Patriots Player Departure Stefon Diggs Cut.

Bill Lee said:

This guy who calls himself Ian wrote an article that I think tells us a lot about how things will turn out:



Younger and cheaper doesn't seem to map onto spending $20M+ for a veteran WR.

Patriots Part Ways With Diggs Ahead of Free Agency, Adds a Key Need at WR | PatsFans.com

Releasing Stefon Diggs, the Patriots address financial and on-field concerns, creating a significant wide receiver need ahead of free agency.

www.patsfans.com

Click to expand...

???
The veteran COULD be younger than Diggs.

RobertWeathers said:

I want Pierce. If he is having this kind of production with the likes of Richardson, Flacco, Jones, and old man Rivers he should kick absolute ass with Drake.

Click to expand...

Pierce was 4 of 12 for 132 yards with Rivers throwing to him. 33% catch rate..

The issue with Pierce is that he goes numerous games without contributing.

2022 - 5 games - 1 catch on 13 targets - Pierce was the #3 receiver in terms of Targets.
2023 - 8 games - 6 catches on 20 targets - Pierce was their #3 receiver in terms of Targets
2024 - 6 games - 4 catches on 20 targets - Pierce was their #3 receiver in terms of Targets.
2025 - 4 games - 3 catches on 11 targets - Pierce was the #3 WR and #4 Receiver in terms of Targets.

I already showed that Daniel Jones had a 69% completion rate to everyone but Pierce in 2025.

When the Colts could have elevated Pierce to be the #2 WR, they chose to add Josh Downs instead.

@KCSVEN - How many of Pierce's receptions have been helped out by defenses respecting Jonathan Taylor in the run game? How many of them were because he was the 3rd WR on the field behind Downs and Pittman and they drew the top coverage?

Do the Pats have the quality run game that Indy has? Do they have the depth at WR that Indy has so that Pierce get's the favorable match-ups?

Bill Lee said:

The good news for him is each new city means new women to impregnate.

Click to expand...

Everyone needs a hobby...

I don't feel bad about it because of the off the field stuff. I felt that we under utilized him quite a bit. He seemed open very often to me and caught basically everything thrown his way.

We need a #1 for Maye to continue playing well and improving.

DaBruinz said:

Pierce was 4 of 12 for 132 yards with Rivers throwing to him. 33% catch rate..

The issue with Pierce is that he goes numerous games without contributing.

2022 - 5 games - 1 catch on 13 targets - Pierce was the #3 receiver in terms of Targets.
2023 - 8 games - 6 catches on 20 targets - Pierce was their #3 receiver in terms of Targets
2024 - 6 games - 4 catches on 20 targets - Pierce was their #3 receiver in terms of Targets.
2025 - 4 games - 3 catches on 11 targets - Pierce was the #3 WR and #4 Receiver in terms of Targets.

I already showed that Daniel Jones had a 69% completion rate to everyone but Pierce in 2025.

When the Colts could have elevated Pierce to be the #2 WR, they chose to add Josh Downs instead.

@KCSVEN - How many of Pierce's receptions have been helped out by defenses respecting Jonathan Taylor in the run game? How many of them were because he was the 3rd WR on the field behind Downs and Pittman and they drew the top coverage?

Do the Pats have the quality run game that Indy has? Do they have the depth at WR that Indy has so that Pierce get's the favorable match-ups?

Click to expand...

Indy's QBs suck.

ahmed said:

I don't feel bad about it because of the off the field stuff. I felt that we under utilized him quite a bit. He seemed open very often to me and caught basically everything thrown his way.

Click to expand...

IMO, Maye utilized Diggs as much as he was able to.

We can continue to argue whether that limit was primarily caused by Josh, Maye, Diggs or the OL. If Maye and the Ol improve their play, any of the WR additions will likely produce more that Diggs did last year.

Family said:

That doesn't matter. Describe how it does. Taxed at a higher rate how?

The one thing I'm not sure of is the player might pay a small amount more because you are taxed in the state the game is played in. Since MA has a higher tax rate than most, you could probably make that argument.

But if that's the issue it's a tiny amount. They could work around that.

Click to expand...

Yes, how they do the restructure does matter.

Federally, any bonus over $1M is taxed at 37% instead of 22%. It would also be hit with the 4% surtax in Massachusetts. I think being hit with an additional 19% in taxes isn't a "tiny amount".

DaBruinz said:

Yes, how they do the restructure does matter.

