3 million a year for Sanders

[BradyFTW!]

Chung is already playing more his rookie year than Meriweather did, so where might he be in 2010? Sanders may be one injury away from starting this season, but that doesn't set the policy for 2010 after they've had time to find another McGowan in free agency at a better price.

You make it sound like "finding another McGowan" is something that can be reliably done. If it was, then it wouldn't have taken us so long to find him. BTW, it's not like McGowan just fell out of nowhere and landed in our starting lineup. He was starting last year for the Bears before he got hurt. It's rare to have a known starter-caliber young player fall into your lap like that.

As for why Chung is playing more as a rookie than Meriweather did, that would be because Meriweather was playing behind Harrison, and likely because Chung is an exceptionally smart guy who picked up the defense very quickly. Drawing a straight line from rookie PT for players in different years at different positions to their respective long-term potential just doesn't make much sense.

 

[mayoclinic]

Sanders is here for this season, 'nuf said there.

Looking ahead - 2010 salaries:
-- Sanders salary is $2.3M.
-- Chung is $480K.
-- Meriweather is $550K.
-- McGowan is $730K.

At that figure Sanders is getting paid as starter, which he's capable of being, but he's become superfluous by virtue of McGowan's development and how fast Chung is coming on. I'm not talking cap hit since it won't be a factor, Sanders salary is out of line with what the three Safeties playing ahead of him are making. That will change:
-- Trade: A team who might be looking for a starter to help manage a secondary would accept the salaries James is scheduled to make.
-- Restructure: If James wants to stay in NE and is willing to take a lower salary, then restructure him - I offer vet minimum, guaranteed for 2010 and 2011 if I seriously want to keep him - a little sugar with the tonic.
-- Cut: Good Luck, you probably won't make the same money, but you can shop yourself to teams you like.

Replacing James is then relatively easy through the draft or free agency.

I like Sanders, if he was starting now I'd have no kick, but BB found two faster guys who have proven better able to handle the speedy receiving TEs and the bigger WRs - it's a business decision made easier by the way they structured his contract. Such is life.

I agree. I like Sanders. I'd be happy to keep him. My only question is whether $2.3M is worth spending on a #4 safety, which is the most Sanders would be in 2010, given our other needs.

Leigh Bodden currently makes $2.25M. Shawn Springs makes $1.75M (not including his bonus). James Sanders is due to make $2.3M next season. That works out to about $6.3M, which should be in the ballpark of a reasonable offer for Bodden. I don't think Bodden will make Asante Samuel money, but the going rate for a decent CB right now seems to be in the $6-8M/year range. Dominique Foxworth got $28M over 4 years, Jabari Greer $23M over 4 years. I think that is somewhere around the range that will keep Bodden with the Patriots. In addition, Lockett and Arrington have both shown glimpses that they can fill in nicely for depth, at a fraction of the cost of Springs and Sanders.

I agree with your options. I think the more likely one is to trade Sanders, who should bring some value in return as he is a borderline starting safety who can play both SS and FS, is still young, and has a reasonable contract. Sanders would probably prefer playing time to sitting on the pine with the Patriots. I don't see Sanders restructuring for the vet minimum, so unless the Pats are willing to keep him at $2.3M or can trade him, I think a cut is likely.

 

[Spiral]

I love this whole discussion. Just listen to what we're saying.

We just had a draft that was very good, if not great. As a result, there are some still-productive veterans who are going to get pushed off the roster next year. To see how un-green the grass is on the other side, go over to Gang Green or Jets Insider and read about all the holes the Jets need to fill. Hopefully, we'll be having the same discussion next year, after four picks in the first two rounds of the 2010 draft. With any luck, this thread becomes a sticky.

 

[mayoclinic]

I love this whole discussion. Just listen to what we're saying.

We just had a draft that was very good, if not great. As a result, there are some still-productive veterans who are going to get pushed off the roster next year. To see how un-green the grass is on the other side, go over to Gang Green or Jets Insider and read about all the holes the Jets need to fill. Hopefully, we'll be having the same discussion next year, after four picks in the first two rounds of the 2010 draft. With any luck, this thread becomes a sticky.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

I don't think you could get a high 3rd for Light due to his age, and I'm confident that you couldn't get a 2nd for Thomas after the benching. Sanders would be a serviceable option for teams who need a lot of help and could use him as a dependable, but not stellar, captain of the secondary. Kansas City would actually make a lot of sense given Mike Brown's loss of range.

