Stefon Diggs: Contract

Diggs is under a 3-year, $63.5 million contract (up to $69M). The Patriots can move on with only $1.7 million to $8 million in dead cap, effectively making it a 1-year, $18.5M–$23M deal. His high 2026 cap hit of $26.5 million makes him a candidate to be released. Does anyone think he is worth $26.5 million? If released before June 1, 2026, the Patriots would save roughly $16.8M, with $9.7M in dead money.

Pay? Cut? Trade? Restructure?

Pay the man his money.

worth every cent.

I think he is worth keeping, but at a reduced salary. He started strong but showed signs of decline. I think teams were not expecting him to be "back" so fast and he was able to exploit that - but once they started covering him as a priority he was not able to beat them as routinely.

So he is not really a "WR1" but is still a productive player and IMO good for the room. He is more of a "WR2". Having said that, that role is still paid around $20M a year, so the pay is somewhat in line but he is aging out.

If I am the team, I am talking to him about adding a year or two to let him finish his career in NE and bringing the annual salary down and giving him a bit more guaranteed money. If he is not willing to do so, they will have to decide if he is worth the price or if they would rather cut him and let him test his market and then talk again.

Another option would be restructuring and paying his high 2026 salary as a signing bonus while adding a couple of void years. This would cut the 2026 and 2027 cap hits down but add dead money in 2028.

imahobgoblin said:

Diggs is under a 3-year, $63.5 million contract (up to $69M). The Patriots can move on with only $1.7 million to $8 million in dead cap, effectively making it a 1-year, $18.5M–$23M deal. His high 2026 cap hit of $26.5 million makes him a candidate to be released. Does anyone think he is worth $26.5 million? If released before June 1, 2026, the Patriots would save roughly $16.8M, with $9.7M in dead money.

Pay? Cut? Trade? Restructure?

Click to expand...

The Dead Cap would be 9.7M if they moved on. 1.7M in guaranteed salary and 8M in SB proration. If I remember correctly, the Pats would receive some of the 1.7M back in 2027 if Diggs were signed by another team.

Is Diggs worth 26.5M on the Cap? Yes. I think he is. He far exceeded expectations last year and I would expect him to improve with the knee being 100% healthy this year.

The Pats could change $10M into SB and cut $5M off this year's number and cut him after the season.

No reason to specifically "want" him gone based on how he played last year, but it's a numbers game. Big cap number there that can be saved if he's moved. There's always options to structure his deal to borrow cap from future years to pay him now, but does that make sense for him? Based on how his play tailed off and his age I'm not really sure I'd borrow money from future years to keep him. If they're aggressive in managing the cap like that, I think I'd still like to put those future year dollars they're borrowing towards some younger player.

I'm sure from his standpoint he'd probably prefer some security over going year to year the way his deal is kind of set up. Best case scenario for both sides might be a release before guarantees kick in and then continue talking while he can gauge his market from other teams (I imagine less than the cash payout he has on his 2 years left) an the team can gauge what their younger options are.

On another note regarding Diggs, a lot will depend on what happens with his court issue.

Ross12 said:

I think he is worth keeping, but at a reduced salary. He started strong but showed signs of decline. I think teams were not expecting him to be "back" so fast and he was able to exploit that - but once they started covering him as a priority he was not able to beat them as routinely.

So he is not really a "WR1" but is still a productive player and IMO good for the room. He is more of a "WR2". Having said that, that role is still paid around $20M a year, so the pay is somewhat in line but he is aging out.

If I am the team, I am talking to him about adding a year or two to let him finish his career in NE and bringing the annual salary down and giving him a bit more guaranteed money. If he is not willing to do so, they will have to decide if he is worth the price or if they would rather cut him and let him test his market and then talk again.

Another option would be restructuring and paying his high 2026 salary as a signing bonus while adding a couple of void years. This would cut the 2026 and 2027 cap hits down but add dead money in 2028.

Click to expand...

there are intangible qualities some players bring to the field... Diggs is one of those players... I would have zero issues paying him the contract dollars as they are laid out... and quite the opposite of how he was portrayed as a selfish player, he was a team leader here... that is something worth paying for imo...

