Are we going to spend to the Cap?? J. Kraft gives us a clue

[Box_O_Rocks]

Whatever happened to that ancestor, anyway?

Inquiring minds want to know.

He became psychotic on top of being cyanotic.

 

[mgteich]

A) I have never said that we should have re-signed any of the players that signed elsewhere. I certainly trust bb's negotiation strategy. In fact, I would not have offered as much as bb reportedly offered to Branch. The issue addressed is whether there were ANY players available on a 2-year contract who could have helped the team in 2006. The contract would have all but $1M of the contract count against the 2006 cap.

B) Of course moving money into 2007 counts against the cap limit, and shows that Kraft is not simply pocketing the money. My point was that such moves do not help 2006.

C) Most other teams do not have any worse cap problems than we do, certainly not top teams. That conclusion is simply wishful thinking on the part of posters. Every year we say that th colts and the jets can't possibly survive their cap hell and put a competitive team on the field, and every year we are wrong. The colts have made choice that we would not have made, but their cap strategy works.

As I see it, this is an entirely different question. You raise 2 points as I see it:

1) They should have brought in or resigned a player that could help the team in 2006
2) Pushing 2006 cap money into 2007 or beyond doesn't really count in your mind as spending to the 2006 cap limit

As far as the first point goes, then has been a lot of talk about how the Patriots should have handled their free agents (and their disgruntled wide receiver), I won't rehash that here. Personally, I think they made reasonable decisions although not necessarily always the best decision.

On the second point, I just disagree. Pushing the money into a future year is, both technically and realistically (from my perspective), spending to the 2006 cap. The cap is not real cash, it is only an accounting spending limit. If the Patriots restructure contracts or resign players in such a way that they are within 1% of the cap limit, then, IMO, they have spent to the cap regardless of how much money they actually pay out.

I remember reading an article a while back (by Borges, I think) that criticized the Patriots for being near the bottom of the NFL in total cash paid out over a number of years. Since the Patriots spend to the cap limit every year and since cap money ultimately does equal real cash (with minor exceptions for some minimum veteran contracts), this only means 1 thing - most other teams had significant cap problems. It didn't mean what the auther was trying to prove (that the Patriots were cheap). So, if the Patriots have to play more cap games because their plans (for Ty Law and Deion Branch) didn't work out, that's fine by me. That's exactly what I'd want them to do. That's a sign of a well-run franchise, IMO, not a reason to criticize.

 

[captain stone]

He became psychotic on top of being cyanotic.

I see, said the blind man.

 

[captain stone]

A) I have never said that we should have re-signed any of the players that signed elsewhere. I certainly trust bb's negotiation strategy. In fact, I would not have offered as much as bb reportedly offered to Branch. The issue addressed is whether there were ANY players available on a 2-year contract who could have helped the team in 2006. The contract would have all but $1M of the contract count against the 2006 cap.

B) Of course moving money into 2007 counts against the cap limit, and shows that Kraft is not simply pocketing the money. My point was that such moves do not help 2006.

C) Most other teams do not have any worse cap problems than we do, certainly not top teams. That conclusion is simply wishful thinking on the part of posters. Every year we say that th colts and the jets can't possibly survive their cap hell and put a competitive team on the field, and every year we are wrong. The colts have made choice that we would not have made, but their cap strategy works.

I agree with your stance throughout the thread; however, I have a question re: B). I understand that adding unused '06 $$ into the '07 cap isn't allowed, so how much of the curent difference CAN be moved? I would be pleasantly surprised if Samuel and/or Graham re-signs before year's end, but if neither occurs, then there's a bit of $$ that may never be used at all. That would be a serious shame.

 

[njpatsfan]

The issue addressed is whether there were ANY players available on a 2-year contract who could have helped the team in 2006. The contract would have all but $1M of the contract count against the 2006 cap.

Yes - Doug Gabriel, for example ($800,000 in 2006 and $545,000 in 2007).

