Let's Not Guarantee Them A Full Year

[mgteich]

OUR VETS WHO MIGHT BE BACK
After Game 1, we don't need to guarantee a player his full year's salary.

Branch
Carpenter
Gaffney
Koutouvides
Warren

 

[The Scrizz]

OUR VETS WHO MIGHT BE BACK
After Game 1, we don't need to guarantee a player his full year's salary.

Branch
Carpenter
Gaffney
Koutouvides
Warren

I think Warren is more like, let's not tax an old guy too much who will happily come back if we need him due to injuries.

Gaffney = hurt. No intrigue there.

Branch... shadow roster? Lost a step or two? I was for showing he and Stallworth the door to get a young WR on the roster and if it's Salas instead of Ebert I have no problem with that.

Carpenter is bleh.

Koutouvides was only going to make like six bucks anyway.

I can see more than one of these players coming back but I extremely doubt that saving a few bucks in case they release them after week one was even in the top 20 reasons involved in these decisions.

 

[Patriot Missile]

The title of this thread makes you sound like a miser that needs to be visited by 3 ghosts.

 

[BTTA]

The title of this thread makes you sound like a miser that needs to be visited by 3 ghosts.

LOL. I don't read it as a recommendation, but as an observation or inquiry about management's motives.

 

[BadMoFo]

Only one I think makes it back is maybe Gaffney, unless he signs with someone else.

 

[Ring 6]

OUR VETS WHO MIGHT BE BACK
After Game 1, we don't need to guarantee a player his full year's salary.

Branch
Carpenter
Gaffney
Koutouvides
Warren

The guaranteed contract for players on the roster week 1 is the most inconsequential factor in roster builidng that there is.
The argument is that we want these guys to be on the team, but will sacrifice week 1 so that we can not have to pay them if we cut them later in the year. The savings is so insignificant this shouldn't even be discussed.

 

[Patriot Missile]

LOL. I don't read it as a recommendation, but as an observation or inquiry about management's motives.

I know. Just poking fun.

 

[BradyFTW!]

With guys like this, I think it has less to do with not guaranteeing their salary (as AJ said, it's not enough savings to justify risking a guy who you'd otherwise want on your roster), and more to do with a combination of the following factors:

1) They already know the system, so not practicing with the team isn't the end of the world
2) They're of limited value to any other team, so it's unlikely that they're going anywhere, even if they are technically free agents. Alternately, they might be the kind of player who simply doesn't want to play anywhere else.

 

[mgteich]

Perhaps you might tweet Gaffney and tell him that it doesn't matter that his 2012 salary will not be guaranteed and that he will get a paycheck only when the team is willing to commit a week's pay to him.

The guarantee MATTERS.

It is not about sacrificing Game 1. We are talking about having an inactive like Rivera or Forston on the squad an additional week or two instead of having Gaffney inactive. Apparently it is so valuable to have both of these players on the 53 (instead of the Practice Squad) that Gaffney needed to be cut.

I understand that it is likely that Schiancoe will likely go on IR to open a roster spot. That spot needn't be Gaffney's. The roster spots aren't numbered after all.

The BOTTOM LINE is that the nfl is a business and that Belichick is trying to see what else is available before allocating ANY money to Gaffney. Meanwhile, Gaffney apparently is rejecting other offers. IMHO, Gaffney is NOT making a good business decision.

The guaranteed contract for players on the roster week 1 is the most inconsequential factor in roster builidng that there is.
The argument is that we want these guys to be on the team, but will sacrifice week 1 so that we can not have to pay them if we cut them later in the year. The savings is so insignificant this shouldn't even be discussed.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

OUR VETS WHO MIGHT BE BACK
After Game 1, we don't need to guarantee a player his full year's salary.

Branch
Carpenter
Gaffney
Koutouvides
Warren

They're all making the minimum or only slightly more. It would be the same contract if they brought any of them back. Patriots are saying these players aren't good enough to guarantee them minimum salaries.

Branch 1.325 nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Carpenter 775k nfl minimum 4-6 years 700k
Gaffney 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Koutouvides 825k nfl minimum 7-9 years 825k
Warren 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k

 

[Ring 6]

Perhaps you might tweet Gaffney and tell him that it doesn't matter that his 2012 salary will not be guaranteed and that he will get a paycheck only when the team is willing to commit a week's pay to him.

What in the world does that have to do with the team making roster decisions?

The guarantee MATTERS.

No it really doesnt.

It is not about sacrificing Game 1. We are talking about having an inactive like Rivera or Forston on the squad an additional week or two instead of having Gaffney inactive. Apparently it is so valuable to have both of these players on the 53 (instead of the Practice Squad) that Gaffney needed to be cut.

Gaffney apparently was cut because he will not be ready to play until a few weeks into the season. NOT having him take up a roster spot creates flexibility. You of all people should understand the value of the 51-53 roster spots, especially when shaping and reshaping the roster this week.

I understand that it is likely that Schiancoe will likely go on IR to open a roster spot. That spot needn't be Gaffney's. The roster spots aren't numbered after all.

We had to cut Carpeneter today to make a move. All of the spots are valuable. What purpose would having Gaffney on the roster serve if it is understood that he is returning when healthy?

The BOTTOM LINE is that the nfl is a business and that Belichick is trying to see what else is available before allocating ANY money to Gaffney. Meanwhile, Gaffney apparently is rejecting other offers. IMHO, Gaffney is NOT making a good business decision.

