League Low In Cash Payroll

[mgteich]

You are correct. I should never title a thread with anything relating to cash. Cash spending is irrelevant to the patriots, since we will never be in violation of NFL rules with regard to cash spending.

I would note that cap spending planning is important to understand.

The only thing that surprised me is that MG took the bait.

 

[mgteich]

QUOTE="Miguel, post: 3968416, member: 1952"]I disliked Mgteich's post not because it was critical of the Patriots but because it is not true.

For the following reasons
1.) For most of the offseason the Patriots were among the lowest teams in cap space. It took the Mankins trade for the Pats to become one of the leaders in cap space.
2.) For all of the 2014 League Year the Patriots have been among the lowest teams in cash spending. This is not news. It is like being shocked that gambling took place in Rick's Cafe in Casablanca.
3.) Low cash spending this year does not equate to the Patriots not spending money over a longer time period.[/QUOTE]

I accept Miguel's correction, as I hope is always the case. We should never discuss cash. I would note that most of this thread discussion has been about cap space.
=======================================
It is with regard to #1, that we were the lowest in cap space during the preseason and then became one of the leaders when Mankins was traded, with no use of the cap money for players, that is still intriguing to me.
================================
As you said in another post, had we considered the NLTBE situation in early August, we would have speculated and perhaps expected Belichick to trade Mankins. I believe that Belichick knew the situation (ya think) and was likely planning to move Mankins. So, for me, SOME of the cap constraint in July and August was an illusion. Belichick could have spent a bit more if he chose to, given that Mankins was going, and that he would be covering the vast majority of the NLTBE bonuses throughout that transactions. Perhaps, Belichick hoped that Mankins would take a severe cut in pay; this seems unlikely.
===============================
I still don't understand why folks are so against the idea that Belichick could have spent $1M-$3M more on depth. After all, many of us wanted to add additional depth in July and early August. You, and others, had to remind those folks that the $5M or more that they wanted to spend on a stud would likely not happen because of cap constraints.
===============================
Of course, if Ayers and Casillas and Gray and Branch work out as it seems that they will, then Belichick has won his bet. We are 6-2 and have adequate backups without having spent the cap money, and we have had the additional roster spots available for other uses for the first 8 games.

[

 

[patfanken]

Yes it is. In fact its far more complex than we'd like to believe, other wise they wouldn't be paying high six figure salaries to specific individuals to work it out. We are very lucky to have a guy like Miguel, who probably should be on some NFL payroll, to help us make sense of it.

I gather your frustration comes from watching the Broncos load up on 3 "elite" position players ( Ware, Ward, and Talib), while we added just one (Revis and to a lesser degree, Browner). However I really don't know how much more you expect the Pats to do in FA after Revis/Browner, especially before the Mankins trade. Who was out there that would have matched what the Broncos did. Jarod Allen and his one sack for the Bears?

If the Pats made a mistake this off season, it was in letting Kelley go, IMO. But I just wonder who you would have spent money on from April to July that would have made that kind of difference on the field.

 

[mgteich]

No, actually, it isn't the top players that frustrate me. I think we did more than fine with Revis, Browner and LaFell, and the re-signing of players. I rarely fuss about Belichick's strategy in March and April, except perhaps when we don't re-sign one of my favorites.

Yes, it is someone of the cost/value of Kelly that I am frustrated about. I do not see myself as an expert on who might help the patriots, or with regard to player situations (like Kelly's). However, it would seem that somewhere in the NFL, there was a player that would have significantly helped the rotation at DE, DT or LB, or even RB. There were literally hundreds of players available, those being cut and those available through trade. Belichick was able to find players after the season started, but not before. Instead, we had a parade of JAG's.

Yes it is. In fact its far more complex than we'd like to believe, other wise they wouldn't be paying high six figure salaries to specific individuals to work it out. We are very lucky to have a guy like Miguel, who probably should be on some NFL payroll, to help us make sense of it.

I gather your frustration comes from watching the Broncos load up on 3 "elite" position players ( Ware, Ward, and Talib), while we added just one (Revis and to a lesser degree, Browner). However I really don't know how much more you expect the Pats to do in FA after Revis/Browner, especially before the Mankins trade. Who was out there that would have matched what the Broncos did. Jarod Allen and his one sack for the Bears?

If the Pats made a mistake this off season, it was in letting Kelley go, IMO. But I just wonder who you would have spent money on from April to July that would have made that kind of difference on the field.

 

[rochrist]

Grow up

Wow, that escalated quickly.

 

[RayClay]

If the Pats made a mistake this off season, it was in letting Kelley go, IMO. But I just wonder who you would have spent money on from April to July that would have made that kind of difference on the field.

