Let's Not Guarantee Them A Full Year

[Ring 6]

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.

Actually it wasn't the same thing. Warren didn't make the team and then was brought back after injuries opened a spot.

In fact, I would imagine you cannot find a single case of where we cut a player then brought him back after week 1 in order to not have his salary guaranteed in the entire BB era, to back up the claim that we did it with 5 players this year.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

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.

I was pointing out that it wasn't about the money.

 

[The Scrizz]

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.

You are missing the words RIGHT NOW in my post. I presume that if healthy, Gaffney would have made the 53. However, he isn't healthy, hence not being on the 53 RIGHT NOW.

Maybe the Pats have a 'wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat' deal with Branch where having him off of the week one roster so they can IR Shiancoe is more important than having him seeing 4-5 plays as a backup against the Titans.

Again, these are hypothetical suggestions. But the fact that neither of these players are on another team's 53 right now seems to support that it isn't to save a few dollars.

 

[mgteich]

Players aren't on the team only for their value in the next game.

You are missing the words RIGHT NOW in my post. I presume that if healthy, Gaffney would have made the 53. However, he isn't healthy, hence not being on the 53 RIGHT NOW.

Maybe the Pats have a 'wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat' deal with Branch where having him off of the week one roster so they can IR Shiancoe is more important than having him seeing 4-5 plays as a backup against the Titans.

Again, these are hypothetical suggestions. But the fact that neither of these players are on another team's 53 right now seems to support that it isn't to save a few dollars.

 

[The Scrizz]

Actually it wasn't the same thing. Warren didn't make the team and then was brought back after injuries opened a spot.

In fact, I would imagine you cannot find a single case of where we cut a player then brought him back after week 1 in order to not have his salary guaranteed in the entire BB era, to back up the claim that we did it with 5 players this year.

I wasn't suggesting that they cut Warren to save money. Merely that I could see him coming back to the team for the same reason that he did last year. Injuries.

I'm pretty sure he came out last year and said that he wasn't interested in playing for anyone other than the Pats.

 

[Ring 6]

If it foolish, then many others are foolish also.

Who are many others that are saying BB wants these players on the team but cut them so they could sit out week 1 so he screw them out of having their salary guaranteed in the event he cuts them later?

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.

Yes, but your conspiracy theory about guaranteed salaries has nothing to do with that.

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.

Who are 'the posters' that are saying this?

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.

Branch was cut. Your theory that he was only cut because they want to be able to cut him during the season and save 60k or so game checks he would receive thereby risking losing him even though they need him is ludicrous.
Gaffney is different because of the injury.
How is it difficult to recognize that in an offense that needs 2 WRs, that an aging, slowing WR that will be 4th, and therefore inactive on game day when Gaffney is back is less needed than a young developmental player?
Do you want old players sitting inactive every week?

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

Hard to say, but it seems clear they would rather use a spot at WR that won't see the field much on a younger player than Branch and that Gaffney injured isn't going to be out on the field either.

 

[Ring 6]

I wasn't suggesting that they cut Warren to save money. Merely that I could see him coming back to the team for the same reason that he did last year. Injuries.

I'm pretty sure he came out last year and said that he wasn't interested in playing for anyone other than the Pats.

Right, I was just clarifying that it is not an example of what is being said is happening here. I don't think such an example exists in BBs history.

 

[Ring 6]

I was pointing out that it wasn't about the money.

Yes, I understood that, i was leveraging off of your point.

 

[The Scrizz]

Players aren't on the team only for their value in the next game.

I know! That's what I am saying exactly! I am saying that MAYBE not having Branch for one game is worth it to get Shiancoe to IR. For example.

Which would mean that having Branch OFF the team for one game is more valuable to the team.

You see having a player for one game might not be valuable but NOT having a player for one game could be. Especially if you aren't worried about losing that player to another team.

 

[The Scrizz]

Right, I was just clarifying that it is not an example of what is being said is happening here. I don't think such an example exists in BBs history.

I can't think of an example period. Most players probably would see such a move in a negative light and not be overly inclined to come back to the team that just did it to them.

The players listed here are especially ridiculous considering the salaries we're talking about.

 

[Ring 6]

I know! That's what I am saying exactly! I am saying that MAYBE not having Branch for one game is worth it to get Shiancoe to IR. For example.

Which would mean that having Branch OFF the team for one game is more valuable to the team.

You see having a player for one game might not be valuable but NOT having a player for one game could be. Especially if you aren't worried about losing that player to another team.

In this argument it would only be not having Branch for 2-3 practices, because he would be back 9/4 if that were the plan.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

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

I disagree with that thinking. Not having a guaranteed salary is an effect of being cut. However, the reason for the cut may or may not be for the effect it causes. And in this instance, due to the relatively small dollars involved, the more logical explanation is about the benefit of roster flexibility.

 

[The Scrizz]

In this argument it would only be not having Branch for 2-3 practices, because he would be back 9/4 if that were the plan.

Which makes the original premise of cutting these guys so Krafty can buy his jailbait squeeze a new condo even more ridiculous. I'm done in this thread. We've said all that needs to be said.