Patriot Gurus - Cap Managment (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Can some of you guys in the know on New England give us the inside scoop there on the salary cap situation?

I remember a huge deal being made about Brady being very cool and deferring some money on his big contract making it more cap friendly so the team could sign and keep key players. Other players like Manning didn't seem to do this.

But the team is now well under the cap, right?

Clearly, the perception of the team is that they are extremely tight with money and focused on the cash dollar bottom line. Going after part of Branch's signing bonus yesterday is not surprising to anyone.

Of course, the bottom line also is they're sporting lots of rings.

But isn't Brady kind of about who exactly is benefitting from the money he delayed payment on?

I'm not saying this is accurate (and it's why I'm asking here) but from the outside looking in, it looks like Kraft is the one benefitting in a big way from Brady's cool move to help the team out.

What's the scoop?

J

 

[porkins]

I think they can move some salary money from future years to this year to get closer to the cap and free up more money down the road.

 

[Boston]

I posted this in anoter thread but I think it applies here as well:

This year's salary cap situation is the biggest area of exposure that BB/Pioli have. Prior to this year the Pats have always spent right to the cap. That's why the "cheap" label many try to throw out is just uninformed. While the Pats may not throw the money out on too many studs they've always had a very healthy middle class which is why they've been so deep in prior years. Also, Kraft is making money hand over fists and in the years prior to BB actually overpaid too many players.

As a Pats fan I'm not happy with the fact they have so much cap space. Now, in fairness I understand about 6 mil was budgeted towards Branch this year. If that had happened that would still leaves about 6-8 mil open. Looking at this team if they sprinkled that amount around their roster it would have the potential to put them over the top this year. In years past the Pats have got a lot of bang for that type of money.

Since the Pats don't take a piss without a plan past history would indicate they have sound, business reason why this space isn't being used. It has nothing to do with being cheap. So, while this situation does bother me they have earned the benefit of the doubt that there's a sound business reason for doing this. Whether it's because they need it to extend other players like Koppen and Samuel or because they will adjust other contracts so next offseason is one they will be active in free agency like they were in 03 I do not know. I've also heard stories that they Seymour's money will actually hit pretty big this year but I have not seen that confirmed.

Since the Pats are so tightlipped the reason for this cap space is unknown. So, as events unfold it may make more and more sense. Yet, if the Pats have a mediocre year due to injuries and there's a ton of cap space sitting there at the end of the year and than they don't make big moves next offseason I do believe fans will not be happy. I think that is one scenario where the fans would definetly start to get restless. Yet, untill that happens you'll see the "in Bill we trust" mindset continue because so far it has done nothing but produce positive results.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I'll put it this way - I'll be disappointed if the Patriots are well below the cap by the END of the year.

What I think can be expected this year is that the Patriots will shuffle around some of the huge bonus money of Seymour and Brady so that lots of it counts against the cap this year - thereby freeing up cap space in the future. There may also be some mid-level guys who are quietly extended in the middle of the season (guys like Koppen, Daniel Graham, both of whom are up at the end of the season).

I'm not sure that Brady has actually given up money in those restructures, I think he has just rearranged it to provide some cap space when it has been needed.

But the Patriots have spent up to the cap every season since Kraft took over, so I have to assume that his money is ear-marked for something.

However, as it relates to Branch, he wanted way too much money in the opinion of the front office (and most New England fans). So even if the Patriots have cap space, they STILL do not go beyond a player's "value" - because ultimately, this will eventually lead to bad cap situations with ugly contracts.

If you want a better example of this than Branch, look at Vinatieri. Vinatieri, as an icon and a clutch performer, meant as much or MORE to the Patriots than Branch, and even though he got signed for a boatload of money compared to what kickers usually get, it's still peanuts compared to wide receier money. The Patriots were STILL not willing to "overpay" for a player who relative to the rest of the roster, wouldn't be making that much. That's how loyal they are to their system.

 

[PMENFAN]

Since the Pats don't take a piss without a plan past history would indicate they have sound, business reason why this space isn't being used. It has nothing to do with being cheap. So, while this situation does bother me they have earned the benefit of the doubt that there's a sound business reason for doing this. Whether it's because they need it to extend other players like Koppen and Samuel or because they will adjust other contracts so next offseason is one they will be active in free agency like they were in 03 I do not know. I've also heard stories that they Seymour's money will actually hit pretty big this year but I have not seen that confirmed.

I think you hit it right there. Graham is coming up, but you've got to think about letting him go. What is his value. Rally, with the cap jump, the entire salary structure around the league changed, and that has to be taken into account. How many deals have they redone behind the scenes? They are so tight lipped, you don't know. Players they have to keep, and I would think they would restructure would be Koppen and Samuel, that you already mentioned, but also Warren and Wilfork. Seymour has already been adressed, but who knows what the terms are. We the mushrooms surely don't. Vrabel and Harrison are big pieces. The O'line is deep and I don't know how much you need to adress the top, because the young side is so close in ability. Address that side, and keep drafting and developing. We'll see how it plays out, but I don't think Kraft is worried about making out with the 2-3 million Brady sacrificed, if it was even that much. He's making far more than that. The Pats bottome line isn't made in savings from the salary cap. Their revenue stream is much too large for that to be an issue.

 

[Boston]

A few other things here:

*How the Patriots spend money has nothing to do with being cheap. It's all about how they value a player. The Pats put a value on a player and that's not going to change regardless of how much cap space they have or don't have. They are maniacal in this area and usually won't budge. Where issues will arise with players is when other teams overpay (at least in the mind of the Pats). When that happens players want to say a market has been set. Yet, the Pats don't buy into that. So, while Branch will point to ARE or Givens contract as market value the Pats will say just because another team makes what they feel is a bad business decision we're not going to let that effect our business model. Also, the Pats play a style of football that's different than many other teams. They run a complex 3-4 D and their O is pretty different as well. Therefore the value a player has to them could be totally different to another team that plays a different brand of football. Add in how much they value a certain type of personality and the equation can change even more.

*There is a a misperception of Brady's deal. Brady did not sign a bad contract. He signed a very big deal. What he didn't do is try to maximize every dollar he could have gotten. To his credit he values championships and did not put the Pats in a position where they were forced to give Brady top dollar taking away from other areas of the team. Yet, make no mistake about it, he was paid very handsomely.

*One other subplot about Branch that no one ever discusses. Prior to last year the Pats made an offer to Derrick Mason. The accounts I have heard is it was larger than the deal he signed with Baltimore which was a 5 year deal with a 7 mil bonus. He turned it down because he was more comfortable with Baltimore and I believe his wife is from there as well. Playing detective here that deal can lead you to a few assumptions:

1) The Pats knew they were going to let either Branch or Givens walk. They were not going to sign both after giving Mason big money.

2) The Pats did not see either Branch or Givens as a #1. If they did that would have meant paying one of them big money as well as Mason big money. That just doesn't make sense if you look at the Pats history. I just don't see them tying up that much money on two WRs.

So what could that mean:

1) The Pats were not totally sold on either Branch or Givens long term or as a #1 WR. Looking at their numbers as well as both their injury histories that could be very legit.

or

2) They thought they could get Mason and than sign either Givens or Branch to much lower money. Yet, when the new CBA came onboard the market changed dramatically and it backfired on the Pats as teams have been very loose with a dollar this offseason.

Either way, I've always felt the attempt to land Mason was a potential red flag about how the Pats really felt about both Branch and Givens.

 

[Borat]

I think others have already said what I was going to, so no point in restating.

I will just add that Brady has come out in support of Patriots management during the whole Branch mess on more than one occassion, even going so far as to admit that it might not really look good for him to side with management, but that he has full confidence in his team's roster and salary cap management.

 

[Gadzooks]

I would assume that all teams in all sports put a value on every player they have and every player they would like to have (via free agency or trade) However, almost always, the team ends up overspending on some player at some point. The Pats are the only team I can think of that completely stick to their guns. I think its because Belichick feels its the system and not the players. So if the player doesn't agree with the value they assign to him, they feel the player can be replaced. To an extent its comendable. If every team practiced this, then player salaries wouldn't be so outrageous.