Since Kelly asked to be let go and would have made 100K more from us than Arizona paid him if he never played a game, and up to 2,500,000 for just showing up to games and playing, he shouldn't be mentioned in an article about us not spending cash.

He literally couldn't make less than Arizona's paying.

 

[DaBruinz]

Whatever you say, man.. Anyone who even poses a question that is contrary to "popular opinion" gets downvoted by everybody here... Now I'm waiting for everyone to come out of the woodwork and bash me - oh no!!! Not my rep!

Actually, that's the farthest thing from the truth. Do yourself a favor and crawl back into whatever troll hole you popped your head out of. If you get "downvoted" it's because of your attitude, not what you said.

 

[DaBruinz]

Relax? Hahaha this is exactly what I was taking about.....

You come in. Run your mouth with crap and then tell others to relax as if you proved your point? Dude. You've yet to bring ANYTHING to the conversation.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, I understand that you consider discussing cap management to ridiculous. That is your privilege. I also have the right to consider comparisons to 2ooo irrelevant.

Let me know when you actually are discussing cap management. You've not done so at all to this point..All you've done is complain about your lack of understanding regarding the 8.5 Million the Pats have in cap space and complain about the supposed lack of cash spending by the Pats.

 

[Jackson 2]

There are many, many things about the Patriots and the decisions they make about their use of players that I agree/disagree with. What I rarely, if ever, give s*** about is their payroll. I don't know how anyone can know with precision exactly what their plans are for the $$ without being on the inside. Every time I see one of these threads I immediately figure the impetus for it is the "Pats are cheap" incessant drumbeat from dopes like Felger.

 

[mayoclinic]

From Reiss' Quick Hits today:

3. When including deferred money that will be paid out this year (e.g. part of Tom Brady, Jerod Mayo contracts, etc.), the Patriots’ cash spending in 2014 will be $124 million, according to ESPN.com’s Kevin Seifert. Meanwhile, the Broncos’ cash spending for 2014 is also $124 million, per Seifert. So when comparing the team-building approach of the two franchises, it comes back to a point I think is sometimes twisted in some talk-radio circles. It’s not that the Patriots don’t spend money. It’s how they spend it, and I think that’s the big difference between the teams. The Broncos, for better or worse, are more liberal in giving out big-money deals to unrestricted free agents from other teams.

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...420/quick-hit-thoughts-around-nfl-patriots-34

I assume that's Reiss' way of tactfully saying he had nothing to do with that "ESPNBoston.com" piece cited in the OP, without directly calling out his bosses. That byline is equivalent to "Anonymous" - someone at ESPN wanted to stir the pot, and succeeded.

 

[Miguel]

Here are my questions/problems with Reiss' column today.

1.) Mike is not using the definition of cash spending as defined by the CBA

"Cash Spending in a League Year shall consist of the sum of: (1) total Paragraph 5 Salary amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to players; (2) sign-ing bonus amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to players (including amounts treated as signing bonus) without regard to proration and applying the valuation rules that apply to deferred Salary specified in Article 13, Subsections 6(a)(ii) and 6(d)(iii); and (3) any other non-Benefit amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to play-ers in that League Year (applying the valuation rules that apply to deferred Salary specified in Article 13, Subsections 6(a)(ii) and 6(d)(iv)) including, but not limited to, incentives, roster bonuses, reporting bonuses, offseason workout bonuses, weight bo-nuses, grievances settled, grievance awards, injury settlements or Paragraph 5 Salary advances. League-Wide Cash Spending shall consist of the aggregate of all Cash Spend-ing in a League Year. Team Cash Spending, for each respective Club, shall consist of all Cash Spending by such Club.'

2.) If Mike is going to include the deferred signing bonus amounts in the 2014 cash spending, did he include those amounts in a prior article - http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/10586646/new-england-patriots-spent-free-agents-not-wisely. That is, did the Patriots 2013 cash figure include Brady's $30 million signing bonus or the 10 million he received in cash. Ditto for Mayo's 12 million option bonus in 2012.

3.) Did he include deferred signing bonus amounts in the Broncos total?
4.) How did he handle 2014 signing bonuses that had some deferred amounts?

 

[mayoclinic]

Miguel, I agree with the above questions. My point was more simply that Reiss seems to be distancing himself from the earlier report.

 

[DaBruinz]

Here are my questions/problems with Reiss' column today.

