The massive cost of trading Garappolo

[AzPatsFan]

All the Draftniks slather and foam at the draft picks that trading Garappolo may bring. I take the opposite view and seek to discuss the massive cost to the Patriots of trading Garappolo. Implicit itns dsicussion is the assumption that he is at least a competent starting caliber QB, based on college stardom, high draft pick selection, quick release, and post graduate football education at the Belichick post graduate NFL finishing school.

The Costs are listed in four main categories as:

Cost of Insurance short term,

Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later,

Cost of altering the team Offensively,

Cost of altering the team Defensively.

These are Costs to the Team not even addressed by most eager Draftniks. I hope to address each in depth in subsequent posts.

 

[BobDigital]

I like this post and it is true. But I will make some quick counter points.

#1 short term insurance - No way around it. They are better off with Jimmy than without him this year. Very unlikely a rookie comes in and makes a big enough impact to make the loss of the QB insurance worth it.

#2 Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later - I don't know if this counts. They would have to do it anyway if they plan to keep Brady past this coming year. No way JG stays after next year unless we franchise him.

#3/#4 - I don't see it. I don't think they change anything due to losing Jimmy G. They will either change things on the fly with Brissett IF something happens or ask him to play in the same system. They will not ask the starting units to change over the back up QB situation. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I like this post and it is true. But I will make some quick counter points.

#1 short term insurance - No way around it. They are better off with Jimmy than without him this year. Very unlikely a rookie comes in and makes a big enough impact to make the loss of the QB insurance worth it.

#2 Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later - I don't know if this counts. They would have to do it anyway if they plan to keep Brady past this coming year. No way JG stays after next year unless we franchise him.

#3/#4 - I don't see it. I don't think they change anything due to losing Jimmy G. They will either change things on the fly with Brissett IF something happens or ask him to play in the same system. They will not ask the starting units to change over the back up QB situation. Maybe I'm wrong.

But they wouldn't have a rookie backing him up, they likely would have Brissett who will be in year 2 with a game plus of experience under his belt... Of course he's not GOAT but I feel better with a year 2 QB with experience in the system than a guy 6 months removed from the college ranks....

 

[chasa]

Cost of insurance short term: Jimmy looked good in one game, and got injured in the second. there is no such thing as long term insurance in this league, every single player is one bad fall away from missing time. He was our insurance this year, he last 1.5 games before the third stringer came in, the third stringer lasted 2.5 games before he was done for the year. Brady has been more durable, and short of a freak accident i dont see him missing playing time.

Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later. We got jimmy with a mid round pick, We have a young guy in brisset that the team is big on.

Cost of altering the team offensively. Brisset will have a second offseason to learn, he'll learn EVEN fast if garoppolo is traded, thus providing brisset with 2nd team snaps, including time with the first string.

I don't see much defensive alteration by having brissett over garapollo.

The real question is the cost of NOT trading him now.
We lose out potentially on a first round pick plus additional incentives.
We delay the development of Brisset.
We go into another season with three Qb, which weakens the team by keeping an extra roster spot better used elsewhere.
Unless brady does a 180 we lose him next year for nothing, or we tag him and trade him for less due to the massive contract hes going to have(see cassell and vrabal for a third)

I think if the team is serious about giving brady a new extension, then they have to trade garapollo and get maximum value for him. hes a top young qb IMO, but hes not going to be the starter here for a number of very expensive years.

 

[Spiral]

Cost of Insurance short term,

Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later,

Cost of altering the team Offensively,

Cost of altering the team Defensively.

These are Costs to the Team not even addressed by most eager Draftniks. I hope to address each in depth in subsequent posts.

I agree that there could potentially be a short-term cap cost. If the Patriots sign a decent veteran backup, that will cost them about $3M. But if they draft a late-round QB to be #3, there may actually be some cap savings.

The cost of acquiring a "franchise" QB later isn't avoided if they keep JG. Assuming that the need for this wouldn't arise for another couple of years, then there is no difference, b/c JG isn't going to be here in 2018.

Cost of altering the team offensively and defensively--I'm at a loss to understand. Changing the #2 QB, changes that position and possibly the #3 QB. I can't see what other positions would be affected.