Federally, any bonus over $1M is taxed at 37% instead of 22%. It would also be hit with the 4% surtax in Massachusetts. I think being hit with an additional 19% in taxes isn't a "tiny amount".

Click to expand...

I believe you are mixing recommended tax withheld rather than tax actually owed. The actual tax OWED federal and state are still the same.

He would be taxed at the 4% Massachusetts surcharge no matter when he received the money because he makes over a million.

Are there any accountants to verify this?

RobertWeathers said:

I want Pierce. If he is having this kind of production with the likes of Richardson, Flacco, Jones, and old man Rivers he should kick absolute ass with Drake.

Click to expand...

I was initially opposed, but some here have made really good arguments in favor of signing him. And if they are going to give one of these receivers big money then I want Pierce as well, because he's 26, fits their need, and it costs no draft capital.

RobertWeathers said:

Indy's QBs suck.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that completing over 69% of your passes means you suck as a QB. Guess Tom Brady sucked for all those years because he never completed 69% of his passes..

DaBruinz said:

The "restructure" we're talking about is changing Salary to signing bonus. That moves it from "earned income" to "unearned income" and it's taxed at a higher rate.

While it's just an "accounting action" from the Salary Cap standpoint that allows teams to amortize the "signing bonus" over a period of time, it has definite tax implications.

Contrary to Rainmaker, the CBA removed the clause from the standard contract that players could refuse the "restructure". Two teams kept the clause in their contracts. One of the two was the Patriots under Belichick. However, I don't know if that is still the case.

@Miguel - Do you now if the Pats still have the clause in their contracts that allow players to refuse the conversion of Salary to Signing bonus? Or was that changed with Belichick leaving?

Click to expand...

Family said:

That doesn't matter. Describe how it does. Taxed at a higher rate how?

The one thing I'm not sure of is the player might pay a small amount more because you are taxed in the state the game is played in. Since MA has a higher tax rate than most, you could probably make that argument.

But if that's the issue it's a tiny amount. They could work around that.

Click to expand...

Tax attorneys and CPAs get paid a lot of money to handle this issue, it’s not as black and white as it’s being made out here. At a high level:

- signing bonuses are often considered as income in the state of residency because its receipt has nothing to do with actual work being performed there. This is a reason why many athletes will maintain a home in Florida but rent in Massachusetts. For such an athlete, converting from salary to a signing bonus would be a *good* thing for taxes.

- Many signing bonuses still get deferred in practice, precisely to minimize taxation.

Here’s an article by a couple of partners at a tax law firm.

DaBruinz said:

It used to be a part of the CBA that teams had to get approval from the players to do it. That clause was removed 2 negotiations ago. As of the last negotiation, only 2 teams were still putting it in. The Pats were one of those teams.. I don't know if that has changed with Belichick's departure.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what part of the CBA you're referring to here. Going back to 1998, the standard contract contains no provision allowing automatic conversion of salary after the contract is signed, so it's something both sides have to affirmatively agree upon. [And right now it's banned in rookie contracts.]

DaBruinz said:

I didn't realize that completing over 69% of your passes means you suck as a QB. Guess Tom Brady sucked for all those years because he never completed 69% of his passes..

Click to expand...

If you don't score points and don't make plays it does.

Mac Jones completed 69% of his passes. I think we can agree he sucks.

DaBruinz said:

Yes, how they do the restructure does matter.

Federally, any bonus over $1M is taxed at 37% instead of 22%. It would also be hit with the 4% surtax in Massachusetts. I think being hit with an additional 19% in taxes isn't a "tiny amount".

Click to expand...

Also I don't think they even give a bonus in a restructure. A bonus is a new contract. A restructure is just more guaranteed money to get this years cap down, which guarantees Diggs more money in the future.

Somebody like Stephon Gilmore or Gronk might have objected because they out played their contract, so wanted out. Diggs didn't want out.

DaBruinz said:

You're forgetting the Tax Implication. If it's changed to a bonus, it get's taxed differently. Especially in places like CA and MA.

Click to expand...

Bonuses have taxes withheld differently, but they're still taxed the same as wages.

Family said:

Also I don't think they even give a bonus in a restructure. A bonus is a new contract. A restructure is just more guaranteed money to get this years cap down, which guarantees Diggs more money in the future.

Somebody like Stephon Gilmore or Gronk might have objected because they out played their contract, so wanted out. Diggs didn't want out.

Click to expand...