Personally, I think this strategy catches up with the Pats this year. Losing your kicker (who is the greatest clutch kicker probably ever) and both starting WR's from last year is hard for anyone to replace, and the WR's they brought in don't impress me. There is some age on the defense (Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Seau)I think the other 3 teams in the division have improved from last year.

With all the cap space (and now having 2 #1 picks) it should make for an interesting offseason in NE.

 

[AB in DC]

Can some of you guys in the know on New England give us the inside scoop there on the salary cap situation?I remember a huge deal being made about Brady being very cool and deferring some money on his big contract making it more cap friendly so the team could sign and keep key players. Other players like Manning didn't seem to do this.But the team is now well under the cap, right?

I think you're talking about different things. As I recall, the cap maneuvers were in previous seasons. The team is well under the cap this year, but as others have pointed out, they were right at the cap in previous years.If Brady deferred any 2006 money I'd be very surprised.

 

[PMENFAN]

I would assume that all teams in all sports put a value on every player they have and every player they would like to have (via free agency or trade) However, almost always, the team ends up overspending on some player at some point. The Pats are the only team I can think of that completely stick to their guns. I think its because Belichick feels its the system and not the players. So if the player doesn't agree with the value they assign to him, they feel the player can be replaced. To an extent its comendable. If every team practiced this, then player salaries wouldn't be so outrageous. Personally, I think this strategy catches up with the Pats this year. Losing your kicker (who is the greatest clutch kicker probably ever) and both starting WR's from last year is hard for anyone to replace, and the WR's they brought in don't impress me. There is some age on the defense (Bruschi, Vrabel, Harrison, Seau)I think the other 3 teams in the division have improved from last year. With all the cap space (and now having 2 #1 picks) it should make for an interesting offseason in NE.

Easy now on the old guys. Vrabel just turned 31, Bruschi is 33, and Colvin is 29. They've got a few years of play left in them. Harrison will be 34 in December. He's got 3 years left after this one. Older players lose some of their speed and physicallity, but they get spmarter. They're aging, no question, but it's not like they're out there in their Rascals yet. Seau, he's bona fide old. But, he also led the team in tackles, and no doubt adrenaline and emotion, last week. I just can't overlook the comments about the WR not impressing anybody being the same comments I heard coming into the 2003 season when Branch and Givens were going to be the #1 and #2. Now, because they're gone, everybody is saying the Pats will collapse. For the same reason the Pats didn't collapse with them, they wont collapse without them. It is the system. I will grant you, I would be one heck of a lot more comfortable with the round belliet ND grad over there, but he has finally received the accolades he deserved 5 years ago. Charlie Weis was the most underated piece of the Pats run, IMHO. We miss him probably more than any other piece that we've lost. His play calling, and game planning are missed more than anything. His ability to design plays to maximize the talents of the player, rather than trying to plug players into his plays is the best I have ever seen. Best wishes to you Charlis. We miss you. That said, Brady, Josh McDaniels and BB are no slouches, but they are also no Charlie Weis. I'm optomistic, but realistic. There will be a learning curve for Jackson/Gabriel/Caldwell for sure, but it's not like they're replacing Stanley Morgan and Harold Jackson. They're replacing two above average receivers, not greats.

 

[fatness]

Can some of you guys in the know on New England give us the inside scoop there on the salary cap situation?

I remember a huge deal being made about Brady being very cool and deferring some money on his big contract making it more cap friendly so the team could sign and keep key players. Other players like Manning didn't seem to do this.

But the team is now well under the cap, right?

Clearly, the perception of the team is that they are extremely tight with money and focused on the cash dollar bottom line. Going after part of Branch's signing bonus yesterday is not surprising to anyone.

Of course, the bottom line also is they're sporting lots of rings.

But isn't Brady kind of about who exactly is benefitting from the money he delayed payment on?

I'm not saying this is accurate (and it's why I'm asking here) but from the outside looking in, it looks like Kraft is the one benefitting in a big way from Brady's cool move to help the team out.

What's the scoop?

J

This was discussed on Mike & Mike this morning, and I thought it was a valid question brought up by Greenberg (which suprised me). There's some more talk about it in this thread as well. I seem to remember it the way you do --- that Brady got good press for "taking less so the Patriots could sign more other players." If that's what the Patriots asked him to do in contract negotiations, and I don't know if they did or didn't, Brady's got a legitimate beef.

 

[Moniker]

All of you Pats homers/defenders realize that nothing was asked about Branch or Vinatieri, right? There was nothing here for you to defend and yet you still had to defend your beloved Pats...

Does anyone actually know the answer to the question?

 

[ChromeWeasel]

Can some of you guys in the know on New England give us the inside scoop there on the salary cap situation?I remember a huge deal being made about Brady being very cool and deferring some money on his big contract making it more cap friendly so the team could sign and keep key players. Other players like Manning didn't seem to do this.But the team is now well under the cap, right?Clearly, the perception of the team is that they are extremely tight with money and focused on the cash dollar bottom line. Going after part of Branch's signing bonus yesterday is not surprising to anyone.Of course, the bottom line also is they're sporting lots of rings.But isn't Brady kind of about who exactly is benefitting from the money he delayed payment on? I'm not saying this is accurate (and it's why I'm asking here) but from the outside looking in, it looks like Kraft is the one benefitting in a big way from Brady's cool move to help the team out.What's the scoop?J

The football guys (Deossie, Smerlas) on EEI have suggested the money will all be rolled into roster bonuses during the year for the active roster. Take Richard Seymour. He's got a 6.6 million dollar option that's prorated over 4 years. If they convert that to a roster bonus it accelerates all to the current year. Thats a 5 million dollar difference or so.Any extra money they have left that isnt going into free agents will be used up to accelerate options in this way, clearing out more money for future years.

 

[BlueOnion]

All of you Pats homers/defenders realize that nothing was asked about Branch or Vinatieri, right? There was nothing here for you to defend and yet you still had to defend your beloved Pats...

Does anyone actually know the answer to the question?

With all due respect, Joe could have made some better word choices. Just looking at the sub-title, "Did the Patriots con Brady?" The question was a good one, but some of the comments were a little Going after part of Branch's signing bonus yesterday is not surprising to anyone.

But isn't Brady kind of :suprised: about who exactly is benefitting from the money he delayed payment on?

 

[AB in DC]

All of you Pats homers/defenders realize that nothing was asked about Branch or Vinatieri, right? There was nothing here for you to defend and yet you still had to defend your beloved Pats...

Why are you so touchy about this? Joe asked a question about how the Patriots were supposed to be leaving cap space for other players -- Branch and Vinatieri just being a couple examples.I'm amazed at what gets some people's panties in a bunch around here.

 

[Wadsworth]

The Pats could also roll some of the money into next years cap. Any which way I'm sure it will all be "spent" by season's end. Keep in mind the cap number doesn't mean how much money was actually given out, it's just accounting jargon. So saving $10m on this year's cap doesn't mean you saved $10m. It just means you missed a chance to save $10m off future cap hits, which I can't see NE doing.

The Pats have been a model of cap management over the last 6 years or so, it's hard to second guess them with their track record. As far the brady question, with the Pats so tight-lipped about everything they do it's tough have a real answer as we likely don't have access to the real data.

 

[TD Ryan]

here is everything you would want to know about the Patriots salary cap (and more):

Miguel's Pats Cap page

there is a lot of speculation locally that NE will use their cap space this year as relief for upcoming cap hits (i.e. Seymour getting a 6.6mil roster bonus this year)

 

[Bri]

couple good posts Boston, nothing to add just good posting

 

[SSOG]

I'll put it this way - I'll be disappointed if the Patriots are well below the cap by the END of the year.

What I think can be expected this year is that the Patriots will shuffle around some of the huge bonus money of Seymour and Brady so that lots of it counts against the cap this year - thereby freeing up cap space in the future. There may also be some mid-level guys who are quietly extended in the middle of the season (guys like Koppen, Daniel Graham, both of whom are up at the end of the season).

I'm not sure that Brady has actually given up money in those restructures, I think he has just rearranged it to provide some cap space when it has been needed.

But the Patriots have spent up to the cap every season since Kraft took over, so I have to assume that his money is ear-marked for something.