1.) Mike is not using the definition of cash spending as defined by the CBA

"Cash Spending in a League Year shall consist of the sum of: (1) total Paragraph 5 Salary amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to players; (2) sign-ing bonus amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to players (including amounts treated as signing bonus) without regard to proration and applying the valuation rules that apply to deferred Salary specified in Article 13, Subsections 6(a)(ii) and 6(d)(iii); and (3) any other non-Benefit amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to play-ers in that League Year (applying the valuation rules that apply to deferred Salary specified in Article 13, Subsections 6(a)(ii) and 6(d)(iv)) including, but not limited to, incentives, roster bonuses, reporting bonuses, offseason workout bonuses, weight bo-nuses, grievances settled, grievance awards, injury settlements or Paragraph 5 Salary advances. League-Wide Cash Spending shall consist of the aggregate of all Cash Spend-ing in a League Year. Team Cash Spending, for each respective Club, shall consist of all Cash Spending by such Club.'

2.) If Mike is going to include the deferred signing bonus amounts in the 2014 cash spending, did he include those amounts in a prior article - http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/10586646/new-england-patriots-spent-free-agents-not-wisely. That is, did the Patriots 2013 cash figure include Brady's $30 million signing bonus or the 10 million he received in cash. Ditto for Mayo's 12 million option bonus in 2012.

3.) Did he include deferred signing bonus amounts in the Broncos total?
4.) How did he handle 2014 signing bonuses that had some deferred amounts?

The earlier article was written by Kevin Seifert, not Reiss. All Reiss did was hit the lowlights of Seifert's article. He was probably forced to do that by the turds who run ESPN..

 

[Miguel]

Grow up

I respectfully decline to take orders from someone I do not personally know.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yet, I bet Miguel's Mom (whom he DOES know) has said the same thing to him.

 

[mgteich]

Here are my questions/problems with Reiss' column today.

1.) Mike is not using the definition of cash spending as defined by the CBA

"Cash Spending in a League Year shall consist of the sum of: (1) total Paragraph 5 Salary amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to players; (2) sign-ing bonus amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to players (including amounts treated as signing bonus) without regard to proration and applying the valuation rules that apply to deferred Salary specified in Article 13, Subsections 6(a)(ii) and 6(d)(iii); and (3) any other non-Benefit amounts earned or paid or committed to be paid to play-ers in that League Year (applying the valuation rules that apply to deferred Salary specified in Article 13, Subsections 6(a)(ii) and 6(d)(iv)) including, but not limited to, incentives, roster bonuses, reporting bonuses, offseason workout bonuses, weight bo-nuses, grievances settled, grievance awards, injury settlements or Paragraph 5 Salary advances. League-Wide Cash Spending shall consist of the aggregate of all Cash Spend-ing in a League Year. Team Cash Spending, for each respective Club, shall consist of all Cash Spending by such Club.'

2.) If Mike is going to include the deferred signing bonus amounts in the 2014 cash spending, did he include those amounts in a prior article - http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/10586646/new-england-patriots-spent-free-agents-not-wisely. That is, did the Patriots 2013 cash figure include Brady's $30 million signing bonus or the 10 million he received in cash. Ditto for Mayo's 12 million option bonus in 2012.

3.) Did he include deferred signing bonus amounts in the Broncos total?
4.) How did he handle 2014 signing bonuses that had some deferred amounts?

Obviously, the analysis by Reiss was pretty poor with regard to cash.
================
As you have said, we should be more interested in the cap.

With regard to the cap, how do DEN and NE compare with regard to future commitments? Which of us borrows more from the future in the form of deferred compensation, dead money, guarantees, and NTLBE monies that are in fact likely to be earned? Many posters think that DEN takes an all-in approach, and yet rarely seems to have severe cap issues. Perhaps they have more of a "permanent" carry forward of costs than we do, or not.

 

[mayoclinic]

The earlier article was written by Kevin Seifert, not Reiss. All Reiss did was hit the lowlights of Seifert's article. He was probably forced to do that by the turds who run ESPN..

You're missing the point. Kevin Seifert wrote the original article on ESPN.com. But then someone anonymously wrote a summary that highlighted "contrasting" approaches to Team building and posted it on ESPNBoston.com. That second report was referenced in the OP. It doesn't carry Reiss' by-line, and I doubt that Reiss had anything to do with it. Reiss went out of his way in his Quick Snaps today to distance himself from the position of that second article.

 

[1960Pats]

Smh at the 8 dislikes. This is such a homer board - say anything critical of the patriots (true or not) and everybody gets all defensive and hits disagree or dislike... Lame

I disagree but I haven't hit anything.

 

[Midship]

You come in. Run your mouth with crap and then tell others to relax as if you proved your point? Dude. You've yet to bring ANYTHING to the conversation.

Opposing points of view = trolling apparently. I said this was a homer message board, you disagree. Done. No need to freak out and call for people's "exile" from an Internet message board. Lol please. And if you would, explain how your last several posts have contributed tote discussion - because that's what you're so concerned about apparently...