Is Caldwell done?

[pats1]

My take on this thread is that Keegs, Solman, etc. (and myself) are right to question Caldwell's toughness and performance in clutch situations.

Belichick praised his toughness after the Kaesviharn hit. I'll trust BB over Solman.

His performance in clutch situations? Like catching a sideline bomb to put the Pats in position to win the Chargers game?

I sure hope he is not a starter on this team.

Unless the Pats pick up somebody else, or if Washington really impresses, then Caldwell will. He did all he was asked last year and more. Another summer working with Brady, and I like his chances in 2007.

My gut feeling is that Belichick and Pioli hope so as well -- why were they so determined to get a bunch of wide receivers in here this offseason?

Stallworth will start. Welker probably will never start as a split-out WR. He's a slot WR and a damn good one. But for all intents and purposes, he and Caldwell don't play the same position.

They wanted to get somebody out of the lineup, and I'd guess its Caldwell much more than Gaffney.

That's ludicrous. Gaffney wasn't absolutely silent until the playoffs last year. Caldwell stepped it up in the playoffs (catches/game met or exceeded his season average), but since he wasn't coming from as low as a platform as Gaffney, the change didn't seem as drastic to Pats fans.

What makes you think Gaffney won't perform as averagely as he did last regular season in 2007? What makes you think Caldwell will drop below Gaffney miraculously over the summer?

It's funny how quickly so many fans of one team can fall in love with a guy (Gaffney) so quickly. I like him as much as anybody, but he has an uphill battle to climb to beat out Caldwell or Stallworth for a starting spot.

That said, he will not be cut. He would be a very nice option as a 4th WR. Plus, with all the wide receivers coming in this off-season, it would be good to keep Caldwell around in a limited role purely for the sake of continuity.

Gaffney will be in that role, not Caldwell.

I think it will be Stallworth and Gaffney starting, Welker in the slot (and sometimes on the field as an outside WR), and then Caldwell 4th. I'd be a little surprised if Washington even made the team.

I still don't understand your logic for starting Gaffney over Caldwell.

 

[pats1]

which I interpreted as meaning that the second year roster bonus may also not be due at the regular time (although I've been using weasle words).

Down the road or not, a microscopic $300,000 won't be the difference between staying and going for Caldwell.

The Pats aren't in dire salary cap shape at least in part because they are proactive about their cap position, even when they have room to maneuver (like this year and last).

It would have been nice if we didn't have to cut Dillon too. But being nice to players who have served us well, and winning championships, are two diametrically opposed goals.

I vote for the latter.

And having Caldwell around instead of Kight increases the Patriots' chances of winning a Super Bowl.

 

[solman]

I'll take that as a sign of defeat.

I rather think I've mopped the floor with you.

You can take it as a sign of boredom.

I had originally figured that after a few hundred posts, somebody would come up with a better argument than:

Reche had 61 catches last year and he tries really hard. He even got up after being hit hard

 

[pats1]

I rather think I've mopped the floor with you.

You can take it as a sign of boredom.

I had originally figured that after a few hundred posts, somebody would come up with a better argument than:

It's out of BB's mouth.

Great job low-blowing me too.

You're posts are getting sorrier by the minute.

 

[solman]

And having Caldwell around instead of Kight increases the Patriots' chances of winning a Super Bowl.

I never liked Kight. I wanted to see Childress get a chance (although I fear there won't be room now). But I never thought that Kight had any potential upside.

So mark me down for cutting Kight and Caldwell before the 53, and trying to get Childress back on the practice squad.

 

[Rob0729]

Neither did Lawyer Milloy, but cutting him made the Patriots a better team.

The goal here is to win championships.

That's one reason why players are taking less money for the opportunity to come here.

In 2003, it was either cutting or renegotiating with Milloy or cut three or four other players to get to the 51 man rule under the cap. The Caldwell situation is nothing like that. We cut Milloy because we needed to get under the cap when the 51 man rule kicked in. We have plenty of cap space this year. Even if we sign more free agents, I can't see us needing cap space going into the season.

 

[pats1]

I never liked Kight. I wanted to see Childress get a chance (although I fear there won't be room now). But I never thought that Kight had any potential upside.

So mark me down for cutting Kight and Caldwell before the 53, and trying to get Childress back on the practice squad.

That would leave:

Stallworth (injury problems)
Washington (injury problems)
Welker
Gaffney

and Jackson, whose complete status for 2007 is up in the air.

Brilliant.

 

[Rob0729]

1. We will have to pay him money. Every penny that we pay him reduces our cap space.

2. We will have to cut our roster down to 53. Even with a fixed cap, I'm sure BB would love to have 60 guys on his roster. Using up a roster space on Reche means that somebody else has to be cut.