However, as it relates to Branch, he wanted way too much money in the opinion of the front office (and most New England fans). So even if the Patriots have cap space, they STILL do not go beyond a player's "value" - because ultimately, this will eventually lead to bad cap situations with ugly contracts.

If you want a better example of this than Branch, look at Vinatieri. Vinatieri, as an icon and a clutch performer, meant as much or MORE to the Patriots than Branch, and even though he got signed for a boatload of money compared to what kickers usually get, it's still peanuts compared to wide receier money. The Patriots were STILL not willing to "overpay" for a player who relative to the rest of the roster, wouldn't be making that much. That's how loyal they are to their system.

My one problem with this post is the bolded portions. You start out by recognizing the ability of the Patriots to shuffle future money into the present to avoid ugly cap situations in the future... but the thought doesn't even occur to you that they could have done that with Branch, too. Say they were offering him 6 million a year, and Seattle came in offering an extra million a year. New England could have very easily given Branch an extra $6 million roster bonus up front, which would (a) exceed the value difference between the two contract offers, and (b) be preferable to Branch (players prefer up-front money because it's guaranteed)... and it wouldn't have hurt the Patriots future cap situation one iota more than their origional offer to Branch would have. That's what makes the fact that the Patriots let Branch go so baffling.Personally, I don't think the Patriots have a clue here. I'm not going to do the whole "in Bill we trust" thing here. If they really had a plan for that money, why haven't they implemented it yet? If they wanted to spend the money on extensions, why not negotiate them before the season when it wouldn't be a distraction? I personally think the Patriots screwed up here. To make a fantasy football comparison... in an auction league, we all go in determined not to overspend... but if everyone in the league is overspending and you don't adapt, you get left out in the cold, and wind up forced to fill your roster with $1-caliber players that you wound up spending $3 on because you had nothing better to spend the money on. At some point, carefully planned strategy has to go out the window and you HAVE to overspend, because if you don't overspend on something worthwhile now, you're going to either wind up with unused money, or you're going to wind up overspending later on things that are even LESS worthwhile.

They might very well wind up proving me wrong, but from where I'm sitting... well, every dynasty ends, and I firmly believe we're watching the death knells of the New England dynasty. They might still make the playoffs thanks to the quality (or lack thereof) of their division... but the days of the New England Patriots as legitimate championship contenders are over. JMHO.

The Pats could also roll some of the money into next years cap. Any which way I'm sure it will all be "spent" by season's end. Keep in mind the cap number doesn't mean how much money was actually given out, it's just accounting jargon. So saving $10m on this year's cap doesn't mean you saved $10m. It just means you missed a chance to save $10m off future cap hits, which I can't see NE doing.

The Pats have been a model of cap management over the last 6 years or so, it's hard to second guess them with their track record. As far the brady question, with the Pats so tight-lipped about everything they do it's tough have a real answer as we likely don't have access to the real data.

The new CBA closed the loophole that allowed teams to roll their cap savings onto the next season's cap using a series of LTBE incentives. While they can free up some future dollars, there is no longer any way to raise their operating salary cap in future seasons over the league-mandated levels.

 

[BlueOnion]

The new CBA closed the loophole that allowed teams to roll their cap savings onto the next season's cap using a series of LTBE incentives. While they can free up some future dollars, there is no longer any way to raise their operating salary cap in future seasons over the league-mandated levels.

Do you have a link for this? I have no doubt they would want to remove this loophole but I have no idea how it would be possible.

 

[PMENFAN]

]They might very well wind up proving me wrong, but from where I'm sitting... well, every dynasty ends, and I firmly believe we're watching the death knells of the New England dynasty. They might still make the playoffs thanks to the quality (or lack thereof) of their division. [/quoteIt may end, but it would have been last year, becasue they didn't win the superbowl last year, with Deion Branch. So, losing Deion Branch isn't going to be the "death knolls" of the dynasty. And making the playoffs isn't going to be a sign of the weakness of the division. All 4 teams in the division represented pretty well in week 1. The Jets went on the road and exceeded all expectations, no? Bills? Played better than anybody predicted, no? Miami? Right with Pitt late into the game until the long pass play to Miller.sealed their fate.

How about the vaunted AFC west? Denver looked fabulous against the mighty Rams, with their 5 turnovers. KC had a great showing. Who wins that division by default?

I just think it's hilarious that one week into the season somebody would make a statement on the strength of a division. It's one game. Were they flukes? Who knows? Personally, I think parity reigns, and all the division are relatively equal for the most part. Remember, it was Miami that knocked SD out of the playoffs last year, in SD. There are 2-3 treally good teams, and 2-3 really bad teams every year, and 24-26 teams that are about the same, and go up and down throughout the the season, depending on a variety of factors, chiefly coaching. The Pats have IMHO, the best coach. He's still there, and he'll kepe them in contention.

 

[Wadsworth]

The new CBA closed the loophole that allowed teams to roll their cap savings onto the next season's cap using a series of LTBE incentives. While they can free up some future dollars, there is no longer any way to raise their operating salary cap in future seasons over the league-mandated levels.

Do you have a link for this? I have no doubt they would want to remove this loophole but I have no idea how it would be possible.

Thanks, I haven't given much attention to the new CBA yet. If they closed the LTBE loophole it's a good thing.

 

[AB in DC]

My one problem with this post is the bolded portions. You start out by recognizing the ability of the Patriots to shuffle future money into the present to avoid ugly cap situations in the future... but the thought doesn't even occur to you that they could have done that with Branch, too.

This doesn't make any sense. The cap was never a reason why the Patriots didn't re-sign Branch. It was the amount of money he wanted, period.When we're talking about cap maneuvers, we're just talking about accounting tricks that make payments show up in one year instead of another, not how much any given player is actually going to be paid.

 

[BlueOnion]

The new CBA closed the loophole that allowed teams to roll their cap savings onto the next season's cap using a series of LTBE incentives. While they can free up some future dollars, there is no longer any way to raise their operating salary cap in future seasons over the league-mandated levels.

Do you have a link for this? I have no doubt they would want to remove this loophole but I have no idea how it would be possible.

Thanks, I haven't given much attention to the new CBA yet. If they closed the LTBE loophole it's a good thing.

I always thought it offered another flavor to the competition among teams. In the long run, this hurts the players and the agents.

 

[Wadsworth]

My one problem with this post is the bolded portions. You start out by recognizing the ability of the Patriots to shuffle future money into the present to avoid ugly cap situations in the future... but the thought doesn't even occur to you that they could have done that with Branch, too.

This doesn't make any sense. The cap was never a reason why the Patriots didn't re-sign Branch. It was the amount of money he wanted, period.When we're talking about cap maneuvers, we're just talking about accounting tricks that make payments show up in one year instead of another, not how much any given player is actually going to be paid.

Not to speak for SSOG, but I understood his post to refer to the perceived issue with Branch being that Branch wanted a new contract starting this season and the Pats wanted to exstend his current contract(with Branch playing this season on his rookie contract salary). If they are just going to use the cap space to move money from the future to the present, why not make Branch an offer that does just that? Perhaps they still would not have offered enough, perhaps Branch just wanted out of NE for some reason, perhaps NE did make such an offer and it was never made public; but it's a fair question.

 

[jcjets]

Being under the cap this year does nothing to help you next year. If a player has an incentive that is easy to reach such as 1 mil for every game played, that amount will count toward that years cap. If it turns out that the player only ended up starting 10 games, then the team is awarded 6 mil to next years cap. That is the way a team can get a bigger cap number the next year.

The Pats are just not spending their money this year, it doesn't save them cap space next year. Brady has alrteady been on the radio stating he cannot worry about things out of his control anymore. The overall feeling of his statements is that he was under the impression that he would sign for less than market value so that the team would be able to stay together.

He hasn't come out in support of the front office since the whole Branch sceanrio got ugly. Brady is on the Boston radio WEEI (850) every Tuesday moring. He wasn't happy this past Tuesday.

The Pats redid Brady contract and gave Seymours a 'bonus' when he held out. Apparently if your not one of them you are replaceable. The Pats have a value for a player, and will not overspend for them. That's their model and they are sticking to it.