The problem with your 'issue' is that you are essentially looking for a quality UFA who, upon hitting FA, is perfectly willing to accept a two year contract. Even a Poston wouldn't go in for that level of incompetence. If you trade for a player, and want to redo the contract, you are essentially in the same boat. And you lose whatever 'value' you get from signing a player like Gabriel who is still playing out his rookie contract.

Or perhaps you are suggesting we should trade for a player that already has a backloaded contract with the 'profile' you are looking for ? How many 4 or 5 year contracts have profiles like that ? Probably zero. Which is why your issue makes no sense.

The governing principal for the Patriots, which is periodically stated here, but all too quickly forgotten, is that, in all things personnel, the Patriots go for value. We saw it in the draft this year: when first day picks went heavily D, we went O. And got 2 steals in Maroney and Jackson. We see it here in their FA market moves - this year, with all the extra cap space, teams were spending lavishly for FA's, artificially driving up the costs for acquiring this years FAs. By not spending lavishly, the Pats put themselves in a great position for next year. All those teams whose overspent this year will have limited buying power next year, which allows us to get better value. It really is that simple.

No, as many here have already said, it makes the most business sense at this point in time to redo contracts for those young players that you most value going forward.

Which appears to be exactly what the Pats are doing.

R

 

[Miguel]

We see it here in their FA market moves - this year, with all the extra cap space, teams were spending lavishly for FA's, artificially driving up the costs for acquiring this years FAs. By not spending lavishly, the Pats put themselves in a great position for next year. All those teams whose overspent this year will have limited buying power next year, which allows us to get better value. It really is that simple.

1.) Who were the teams that overspent this year??
2.) And how do you know that they will have limited buying power next year??
3.) Better value on what players?? The 2007 FA class does not look to be any better than the 2006 class. A good number of teams are extending their would-be UFAs.
4.) How do you know that there will not be several teams with as much cap space, if not more, than the Patriots??

 

[captain stone]

1.) Who were the teams that overspent this year??
2.) And how do you know that they will have limited buying power next year??
3.) Better value on what players?? The 2007 FA class does not look to be any better than the 2006 class. A good number of teams are extending their would-be UFAs.
4.) How do you know that there will not be several teams with as much cap space, if not more, than the Patriots??

Exactly. The costs of this years' FAs were not artificially driven up. They were driven up by the reality of a 20% increase in this years' salary cap, which will increase again next year. Whereas the price of a player/position last year was $ x, the price of that same player/position is now $ x + 20%. The Patriots are probably in no better position than most other teams for 2007.

 

[njpatsfan]

1.) Who were the teams that overspent this year??

You're kidding right ? My first impulse is to say - "Every team that got a Patriots FA" - which would win the argument hands down alone. You could fill an entire thread of FA acquisitions that are not worth what they paid. Cleveland - the poster child for 2006 profligacy - is paying $6M a year - to a CENTER. I would say Washington was a close second - and they started FA OVER the CAP. Didn't work out too well for them, did it ?

2.) And how do you know that they will have limited buying power next year??

FA's are acquired (or kept) at a premium compared to other methods of acquiring (or keeping) a player.

Due to the CBA situation, the 2006 season saw the largest (and unexpected) spike in the cap since 1995. Suddenly, teams that were in cap hell could keep more of their vets with backloaded contracts, and teams that were under had a bunch of money burning a hole in their pockets. Couple that with poor teams and desperate coaches proclivity to fix the problem 'this year' - you had all the makings of an overheated FA market.

Since the number of FA's is fixed, you had the elementary lesson in the classical economics theory of supply and demand. FA's salaries - already obtained at a premium - went up at a higher rate. This can be seen in the statistic where NFL starter salaries increased ~17% this year - as compared to 5% for all players overall.

In this case, teams that typically don't splurge on FA's (or signed their players before they reached FA) obtain their talent at lower cost. Since total spending is capped, teams that use this approach effectively increase their relative buying power when they do choose to go the FA route.

3.) Better value on what players?? The 2007 FA class does not look to be any better than the 2006 class. A good number of teams are extending their would-be UFAs.

