Reiss has interesting unknown tidbit on franchising Cassel

[ctpatsfan77]

Then, the only reason not to franchise Cassel is that, as insurance for Brady, he will have to be held until a reasonable period, i.e., Brady appears healthy, or face challenges from the NFLPA, and possibly the league under the urging of the Competition Committee or Rules Comm.

The only way they might have a legitimate grievance is if the Patriots acted in bad faith (i.e., by trading Cassel somewhere he manifestly did not want to go).

As I've pointed out before, aside from the "good faith negotiations" rule, there is no stated requirement in the CBA that the Patriots have to make any sort of effort to sign him to a long-term deal.

 

[ALP]

wait a sec...

so if we offer the tender, and cassel doesnt sign it, does it count against ht ecap? or does it count only AFTER it has been signed?




b/c this means that we could trade cassel for picks, AND not have him in the cap space

 

[BelichickFan]

wait a sec...

so if we offer the tender, and cassel doesnt sign it, does it count against ht ecap? or does it count only AFTER it has been signed?

Evidently once the tag is placed the cap hit occurs. But the cap hit is removed if he is traded.

b/c this means that we could trade cassel for picks, AND not have him in the cap space

We can most certainly do that if we find a trading partner except the cap hit will be there from the time we place the tag until the time of the trade.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Perhaps someone can clarify this question - doesn't the team trading for Cassel also have to have the $14.8 million in cap space to make the trade? We can't trade a player we don't have the rights to - therefore Cassel will never have a cap hit of $0.

Yes, they do. As another example, for the Patriots to bring Randy Moss into the fold, Brady restructured his contract to create additional cap room in 2007 (since they had to temporarily absorb Moss' old cap number of ~$10M).

Or does the NFL just give a wink and a nod and allow teams to trade a player who has no cap value?

No, they don't give a wink and a nod. If a team goes over the salary cap, they start canceling contracts until the team is under again.

BTW, can't a team give the patriots say a 2nd for the patriots to withdraw their franchise tag.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but my gut instinct tells me that the rule saying "No assignment" (Article XX, Section 8) forbids such an action, and if it doesn't, the Anti-Collusion provisions probably do the trick. That said, if you run your team so badly that you can't get players to renegotiate, then you don't deserve Cassel.

Ok, full disclosure, I didn't read the entire thread so sorry if I am repeating information already stated. Cassel signing the tender is not in Cassel's best interest. Cassel can get more guaranteed money if he signs a long term deal with someone else. If he signs the tender, he cannot work a long term deal with anyone until the next calendar year. That means he is risking either serious injury or poor performance diminishing any value he has for a long term deal.

(emphasis mine) "The contract of a veteran player may not be renegotiated to increase the salary to be paid during the original terms of the contract for a period of twelve months after the most recent renegotiation. The first renegotiation of a Veteran Player Contract, however, may take place at any time.

 

[ALP]

got it thanks

so the cap hit is effective the moment we offer the tag, no matter when it is signed

 

[ctpatsfan77]

got it thanks

so the cap hit is effective the moment we offer the tag, no matter when it is signed

That would be correct.

 

[Rob0729]

(emphasis mine) "The contract of a veteran player may not be renegotiated to increase the salary to be paid during the original terms of the contract for a period of twelve months after the most recent renegotiation. The first renegotiation of a Veteran Player Contract, however, may take place at any time.

Yeah, I guess you are right. My bad.

 

[alamo]

Perhaps someone can clarify this question - doesn't the team trading for Cassel also have to have the $14.8 million in cap space to make the trade?

Yes, they do. As another example, for the Patriots to bring Randy Moss into the fold, Brady restructured his contract to create additional cap room in 2007 (since they had to temporarily absorb Moss' old cap number of ~$10M).

My contention is, there is an exception under which the team Cassel was traded to does not need to have 14.8M available. It is based on my recollection of how Tebucky Jones and other sign-and-trade deals happened.

I think the exception is this: if the franchise tender is signed and then the player is traded THE SAME DAY and the long-term deal with the new team is signed THE SAME DAY then the new team does not need to fit the franchise tender under their cap, they only need to fit the new deal.

I have not been able to find confirmation of this, I have seen it explained somewhere in connection a such a trade but I didn't bookmark it. Maybe someone will have better luck finding it. It's such a small detail usually that articles leave it out for simplicity.

This detail might be important because the last-capped-year rules make renegotiation pushing money into the future more difficult. I do not believe that Brady would have been allowed to renegotiate to complete the Moss trade if 2007 had been a last-capped-year.

THAT is why I believe Cassel will not sign the tender immediately. As to the idea that Cassel would be risking untold millions if he got hurt in the meantime -- well, insurance companies write policies to protect against off-the-field injuries all the time, for draftees etc.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

My contention is, there is an exception under which the team Cassel was traded to does not need to have 14.8M available. It is based on my recollection of how Tebucky Jones and other sign-and-trade deals happened.

I think the exception is this: if the franchise tender is signed and then the player is traded THE SAME DAY and the long-term deal with the new team is signed THE SAME DAY then the new team does not need to fit the franchise tender under their cap, they only need to fit the new deal.

I found the clause you're looking for, but I'm not 100% sure it applies to Cassel, period. It doesn't quite say what you think it does, though:

(ii) A Club is not required to have Room to execute a Player Contract with a player to whom the Club has exclusive negotiating rights if the player is assigned to another Club via a trade on the same business day as the execution of the contract, and the assignee Club has or makes Room for such Player Contract.

In other words, the team trading the player doesn't need to have the cap room for it.

[Be glad I found it quickly. Trying to read the CBA article on the workings of the salary cap quickly causes me to lose my will to live. ]

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Is there really a school of thought that thinks Cassel won't sign a tender the second it is presented?