 

[JMC00]

Garoppolo will be gone after next year and the Pats will only have a 3rd round comp pick in '19 to show for it.

Not trading Garoppolo this year IMO is a loss. Obviously i'm not saying trade him for a 5th round pick. But if there is a deal that nets the Pats 2-3 picks in the first 3 rounds I would absolutely do it.

Remember 2 players got stolen because of framegate. One a 1st rounder and the other a 4th rounder in this year's draft which if you haven't noticed Pats have absolutely been killing it with 4th round picks.

 

[Deus Irae]

All the Draftniks slather and foam at the draft picks that trading Garappolo may bring. I take the opposite view and seek to discuss the massive cost to the Patriots of trading Garappolo. Implicit itns dsicussion is the assumption that he is at least a competent starting caliber QB, based on college stardom, high draft pick selection, quick release, and post graduate football education at the Belichick post graduate NFL finishing school.

The Costs are listed in four main categories as:

Cost of Insurance short term,

Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later,

Cost of altering the team Offensively,

Cost of altering the team Defensively.

These are Costs to the Team not even addressed by most eager Draftniks. I hope to address each in depth in subsequent posts.

Unless the Patriots think JAG really is a franchise level QB, and we don't know whether or not they do, there is no "massive cost of trading Garappolo".

 

[bbobbo]

Remember 2 players got stolen because of framegate. One a 1st rounder and the other a 4th rounder in this year's draft which if you haven't noticed Pats have absolutely been killing it with 4th round picks.

never like to see "4th round pick" and "killing" in the same sentence....
.

 

[BobDigital]

But they wouldn't have a rookie backing him up, they likely would have Brissett who will be in year 2 with a game plus of experience under his belt... Of course he's not GOAT but I feel better with a year 2 QB with experience in the system than a guy 6 months removed from the college ranks....

Oh when I say rookie i mean any rookie. Unless they pick #12 or something. Most rookies don't do too much year 1. They help some but some but are not huge.

 

[ahmed]

People who say to keep Garappolo don't play the scenario out properly.

Keep Him - You control him for 1 year. At end of 1 year, you either franchise him ($20MM), sign him long term (multiple years at probably $20MM each minimum) or lose him for a 3rd pick. There are no other viable options. Of course, you can extend him for a lot of money but keep him as back up but that has a lot of downside (cap, QB controversy...). So you are left with:

1. You only keep him beyond next year if a) Brady regresses and you cut him, b) Brady gets injured and is done or c) you trade Brady.
2. A reasonable analysis, based on everything we have seen from Brady, is that Brady will play for a few more years, let's say 2-4 years and be effective. So, you would basically be making the decision to keep him based on the off-chance Brady gets a long term injury (only happened once) or Brady regresses - no evidence to suggest that.

I understand all the hoopla about Brady's age but other than he is going to be 40, nothing in his performance or history suggests he will not be able to play for another 2-4 years well. So the decision you will ultimately be making is this:

1. Keep Garappolo for 1 more year as insurance and lose out on the windfall of trading him (losing out on at least one 1st round pick). To me, that is way too expensive of an insurance.
2. Keep Garappolo and move on from Brady...which is even worse than just losing out on Garappolo's trade value because we will have a better chance of winning another SB with Brady over the next 3 years than with Garappolo over the next 10-12 years.

 

[AzPatsFan]

The Cost of insurance, short term. (Part II)

I doubt that anyone believes that the Team as presently constituted will not be a favored Superbowl LII contender. They get back two great players missing on the LI squad. Gronkowski and Vollmer. Although Vollmer may retire. Both or even one would add to the Teams might in persuing Lombardi #6.

Several young players will probably get better. Thuney, Mason, Andrews, Mitchell, Floyd on Offense and Flowers, Van Noy, Rowe and McMillen are candidates to improve with another full training camp. Only the loss of Hightower, Ryan to FA, and age to Branch, may detract from the Defense. The only age on the Team is Branch, Ninkovich, and Tom Brady.

There is ample depth everywhere now. The team has 5 startable WRs, and two TEs, three quality RBs and 10 Offensive linemen This includes three QBs of which two are trained and starting caliber unless one is traded.