1.) Well, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The top 51 players highest cap number players count against the cap no matter what. If you cut Caldwell, the 52nd highest paid player automatically starts to count against the cap. So that means if you cut him, you will still have to eat about $285k of his salary because the 52nd player would be 51 and he has to make at least $285k to be on the active roster. Most likely this player will actually a $300-400k cap hi. So you are going to cut a guy who can play in your system and has starting experience to save about $1.4-1.5 million and replace him with a $400k player who will be inactive? When was Belichick and Pioli replaced by Al Davis.

2.) Right now, we have seven WRs who are healthy. Two of them are marginal players in Childress and Kight. We have to assume that there is a good chance that Jackson will start the season on the PUP. So by your statement, the Pats might have to go with only 4 WRs to get to the 53 man roster.

So you are advocating keeping Childress or Kight over Caldwell to save $1.4 million and then have to scour the waiver wires for whatever cast off is available if we have a rash of injuries and have to toss a guy in there who has no knowledge of our system? Or do you advocate starting Kight or Childress if Stallworth and Gaffney goes down and Jackson is on the PUP? Yikes.

This is David Patten all over again. People thought he was going to get cut because of his productivity and cap number in 2004 since Givens and Branch supplanted him in the starting line up and Brown was ahead of Givens. The Pats kept Patten and he was an intrical part of the offense because both Branch and Givens went down for stretches during the season. This is exactly why the Pats will keep Caldwell even if he loses the starting job.

 

[Rob0729]

That would leave:

Stallworth (injury problems)
Washington (injury problems)
Welker
Gaffney

and Jackson, whose complete status for 2007 is up in the air.

Brilliant.

Exactly why Caldwell is a lock to be on this team. No way will the Pats go into the season with only four WRs. Neither Childress or Kight have shown they can be consistently out on the field as a #4 or #5 WR. Caldwell has starting experience and was our top WR during the regular season.

Yeah, but Caldwell dropped a couple of balls during the AFCCG so he is useless to us.

 

[pats1]

1.) Well, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The top 51 players highest cap number players count against the cap no matter what. If you cut Caldwell, the 52nd highest paid player automatically starts to count against the cap. So that means if you cut him, you will still have to eat about $285k of his salary because the 52nd player would be 51 and he has to make at least $285k to be on the active roster. Most likely this player will actually a $300-400k cap hi. So you are going to cut a guy who can play in your system and has starting experience to save about $1.4-1.5 million and replace him with a $400k player who will be inactive? When was Belichick and Pioli replaced by Al Davis.

2.) Right now, we have seven WRs who are healthy. Two of them are marginal players in Childress and Kight. We have to assume that there is a good chance that Jackson will start the season on the PUP. So by your statement, the Pats might have to go with only 4 WRs to get to the 53 man roster.

So you are advocating keeping Childress or Kight over Caldwell to save $1.4 million and then have to scour the waiver wires for whatever cast off is available if we have a rash of injuries and have to toss a guy in there who has no knowledge of our system? Or do you advocate starting Kight or Childress if Stallworth and Gaffney goes down and Jackson is on the PUP? Yikes.

This is David Patten all over again. People thought he was going to get cut because of his productivity and cap number in 2004 since Givens and Branch supplanted him in the starting line up and Brown was ahead of Givens. The Pats kept Patten and he was an intrical part of the offense because both Branch and Givens went down for stretches during the season. This is exactly why the Pats will keep Caldwell even if he loses the starting job.

Technically Jonathan Smith too, but I agree with everything you say.

For those who aren't familiar with the now-infamous David Patten thread:

http://www.nflfans.com/patriotstalk...forum=100&thread_id=66543&mesg_id=66543&page=

 

[Rob0729]

Technically Jonathan Smith too, but I agree with everything you say.

For those who aren't familiar with the now-infamous David Patten thread:

http://www.nflfans.com/patriotstalk...forum=100&thread_id=66543&mesg_id=66543&page=

Wow! I wasn't on this particular board back then, but after reading some those posts I realized how right I am about this being the same exact arguement.

 

[solman]

1.) Well, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The top 51 players highest cap number players count against the cap no matter what. If you cut Caldwell, the 52nd highest paid player automatically starts to count against the cap. So that means if you cut him, you will still have to eat about $285k of his salary because the 52nd player would be 51 and he has to make at least $285k to be on the active roster. Most likely this player will actually a $300-400k cap hi. So you are going to cut a guy who can play in your system and has starting experience to save about $1.4-1.5 million and replace him with a $400k player who will be inactive? When was Belichick and Pioli replaced by Al Davis.

Once again, folks are getting too caught up in salary cap mechanics.

For a team with a healthy long term salary cap situation (i.e. the Patriots), the only cap number that matters in the long run is total cash out the door.