It is highly unlikely that the cap will increase by $17M next year. $6-7M is the more likely number. This means that, on the average, there will be RELATIVELY less money available for FA. Less money chasing roughly the same number of FA's in 2007 will insure that the RELATIVE cost of acquiring (or keeping) a player of equal 'value' in 2007 will be less.

FA turnover this year was about 60% higher this year than last. The last time this happened was - you guessed it: 1995, which was the last time we had a spike in the Cap (+17M that year too.).

4.) How do you know that there will not be several teams with as much cap space, if not more, than the Patriots??

Irrelevant. I didn't say that the Pats would have the MOST cap. I was saying that the Pats would be in better position (in terms of talent under contract, as well as cap) than teams that splurged in THIS YEARS FA market.

You have to think more like an economist than an accountant to get ahead in the salary-capped NFL.

R

 

[mgteich]

All of the excess can be moved through restructuring. There is already $2M being pushed forward in the Koppen contract, 2006 cap money that he will not earn for special teams tackles.

Samuel is talking. That is a very good sign. He should be offered a $10 million 2-part bonus.

There are several other "minor" extensions that might happen. Banta-Cain, Wright and Evans are candidates. Although Wright can be had for peanuts next year since he will be an ERFA, I think it would be better to have him sign a five year contract. Seau and Brown are also possible, even if there is a chance that they will retire.

I agree with your stance throughout the thread; however, I have a question re: B). I understand that adding unused '06 $$ into the '07 cap isn't allowed, so how much of the curent difference CAN be moved? I would be pleasantly surprised if Samuel and/or Graham re-signs before year's end, but if neither occurs, then there's a bit of $$ that may never be used at all. That would be a serious shame.

 

[mgteich]

The patriots are already in fine shape next year and have ended up not using the money to improve the 2006 team and to have millions more available for next year. If you don't like the idea of the 2-year contract, consider rent-a-players, one year contracts like Seau. The reality is that this money will be rolled into 2008 and 2009. It's that simple.

Yes - Doug Gabriel, for example ($800,000 in 2006 and $545,000 in 2007).

The problem with your 'issue' is that you are essentially looking for a quality UFA who, upon hitting FA, is perfectly willing to accept a two year contract. Even a Poston wouldn't go in for that level of incompetence. If you trade for a player, and want to redo the contract, you are essentially in the same boat. And you lose whatever 'value' you get from signing a player like Gabriel who is still playing out his rookie contract.

Or perhaps you are suggesting we should trade for a player that already has a backloaded contract with the 'profile' you are looking for ? How many 4 or 5 year contracts have profiles like that ? Probably zero. Which is why your issue makes no sense.

The governing principal for the Patriots, which is periodically stated here, but all too quickly forgotten, is that, in all things personnel, the Patriots go for value. We saw it in the draft this year: when first day picks went heavily D, we went O. And got 2 steals in Maroney and Jackson. We see it here in their FA market moves - this year, with all the extra cap space, teams were spending lavishly for FA's, artificially driving up the costs for acquiring this years FAs. By not spending lavishly, the Pats put themselves in a great position for next year. All those teams whose overspent this year will have limited buying power next year, which allows us to get better value. It really is that simple.

No, as many here have already said, it makes the most business sense at this point in time to redo contracts for those young players that you most value going forward.

Which appears to be exactly what the Pats are doing.

R

 

[mgteich]

Keep on trying, Miguel!

There are many posters here who have a view that many good teams will be in cap hell (and are every year) and that other teams won't have much money available in the free agent market next year. It is a matter of belief.

Personally, I believe that the price next year will be even higher than this year, since more money will be chasing few players, since so many potential free agents have been locked up.

1.) Who were the teams that overspent this year??
2.) And how do you know that they will have limited buying power next year??
3.) Better value on what players?? The 2007 FA class does not look to be any better than the 2006 class. A good number of teams are extending their would-be UFAs.
4.) How do you know that there will not be several teams with as much cap space, if not more, than the Patriots??

 

[RayClay]

Keep on trying, Miguel!

There are many posters here who have a view that many good teams will be in cap hell (and are every year) and that other teams won't have much money available in the free agent market next year. It is a matter of belief.