If Garappolo is traded the Pats need to acquire a startable backup QB. Who are qualified and what would they cost, if for whatever reason, health, age or ineffectiveness should beset Brady and the Team in 2017 as they seek Lombardi #6?

I take it as a given, that Brisset is not polished or ready as a sophomore, nor is the Team for him as a SuperBowl QB. IMO he needs, as a minimum of 3 years of a couple or three training camps at the finishing school before he can step in and win. A Romo or Safford, if available, would likely cost a 1st and 4th and a minimum of 5-10 million.

There goes ALL THE PUTATIVE BENEFITS of the draft pick haul of trading Garappolo. The salary needed, adds more costs to the CAP.

Lesser QBs with lower expectations might cost half as much. But can they win a Superbowl with them, if needed?

Gambling with the QB depth and finding someone like a McNown for a year, reduces the Garappolo trade benefits by only half or more. Yet BB would have to make one or the other, as prudent choices in the event he trades Garappolo.

Teams are seldom in a favored position to win a Superbowl. The Team needs to be fully staffed and prepared. The 2017 edition of the Patriots is such a Team. Spending a 1st for insurance to win Lombardi with no chance of recovering much, is worth it for a chance at Lombardi #6, say many "Go for it" fans.

Why would you potentially shoot yourself in the foot in such a case? Belichick is ahead of the game doing exactly... NOTHING.

So why do it?

 

[AzPatsFan]

The Cost of insurance, short term.

I doubt that anyone believes that the Team as presently constituted will not be a favored Superbowl LII contender. They get back two great players missing on the LI squad. Gronkowski and Vollmer. Although Vollmer may retire. Both or even one would add to the Teams might in persuing Lombardi #6.

Several young players will probably get better. Thuney, Mason, Andrews, Mitchell, Floyd on Offense and Flowers, Van Noy, Rowe and McMillen are candidates to improve with another full training camp. Only the loss of Hightower, Ryan to FA, and age to Branch, may detract from the Defense. The only age on the Team is Branch, Ninkovich, and Tom Brady.

There is ample depth everywhere now. The team has 5 startable WRs, and two TEs, three quality RBs and 10 Offensive linemen This includes three QBs of which two are trained and starting caliber unless one is traded.

If Garappolo is traded the Pats need to acquire a startable backup QB. Who are qualified and what would they cost, if for whatever reason, health, age or ineffectiveness should beset Brady and the Team in 2017 as they seek Lombardi #6?

I take it as a given, that Brisset is not polished or ready as a sophomore, nor is the Team for him as a SuperBowl QB. IMO he needs, as a minimum of 3 years of a couple or three training camps at the finishing school before he can step in and win. A Romo or Safford, if available, would likely cost a 1st and 4th and a minimum of 5-10 million.

There goes ALL THE PUTATIVE BENEFITS of the draft pick haul of trading Garappolo. The salary needed, adds more costs to the CAP.

Lesser QBs with lower expectations might cost half as much. But can they win a Superbowl with them,if needed?

Gambling with the QB depth and finding someone like a McNown for a year, reduces the Garappolo trade benefits by only half or more. Yet BB would have to make one or the other, as prudent choices in the event he trades Garappolo.

Teams are seldom in a favored position to win a Superbowl. The Team needs to be fully staffed and prepared. The 2017 edition of the Patriots is such a Team. Spending a 1st for insurance to win Lombardi with no chance of recovering much, is worth it for a chance at Lombardi #6, say many "Go for it" fans.

Why would you potentially shoot yourself in the foot in such a case? Belichick is ahead of the game doing exactly... NOTHING.

So why do it?

 

[Sciz]

Based on the last time we discussed this a few months ago, it's more accurate to call it "the massive cost to the Patriots of Garoppolo not taking a massive discount to be a long term backup."

 

[Ring 6]

All the Draftniks slather and foam at the draft picks that trading Garappolo may bring. I take the opposite view and seek to discuss the massive cost to the Patriots of trading Garappolo. Implicit itns dsicussion is the assumption that he is at least a competent starting caliber QB, based on college stardom, high draft pick selection, quick release, and post graduate football education at the Belichick post graduate NFL finishing school.

