2006 Cap Pages are now up

[pats1]

Miguel - don't forget to boldface Neal's name in the free agency page.

 

[flutie2phelan]

I disagree. The patriots are fine with the cap at $92-$95M. We easily have $10M available after paying for a full 51 man squad, and rookies. An increase to over $100M would help the teams in cap trouble and drive up prices for free agents.

I see your point. That's an eye-opener!

BTW, give me Givens and Neal, first and second, also.

 

[patsfan55]

i think givens is a must

as for neal, i would love to have him back, but if he wants too much, we could always go with hochstein as a cheaper alternative at g

same goes for gorin with ashworth (but i like ashworth much better)

 

[Miguel]

Miguel - don't forget to boldface Neal's name in the free agency page.

Good catch

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I see your point. That's an eye-opener!

BTW, give me Givens and Neal, first and second, also.

Using Miguel's FA page, I rank our UFAs this way:
1. Adam Vinateri, PK (we know how critical kickers are in a competitive league)
2. David Givens, WR (playmaker who makes the WR corp better)
3. Stephen Neal, G (starter)
3. Tom Ashworth, OT (starter)
4. Troy Brown (critical depth) Miguel, you need to add him to the UFA list.
4. Antrell Hawkins, CB (critical depth)
4. Chad Scott, CB (critical depth)
4. Tim Dwight, WR (critical depth)
4. Andre Davis, WR (critical depth)
4. Heath Evans, FB (critical depth)
4. Christian Fauria, TE (critical depth)
5. Matt Chatham, LB (STs, temp depth)
5. Don Davis, LB (STs temp depth)
5. Doug Flutie, QB (STs temp depth)
5. Hank Poteat, CB (STs temp depth)
5. Michael Stone, S (STs temp depth)
5. Ross Tucker, OL (STs temp depth)

 

[PATSNUTme]

Using Miguel's FA page, I rank our UFAs this way:
1. Adam Vinateri, PK (we know how critical kickers are in a competitive league)
2. David Givens, WR (playmaker who makes the WR corp better)
3. Stephen Neal, G (starter)
3. Tom Ashworth, OT (starter)
4. Troy Brown (critical depth) Miguel, you need to add him to the UFA list.
4. Antrell Hawkins, CB (critical depth)
4. Chad Scott, CB (critical depth)
4. Tim Dwight, WR (critical depth)
4. Andre Davis, WR (critical depth)
4. Heath Evans, FB (critical depth)
4. Christian Fauria, TE (critical depth)
5. Matt Chatham, LB (STs, temp depth)
5. Don Davis, LB (STs temp depth)
5. Doug Flutie, QB (STs temp depth)
5. Hank Poteat, CB (STs temp depth)
5. Michael Stone, S (STs temp depth)
5. Ross Tucker, OL (STs temp depth)

Good rankings. Priortity is given to ranks 1-3. Troy is an emotional must sign.

But if we do lose Ashworth or Neal we could replace them in the draft add/or FA. Dante can coach up anyone who is willing.

 

[Miguel]

4. Troy Brown (critical depth) Miguel, you need to add him to the UFA list.

Done. Good catch.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

There's a real contrast of approaches here. At the other extreme, the Eagles (according to your admirer BJ) will have $17m cap room for 52 players signed with no cuts or restructuring!

http://www.geocities.com/eaglescap/FutureCapHits.html

The Eagles seem to play amazing hardball when negotiating contracts with their players (not just TO); no pushing off cap into the future, roster bonus not signing bonus, etc. Perhaps all you get from that is disaffected players (but we had Seymour sit out because he thought he had "outplayed his contract"). Nevertheless -- until this season at least -- the Eagles had put together an excellent roster and were very successful. Now they can go out and sign pretty much whatever top players they fancy this off-season (no one has mentioned them in relation to David Givens, but he'd be a great asset there). We're in a position that, even to maintain a "steady state", we have to cut popular players (Troy last off-season, Willie this coming one). On the other hand, we have managed to sign free agents and no one can argue with the Patriots' success.

Who's smarter, the Eagles or the Patriots?

You can't be serious asking that question.... The Eagles just lost a Superbowl with about $10M rotting on the cap table. Not to mention they signed a known cancer to their roster who literally tore that team apart because he thought that money should be his.

The Pats have plenty of $$$ and can sign anyone they want. This year roster cuts will have more to do with roster spots and how they view the players performance going forward than any financial pinch. And they are starting off in a much better position than the Eagles by simple virtue of the fact we have Brady and they have McNabb. The Eagles are in such shambles $17M may not be more than a bandaid - and that's even assuming Lurie actually spends it.

