3 million a year for Sanders

[mgteich]

OK, I apologize to have mischaracterized you former statements about Sanders. You did indeed state that he is was worth his current contract with the expectation that he would be the #3 in 2010. You are certainly one of the few who thinks that it was worth paying $3.6M for his 2009 services with an option for $2.2M in 2010 and $2.8 in 2011. You also expected Belichick to draft a safety with one of our first couple of picks.

Let me address your direct points
1) We have FOUR safeties who are playing well in the roles that they have been asked to play. I don't think either of us have problems with the play of any of them. All are signed through 2010. Two are signed through 2011. One has had a problem with injuries and is signed through 2010. We are currently in GREAT shape at safety for 2009, 2010, and for 2011 at prices that Belichick was happy with when the contracts were signed.

I don't see the concern. We started the season with four players being paid a total of a given amount for 2009, 2010 and 2011. Their total reps are as expected. Their play has been better than expected. It seems that you would be happy with the stability and insurance and depth. Why does it matter who is 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th? Should the amount being allocated to the safety position be reduced because McGowan hasn't been injured? Why?

2. We can discuss players outplaying their rookie contracts at another time. I think Meriweather and Chung are being well compensated. Perhaps they should have signed contracts with fewer guarantees and more incentives. With regard to McGowan, the patriots took the risk and they did with Galloway. The patriots ended up with a great deal. Celebrate the success! Perhaps extend McGowan, undestanding the injury risks (I'm fine with that).

3. Are you suggesting that we will cut Sanders? If we decide to weaken our safety depth, we'll trade him for whatever we can get. Sanders will then be making $2.2M to start for someone else. BTW, what is reasonable value for a player that patriots won't pay the second year of their contract after paying bonus cash?

A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS
You are comparing Lockett with Sanders. I agree that if Sanders is cut or traded, that we will find a player of the quality of Lockett to take his place on the roster. Perhaps in 3 or 4 years he might develop into as good a safety as Sanders.

I agree that if the $1.5M saved by trading Sanders and counting on a scrub is the critical difference in signing a key player, of course Sanders will be gone in a second. I doubt that this would happen, but it could. Also, Sanders could be part of draft day deal that bring us a key draft choice or two. After all, we did that this year.

.
And we have lots of needs elsewhere. As I wrote when we resigned Sanders, "I also think that the ultimate goal is to build the best team possible, not the best rotation at each position." What was cost-effective when Sanders was a #2/3 safety is no longer cost-effective when Sanders is a #4 safety.

I like Sanders. I'd be thrilled to keep Sanders as a #4 safety. The depth is terrific, and the NFL season is one of attrition. The issues as I see it are 3:

1. Is the money current allotted to Sanders' salary too much to be spent on a #4 safety given our other needs, and can it be better used elsewhere? I would guess the answer to this is yes, but the FO needs to decide for itself.
2. Is that money disproportionate to what the safeties ahead of Sanders on the depth chart are making, and is that an issue? It is disproportionate. I'm not sure if that's an issue, or whether it is likely to become one.
3. Would Sanders prefer to go elsewhere if he is likely to be the #4 player on the depth chart, and should BB try to accomodate him given his loyalty as a team player in the past? I don't know the answer to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is yes. BB has been vocal in his support of Sanders, and if he can't give him a role with significant playing time I think that he would consider trading Sanders to accomodate his wishes if the Pats could get reasonable value. But that's just my guess.

I think that the Pats' FO needs to assess these questions and come up with answers, which will determine their offseason strategy with Sanders. I also readily admit that the answers to those questions could change quickly with an injury to any of the 3 guys currently ahead of Sanders on the depth chart.

Again, I have nothing against Sanders and never have been a critic of his. He is what he is, a solid role player. This team above all others knows how valuable those kind of guys can be.

 

[mgteich]

1. I think it very likely that Light will get traded. We have three starting LT's. Light is the one with experience and could be a great ONE year transition. He is only signed through 2010.

2. I don't think that we should trade Sanders. I suspect that if we did, we would get a 3rd or 4th as you say. I also think that we would then use one of our seconds for a safety to develop for 2011. I just don't see how we would be ahead of the game. At best, we would use the same pick we got for a young prospect.