 

[Wadsworth]

The new CBA closed the loophole that allowed teams to roll their cap savings onto the next season's cap using a series of LTBE incentives. While they can free up some future dollars, there is no longer any way to raise their operating salary cap in future seasons over the league-mandated levels.

Do you have a link for this? I have no doubt they would want to remove this loophole but I have no idea how it would be possible.

Thanks, I haven't given much attention to the new CBA yet. If they closed the LTBE loophole it's a good thing.

I always thought it offered another flavor to the competition among teams. In the long run, this hurts the players and the agents.

I liked that it allowed teams to keep some cap space during the season(in case of emergency) without having to worry about losing it. But like any loophole, it was getting exploited a good deal. And some of the LTBEs made a joke out of the CBA, how you can call them "likely to be earned" is beyond me. I'd guess that it was more that it looked bad for the league than it gave any one team too much of an advantage or a major advantage to the players or owners. It's just looked sloppy.

 

[SSOG]

The new CBA closed the loophole that allowed teams to roll their cap savings onto the next season's cap using a series of LTBE incentives. While they can free up some future dollars, there is no longer any way to raise their operating salary cap in future seasons over the league-mandated levels.

Do you have a link for this? I have no doubt they would want to remove this loophole but I have no idea how it would be possible.

No link, because I read it many months ago and don't even remember WHERE I read it. I definitely remember reading it at a reputable sports news site (probably SI or ESPN). I made a special mental note of it, because I figured a lot of teams would be well under the cap with the huge cap increase, and I was curious what they'd do with all of the money.Anyway, removing the loophole would be easy as pie. Just put in language that says "If your team devotes cap space to LTBE incentives, and those incentives aren't met, you DO NOT get a cap credit the following year". Bam, loophole closed.

It may end, but it would have been last year, becasue they didn't win the superbowl last year, with Deion Branch. So, losing Deion Branch isn't going to be the "death knolls" of the dynasty. And making the playoffs isn't going to be a sign of the weakness of the division. All 4 teams in the division represented pretty well in week 1. The Jets went on the road and exceeded all expectations, no? Bills? Played better than anybody predicted, no? Miami? Right with Pitt late into the game until the long pass play to Miller.sealed their fate. How about the vaunted AFC west? Denver looked fabulous against the mighty Rams, with their 5 turnovers. KC had a great showing. Who wins that division by default? I just think it's hilarious that one week into the season somebody would make a statement on the strength of a division. It's one game. Were they flukes? Who knows? Personally, I think parity reigns, and all the division are relatively equal for the most part. Remember, it was Miami that knocked SD out of the playoffs last year, in SD. There are 2-3 treally good teams, and 2-3 really bad teams every year, and 24-26 teams that are about the same, and go up and down throughout the the season, depending on a variety of factors, chiefly coaching. The Pats have IMHO, the best coach. He's still there, and he'll kepe them in contention.

I'm not making a statement on the quality of the division based on one week's worth of games.Football Outsiders did a study to see how strongly first-week results compared to end-of-the-year rankings (not just wins and losses, but the QUALITY of the win- i.e. Baltimore = #1 because they had the strongest win, New England's down around 16 or so because they had an average win, etc), compared to how well preseason rankings compared to end-of-the-year rankings. You know what they determined? If you want to determine a team's ranking using a combination of preseason rankings and first-week results, guess how much weight you should give to first-week results.Four percent. That's it. You know what this means? If a team that everyone predicted would be horrible goes out and looks dominant in week 1, the odds are overwhelming that it was just a fluke and not a demonstration that the team is substantially better (or worse) than anticipated.In the end, that's why I'm calling the AFC East a weak division- because prior to the season, I had predicted that they would be a weak division, and I'm not changing my mind after one week worth of action. Besides, has that one week worth of action demonstrated that the AFC East is better than anticipated, really? New England and Buffalo played to a near-stalemate- which is just as likely to mean that New England has gotten worse as it is to mean that Buffalo has gotten better. New York barely pulled out a very close victory against the Tennessee Titans, who are predicted to be one of the 4 worst teams in the NFL... which means, by logical extension, the Jets performed barely better than one of the four worst teams in the NFL. As for the Dolphins... they were predicted to be a pretty good squad, and they performed pretty well, hanging tough against the Steelers... but let's not kid ourselves here. The Steelers were without Ben Roethlisberger, and if you don't think that makes a difference, you obviously didn't see the Steelers with Big Ben out last season.

My one problem with this post is the bolded portions. You start out by recognizing the ability of the Patriots to shuffle future money into the present to avoid ugly cap situations in the future... but the thought doesn't even occur to you that they could have done that with Branch, too.

This doesn't make any sense. The cap was never a reason why the Patriots didn't re-sign Branch. It was the amount of money he wanted, period.When we're talking about cap maneuvers, we're just talking about accounting tricks that make payments show up in one year instead of another, not how much any given player is actually going to be paid.

Let's play a little game. Let's pretend that the Patriots think that Branch is worth $6 million a season. They firmly, 100% believe that that's exactly how much he's worth, and not a penny more.The Patriots have two options. They either let Branch go, or they resign him for that $6 million a season... plus a $6 million dollar bonus up-front. Yes, they overspent for Branch, but it doesn't hurt their salary cap any, since they just signed him to EXACTLY THE SAME CONTRACT that they already determined he was worth, just with a little bit of up-front money to make him happy. Tell me, which does the Patriots more good... Deion Branch, or $6 million in unspent money?The Patriots had MORE THAN ENOUGH cap space to make a move like that, which would keep Branch happy and in New England for exactly as much as New England thought he was worth, and would give the Patriots SOMETHING to spend their money on, rather than letting $13 million of it sit around and atrophy because there's nothing worthwhile to spend it on.It's sort of like in a fantasy auction. Let's say you have $30 dollars left, and only have one open roster spot. The highest-rated player you have left on your board is Santana Moss, who you have projected as an $18 dollar player. When Santana Moss's name comes up, are you going to bid on him up to $18 dollars, and then stop bidding after that rather than overpay? Or are you going to say "Screw this, this money does me absolutely NO GOOD if I don't spend it, so I might as well use it to acquire the best talent I can, even if that means overpaying a bit"? Because the New England Patriots just let Santana Moss walk away rather than bid $19 dollars on him, because heaven forbid that they overspend, even if it means starting $13 million in unspent cap space at WR, instead.

Being under the cap this year does nothing to help you next year. If a player has an incentive that is easy to reach such as 1 mil for every game played, that amount will count toward that years cap. If it turns out that the player only ended up starting 10 games, then the team is awarded 6 mil to next years cap. That is the way a team can get a bigger cap number the next year.

That's called the "Likely To Be Earned" (or LTBE) trick, and it doesn't work anymore under the new CBA.

 

[BlueOnion]

No link, because I read it many months ago and don't even remember WHERE I read it. I definitely remember reading it at a reputable sports news site (probably SI or ESPN). I made a special mental note of it, because I figured a lot of teams would be well under the cap with the huge cap increase, and I was curious what they'd do with all of the money.Anyway, removing the loophole would be easy as pie. Just put in language that says "If your team devotes cap space to LTBE incentives, and those incentives aren't met, you DO NOT get a cap credit the following year". Bam, loophole closed.

Couple relavent questions to your proposed solution:1 Did they change the definition of LTBE or is it still anything within 10% of the previous year performance?2 If a LTBE incentive is reached or LTBE incentive is not reached by a player, teams' salary caps for that given year will be penalized regardless. Is that what you are saying? Doesn't seem fair and it would appear (if that is the case) we have seen the end of almost all contracts having incentives in them.Edited - I can believe you that you read what you read, however I am still interested in learning the feasible solution.

 

[TD Ryan]

It's sort of like in a fantasy auction. Let's say you have $30 dollars left, and only have one open roster spot. The highest-rated player you have left on your board is Santana Moss, who you have projected as an $18 dollar player. When Santana Moss's name comes up, are you going to bid on him up to $18 dollars, and then stop bidding after that rather than overpay? Or are you going to say "Screw this, this money does me absolutely NO GOOD if I don't spend it, so I might as well use it to acquire the best talent I can, even if that means overpaying a bit"? Because the New England Patriots just let Santana Moss walk away rather than bid $19 dollars on him, because heaven forbid that they overspend, even if it means starting $13 million in unspent cap space at WR, instead.

the nfl salary cap and the myriad of accounting games that can be played with that cap makes this over simplified analogy inaccurate.NE will absolutely use this year's cap space to give them some future relief. Whether it's by addressing Seymour's 6.6mil option bonus or re-upping/re-signing/re-structuring with some of next year's potential FA's (Graham, Koppen, Samuel, etc).