 

[Boots Electric]

I love this whole discussion. Just listen to what we're saying.

We just had a draft that was very good, if not great. As a result, there are some still-productive veterans who are going to get pushed off the roster next year. To see how un-green the grass is on the other side, go over to Gang Green or Jets Insider and read about all the holes the Jets need to fill. Hopefully, we'll be having the same discussion next year, after four picks in the first two rounds of the 2010 draft. With any luck, this thread becomes a sticky.

I said it during this past years draft, they gave up way too much to get Sanchez. They should have kept their picks and they could have already solved their #2 CB, OL, OLB, DT, or WR problems. Like I said in another thread, now they have no one really worth any trade value outside of Revis and Washington.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Sorry, but that isn't what you said originally. You said that BB "knew for some time that Seymour was on his way out".. .

I'm convinced that about a year ago (or more), BB saw that the road with Seymour was not going to end with an extension that made sense for the team. Thus decided to keep Green and not put the screws to him. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.

It's amazing how you just throw sh!t at the wall to see what sticks. I can guarantee that I have an excellent idea of what Faulk's value is. I said that I deal in reality. And clearly you missed the whole point of my mentioning Faulk. Which was to provide an example where BB paid a highly valuable back-up extremely well. Which is why I believe that he won't be cutting Sanders or asking him to re-structure..

Not sure what I'm trying to throw and make stick. IMO Faulk is not a "true" backup. He has a major role in the offense as 50 catches last year and the same pace this year would indicate.

I saw your post. It doesn't change what I said. What don't you comprehend that the CAP is NOT important for next year because there is no cap? And even if there was, the Pats have over 40 Million in free cap space with 39 players signed..

Certainly a 2010 cap is looking like a pipe dream. But theoretically a 2011 cap MAY go down (as Jonathan Kraft said on Felger) thus meaning space in 2011 may be more precious. We'll just have to disagree on this one as I think the Kraft's and BBs value cash outlay=performance and value big-time.

As I pointed out with Faulk, BB is fully willing to outlay money for a quality player like Sanders or Green. .

Only if the are part of a rotation/ package and making plays on a regular basis. Right now, Sanders is not making plays b/c he isn't even seeing the field. They kept Green because of lack of quality depth on the line, Seymour, and that he was part of the d-line rotation.

I didn't ignore anything. What two facts? Gee. I don't know. The fact that there is no cap next year. The fact that Sanders is 26 and is a average starting-capable safety. Not to mention that Sanders isn't "4th String" since there are two different safety positions that Sanders is capable of playing. .

I'll concede that Sanders is the #3 choice at SS and FS respectfully. Don;t get me wrong. I like Sanders and never bashed him in any thread on this board.

McGinest was not a "Front-Line" player when the Pats cut him. He was part of the OLB rotation, but not a starter anymore. .

He actually did start 52 of his final 62 games, but I agree that he was a very important part of a rotation as his 36 or so sacks in 5 years demonstrate. He wanted big money and at 34 years old, wasn't going to get it.

Law was cut because he was coming back from an injury AND his salary was out of whack. .

See Willie Mac.

Yes, and even though he's gone, the Pats still had to pay his entire salary (cash outlay) and signing bonus. I would have thought that you'd have caught that since you were so insistent that people listen to you on it... .

This year, sure. Not next year on Galloway. There is a cap hit no question. The fact that there were players ahead of him on STs didn't help him.

My nose is not out of joint. This is a good discussion. .

No hard feelings here. Good covo.

Simply put, the Pats have no reason to cut him or restructure his contract. As I've been saying in this thread from the get go.

Restructure, cut or trade now?- of course not. We'll just have to see how the financials, FA period, draft and training camps play out..

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't think you could get a high 3rd for Light due to his age, and I'm confident that you couldn't get a 2nd for Thomas after the benching. Sanders would be a serviceable option for teams who need a lot of help and could use him as a dependable, but not stellar, captain of the secondary. Kansas City would actually make a lot of sense given Mike Brown's loss of range.

Not so sure. I think if you're talking a 2011 2nd it's possible. Not a 2010 2nd. Atlanta traded a 2010 2nd for 33 year old Tony Gonzalez a year ago. I could see Dimitroff doing something like that, as he knows AD and the Falcons need LB and pass rushing help. Benched temporarily or not, Thomas is a quality player, and I think you can get some value for him. It will obviously depend on how he plays the rest of the season.