3. I don't think that you will find anyone to take Thomas with his injury history and salary, certainly not for a 2011 second.

Something like the following could happen:

1. Trade Matt Light to a team like KC for an early 2010 3rd round pick. KC needs help in lots of places, including OT. Pioli and Cassel know Light. Picking up an OT of Light's ability at $4M/year under contract through 2012 would allow them to use their first 2 picks on defensive playmakers (for example, Eric Berry at S and a passrushing 3-4 OLB like Sergio Kindle or Jerry Hughes) instead of having to pick on OT in the first 2 rounds. The Pats might be able to pick up someone like DE Corey Wootton or Adrian Clayborn, RB Toby Gerhart, Anthony Dixon, Noel Devine or Dexter McCluster, or a pass rusher like Austen Lane in the early 3rd round.

2. Trade James Sanders to a team needing a safety for a late 3rd/early 4th round pick. There are 7 potential quality safeties coming out (Eric Berry, Taylor Mays, Earl Williams, Morgan Burnett, Chad Jones, Reshad Jones and Nate Allen), but then a big dropoff. Sanders is a young proven guy who can be a starter or quality rotational guy at both SS and FS, and with a reasonable contract. The Pats could trade around with the extra pick, or pick up another guy who falls.

3. Trade Adalius Thomas for a 2011 2nd round pick. Thomas is still a quality starter in this league, and at 31 still with several good years left. The Pats would then have 2 1sts and 2 2nds in 2012, and once again be loaded. All of those extra picks give the Pats tremendous flexibility to move around in the draft.

Just ideas.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

1. I think it very likely that Light will get traded. We have three starting LT's. Light is the one with experience and could be a great ONE year transition. He is only signed through 2010.

2. I don't think that we should trade Sanders. I suspect that if we did, we would get a 3rd or 4th as you say. I also think that we would then use one of our seconds for a safety to develop for 2011. I just don't see how we would be ahead of the game. At best, we would use the same pick we got for a young prospect.

3. I don't think that you will find anyone to take Thomas with his injury history and salary, certainly not for a 2011 second.

Light's situation is murky, Vollmer has played well and would appear to be well on his way to earning that starting job, but Dante has a better view from his seat than I. If Light was superseded at LT, he's still a valuable OL who could be used at either Guard slot - creating further depth at LT and retaining an excellent OL.

I say Guard because Mankins is either an RFA or a UFA, and Neal is a UFA. Mankins can be retained easily if an RFA, or at least he'd return a 1st or better if someone wanted him badly enough. Neal should be retained, but depth needs to be maintained behind him. Light is a reasonable player to factor into this discussion.

I agree, Thomas isn't getting traded, he's here or gone, no trade value to address. His situation revolves around whatever issue stirred things up earlier this season - he at least looked like the Thomas of old against the Jest.

 

[mgteich]

If Mankins is not retained, I can see Light moving to LG. If Vollmer is judged not ready, I could see Light remaining at LT.

I can't see us keeping Light so that he can start at RG or RT. Alos, I don't see keeping him as a backup.

I do agree that Light is an excellent lineman with one year left on his contract. Before the draft, we will know whether he is needed at LT or LG.

I suppose it is also possible that Neal leaves and Mankins moves to RG and Light to LG.

In the end, Mankins in the key.

Light's situation is murky, Vollmer has played well and would appear to be well on his way to earning that starting job, but Dante has a better view from his seat than I. If Light was superseded at LT, he's still a valuable OL who could be used at either Guard slot - creating further depth at LT and retaining an excellent OL.

I say Guard because Mankins is either an RFA or a UFA, and Neal is a UFA. Mankins can be retained easily if an RFA, or at least he'd return a 1st or better if someone wanted him badly enough. Neal should be retained, but depth needs to be maintained behind him. Light is a reasonable player to factor into this discussion.

I agree, Thomas isn't getting traded, he's here or gone, no trade value to address. His situation revolves around whatever issue stirred things up earlier this season - he at least looked like the Thomas of old against the Jest.