If the Patriots run into salary cap difficulty while the rule of 51 is in effect (very unlikely), they can restructure some money from 2008 using any of a dozen players' contracts. Then, at the end of the season, they can use LTBEs to send any unused money back into 2008.

People need to remember that the cap is just an accounting mechanism, and its intricacies only become important when you run out of maneuvering room. (With the possible exception of the cash cap, which had no impact on individual teams in 2006, the first year it was applicable).

 

[pats1]

Once again, folks are getting too caught up in salary cap mechanics.

For a team with a healthy long term salary cap situation (i.e. the Patriots), the only cap number that matters in the long run is total cash out the door.

If the Patriots run into salary cap difficulty while the rule of 51 is in effect (very unlikely), they can restructure some money from 2008 using any of a dozen players' contracts. Then, at the end of the season, they can use LTBEs to send any unused money back into 2008.

People need to remember that the cap is just an accounting mechanism, and its intricacies only become important when you run out of maneuvering room. (With the possible exception of the cash cap, which had no impact on individual teams in 2006, the first year it was applicable).

Excellent. You have just successfully proven that even if Caldwell's financial standing caused a problem with the salary cap, it could be averted, allowing Caldwell to stay on the roster.

 

[solman]

Excellent. You have just successfully proven that even if Caldwell's financial standing caused a problem with the salary cap, it could be averted, allowing Caldwell to stay on the roster.

No question, we can keep him on our roster this year.

But should we?

We should keep him on our roster if and only if the money spent on him can not be used more efficiently on other players in this or future years.

That is the root of our disagreement (whether or not there are or will be other players on whom the money can be more efficiently spent).

I don't think that rephrasing the problem is going to have the effect of convincing anyone either way.

 

[frankiesfly]

I said after the ACFC game that Reche wouldnt be here next year. I would like another one of my predictions to be right, and it looks like it.

 

[pats1]

No question, we can keep him on our roster this year.

But should we?

We should keep him on our roster if and only if the money spent on him can not be used more efficiently on other players in this or future years.

That is the root of our disagreement (whether or not there are or will be other players on whom the money can be more efficiently spent).

I don't think that rephrasing the problem is going to have the effect of convincing anyone either way.

$1,871,000 is going to be worth less next year.

Do you seriously want to compromise a considerable piece of the Patriots' passing attack in 2007 for the sake of adding a buck in 2008?

 

[pats1]

I said after the ACFC game that Reche wouldnt be here next year. I would like another one of my predictions to be right, and it looks like it.

No, it doesn't look like it at all.

 

[jbb9s]

You must have missed when he sh!t his pants at the most crucial part of the season?

A) the catch against Jammer was the most important part of the season.

B) the defense lost the AFCC game, not Caldwell

C) Gaffney played two good games and everyone forgets the season Caldwell had - get over Gaffney - he isnt that good and will probably be back at his bail bondsman job by 2009.

D) on the 2nd drop, by the time got to Caldwell the DB was coming up - probably only a 6-7 gain by the Pats. If Brady quick snapped when he first got to the line of scrimmage, Caldwell could have walked into the endzone since there wasnt a defender within 20 yds......who want to start slamming Brady for not seeing it and quick snapping?

 

[frankiesfly]

No, it doesn't look like it at all.

O.K you're right he'll be on the practice squad.

 

[bradmahn]

No question, we can keep him on our roster this year.

But should we?

We should keep him on our roster if and only if the money spent on him can not be used more efficiently on other players in this or future years.

That is the root of our disagreement (whether or not there are or will be other players on whom the money can be more efficiently spent).

I don't think that rephrasing the problem is going to have the effect of convincing anyone either way.

The only way they would be able to spend the money saved by cutting Caldwell is if they gave it + some to another player. Thereby paying that player more. Unless you can find another player at this point who is worth at least 2.5 million (and according to your logic the only way he would be worth that is if he is a starter), why cut Caldwell in the first place? He can start in this offense, he is familiar with Brady and is a contributor. You are not going to find another receiver with the qualifications of Caldwell for fewer than $1.9 million. No way in hell. Not in this market, not with this offense, not with the pool of talent available in FA (or the draft for that matter). He is worth it for this team (not necessarily the Chargers, though they gave up on him). You, solmon, are a twit who reverts to arguments based solely on hypotheses and guesses. Kelley Washington hasn't proven anything to warrant being a "#2" or even a solid contributor, Welker is going to be the "starting" slot guy, Gaffney has not shown he can produce over the course of a season, and would have to light the world on fire to supplant a veteran who has done just that, Childress and Kight had their opportunities to supplant him and couldn't do so. Caldwell enters camp as a starter, and until proven otherwise will be on the roster. No one would think you are a dink if you didn't "report" your opinions as fact and had the gall to profess that they are what Pioli believes as well. Get off of your high horse.