First, Belichick is coaching a football team. He will not sacrifice the quality of the football team for a few potential dollars that has a miniscule chance of ever cashing in on.
Its a foolish theory.
Why is Gaffney making a bad decision? He wants to be here. He isn't turning down offers. Teams are interested WHEN HE IS HEALTHY and he wants to give the Patriots first shot.

There is little doubt that if this is the case, Gaffney will be made whole by getting a bump to cover the game checks he missed.

 

[Ring 6]

They're all making the minimum or only slightly more. It would be the same contract if they brought any of them back. Patriots are saying these players aren't good enough to guarantee them minimum salaries.

Branch 1.325 nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Carpenter 775k nfl minimum 4-6 years 700k
Gaffney 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Koutouvides 825k nfl minimum 7-9 years 825k
Warren 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k

No. They are saying they don't want them on the team right now.
The bs idea that they are cutting them to resign after game 1 for some foolish attempt to save money is ficticious.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, the patriots are telling all these players that they are not good enough to guarantee them minimum salaries.

They're all making the minimum or only slightly more. It would be the same contract if they brought any of them back. Patriots are saying these players aren't good enough to guarantee them minimum salaries.

Branch 1.325 nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Carpenter 775k nfl minimum 4-6 years 700k
Gaffney 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k
Koutouvides 825k nfl minimum 7-9 years 825k
Warren 925k nfl minimum 10+ years 925k

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, the patriots are telling all these players that they are not good enough to guarantee them minimum salaries.

No, they are telling them they are cut.

 

[WhiZa]

OUR VETS WHO MIGHT BE BACK
After Game 1, we don't need to guarantee a player his full year's salary.

Branch
Carpenter
Gaffney
Koutouvides
Warren

The only player I could see getting re-signed is Branch. Everyone else's salary wasn't significant enough to not-guarantee and they may still be a free agent the entire year anyway.

 

[The Scrizz]

Yes, the patriots are telling all these players that they are not good enough to guarantee them minimum salaries.

They are telling them that there isn't room on a crowded 53 man roster at their current state of age, health, ability...

If they made the 53 they would be on the team.

To suggest that they are cutting players that they want on the team right now to save diddly squat is foolish.

 

[The Scrizz]

The only player I could see getting re-signed is Branch. Everyone else's salary wasn't significant enough to not-guarantee and they may still be a free agent the entire year anyway.

I would add that they did the same thing with Warren last year and he didn't seem too broken up about it.

Gaffney was a pure injury move, nothing to do with saving a few bucks. Because if he was healthy he'd be on a roster right now. Hence he isn't healthy enough to be on a roster.

I don't see Carpenter or Koutouvides being important enough to even bother weighing money as a factor.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Perhaps you might tweet Gaffney and tell him that it doesn't matter that his 2012 salary will not be guaranteed and that he will get a paycheck only when the team is willing to commit a week's pay to him.

The guarantee MATTERS.

It is not about sacrificing Game 1. We are talking about having an inactive like Rivera or Forston on the squad an additional week or two instead of having Gaffney inactive. Apparently it is so valuable to have both of these players on the 53 (instead of the Practice Squad) that Gaffney needed to be cut.

I understand that it is likely that Schiancoe will likely go on IR to open a roster spot. That spot needn't be Gaffney's. The roster spots aren't numbered after all.

The BOTTOM LINE is that the nfl is a business and that Belichick is trying to see what else is available before allocating ANY money to Gaffney. Meanwhile, Gaffney apparently is rejecting other offers. IMHO, Gaffney is NOT making a good business decision.

You realize that *someone* is getting paid in that roster spot every week, right? If they cut some guy who's making the minimum, and then sign someone else to a minimum contract to take his place, they haven't actually saved any money over just keeping him on the roster in the first place.

 

[mgteich]

If it foolish, then many others are foolish also. There have been hundreds of posts in the past 36 hours about the wide receivers. It is PRESUMED by many, many posters that the return of Gaffney or Branch is essential to this team, and that we should simply pencil them in. After all, one of them will be back in a couple of weeks.

There are at least two alternatives. The posters are right. If so, the net effect is to keep a Practice Squad quality player on the 53 for a couple of weeks and the wide receiver we need at home and at risk of signing with other teams.

Alternatively, you are correct. These players simply aren't as important to have on the 53 as players like Forston and Rivera, players who would likely make the Practice Squad. At very least, we need to look around to find options better than one of the older veterans. We already have Salas. Maybe Josh will consider this enough not to sign Gaffney or Branch. Maybe he will find someone else in addition.

My personal preference would be if Josh was satisfied with our wide receivers without Gaffney or Branch.

They are telling them that there isn't room on a crowded 53 man roster at their current state of age, health, ability...

If they made the 53 they would be on the team.

To suggest that they are cutting players that they want on the team right now to save diddly squat is foolish.

 

[patsfan13]

The guaranteed contract for players on the roster week 1 is the most inconsequential factor in roster builidng that there is.
The argument is that we want these guys to be on the team, but will sacrifice week 1 so that we can not have to pay them if we cut them later in the year. The savings is so insignificant this shouldn't even be discussed.

Agree here we are well under the cap and will probably spend to the cap as we usually do. These decisions are made to benefit the team and MANAGE the roster both PS and regular to give maximum flexibility constructing the roster and keep as many options open as possible.