As for Matt Light, it again depends on need. What OT drafted at the beginning of the 3rd round could be expected to step in and start at LT day 1? Plus the Chiefs seem to value mixing veteran leadership with youth, and having someone with Light's experience might be considered a plus.

KC could be an option for Sanders, though I see Denver as a more likely landing place. Dawkins is 36 and Renaldo Hill is 31. They just have rookies (David Bruton and Darcel McBath) behind them. Sanders would give them starting caliber depth, experience while still young, and SS/FS versatility at a reasonable contract. Plus McDaniels likes taking Pats players that he knows. Also, if KC can address their OT need outside of the draft it would leave them in position to possibly take Eric Berry, who would really provide them with a defensive playmaker.

 

[maverick4]

I love this whole discussion. Just listen to what we're saying.

We just had a draft that was very good, if not great. As a result, there are some still-productive veterans who are going to get pushed off the roster next year. To see how un-green the grass is on the other side, go over to Gang Green or Jets Insider and read about all the holes the Jets need to fill. Hopefully, we'll be having the same discussion next year, after four picks in the first two rounds of the 2010 draft. With any luck, this thread becomes a sticky.

Best post of this thread.

The fact this is even a point of discussion, is a GREAT reflection of just how ridiculously good this year's draft (and free agency) was.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Best post of this thread.

The fact this is even a point of discussion, is a GREAT reflection of just how ridiculously good this year's draft (and free agency) was.

Agreed 100%. Chung doesn't come on or McGowen doesn't emerge we don't even have this silly thread!

 

[patsfan55]

hindsight is great isnt it?

You have to admit, there have always been quite a few Sanders bashers (yours truly included).

Frankly, the guy doesn't know what an angle of pursuit is.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You have to admit, there have always been quite a few Sanders bashers (yours truly included).

Frankly, the guy doesn't know what an angle of pursuit is.

Hes improved since two years ago on that. Hes solid. Hes just not a game changer..

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Sure, just get another McGowan at a better price! Perhaps you well end up with a McGowan or perhaps someone like Galloway. It is only only the fans that have disrespected the value of Sanders to this team.

Sure Chung could end up being as good as Meriweather. That is no reason to throw away a starting quality defensive back.

In the end, this matters little. Belichick likes having backup safeties who can play special teams more than players at any other position on the field. And $2.1M is NOT too much for Belichick to pay for a top special teamer , a starting quality safety, and a backup at four posiitons (SS, FS, dime and nickel).

BTW, if there is someone who would want the patriots to cut Sanders, it is Sanders' agent. Sanders could probably find a team that will pay him the same money with a new signing bonus.

You make it sound like "finding another McGowan" is something that can be reliably done. If it was, then it wouldn't have taken us so long to find him. BTW, it's not like McGowan just fell out of nowhere and landed in our starting lineup. He was starting last year for the Bears before he got hurt. It's rare to have a known starter-caliber young player fall into your lap like that.

As for why Chung is playing more as a rookie than Meriweather did, that would be because Meriweather was playing behind Harrison, and likely because Chung is an exceptionally smart guy who picked up the defense very quickly. Drawing a straight line from rookie PT for players in different years at different positions to their respective long-term potential just doesn't make much sense.

Excuse me! Gentlebeings, you are both the starting Safeties for the NE Patriots making $550K and $730K in salary. The former starter whom you've displaced is cruising along on Special Teams pulling down $2.3M - and you're cool?

If you added up all the bonuses and salaries Meriweather has earned or will earn in four years you are looking at the equivalent of $730K or so/year as a three year starter. McGowan works out to a more realistic starter package of $1.5M. Sanders isn't a rookie first rounder developing behind a couple vets, he's the "old man" in the secondary who helped these guys get where they are. I assume he's been unselfish because that's the kid Rodney talks about, he's paid his dues, done his job, got paid a nice chunk of change to re-sign, but has been passed on the depth chart. If you keep him there's a compensation issue developing in the locker room, if you release/trade him there's a roster spot that needs to be filled, if you revisit his contract and work out a deal both sides can live with, it may be moot - but you don't sit still clutching Sanders like he's a life ring when you're drowning.