 

[DerangedGridironGeek]

I have to laugh at some on this board that somehow think they know more than the front office and coaching staff of NE. I don't advocate following a front office like a lost puppy, but this is a front office that deserves the benefit of the doubt....PERIOD. This aint the Saints or Cardinals we are talking about. They have a proven track record with very few blemishes and many on this board speak as if they had no clue how to handle their own cap space or players under contract. This front office is always planning moves like a chess game. They aren't thinking about their next move...but their next 20 moves. It a long term approach and strategy. I DON'T KNOW why they have all this room under the cap or why they made the moves they made with Branch......but many of the simplified explanations on this thread and board make no sense. None of us have a clue why the Pats are doing what they are doing, but rest assured they have a plan. I'm pretty sure, based on their record, its probably a good one. I'm pretty sure Brady knows this as well. Which is why he stands behind the organization on EVERY move....anyone that thinks he's second guessing this front office are the one's without a clue. No team is perfect, and not every move is a good one...but to speculate that NE has no idea what they plan on doing with this money is just ######ed.

 

[AB in DC]

That's called the "Likely To Be Earned" (or LTBE) trick, and it doesn't work anymore under the new CBA.

Doesn't matter -- there are other ways to push unspent cap dollars into future years. All they have to do is restructure contracts to take money scheduled to be paid in 2008 and pay them in 2007. Someone said earlier in this thread that the Pats will probably do that with Seymour's contract.That's why your auction metaphor is a bad example. There are never unspent dollars that go to waste -- there's always a way to use them in some other fashion.

 

[SSOG]

No link, because I read it many months ago and don't even remember WHERE I read it. I definitely remember reading it at a reputable sports news site (probably SI or ESPN). I made a special mental note of it, because I figured a lot of teams would be well under the cap with the huge cap increase, and I was curious what they'd do with all of the money.

Anyway, removing the loophole would be easy as pie. Just put in language that says "If your team devotes cap space to LTBE incentives, and those incentives aren't met, you DO NOT get a cap credit the following year". Bam, loophole closed.

Couple relavent questions to your proposed solution:1 Did they change the definition of LTBE or is it still anything within 10% of the previous year performance?

2 If a LTBE incentive is reached or LTBE incentive is not reached by a player, teams' salary caps for that given year will be penalized regardless. Is that what you are saying? Doesn't seem fair and it would appear (if that is the case) we have seen the end of almost all contracts having incentives in them.

Edited - I can believe you that you read what you read, however I am still interested in learning the feasible solution.

Like you, I'm also very interested in this, but unfortunately the article only said that teams could no longer get cap credits in future seasons using LTBE incentives.1. I don't know if they changed the LTBE definition or not.

2. That's not true, teams could still give UTBE incentives, which if I recall correctly actually count against the NEXT season's cap. All closing the LTBE loophole means is that if a team wants to use this season's cap, they'll have to use roster-based incentives and guaranteed money rather than performance-based incentives.

I have to laugh at some on this board that somehow think they know more than the front office and coaching staff of NE. I don't advocate following a front office like a lost puppy, but this is a front office that deserves the benefit of the doubt....PERIOD. This aint the Saints or Cardinals we are talking about. They have a proven track record with very few blemishes and many on this board speak as if they had no clue how to handle their own cap space or players under contract. This front office is always planning moves like a chess game. They aren't thinking about their next move...but their next 20 moves. It a long term approach and strategy. I DON'T KNOW why they have all this room under the cap or why they made the moves they made with Branch......but many of the simplified explanations on this thread and board make no sense. None of us have a clue why the Pats are doing what they are doing, but rest assured they have a plan. I'm pretty sure, based on their record, its probably a good one. I'm pretty sure Brady knows this as well. Which is why he stands behind the organization on EVERY move....anyone that thinks he's second guessing this front office are the one's without a clue. No team is perfect, and not every move is a good one...but to speculate that NE has no idea what they plan on doing with this money is just ######ed.

Outside of a 2-3 year period from 2002-2004 or so where they could do no wrong, New England has actually had more misses than hits. I think the benefit of the doubt is one thing, but they're hardly above reproach.My big question is... if the only reason why had this unspent cap space was to make more cap space in the future... what are they going to do with that cap space? Go out and get players that will help them win? If they want to get cap space so they can land players... well... then why didn't they land some players THIS year? And what players is New England going to land with the cap space? They never spend much in free agency. What's the point of having all of this cap space if you're never going to use it?

 

[DerangedGridironGeek]

No link, because I read it many months ago and don't even remember WHERE I read it. I definitely remember reading it at a reputable sports news site (probably SI or ESPN). I made a special mental note of it, because I figured a lot of teams would be well under the cap with the huge cap increase, and I was curious what they'd do with all of the money.

Anyway, removing the loophole would be easy as pie. Just put in language that says "If your team devotes cap space to LTBE incentives, and those incentives aren't met, you DO NOT get a cap credit the following year". Bam, loophole closed.

Couple relavent questions to your proposed solution:1 Did they change the definition of LTBE or is it still anything within 10% of the previous year performance?

2 If a LTBE incentive is reached or LTBE incentive is not reached by a player, teams' salary caps for that given year will be penalized regardless. Is that what you are saying? Doesn't seem fair and it would appear (if that is the case) we have seen the end of almost all contracts having incentives in them.

Edited - I can believe you that you read what you read, however I am still interested in learning the feasible solution.

Like you, I'm also very interested in this, but unfortunately the article only said that teams could no longer get cap credits in future seasons using LTBE incentives.1. I don't know if they changed the LTBE definition or not.

2. That's not true, teams could still give UTBE incentives, which if I recall correctly actually count against the NEXT season's cap. All closing the LTBE loophole means is that if a team wants to use this season's cap, they'll have to use roster-based incentives and guaranteed money rather than performance-based incentives.

I have to laugh at some on this board that somehow think they know more than the front office and coaching staff of NE. I don't advocate following a front office like a lost puppy, but this is a front office that deserves the benefit of the doubt....PERIOD. This aint the Saints or Cardinals we are talking about. They have a proven track record with very few blemishes and many on this board speak as if they had no clue how to handle their own cap space or players under contract. This front office is always planning moves like a chess game. They aren't thinking about their next move...but their next 20 moves. It a long term approach and strategy. I DON'T KNOW why they have all this room under the cap or why they made the moves they made with Branch......but many of the simplified explanations on this thread and board make no sense. None of us have a clue why the Pats are doing what they are doing, but rest assured they have a plan. I'm pretty sure, based on their record, its probably a good one. I'm pretty sure Brady knows this as well. Which is why he stands behind the organization on EVERY move....anyone that thinks he's second guessing this front office are the one's without a clue. No team is perfect, and not every move is a good one...but to speculate that NE has no idea what they plan on doing with this money is just ######ed.

Outside of a 2-3 year period from 2002-2004 or so where they could do no wrong, New England has actually had more misses than hits. I think the benefit of the doubt is one thing, but they're hardly above reproach.My big question is... if the only reason why had this unspent cap space was to make more cap space in the future... what are they going to do with that cap space? Go out and get players that will help them win? If they want to get cap space so they can land players... well... then why didn't they land some players THIS year? And what players is New England going to land with the cap space? They never spend much in free agency. What's the point of having all of this cap space if you're never going to use it?

I guess we have to agree to disagree, cause IMO...the past two years of drafting and moves have been GREAT....considering the tough choices they had to make. Are they without reproach or absent of making mistakes? Of course not, what front office or coaching staff is. They've lost some players and let some go....what SB team hasn't had that happen. The Steelers let Randal El go, who IMO is every bit as good if not better than Branch, but I don't hear the same criticism of that front office and staff. Again, my point is this.....hate NE or not..... to imply that they don't have a solid plan for the cap space is not giving a great organization and staff their proper credit.