Maybe he flames out in a few years because of age, but right now? I think next year is an even better year for him... A full year out of knee surgery/recovery, think he does even better than he did this year...

Ross12 said:

I think he is worth keeping, but at a reduced salary. He started strong but showed signs of decline. I think teams were not expecting him to be "back" so fast and he was able to exploit that - but once they started covering him as a priority he was not able to beat them as routinely.

So he is not really a "WR1" but is still a productive player and IMO good for the room. He is more of a "WR2". Having said that, that role is still paid around $20M a year, so the pay is somewhat in line but he is aging out.

If I am the team, I am talking to him about adding a year or two to let him finish his career in NE and bringing the annual salary down and giving him a bit more guaranteed money. If he is not willing to do so, they will have to decide if he is worth the price or if they would rather cut him and let him test his market and then talk again.

Another option would be restructuring and paying his high 2026 salary as a signing bonus while adding a couple of void years. This would cut the 2026 and 2027 cap hits down but add dead money in 2028.

Click to expand...

I understand your position but let's face it, babies and personal chefs that don't take "you're fired" as a menu choice are somewhat costly.

I'd keep him unless we can do better... which I'm not really sure we can do.

DaBruinz said:

The Pats could change $10M into SB and cut $5M off this year's number and cut him after the season.

Click to expand...

I like this solution.

Hugepatsfan said:

No reason to specifically "want" him gone based on how he played last year, but it's a numbers game. Big cap number there that can be saved if he's moved. There's always options to structure his deal to borrow cap from future years to pay him now, but does that make sense for him? Based on how his play tailed off and his age I'm not really sure I'd borrow money from future years to keep him. If they're aggressive in managing the cap like that, I think I'd still like to put those future year dollars they're borrowing towards some younger player.

I'm sure from his standpoint he'd probably prefer some security over going year to year the way his deal is kind of set up. Best case scenario for both sides might be a release before guarantees kick in and then continue talking while he can gauge his market from other teams (I imagine less than the cash payout he has on his 2 years left) an the team can gauge what their younger options are.

Click to expand...

He talked to other teams last year, and while I am sure his market was impacted by coming back from ACL surgery, I can't imagine the dollar figures have gone up a lot after a year where his play tailed off as the year progressed.

That's why I proposed offering him an extension of ~2 years in exchange for dropping his annual salary some while also adding more guaranteed money. The extra years lets the guarantees get spread out more, and he gets to have more security knowing he is not going to bounce around like a mercenary so much.

Ross12 said:

He talked to other teams last year, and while I am sure his market was impacted by coming back from ACL surgery, I can't imagine the dollar figures have gone up a lot after a year where his play tailed off as the year progressed.

That's why I proposed offering him an extension of ~2 years in exchange for dropping his annual salary some while also adding more guaranteed money. The extra years lets the guarantees get spread out more, and he gets to have more security knowing he is not going to bounce around like a mercenary so much.

Click to expand...

The questions I have for this approach are...

Is 33 year old Diggs someone you want to commit to for multiple years?

If he's not, is he a good enough player right now and does our team timeline/situation make sense for us to borrow money from future caps to keep him now?

IMO, I think I'd just like to see the $20.8M we can save from cutting him with a post June 1st designation put towards younger players. With all of the older players we signed last year (Diggs, Spillane, Davis, Bradbury, Moses, Landry) I'm looking to, ideally, move on from them as soon as the dead money charges in their deals are no longer prohibitive and replace them with younger FAs. Obviously have to assess against what's available to you though. For most of those guys, next year is when the contracts hit that point but Diggs' was structured where it's not dead money prohibitive to move on this year.

Young, better, cheaper?

I like him if the above cannot be accomplished.

Pay cut or get the Lawyer Milloy treatment. It seems some of you didn't watch Diggs in Minnesota or even Buffalo compared to now.