Filling a roster spot carries the same risks it always has, why be frightened? The draft will provide some low cost options for Special teams and reserve Safety development, Free Agency provides CBs and Ss who can fill the bill at Safety - the pool isn't that shallow.

Loyalty to Sanders who has shown loyalty to the team is more than cash, it's also a chance to win a starter's slot elsewhere as much as you'd like to keep him. It's two-way street time, show your current starters some loyalty by keeping the pay scale equitable from top to bottom, and show your former starter some loyalty by giving him the chance he can no longer get here - if you get an extra draft pick out of it so much the better. This is the Cassel deal in new clothing - take the pick, let the kid have his chance where he's got a shot to play, and don't be a damned Al Davis "I own you" manager.

And if either of you can come up with a post where I denigrated Sanders' contribution to this team please, rub my nose in it. Looking for that needle in the haystack might keep you out of trouble for a few weeks. :singing:

 

[mayoclinic]

Nice post, Box.

 

[mgteich]

I guess you and box agree that because Meriweather is outplaying his rookie contract of OVER 2.1M a year, Sanders should be cut after the season. The fact that the contract also includes another $1.1M of easily achieved incentives (per Miguel) and another couple of million of potential bonus shouldn't affect your analysis any.

As for McGowan, I guess he shouldn't have signed his contract with so ferw incentives. Perhaps he should have negotiated for much less in salary and much more in incentives.

Sanders signed a contract THIS YEAR. belichick also spent the #35 pick on a safety and picked up a free agent. Your argument and that of box seems to be that Belichick did so well with choosing Chung and McGowan that he should cut Sanders and reduce our depth at safety. We can then have Lockett as the #4 and you all can feel much better about the fairness of how we pay players.

I obviously strongly disagree with this approach.

I think that you might just be more upfront with your real position that you have never liked the play of Sanders and wer shocked when Bleichick disagreed and paid him so much to play this year ($3.7M).

Nice post, Box.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Do the Chiefs NEED a LT when they have Brandon Albert there? Word is they love him at that position. That means Light would be at RT. However, can Light be an effective RT. That has been one of the major questions on this board for ages now.

Also, I question whether or not the Chiefs NEED an OT. They currently have 6 on their roster. Of which, only ONE of them has more than 4 years experience... What the Chiefs need is their OTs to stay healthy..

As for the Pats, did you forget that the Pats have 3 2nd round picks? Why couldn't they pick up any of the guys you mentioned in the Late 2nd round, much like they did with Vollmer?

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.

The Pats added 12 draft picks last year.. They also have another 8 (5 in the first 3 rounds) this year and probably 2-4 compensatory picks as well. So they could be looking at 10-12 picks before all your trading for extra picks.

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.

It's highly unlikely that the Pats will find someone to take Thomas, especially for a 2nd round pick even in 2011. Also, its unlikely that the Pats will keep all of their current picks, especially with as many young players as they have on the team currently.. It's much more likely that they will trade some of what they currently have into 2011 and beyond rather than add another dozen picks in 2010 and another 8-10 picks in 2011.

 

[mayoclinic]

I guess you and box agree that because Meriweather is outplaying his rookie contract of OVER 2.1M a year, Sanders should be cut after the season. The fact that the contract also includes another $1.1M of easily achieved incentives (per Miguel) and another couple of million of potential bonus shouldn't affect your analysis any.

As for McGowan, I guess he shouldn't have signed his contract with so ferw incentives. Perhaps he should have negotiated for much less in salary and much more in incentives.

Sanders signed a contract THIS YEAR. belichick also spent the #35 pick on a safety and picked up a free agent. Your argument and that of box seems to be that Belichick did so well with choosing Chung and McGowan that he should cut Sanders and reduce our depth at safety. We can then have Lockett as the #4 and you all can feel much better about the fairness of how we pay players.

I obviously strongly disagree with this approach.

I think that you might just be more upfront with your real position that you have never liked the play of Sanders and wer shocked when Bleichick disagreed and paid him so much to play this year ($3.7M).

I challenge you to find one post where I have ever denigrated Sanders, or suggested that re-signing him was not a good move.