 

[mayoclinic]

OK, I apologize to have mischaracterized you former statements about Sanders. You did indeed state that he is was worth his current contract with the expectation that he would be the #3 in 2010. You are certainly one of the few who thinks that it was worth paying $3.6M for his 2009 services with an option for $2.2M in 2010 and $2.8 in 2011. You also expected Belichick to draft a safety with one of our first couple of picks.

Let me address your direct points
1) We have FOUR safeties who are playing well in the roles that they have been asked to play. I don't think either of us have problems with the play of any of them. All are signed through 2010. Two are signed through 2011. One has had a problem with injuries and is signed through 2010. We are currently in GREAT shape at safety for 2009, 2010, and for 2011 at prices that Belichick was happy with when the contracts were signed.

I don't see the concern. We started the season with four players being paid a total of a given amount for 2009, 2010 and 2011. Their total reps are as expected. Their play has been better than expected. It seems that you would be happy with the stability and insurance and depth. Why does it matter who is 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th? Should the amount being allocated to the safety position be reduced because McGowan hasn't been injured? Why?

2. We can discuss players outplaying their rookie contracts at another time. I think Meriweather and Chung are being well compensated. Perhaps they should have signed contracts with fewer guarantees and more incentives. With regard to McGowan, the patriots took the risk and they did with Galloway. The patriots ended up with a great deal. Celebrate the success! Perhaps extend McGowan, undestanding the injury risks (I'm fine with that).

3. Are you suggesting that we will cut Sanders? If we decide to weaken our safety depth, we'll trade him for whatever we can get. Sanders will then be making $2.2M to start for someone else. BTW, what is reasonable value for a player that patriots won't pay the second year of their contract after paying bonus cash?

A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS
You are comparing Lockett with Sanders. I agree that if Sanders is cut or traded, that we will find a player of the quality of Lockett to take his place on the roster. Perhaps in 3 or 4 years he might develop into as good a safety as Sanders.

I agree that if the $1.5M saved by trading Sanders and counting on a scrub is the critical difference in signing a key player, of course Sanders will be gone in a second. I doubt that this would happen, but it could. Also, Sanders could be part of draft day deal that bring us a key draft choice or two. After all, we did that this year.

Apology accepted. Feel free to take a shot at me anytime - you and I agree so much of the time that it's refreshing to have some nice spicy exchanges for a change.

In February we had one DB signed long term - Brandon Meriweather. I thought re-signing Sanders gave us security and flexibility at the position. I thought that we would draft a safety in the first 2 rounds, and that Meriweather, Sanders and the rookie would be our core rotation, with the rookie eventually (not in 2009) supplanting Sanders. I never imagined that (1) we'd pick up someone like McGowan who would supplant Sanders as a starting safety in 2009, and make such a huge impact, or (2) that the rookie that we drafted would leapfrog Sanders on the depth chart this year as well. Those were totally unexpected to me, and have been one of the most pleasant surprises of this year.

I'd be thrilled to keep all of our FAs, including Sanders. I'd be tickled pink to go into 2010 with the same 4 safeties we have this year. I think it would be the deepest safety rotation in the NFL. And I value depth a lot. The NFL season is one of attritition, and the best teams are often defined not by how good their top 22 players are, but how good their next 22 are. BB is perhaps the best coach in history at getting value out of the bottom half of his roster.

But most people feel that, uncapped year or not, it will be impossible or us to keep everyone. And I'd rather keep the players that are making the most impact, that's all. Right now Sanders and Springs are not contributing to the value of their salaries, which were entirely reasonable salaries at the time we signed them given the expectation at the time. McGowan and Bodden are overperforming.

The FO will figure everything out. If they can keep Sanders, fine. I just don't want to lose our impact players in order to keep a role player. Personally, I'd rather trade Sanders if it's necesasry to keep Bodden or to extend McGowan long term, and wouldn't be thrilled to see those guys leave (Bodden after 2009 and McGowan after 2010) and keep Sanders. That's all.

Fortunately the FO is smarter than I am.

 

[patsinthesnow]

For a rb to the above, I like Toby Gerhart from Stanford. He is a power runningback.
Hes projected rounds 2-4.

If you want a speed demon.... then Noel Divine in round 2.