Diggs has slowed down significantly, can't play the outside, contracted the Jakobi Meyers disease where man coverage is his kryptonite and is restricted to the slot where he catches a short pass and is immediately tackled. He's 32 coming off an ACL tear. The clock isn't going to go backwards for him. It was controversial when BB was firm on Welker's price which ranked way lower than where Diggs is at, yet some of you are okay with it paying a lessor player? BB was spot on and Welker was going towards the cliff.

His stats don't tell the full story where he racked up most of his yards in just a few games at Buffalo, at Baltimore, Carolina in a blowout and 20% of his total yards vs the Jets. He was good for two wins in 2025: Buffalo and Baltimore. Aside from that, he had so many no shows throughout the season and in the playoffs. Very disappointing. No thanks on the $26.5M cap number as it's not a very good use of money. Too many WR's and players in general are overpaid.

His cap savings is $20M post June 1st designation and dead cap is $5.7M for 2026. This is the Pats out. Take it! Apply the money towards the OL. I would absolutely shocked if nothing happens.

He’s gonna be 33. A lot depends on what their plans are at WR. If they are looking at FA or trade for an established younger WR, then he’s likely gone, or gonna have to rework his salary. If they don’t make a move via trade or FA, bring him back for 1 more year and draft a WR in the first few rounds.

Diggs is in an interesting point. He'd EAT as a WR2 with someone else taking coverage off of him. But he's gonna be similar to an Edelman when injuries would cause receiving options to be scarce and he'd be the only threat on the field, effectively getting shut out.

I'd really like to see us give him a complimentary receiver that takes the load off his shoulders and load off his contract.

This is also one of those fork-in-the-road moments for him. Diggs enjoyed the spoils of this team all year but saw his unit lay an egg in the final game. These are typically the conditions where Diggs gets impatient, and also his personal life is with a thicket of strife right now.

But, again, if he is still as cool as he has been this year, another year removed from injury, and takes on a slight restructuring while we find someone who can take the load off him, that's the most ideal.

Of course, that's a lot of "if" - and also means little if we do nothing to address the OL problems.

Hugepatsfan said:

... With all of the older players we signed last year (Diggs, Spillane, Davis, Bradbury, Moses, Landry) I'm looking to, ideally, move on from them as soon as the dead money charges in their deals are no longer prohibitive and replace them with younger FAs. Obviously have to assess against what's available to you though. For most of those guys, next year is when the contracts hit that point but Diggs' was structured where it's not dead money prohibitive to move on this year.

Click to expand...

It’s okay to have some older players on the roster. In fact it’s inevitable. And it’s not just about clearing them out as soon as dead money is no longer prohibitively expensive.

Young FAs that are good are not cheap. And they get older and more expensive once you sign them.

There’s good reason why hitting draft picks is the preferred way to build a talented team. But even good rookies take some time to develop. And as they do they get expensive too.

Team needs to balance value, that’s productivity and cost, along with age. Just because they’re older doesn’t make players bad values. Dumping good players just because of their age doesn’t seem like a good idea if they’re still productive. If they’re too expensive for the productivity they provide contract adjustments may be best.

I’m not enthusiastic about relying too heavily on dumping veterans that leave dead cap on the books just because they’re older, in order to sign younger, high priced FAs.

I’d rather see a layered approach to roster building, with rookie prospects drafted to replace aging players in a year or two, after they learn and develop behind the veterans.

I’m hopeful that’s what we did drafting Wilson to develop and replace Bradbury, and Bryant to develop and replace Moses. Problem is that too many observers immediately forget about the youngsters in our development pipeline and focus exclusively on FAs and the draft. I realize free agency and the draft generate all the clicks, but that distorts the picture and is about clicks for the mediots not what’s best for team building.

Hugepatsfan said:

The questions I have for this approach are...

Is 33 year old Diggs someone you want to commit to for multiple years?

If he's not, is he a good enough player right now and does our team timeline/situation make sense for us to borrow money from future caps to keep him now?