 

[Skippy the one eyed Beagle]

It's sort of like in a fantasy auction. Let's say you have $30 dollars left, and only have one open roster spot. The highest-rated player you have left on your board is Santana Moss, who you have projected as an $18 dollar player. When Santana Moss's name comes up, are you going to bid on him up to $18 dollars, and then stop bidding after that rather than overpay? Or are you going to say "Screw this, this money does me absolutely NO GOOD if I don't spend it, so I might as well use it to acquire the best talent I can, even if that means overpaying a bit"? Because the New England Patriots just let Santana Moss walk away rather than bid $19 dollars on him, because heaven forbid that they overspend, even if it means starting $13 million in unspent cap space at WR, instead.

This is a terrible example and does not relate at all. Also if they set the precident of overspending the next FA will expect the same thing. Slippery slope.

 

[Skippy the one eyed Beagle]

My big question is... if the only reason why had this unspent cap space was to make more cap space in the future... what are they going to do with that cap space? Go out and get players that will help them win? If they want to get cap space so they can land players... well... then why didn't they land some players THIS year? And what players is New England going to land with the cap space? They never spend much in free agency. What's the point of having all of this cap space if you're never going to use it?

There are a number of things they could do like accelerate future bonus to this year to enable them to keep players longer.

 

[Borat]

Here's the bottom line: there is roughly $10 million in cap space right now because there was money set aside for Branch and to make a run at Ty Law. Obviously, neither of those things worked out.

 

[Bri]

IIRC Daniel Graham is a free agent in 07. After drafting 2(or was it 3?) TEs this year I'd have assumed he's walkin'. IF IF IF that was the plan, then since we have some "free" money, I'd like to try and a sign+trade with him.

BTW I really like him and would hope he retires a Pat.

 

[Bri]

I have to laugh at some on this board that somehow think they know more than the front office and coaching staff of NE. I don't advocate following a front office like a lost puppy, but this is a front office that deserves the benefit of the doubt....PERIOD. This aint the Saints or Cardinals we are talking about. They have a proven track record with very few blemishes and many on this board speak as if they had no clue how to handle their own cap space or players under contract. This front office is always planning moves like a chess game. They aren't thinking about their next move...but their next 20 moves. It a long term approach and strategy.

As a Patsfan, my problem is still with WRs. "My man" Troy Brown looks 20 years old one week and 90 the next. I'll argue for hours, he's our best current WR. I think he should just be veteran depth at this stage in his career. His production is not like Harrison, Mason, Bruce and other "old" WRs. I did NOT think Branch would have solved this. I think we needed more. I think Branch in Seattle makes the hole at WR bigger.I am not a fan of Caldwell. He has always been available on WW or easily in trade and I looked for him often with "the Ticket". Something is up with Gabriel. I was excited he came so cheap but now I'm a bit leery the Raiders sent us damaged goods. Jackson, it felt like that rook practiced 5 days this summer. I have no clue how many he really did. Couple years ago, we had 2 of the better WRs in NFLE. They played a total of about 4 minutes in preseason not even getting a look really. OK figure they know what they're doing, different level of play etc.Childress looked like our kinda guy hustling and making catches and contributing on special teams. He was cut. He was brought back and active in week 1 but why was he cut? The Boys got Hurd, Reddick(forget the name, something like that) and Austin in the draft. Everywhere I look a different draft site likes 2 of the 3 if not 3. They weren't high picks and IIRC Austin signed as a UFA. We drafted TEs and IMO could have kept Fauria one more year and NOT drafted any TEs.Start a list of WRs that changed teams via UFA, we grabbed Caldwell. How do we look in comparison? At some point Pioli should have acquired more at WR. As I showed above, I don't care if it's NFLE, draft, undrafted free agents, or free agency. If not for the sake of the team, then to soothe my worries Seriously, I think we goofed at WR this offseason. I do think after a zillion correct choices they're entitled to a mistake but I still think it is one.WRs often take 2-3 years to develop. I would be ecstatic if they traded the #1 from Branch for some WR like Reggie Brown or Braylon Edwards or somesuch. Yeah I know Braylon's not possible and the Iggles seem to love Brown but just giving an example. I would love to trade and get a jump on the development waiting period rather than draft a WR and wait 2-3 years.

 

[GregR_2]

This was the first I'd heard of the closing of the Philly Loophole with the LTBE incentives. I've been googling to find confirmation of it and haven't come up with anything. I did find that the NFLPA wants to close it though. The NFLPA is trying to stop agents from agreeing to such contracts because it can take money out of the player's pockets. By that I mean there is a salary FLOOR as well as a cap. Teams have to spend a certain amount each year on their players. Let's say a team is $5m short of the minimum salary cap figure. They could write a $5m LTBE that won't be met, which for accounting purposes would count that year and would keep them in compliance with the CBA without actually paying that money to the players.The following is from PFT, which admittedly is a source you have to take with appropriate grains of salt since they don't necessarily confirm to the normal media standards of trying to actually confirm your stories from a 2nd independent source.

NFLPA ISSUES CHANGES TO AGENT REGSThe annual NFLPA convention in Hawaii typically results in some tweaks to the rules regarding the regulation of agents. Here's a look at changes for 2006.First, and perhaps most significantly, the NFLPA now prohibits agents from permitting players to agree to incentive clauses aimed primarily at enabling a team to meet the salary minimum in any given year, if the new deal does not have "any significant value" to the player. Here's how this one works. Through the use of "likely to be earned incentives" based on triggers that won't be met, a team takes the cap charge in the current year -- and gets a credit in the next year. The device is a common tool for carrying over extra cap space that, for whatever reason, the team chooses not to use in the current year. With a higher salary cap floor, the NFLPA obviously is looking to rein in the practice of bumping cap room from one year to the next.Although it might be difficult to determine what the phrase "any significant value" means, the reality is that these kinds of transactions typically provide little or no value to the player.But there's a loophole that will prevent agents from getting in trouble when their clients agree to such maneuvers. If the player decides to consent to the provision with or without the participation of the agent, the agent must show "satisfactory evidence" to the NFLPA that the agent counseled the player that agreeing to the incentive could "significantly undermine the minimum cap protections for players under the new extension agreement."

 

[Urine_Idiot]

IIRC Daniel Graham is a free agent in 07. After drafting 2(or was it 3?) TEs this year I'd have assumed he's walkin'. IF IF IF that was the plan, then since we have some "free" money, I'd like to try and a sign+trade with him. BTW I really like him and would hope he retires a Pat.

Mills is more of H-back/fullback in progress (actually now listed on team as FB2)Thomas is listed as third TE... Trying to lock up Graham at the end of the season is going to be their best bet...along with Asante Samuel and Koppen....IMO

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Trying to lock up Graham at the end of the season is going to be their best bet...along with Asante Samuel and Koppen....IMO

Priorties...1. Koppen2. Samuel3. Graham

 

[Spike]

Here's the bottom line: there is roughly $10 million in cap space right now because there was money set aside for Branch and to make a run at Ty Law. Obviously, neither of those things worked out.

These are your answers as to why the Pats are so far under.

 

[nerangers]

Here's the bottom line: there is roughly $10 million in cap space right now because there was money set aside for Branch and to make a run at Ty Law. Obviously, neither of those things worked out.

Here is more on this:Kraft also addressed the team’s salary cap space. As of last week, prior to the Branch trade, the Patriots were approximately $10.3 million under the cap. They were one of six teams to have more than $10 million of cap space.

“It’s not a conscious intention to be under the cap,” Kraft said. “First of all, the season is not over. Clearly, monies were being held for [Deion Branch’s situation]. It’s publicly known we were looking at the Ty Law situation at the time. Those two situations would have taken up a fair amount of the money. And there are some other things we’ll be able to do potentially between now and the end of the year.”

Love to see what is in the works!