I don't start with that implicit agreement. Well, I would agree that its safe to say he is competent, but the rest of you r post seems to imply he is a sure thing stud.
Many QBs have had as much of more college stardom and failed.
Many QBs have been taken much higher and failed.
Many QBs have quick releases and fail. Its a small piece of the formula, and the decision making that precedes it often overrides it.
Other than Brady there is no evidence being a QB on a BB team leads to being any better of a QB than being anywhere else. Theoretically it makes sense, but then you would have to say every player who ever plays for BB responds to him, absorbs the message, and is better, which just isn't true.

The Costs are listed in four main categories as:

Cost of Insurance short term,

This is minimal especially compared to the reward for trading him.

Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later,

This is not the cost of trading Jimmy G, this is the 'cost' of his contract expiring before Brady is done.

Cost of altering the team Offensively,

This does not make sense to me. We aren't changing our offense because we trade the backup QB.

Cost of altering the team Defensively.

This makes even less sense to me. We aren't changing our defense because we trade the backup QB.

 

[Oswlek]

If Garappolo is traded the Pats need to acquire a startable backup QB.

Why would they consider Brissett non-viable for a role in 2017 that they were fine with him holding in 2016? And why in hell are they trading a first round pick for a backup QB?

None of that post makes a lick of sense, Az.

 

[Brit patriot]

If Brady was starting to slide, I would consider keeping him and starting the transition (if Bill sees enough in practice that he thinks we have something) However, Brady is better than he has ever been and we will likely get 3-4 years of him (barring horrific injury) The transition is being planned, but Jimmy won't be part of it.

 

[Ring 6]

Unless the Patriots think JAG really is a franchise level QB, and we don't know whether or not they do, there is no "massive cost of trading Garappolo".

And if they do think he is a franchise level QB there is probably no way to keep him anyway, without screwing with Brady.

 

[skinnydog]

And if they do think he is a franchise level QB there is probably no way to keep him anyway, without screwing with Brady.

This

 

[bbobbo]

I take it as a given, that Brisset is not polished or ready as a sophomore, nor is the Team for him as a SuperBowl QB. IMO he needs, as a minimum of 3 years of a couple or three training camps at the finishing school before he can step in and win. A Romo or Safford, if available, would likely cost a 1st and 4th and a minimum of 5-10 million.

tom brady, ben roethlisberger, and russell wilson all won super bowls in their second seasons (kurt warner too, although he's a little different because of his stint in the arena league).

so i don't think you can take as a given that brissett won't be ready as a sophomore. by all accounts, he works hard and is well respected in the locker room. if he has a great defense backing him up and a decent running game to help him out, he only needs to be a solid player who doesn't turn the ball over to keep the patriots in contention.
.

 

[borg]

Cost of Insurance short term ............$0 or less. Insurance is already on the roster .....and if NE doesn't draft a QB, a net savings. And because NE goes out of its way to avoid signing retread veteran QBs as back ups whose mid range salaries offer no value on game day, the "cost of insurance" argument seems more like hyperventilation

Cost of acquiring a franchise QB later .......Negligable .......either draft pick(s) which will likely be spent eventually whether JG stays on the roster 1 more year or not.
Or........ if NE chooses the free agent route to secure its next franchise QB, Brady salary will be transferred to his replacement costing NE only the difference if the replacement signs for a greater salary

Cost of altering the team Offensively .... Irrelevant......NE alters its offense yearly

Cost of altering the team Defensively ....Irrelevant......NE alters its defense yearly

I get the mindset of the faction who want JG to be on the roster in 2017 as Brady insurance.
I don't get the mindset of the faction who want to pretend BB would ever pay starter dollars to a backup QB to insure Brady's successor. Starting in 2018, NE would have to pay out in the neighborhood of $35 million/ year to secure starter and backup. Under this fiscal structure, how competitive a team could NE field?
Then there is the minor detail of JG agreeing to be a rich non-factor indefinitely. Also.....Can you imagine the locker room effect ....and the contract mentality of players who actually play on Sundays. Such a structure would create wide resentment and turmoil.
For some.....I guess they believe BB will discard every core principal of team building that he has valued above all else over the past decades...sound economics, sound locker room.
What team have you been watching?