That is NOT my understanding. You might check with the services that estimate the effect of restructure on their cap tables.

all but vet minimum is converted to a signing bonus, and all other parts of the contract remain the same. For the player, all that happens is that he gets his salary earlier in the year. His total compensation and that in future years is the same.

ctpatsfan77 said:

I'm not

I have no idea what part of the CBA you're referring to here. Going back to 1998, the standard contract contains no provision allowing automatic conversion of salary after the fact, so it's something both sides have to affirmatively agree upon. [And right now it's banned in rookie contracts.]

Click to expand...

You're mis-reading what I'm stating. I did not state that the automatic conversion was in the contract. On the contrary. I stated that the clause requiring teams to get player approval for the Salary Cap to Signing Bonus conversion was a standard part of the contracts up until 2011 CBA negotiations. It was then that I believe the approval clause was removed from the standard contracts. However, I also stated that some teams had KEPT the Approval clause in their new contracts and that the Patriots were one of the last teams to keep doing it. For contracts w/o the approval clause, teams can do the conversion without player approval.

You mentioning it not being allowed for rookie contracts has no bearing on the conversation since we're talking about Diggs Contract.

mgteich said:

That is NOT my understanding. You might check with the services that estimate the effect of restructure on their cap tables.

all but vet minimum is converted to a signing bonus, and all other parts of the contract remain the same. For the player, all that happens is that he gets his salary earlier in the year. His total compensation and that in future years is the same.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said.

Before the guarantee the team could cut him during camp. I know the March bonus made that more difficult, but there still would have been a savings of about 14 million.

I never said Diggs compensation would be more. I said that Diggs was guaranteed more money in the future, which is true because there was risk of him never getting it.

DaBruinz said:

Pierce was 4 of 12 for 132 yards with Rivers throwing to him. 33% catch rate..

The issue with Pierce is that he goes numerous games without contributing.

2022 - 5 games - 1 catch on 13 targets - Pierce was the #3 receiver in terms of Targets.
2023 - 8 games - 6 catches on 20 targets - Pierce was their #3 receiver in terms of Targets
2024 - 6 games - 4 catches on 20 targets - Pierce was their #3 receiver in terms of Targets.
2025 - 4 games - 3 catches on 11 targets - Pierce was the #3 WR and #4 Receiver in terms of Targets.

I already showed that Daniel Jones had a 69% completion rate to everyone but Pierce in 2025.

When the Colts could have elevated Pierce to be the #2 WR, they chose to add Josh Downs instead.

@KCSVEN - How many of Pierce's receptions have been helped out by defenses respecting Jonathan Taylor in the run game? How many of them were because he was the 3rd WR on the field behind Downs and Pittman and they drew the top coverage?

Do the Pats have the quality run game that Indy has? Do they have the depth at WR that Indy has so that Pierce get's the favorable match-ups?

Click to expand...

Pierce averaged over 20 yard per reception 2 years in a row. I think his stats were hurt by being on field with Downs, Pittman and the fact they wanted to run the ball. They did not use him in a position to be a volume receiver.

QB's were bad: There were many plays the throws were just so bad that the targets to catches is very misleading. I think the Jaguars game he had 5 targets and zero catches. Wasn't a bad game by him. I believe one play he got behind the defense by 10 yards and the pass was underthrown by 10 yards and knocked down by defender.
Against Denver, I believe, there were 4 plays he had a chance at a long play or long TD and the QB made a bad throw or did not throw to him.

Pierce is a risk because he has improved so much from year 1 to year 4 based on work ethic not elite skills and he has not been asked to carry the load as #1. Reading Colts fans take the end of the year many were calling him the #1 receiver, and they were upset the Colts were not treating him like that and getting him the ball more. Wasn't their offense to do that though.

I see almost ZERO chance you regret the contract; I do see a chance he's not quite the level you were hoping. But also a CHANCE he gets 100 receptions and 1500 yards with 10 TD's regularly with Maye.

To me he's a calculated risk to get a solid to good #1 receiver in his prime. I just see the odds better doing that than the alternatives.

I will also say many teams he would not be a good fit for a 1 WR. The fact he'd be pared with Maye and they suit each other perfectly makes him worth it. The fact many teams would not be a good fit opens it up for the Pats to get him as well.

RobertWeathers said:

If you don't score points and don't make plays it does.

Mac Jones completed 69% of his passes. I think we can agree he sucks.

Click to expand...

I think we can all agree that QBs can't do it on their own.