I think the league is being ****ty here.

TE Matt LaCosse Opts Out

Pro Bowl Player

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Moderator

3rd runner up sexiest man alive 1998

3rd runner up sexiest man alive 1998

PatsFans.com Supporter

No asterisks

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

Hall of Fame Poster

Standin' Pat

PatsFans.com Supporter

I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

What, me worry?

Moderator

Similar threads