IMO, I think I'd just like to see the $20.8M we can save from cutting him with a post June 1st designation put towards younger players. With all of the older players we signed last year (Diggs, Spillane, Davis, Bradbury, Moses, Landry) I'm looking to, ideally, move on from them as soon as the dead money charges in their deals are no longer prohibitive and replace them with younger FAs. Obviously have to assess against what's available to you though. For most of those guys, next year is when the contracts hit that point but Diggs' was structured where it's not dead money prohibitive to move on this year.

Click to expand...

Diggs doesn't turn 33 until late November. Yes, he is a good enough player right now to keep his contract as is or push a small amount (5M) to 2027 when the Pats have 100M in free cap space available. I'm going to disagree with you that there is a younger option out there that can bring all the intangibles that Diggs does as well as what he does on the field. Those intangibles have value, yet you'd ditch them and bring in someone that would impair the progress of Williams and Boutte.

Spillane turns 31 in December. Davis doesn't turn 30 until the last day of 2026.

Bradbury and Moses were only ever a short-term solutions. Bradbury is as likely to be cut by the draft as he is to be in training camp with the Pats. Moses may or may not retire. But he's on a very cheap deal for a starting RT.

In the grand scheme of things, everyone wants younger better players. With few exceptions, the players signed by the Pats in 2025 were nothing but stop-gaps. Guys to help bridge a rebuild.

Most would agree with the following:
- Improve LG
- Improve OC
- Develop RT
- 1-2 Edge Players
- 4 Down LB who can cover TEs/RBs.
- Free Safety
- Improve FB
- Improve TE Depth behind Henry
- Improve CB Depth behind Gonzo, Davis, M. Jones.

The one area only a very select few think needs to be addressed is WR.

The Pats have players coming back from IR that could address FB and RB Depth.

They have Unknowns in Wallace as an OG and Wilson as an OC, Dippre as a TE.

The other areas needs to addressed in Free Agency and the Draft. That's still a lot of areas despite having 40M and 11 draft picks to play with.

It will depend on the weapons we can get.

DaBruinz said:

Diggs doesn't turn 33 until late November. Yes, he is a good enough player right now to keep his contract as is or push a small amount (5M) to 2027 when the Pats have 100M in free cap space available. I'm going to disagree with you that there is a younger option out there that can bring all the intangibles that Diggs does as well as what he does on the field. Those intangibles have value, yet you'd ditch them and bring in someone that would impair the progress of Williams and Boutte.

Spillane turns 31 in December. Davis doesn't turn 30 until the last day of 2026.

Bradbury and Moses were only ever a short-term solutions. Bradbury is as likely to be cut by the draft as he is to be in training camp with the Pats. Moses may or may not retire. But he's on a very cheap deal for a starting RT.

In the grand scheme of things, everyone wants younger better players. With few exceptions, the players signed by the Pats in 2025 were nothing but stop-gaps. Guys to help bridge a rebuild.

Most would agree with the following:
- Improve LG
- Improve OC
- Develop RT
- 1-2 Edge Players
- 4 Down LB who can cover TEs/RBs.
- Free Safety
- Improve FB
- Improve TE Depth behind Henry
- Improve CB Depth behind Gonzo, Davis, M. Jones.

The one area only a very select few think needs to be addressed is WR.

The Pats have players coming back from IR that could address FB and RB Depth.

They have Unknowns in Wallace as an OG and Wilson as an OC, Dippre as a TE.

The other areas needs to addressed in Free Agency and the Draft. That's still a lot of areas despite having 40M and 11 draft picks to play with.

Click to expand...

I don't really "disagree" with you here. My post was mostly hypothetical. It's hard to comment on one player or one situation without the full picture. If they go super aggressive at a ton of other areas, they might need to cut cap space at WR and Diggs is a casualty. If they really like some other younger WRs they might want to make a switch. There's so much "if this, then that but if not this then switch to that" to an NFL offseason.

All I'm saying is that they have a lot of money tied up in older players from last year's splurge spending. Which is fine, because most of them are good and productive. But I just think they should be on the lookout for younger options if and when they come up. It's good to stock the roster with depth and stop gaps so you don't have to RUSH into those moves, but when players you like come up and if you to reshuffle things then reshuffle.