 

[PMENFAN]

It's sort of like in a fantasy auction. Let's say you have $30 dollars left, and only have one open roster spot. The highest-rated player you have left on your board is Santana Moss, who you have projected as an $18 dollar player. When Santana Moss's name comes up, are you going to bid on him up to $18 dollars, and then stop bidding after that rather than overpay? Or are you going to say "Screw this, this money does me absolutely NO GOOD if I don't spend it, so I might as well use it to acquire the best talent I can, even if that means overpaying a bit"? Because the New England Patriots just let Santana Moss walk away rather than bid $19 dollars on him, because heaven forbid that they overspend, even if it means starting $13 million in unspent cap space at WR, instead.

This is the NFL, not a 1 year auction league. Branch was looking for a long term deal. The Pats didn't want to pay him the money. They didn't feel he was worth it. They made a business decision. Based on your comments here, I gather you don't understand the concept of opportunity cost. They passed on this opportunity, because they felt their opportunity cost in other areas would be too high. I disagree that the money does them absolutely no good. They may package one of the first rounders with a couple of later picks, and move up for a WR. They may take two LB's, or another Dlineman. Who knows what they'll do, but they have cap space to maneuver. They were considering on Ty Law, and they wanted Branch at a lower price. That's why they are under the cap. If they land those two deals, they're up against the ceiling.

Outside of a 2-3 year period from 2002-2004 or so where they could do no wrong, New England has actually had more misses than hits. I think the benefit of the doubt is one thing, but they're hardly above reproach.My big question is... if the only reason why had this unspent cap space was to make more cap space in the future... what are they going to do with that cap space? Go out and get players that will help them win? If they want to get cap space so they can land players... well... then why didn't they land some players THIS year? And what players is New England going to land with the cap space? They never spend much in free agency. What's the point of having all of this cap space if you're never going to use it?

You, uh, mush have missed a bit, because this front office has guided the franchise to 3 of the last 5 Superbowls, so I don't know where the 2002-2004 ere came from. Did 2001 just fall into their lap? Yes, the Monty Beisel signing didn't pan out, nor did Chad Brown. They cut them and moved on. The hallmark of the Pats during this run has been depth. Even last year when 5 of the 8 players from the opening day roster in the defensive backfield were on IR by week 6, they still made the conference Semis, and were game competitors, with 2 rookies on the offensive line, because the starting center and left tackle were also on IR> That is depth. That is how the team is managed. You can knock them all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. They are the franchise that everybody in the league wants to be. They have management that makes the tough decisions, time and again. What big time player has left the pats and gone on to greater heights elsewhere during the BB era? That's the tell tale measuring stick. Tebucky Jones? Stellar career in New Orleans. Joe Andruzzi? Great man, great ballplayer, but playing his hear out for a salary and nothing more. Damien Woody. Same story, though not as great of a man. Ty Law? Still a top notch cover corner, but going nowhere but to the bank. Lawyer Milloy? Nope, None of them have been to the playoffs. One ex Pat has been to the playoffs. David Patten. But, was he a substantian contributor to the Redsikins? He's at best a WR 4 this year. You can knock the decision on Branch all you want. It is debatable. But, always weigh it against the context of history. History shows that the Patriot model is one built on a solid philosophy. They don't overpay for players, period. The fans, and BB, loved a lot of these players they had to let go. But, like all great managers, the success of the business has to be the #1 concern as the #1 man in the business. I don't fault him for that. It's his job. Heck, he could have stepped up to GM, and ceded the HC job to Charlie Weis. That's my biggest knock on him.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Can some of you guys in the know on New England give us the inside scoop there on the salary cap situation?I remember a huge deal being made about Brady being very cool and deferring some money on his big contract making it more cap friendly so the team could sign and keep key players. Other players like Manning didn't seem to do this.But the team is now well under the cap, right?Clearly, the perception of the team is that they are extremely tight with money and focused on the cash dollar bottom line. Going after part of Branch's signing bonus yesterday is not surprising to anyone.Of course, the bottom line also is they're sporting lots of rings.But isn't Brady kind of about who exactly is benefitting from the money he delayed payment on? I'm not saying this is accurate (and it's why I'm asking here) but from the outside looking in, it looks like Kraft is the one benefitting in a big way from Brady's cool move to help the team out.What's the scoop?J

Brady wasn't, isn't and never will be as greedy as Manning so your first point is an accurate one. (I have a feeling the derogatory comments directed at Peyton over this is the fuel for your post )Your second point "Clearly, the perception of the team is that they are extremely tight with money and focused on the cash dollar bottom line" is rather puzzling? Bob Kraft is considered by many if not most to be a (the) model owner and it is certainly NOT because he is extremely tight with money. If u are suggesting that the Krafts are interested in making money just like EVERY other owner in the NFL then you are correct. If you are suggesting that NE has not been spending to the cap every year (skimming money for their bottom line) you are incorrect. I know I have read somewhere that NE (in recent years) has been near the top of league in spending to the cap. If you have ANYTHING to suggest otherwise I would like to see it. If you don't then there really isn't any basis for what you are implying.To your third point, Brady may be very dissapointed (as am I) that they lost (let go) a terrific player like Branch; but there is absolutely ZERO doubt in his mind about who is benefiting. He knows, as does anyone else who understands NE's modus operandi that the "who" that is benfitting is the TEAM and that is what it is all about.No one can argue that NE is a better team this week without Branch, losing him hurts and hurts bad. But the MO for NE is to be less concerned about this week and this year than they are about next week and next year. They are trying to build a team that will be compettive every year and the formula they use places a value on player positions and almost without exception they are not going to vary from it. There is no question that letting Branch go negatively affects the quality of their team and will make it harder for them to win the SB this year, the only question is how much harder. But as I said earlier, they are not only thinking about this year, they are thinking about next year and the year after that. Their philosophy dictates that they will continually make long term decisions that only benefit them in the future at the cost of short term hits that will hurt them in the present.There is not question that NE wanted to keep both Givens and Branch, just like they wanted to keep Chad Eaton a terrific NT back in 2001. They lost Eaton that year and the money they were going to use on Eaton was instead used on 18 other players (IIRC) that played a major role in them winning the SB that year.Will NE make exceptions? yes, Brady and Seymour are two examples but it is the value they place on those positions that dictated those exceptions. If you are a football player or coach that is interested in love or money then NE is not the place for you. But if you are interested in winning then it is not a bad place to be. IMO, NE clearly planned to spend their current cap windfall on Law, Givens and Branch and in the end it didn't work out. I would be surprised if NE doesn't spend a significant amount of the cap space they have left to restructure some current contracts in order to free up money for coming years. In fact, their system would seem to dictate that they do just that and if they don't I will come back and eat some crow. You can make the arguement that BB and Pioli's system is doomed to failure (I would vehemently dissagree) but to suggest that signings are being made or not made to help Bob Krafts bottom line is aburdly silly.

 

[SSOG]

It's sort of like in a fantasy auction. Let's say you have $30 dollars left, and only have one open roster spot. The highest-rated player you have left on your board is Santana Moss, who you have projected as an $18 dollar player. When Santana Moss's name comes up, are you going to bid on him up to $18 dollars, and then stop bidding after that rather than overpay? Or are you going to say "Screw this, this money does me absolutely NO GOOD if I don't spend it, so I might as well use it to acquire the best talent I can, even if that means overpaying a bit"? Because the New England Patriots just let Santana Moss walk away rather than bid $19 dollars on him, because heaven forbid that they overspend, even if it means starting $13 million in unspent cap space at WR, instead.

This is the NFL, not a 1 year auction league. Branch was looking for a long term deal. The Pats didn't want to pay him the money. They didn't feel he was worth it. They made a business decision. Based on your comments here, I gather you don't understand the concept of opportunity cost. They passed on this opportunity, because they felt their opportunity cost in other areas would be too high. I disagree that the money does them absolutely no good. They may package one of the first rounders with a couple of later picks, and move up for a WR. They may take two LB's, or another Dlineman. Who knows what they'll do, but they have cap space to maneuver. They were considering on Ty Law, and they wanted Branch at a lower price. That's why they are under the cap. If they land those two deals, they're up against the ceiling.

That's just it, though. They didn't land those deals. Now they have unspent cap space collecting dust.If they had that space earmarked for deals, and then the deals fell through, then they screwed up. They should have either allotted more money for the deals, or earmarked the money for something else.