When the Sanders extension was initially reported, I wrote this:

"Great move. I'm really pleased with this. I think it says a lot that Sanders could have gotten more money elsewhere, but chose to stay with the Pats. Whatever his shortcomings, he is a team player. He also offers good versatility at both FS and SS. What Sanders gives us is an adequate starter next to Meriweather, and a really strong 3rd safety in a 3-man rotation. I believe the 'upgrade' that many people want will come in the first 47 picks of the draft, in the form of Sean Smith, Louis Delmas, Patrick Chung or William Moore. Any of those would be an upgrade over Sanders at starting S, and would make a great rotation along with Meriweather and Sanders. I also think that the ultimate goal is to build the best team possible, not the best rotation at each position. The fact is there is only so much cap room to go around, and at $3M/year Sanders is reasonably priced. Meriweather's contract is very reasonable, and a 2nd round rookie contract will not be too exorbitant, so we should be able to have a solid 3 man rotation for not much more than Denver could end up paying to 35 year old Brian Dawkins (5 years at $27M if he meets all the escalators, though this isn't too likely)."

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...10/220275-reiss-james-sanders-re-signed.html (See post #52.)

I've never seen Sanders as an ideal starter, but I've always valued him as a role player and a valuable team player. A few weeks after his resigning I wrote: "Sanders is a nice team player and a leader. I don't see him as an ideal starting safety, but as a rotational guy who can play both SS and FS he has terrific value. He seems to have nice leadership qualities, too."

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/226724-bb-james-sanders.html (See post #7.)

I thought when we re-signed Sanders that he would be our likely starter for 2009, that we would draft a day 1 safety, and that at some point Sanders would become the #3 guy. I thought he was a quality re-signing in those roles, and that the money was extremely reasonable for the roles he would be expected to play.

But things have changed. McGowan has emerged as a force, Chung has come on quickly, and Sanders is now the #4 guy on the rotation, and that is not likely to change barring injury. Also we've picked up a guy very cheaply in Lockett who could become a decent #4 safety. Would I prefer Sanders to Lockett? Absolutely. But there are other issues than just positional preference. Lockett has more value on special teams, and is much cheaper than Sanders.

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.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I guess you and box agree that because Meriweather is outplaying his rookie contract of OVER 2.1M a year, Sanders should be cut after the season. The fact that the contract also includes another $1.1M of easily achieved incentives (per Miguel) and another couple of million of potential bonus shouldn't affect your analysis any.

As for McGowan, I guess he shouldn't have signed his contract with so ferw incentives. Perhaps he should have negotiated for much less in salary and much more in incentives.

Sanders signed a contract THIS YEAR. belichick also spent the #35 pick on a safety and picked up a free agent. Your argument and that of box seems to be that Belichick did so well with choosing Chung and McGowan that he should cut Sanders and reduce our depth at safety. We can then have Lockett as the #4 and you all can feel much better about the fairness of how we pay players.

I obviously strongly disagree with this approach.

I think that you might just be more upfront with your real position that you have never liked the play of Sanders and wer shocked when Bleichick disagreed and paid him so much to play this year ($3.7M).

Meriweather's base contract averages $1.75M over the five year period, he has incentives that can push it to $2.3M is he hits them. So Sanders playing on Special Teams drawing the same pay as the starter - if the starter does reach ALL his incentives isn't a potential conflict point?

It has been reported that BB sets a price on each position and doesn't like to pay more than his economics based roster allotment. Given that information, just what would you assume the #4 Safety's annual cost should logically be?

You have been challenged by both mayo and myself - and neither of us have a reputation for running players down - to put up or shut up on older posts where we've purportedly spoken ill of Sanders as a starter. I'm still waiting Mark, please, rub my nose in my attacks on Sanders. For now, this is an effort at assessing the economics of the player's roster position, not his playing skill (starter level).

 

[mgteich]

OK let's turn to economics. You stated in a post a little while ago that $1.5M is a reasonable amount to expect to pay for a starting safety, and therefore Sanders is certainly not worth $2.3M as a #4 in 2010. Was he worth $3.6M for 2009? Shouldn't Belichick have expected to find two players at $1.5M each to play along with Meriweather to compete with others and as our expect starter and #3. Why would Belichick so overpay Sanders at $3.6M?
============================================================
We all exaggerate to make our points. How else could we explain you suggesting just a couple of posts ago that Meriweather makes $730K a year as 3 year starter in his 5 year contract?

If you have never criticized the play of Sanders, I do apologize. If you have never suggested that he wasn't worth the $3.6M he was given by Belichick to play this year (and as an option to pay him the bargain of $2.2M and $2.8M the next couple of years) then I again apologize.