Personally, I believe that the price next year will be even higher than this year, since more money will be chasing few players, since so many potential free agents have been locked up.

I really don't care about other teams. The more we can cover some contracts and push some money ahead, the better. We have 2 #1's and more extra picks next year.

Top picks like Warren, Wilfork Maroney and Jackson will be up for new contracts before you know it. Unlike the past, we have a ton of young high draft picks now. In years to come we'll have 4 or 5 contracts come up for players as valuable or moreso than Branch and Givens.

Instead of worrying about spending, why not evaluate the talent we've added to the team. I personally think between Gabriel, Caldwell and Gaffney, we'll find 2 receivers as good or better than Givens and Randle El.

 

[Miguel]

Since the number of FA's is fixed, you had the elementary lesson in the classical economics theory of supply and demand. FA's salaries - already obtained at a premium - went up at a higher rate. This can be seen in the statistic where NFL starter salaries increased ~17% this year - as compared to 5% for all players overall.

Where did you get this stat for the 2006 season???

This means that, on the average, there will be RELATIVELY less money available for FA.

Less money chasing roughly the same number of FA's in 2007 will insure that the RELATIVE cost of acquiring (or keeping) a player of equal 'value' in 2007 will be less.
[/quote]

How do you know that there will be the same number of FAs next year??the same number of players of "equal value" in 2007?? It seems to me that teams are extending their would-be UFAs. I look at the list of UFAs this year and compare it to the potential 2007 FA class as found at
http://www.footballsfuture.com/2007/nfl/freeagents.html and think that the 2007 FA class looks to be the worse than the 2006 class.

No QB with the resume of a Drew Brees.
No RB with the resumes of the Edge, Chester Taylor, Jamal Lewis
The 3 best free agent wideouts this year were Givens (26), Randle EL (27) and Antonio Bryant (25). If their current teams do not extend them, the 3 best free agent wideouts will probably be Drew Bennett (28), Kevin Curtis (28), and Bobby Engram (33). I like the 2006 trio better than I do the 2007 trio especially if I wanted a younger player.

FA turnover this year was about 60% higher this year than last. The last time this happened was - you guessed it: 1995, which was the last time we had a spike in the Cap (+17M that year too.)

Where are you getting your FA turnover numbers and cap limit numbers??

My records show that the cap never increased by $17M before. And there was no large spike around 1995.

2007 $109,000,000 $7,000,000 6.86%
2006 $102,000,000 $16,500,000 19.30%
2005 $85,500,000 $4,918,000 6.10%
2004 $80,582,000 $5,575,000 7.43%
2003 $75,007,000 $3,907,000 5.50%
2002 $71,100,000 $3,700,000 5.49%
2001 $67,400,000 $5,228,000 8.41%
2000 $62,172,000 $3,819,000 6.54%
1999 $58,353,000 $5,965,000 11.39%
1998 $52,388,000 $10,938,000 26.39%
1997 $41,450,000 $673,000 1.65%
1996 $40,777,000 $3,677,000 9.91%
1995 $37,100,000 $2,500,000 7.23%
1994 $34,600,000

Irrelevant. I didn't say that the Pats would have the MOST cap. I was saying that the Pats would be in better position (in terms of talent under contract, as well as cap) than teams that splurged in THIS YEARS FA market.
You have to think more like an economist than an accountant to get ahead in the salary-capped NFL.

From what I know, the Browns (one of your splurgers) have committed less cap money ($70 million) to the 2007 season than have the Patriots ($78 million). The Pats will also be in better cap position than the Redskins so that is not a surprise there.

 

[Miguel]

Personally, I believe that the price next year will be even higher than this year, since more money will be chasing few players, since so many potential free agents have been locked up.

I'm with you, mg. Especially since next year teams are going to have to spend 90% of the cap on the players, as opposed to 84%. Look for the use of big roster bonuses next year.

 

[Miguel]

FA turnover this year was about 60% higher this year than last. The last time this happened was - you guessed it: 1995,

I think that the introduction of 2 new teams (the Panthers and the Jaguars), and not any large spike in the cap, was responsible for the increase in FA turnover in 1995.