 

[Mike the Brit]

You can't be serious asking that question.... The Eagles just lost a Superbowl with about $10M rotting on the cap table. Not to mention they signed a known cancer to their roster who literally tore that team apart because he thought that money should be his.

The Pats have plenty of $$$ and can sign anyone they want. This year roster cuts will have more to do with roster spots and how they view the players performance going forward than any financial pinch. And they are starting off in a much better position than the Eagles by simple virtue of the fact we have Brady and they have McNabb. The Eagles are in such shambles $17M may not be more than a bandaid - and that's even assuming Lurie actually spends it.

Well, actually I am serious in asking it -- I'm not asserting that the Eagles' strategy is better, just asking.

You make an excellent point about the Eagles under-spending. According to BJ, they are $6.9m under the cap. You'd have thought they could have signed a decent wide receiver and another running back for that. If I were a player, I'd feel righteously disaffected if my team were spending under the cap. I can understand the argument that, when you're up to the cap, every dollar from one player is a dollar less for someone else. But here it's just a billionaire saving himself money when the franchise is appreciating in value all the time anyway.

I'm less inclined to go with the argument: we won the Superbowl, they didn't, so our policies must be right in every respect. Seems to me that the Pats out-coached the Eagles in the Superbowl. You're right that we have Brady and they have McNabb and that TO is a disruptive influence (this season, note, not last; and I have more sympathy than you for TO given the previous paragraph -- he wouldn't be taking money from his team-mates, at least). But that just shows that the Pats made better personnel choices, not that their policy over cap and contracts is better. (We have a better outcome, but that doesn't show that every relevant factor is superior.)

Do we have plenty of money to sign anyone we want? That isn't the message I get from Miguel's figures -- unless, of course, we backload the contract and risk a Titans-style day of reckoning. Even then, we're going to have to cut Willie, Poole and Starks (thus adding to our dead money).

Thanks for the post, Mo, but I still think it's a serious question.

 

[Gumby]

followup ? to Miguel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike the Brit
I'm not big on converting roster bonuses into signing bonuses -- it's just postponing the pain, isn't it? And if it was such a great idea why didn't we do it in the first place? But maybe that's just me.

Miguel: Mike, you are not the only fan to express the same concern. FWIW, this front office does not share your concern about pushing out bonus money to the future. It has done so each and every year. This year I think that the Pats pushed out close to $8 million. I really wish that the search feature worked.

Miguel (see I can spell ),

IYO how much of this proclivity of the front office to push out bonus money was driven by the cap damage that Pioli inherited from the Carroll administration? And do you see any trend to slow down on that now that any issues they have are of their own making?

IMO I think it should not be a first choice to always push out the bonus money; goal should be to SPREAD OUT THE MONEY. But there is certainly a time and a place for both actions.

 

[Miguel]

Miguel (see I can spell ),

IYO how much of this proclivity of the front office to push out bonus money was driven by the cap damage that Pioli inherited from the Carroll administration? And do you see any trend to slow down on that now that any issues they have are of their own making?

I could buy the argument that the money pushed out in 2000 and 2001 was due to the inherited cap situation. I can't buy the argument now. In 2005 the only contract that affected the Patriots cap and that was pre BB/Pioli was Ty Law's. And part of his cap number came from this front office redoing his deal in 2003. In 2006 100% of the cap will be from deals done by this front office. I know that I posted that the Pats pushed $8 million in 2004. I am pretty sure that the Pats pushed out the same amount this year (Colvin, Brady, Harrison, Vrabel, Dillon, Faulk) So, I do not see the Patriots' trend of pushing out bonus money to the future declining.

 

[mgteich]

There are many measures of cap strategy. Consistency and no huge cap problems is one.

OPTIONS
1) SPEND AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE
That is the Philly strategy. The owner simply chooses to pocket $6M or more every year instead of paying players.

2) SPEND ALL OF THE CAP, WITH LEVEL CONTRACTS
This is what some here have suggested.

3) SPEND ALL THE CAP, WITH A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE PUSHED INTO THE FUTURE
This is the pats strategy. This never catches up with you, since a certian percentage or amount is always in the future. As long as this amount or percentage remains relatively constant, the pats have an effective cap about $8M larger than a team that choosing not to use the credit card. Part of this strategy is to have restructures every year.

4) PUSH AS MUCH INTO THE FUTURE AS POSSIBLE
This the strategy of having one big push for the Super Bowl (1-3 years) and then pay the piper and rebuild. Wash, Tenn and Parcells have tried this strategy.


Under all strategies, try to minimize dead money (money for players gone), and also to make all decisions based on new money to be paid.
============================================

Obviously, I strongly favor Option #3.