You are correct, your argument is not about the play of Sanders at all. The fact that he plays well enough to start is irrelevant to the discussion you, mayo and I are having about Belichick's strategy and caponomics.
=========================

So let's get to the meat of the argument. You would rather not spend $2.3M on a starter-quality defensive back next year because
1) Meriweather may have signed for less when he was a rookie???????
2) McGowan surprised everyone by not being injured and by played 10 full games???????? and
3) Chung is playing well also and didn't sign for enough in his rookie contract??????

Clearly all of these are red herrings and are not your real reason for wanting to dump Sanders. Your real reason is that because you anticpate that Sanders will be the #4 safety next year, that he should be traded and the cash (or $1.5 million of excess cap money if there is any cap) be used elsewhere.

And if someone is injured, then you can use street street agents as we have in the past in the core of defending against the passing teams of the conference. Surely, we can depend on guys like Lockett or Arrington. Starting quality defensive backs are not easy to sign or keep. But then you disagree. Perhaps, Belichick will just sign another starter for $1.5M.
================

CURRENT SITUATION
We have four quality safeties, three starters, and a youngster who is looking good. One of the current starters has a contract through 2010 and is is injury prone. Two are signed through 2011.

YOUR SOLUTION
Go into 2010 with two starters (one with an injury history)and hopefully an heir apparent and hope to pick up a draftee or free agent to be a quality backup in 2010. With luck, you can find a free agent of a $1.3 million and save $1M of cap money and create the need for two safeties in 2011.

MY SOLUTION
Go into 2010 with two quality starters (including one who is injury prone) and a rising star.
My difference (as at corner) is to keep a quality veteran on the team for $2.3M who can start in case of injury, play special teams, and do whatever is needed in 2010 and 2011.

MY BOTTOM LINE
It is worth an extra million of likely nonexistent cap money to keep a quality backup defensive back for 2010 and 2011.

I think the real difference is that you think that "McGowan works out to a more realistic starter package of $1.5M." You seem to think that it is reasonable to expect that we can get a solid starter for $1.5M. Belichick must certainly be the fool for paying Sanders $3.6M when the expected value of starters is $1.5M.

Where is it that I don't understand your argument? I think that McGowan is not getting a "reasonable" amount. He is an absolute steal at $1.5M.

Meriweather's base contract averages $1.75M over the five year period, he has incentives that can push it to $2.3M is he hits them. So Sanders playing on Special Teams drawing the same pay as the starter - if the starter does reach ALL his incentives isn't a potential conflict point?

It has been reported that BB sets a price on each position and doesn't like to pay more than his economics based roster allotment. Given that information, just what would you assume the #4 Safety's annual cost should logically be?

You have been challenged by both mayo and myself - and neither of us have a reputation for running players down - to put up or shut up on older posts where we've purportedly spoken ill of Sanders as a starter. I'm still waiting Mark, please, rub my nose in my attacks on Sanders. For now, this is an effort at assessing the economics of the player's roster position, not his playing skill (starter level).

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

So let's get to the meat of the argument. You would rather not spend $2.3M on a starter-quality defensive back next year because...

My rathers are immaterial. Like someone I know who looks to project the 53 man roster in April, I'm looking at the Safety roster depth as it currently projects for the start of the 2010 season and I see an anomaly.

My guess is BB will look to correct a situation that is out of sync. Sanders was worth the contract he signed as long as he remained a starter, that changed. If he was the #3 S he might slide by because of the playing time of a Nickel/Dime Safety, but he's losing reps to Chung who isn't playing badly at all and is making more big plays as a rookie than Meriweather did. This is a good thing because it makes the team better. None of this is a knock on Sanders, he's an excellent player whom I like and respect. It's just:
-- a. recognizing a roster anomaly;
-- b. projecting how BB might address it.

I see him doing nothing and leaving things the way they are as extremely unlikely. That leaves, restructure, trade, or cut. I'd love to see a restructure with playing time incentives because it means terrific depth at a key position, I consider it less likely than a trade, not with teams like KC and Denver absorbing Pats personnel and rebuilding.

If Scar decides Vollmer is playing better than Light and is the most likely starter at LT, we could see a similar situation there, although Light would also do well at Guard and his salary is not out of line. Change is a constant in the NFL and especially in NE as BB tries to remain competitive. It is what it is, not a criticism of any player, but an estimation of where that change might occur.

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving Mark!