 

[jmt57]

I found the clause you're looking for, but I'm not 100% sure it applies to Cassel, period. It doesn't quite say what you think it does, though:



In other words, the team trading the player doesn't need to have the cap room for it.

[Be glad I found it quickly. Trying to read the CBA article on the workings of the salary cap quickly causes me to lose my will to live. ]

As I recall, teams have 24 hours to get under the cap after signing or trading a player. At that point the league approves the trade and/or contract. This would make sense because you don't want to cut a player to make room under the cap, and then have a trade fall through.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

As I recall, teams have 24 hours to get under the cap after signing or trading a player. At that point the league approves the trade and/or contract. This would make sense because you don't want to cut a player to make room under the cap, and then have a trade fall through.

I remember something like that too; I believe the intent of this rule is to ensure that a team trading a player away doesn't have to alter another contract just to make it work.

 

[Synovia]

Is there really a school of thought that thinks Cassel won't sign a tender the second it is presented?

The most likely scenario if Cassel signs the tender is he rides the bench for a year, then gets a small deal as a backup, having been benched as a starter. If hes first available after riding the bench, especially if Brady performs well, he'll be looking at deals similar to Culpepper, Harrington, etc.

He'll get his $14M, and then play the next 3 years at $2m/year. So, 4 years, 20M.

If he doesn't sign, and gets traded, hes looking at a deal similar to Aaron Rogers, or D. Garrard, or Tony Romo. (Garrard and Romo were both decent players coming off less than a whole season starting due to injury/decline of the starter). IE, if he gets traded, hes looking at 6 years, 50M+. (Romo and Garrard got 60+)


If he rides the Patriots Bench this year, its going to cost him a TON of money, and I'm sure his agent knows that. He has strike while the iron is hot.


Stats comparisons:

Romo 06
220/337 65.3% 2903 yds 19 td 13 int

Cassel 08
327/516 63.4% 3693 yds 21 td 11 int


Both teams had great WRs, good O-lines, and good running games. They're remarkably similar, except for one thing: Cassel was definitely getting better as the season progressed. Romo wasnt.

 

[Patsrock]

The most likely scenario if Cassel signs the tender is he rides the bench for a year, then gets a small deal as a backup, having been benched as a starter. If hes first available after riding the bench, especially if Brady performs well, he'll be looking at deals similar to Culpepper, Harrington, etc.

He'll get his $14M, and then play the next 3 years at $2m/year. So, 4 years, 20M.

If he doesn't sign, and gets traded, hes looking at a deal similar to Aaron Rogers, or D. Garrard, or Tony Romo. (Garrard and Romo were both decent players coming off less than a whole season starting due to injury/decline of the starter). IE, if he gets traded, hes looking at 6 years, 50M+. (Romo and Garrard got 60+)


If he rides the Patriots Bench this year, its going to cost him a TON of money, and I'm sure his agent knows that. He has strike while the iron is hot.


Stats comparisons:

Romo 06
220/337 65.3% 2903 yds 19 td 13 int

Cassel 08
327/516 63.4% 3693 yds 21 td 11 int


Both teams had great WRs, good O-lines, and good running games. They're remarkably similar, except for one thing: Cassel was definitely getting better as the season progressed. Romo wasnt.

He can still be traded if he signs the tender. In fact he has to sign the tender before he can be traded anyways.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The most likely scenario if Cassel signs the tender is he rides the bench for a year, then gets a small deal as a backup, having been benched as a starter. If hes first available after riding the bench, especially if Brady performs well, he'll be looking at deals similar to Culpepper, Harrington, etc.

To clarify: just because he signs the tender doesn't mean he's guaranteed to suit up for the NEP in 2009.

If he rides the Patriots Bench this year, its going to cost him a TON of money, and I'm sure his agent knows that. He has strike while the iron is hot.

Riding the bench in and of itself might not--after all, Matt Schaub had his one big break in 2005, and then rode the pine until he got the big cash after the 2006 season. That said, there are probably going to be a lot of good QBs coming out next year, and that might be.

 

[spacecrime]

Is there really a school of thought that thinks Cassel won't sign a tender the second it is presented?

Who knows? I would sign it in a heartbeat. I mean, 14 MILLION DOLLARS GUARANTEED?????

But who knows with agents? My reason for this thread was that I didn't realize the ramifications of not signing, that Cassel had the absolute power to prevent a trade by not signing. It was new info to me, but evidently not to the more informed fans here.

It wasn't a "Will he or won't he" question. It was a "Holy Moly, no one mentioned this before!"

I wasn't saying he would, only that he could not sign. As I said, almost no franchise tags are for trade purposes (someone could look up and see what percentages are, I suppose, but there aren't many).

The fact that the Pats couldn't trade him unless he signed certainly seemed to be news to me, and as such more interesting than any of the zillion "Should we sign this guy?" threads, some of which are about players under contract. Judging by the one star thread rating, I was wrong.

Moving on, has anyone started threads yet on acquiring Darren Sproles, Ed Reed, or Dante Culpepper?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

It wasn't a "Will he or won't he" question. It was a "Holy Moly, no one mentioned this before!"

I think it's a good thread. I've learned a few things.

I wasn't trying to comment on the thread so much as some of the posts that seem to indicate that Cassel won't sign. I guess it's true that anything is possible where agents are concerned, but my assumption has been that Cassel will be delighted to be tagged.

 

[Synovia]

As I said, almost no franchise tags are for trade purposes (someone could look up and see what percentages are, I suppose, but there aren't many).

There are multiple tag-and-trades every year. Its actually pretty common.



The "OMG, 14M dollars, sign now" contingent is completely ignoring that the tag essentially sets the FLOOR at 14M guaranteed. Any deal he accepts is going to have more guaranteed than that.