Outside of a 2-3 year period from 2002-2004 or so where they could do no wrong, New England has actually had more misses than hits. I think the benefit of the doubt is one thing, but they're hardly above reproach.My big question is... if the only reason why had this unspent cap space was to make more cap space in the future... what are they going to do with that cap space? Go out and get players that will help them win? If they want to get cap space so they can land players... well... then why didn't they land some players THIS year? And what players is New England going to land with the cap space? They never spend much in free agency. What's the point of having all of this cap space if you're never going to use it?

You, uh, mush have missed a bit, because this front office has guided the franchise to 3 of the last 5 Superbowls, so I don't know where the 2002-2004 ere came from. Did 2001 just fall into their lap? Yes, the Monty Beisel signing didn't pan out, nor did Chad Brown. They cut them and moved on. The hallmark of the Pats during this run has been depth. Even last year when 5 of the 8 players from the opening day roster in the defensive backfield were on IR by week 6, they still made the conference Semis, and were game competitors, with 2 rookies on the offensive line, because the starting center and left tackle were also on IR> That is depth. That is how the team is managed. You can knock them all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. They are the franchise that everybody in the league wants to be. They have management that makes the tough decisions, time and again.

Were does 2002-2004 come from? Well, that's where Bellichick and Pioli had an above-average success rate in free agency and the draft.Would you like to say that New England's front office had a great year in 2001? Do you know who their draft picks were that season? Richard Seymour and Matt Light were the #1 and #2- a pretty good start, if you ask me. Their next seven draft picks were Brock Williams, Kenyatta Jones, Jabari Holloway, Hakim Akbar, Arthur Love, Leonard Myers, Owen Pochman, and T.J. Turner. Not ONE of those gentlemen lasted 3 seasons before they were OoF- Out of Football. You'll forgive me if I don't fall all over myself praising the Patriots for drafting a class where 77% of the players didn't even make it 3 seasons in the league. Especially because Richard Seymour, the one stud they netted that year, was the #6 overall pick. If the #6 overall pick becomes a stud, that isn't a reflection on the quality of the front office, that's a reflection on the quality of the #6 overall draft pick.

What big time player has left the pats and gone on to greater heights elsewhere during the BB era? That's the tell tale measuring stick. Tebucky Jones? Stellar career in New Orleans. Joe Andruzzi? Great man, great ballplayer, but playing his hear out for a salary and nothing more. Damien Woody. Same story, though not as great of a man. Ty Law? Still a top notch cover corner, but going nowhere but to the bank. Lawyer Milloy? Nope, None of them have been to the playoffs. One ex Pat has been to the playoffs. David Patten. But, was he a substantian contributor to the Redsikins? He's at best a WR 4 this year.

I don't measure a front office by the quality of the players LEAVING the organization, I measure a front office by the quality of the players COMING IN. I'm sort of funny like that.By your measure, the best front office in the entire NFL might be Cleveland... because seriously, outside of Gerrard Warren, when was the last time one of the scrubs that that team drafted left town and became great elsewhere?I would offer a different challenge to you. When was the last time the Patriots acquired a free agent who wound up outperforming his contract and substantially helping the team? Was it the almighty Monty Beisel? Or perhaps the unforgettable Duane Starks? It's pretty sad when the single best signing your team has made in the past 2 years is the sort-of-retired Junior Seau. Especially because they had the cap space to acquire genuine contributers if they had so desired.

 

[PMENFAN]

It's sort of like in a fantasy auction. Let's say you have $30 dollars left, and only have one open roster spot. The highest-rated player you have left on your board is Santana Moss, who you have projected as an $18 dollar player. When Santana Moss's name comes up, are you going to bid on him up to $18 dollars, and then stop bidding after that rather than overpay? Or are you going to say "Screw this, this money does me absolutely NO GOOD if I don't spend it, so I might as well use it to acquire the best talent I can, even if that means overpaying a bit"? Because the New England Patriots just let Santana Moss walk away rather than bid $19 dollars on him, because heaven forbid that they overspend, even if it means starting $13 million in unspent cap space at WR, instead.

This is the NFL, not a 1 year auction league. Branch was looking for a long term deal. The Pats didn't want to pay him the money. They didn't feel he was worth it. They made a business decision. Based on your comments here, I gather you don't understand the concept of opportunity cost. They passed on this opportunity, because they felt their opportunity cost in other areas would be too high. I disagree that the money does them absolutely no good. They may package one of the first rounders with a couple of later picks, and move up for a WR. They may take two LB's, or another Dlineman. Who knows what they'll do, but they have cap space to maneuver. They were considering on Ty Law, and they wanted Branch at a lower price. That's why they are under the cap. If they land those two deals, they're up against the ceiling.

That's just it, though. They didn't land those deals. Now they have unspent cap space collecting dust.If they had that space earmarked for deals, and then the deals fell through, then they screwed up. They should have either allotted more money for the deals, or earmarked the money for something else.

Outside of a 2-3 year period from 2002-2004 or so where they could do no wrong, New England has actually had more misses than hits. I think the benefit of the doubt is one thing, but they're hardly above reproach.My big question is... if the only reason why had this unspent cap space was to make more cap space in the future... what are they going to do with that cap space? Go out and get players that will help them win? If they want to get cap space so they can land players... well... then why didn't they land some players THIS year? And what players is New England going to land with the cap space? They never spend much in free agency. What's the point of having all of this cap space if you're never going to use it?

You, uh, mush have missed a bit, because this front office has guided the franchise to 3 of the last 5 Superbowls, so I don't know where the 2002-2004 ere came from. Did 2001 just fall into their lap? Yes, the Monty Beisel signing didn't pan out, nor did Chad Brown. They cut them and moved on. The hallmark of the Pats during this run has been depth. Even last year when 5 of the 8 players from the opening day roster in the defensive backfield were on IR by week 6, they still made the conference Semis, and were game competitors, with 2 rookies on the offensive line, because the starting center and left tackle were also on IR> That is depth. That is how the team is managed. You can knock them all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. They are the franchise that everybody in the league wants to be. They have management that makes the tough decisions, time and again.

Were does 2002-2004 come from? Well, that's where Bellichick and Pioli had an above-average success rate in free agency and the draft.Would you like to say that New England's front office had a great year in 2001? Do you know who their draft picks were that season? Richard Seymour and Matt Light were the #1 and #2- a pretty good start, if you ask me. Their next seven draft picks were Brock Williams, Kenyatta Jones, Jabari Holloway, Hakim Akbar, Arthur Love, Leonard Myers, Owen Pochman, and T.J. Turner. Not ONE of those gentlemen lasted 3 seasons before they were OoF- Out of Football. You'll forgive me if I don't fall all over myself praising the Patriots for drafting a class where 77% of the players didn't even make it 3 seasons in the league. Especially because Richard Seymour, the one stud they netted that year, was the #6 overall pick. If the #6 overall pick becomes a stud, that isn't a reflection on the quality of the front office, that's a reflection on the quality of the #6 overall draft pick.

What big time player has left the pats and gone on to greater heights elsewhere during the BB era? That's the tell tale measuring stick. Tebucky Jones? Stellar career in New Orleans. Joe Andruzzi? Great man, great ballplayer, but playing his hear out for a salary and nothing more. Damien Woody. Same story, though not as great of a man. Ty Law? Still a top notch cover corner, but going nowhere but to the bank. Lawyer Milloy? Nope, None of them have been to the playoffs. One ex Pat has been to the playoffs. David Patten. But, was he a substantian contributor to the Redsikins? He's at best a WR 4 this year.

I don't measure a front office by the quality of the players LEAVING the organization, I measure a front office by the quality of the players COMING IN. I'm sort of funny like that.By your measure, the best front office in the entire NFL might be Cleveland... because seriously, outside of Gerrard Warren, when was the last time one of the scrubs that that team drafted left town and became great elsewhere?I would offer a different challenge to you. When was the last time the Patriots acquired a free agent who wound up outperforming his contract and substantially helping the team? Was it the almighty Monty Beisel? Or perhaps the unforgettable Duane Starks? It's pretty sad when the single best signing your team has made in the past 2 years is the sort-of-retired Junior Seau. Especially because they had the cap space to acquire genuine contributers if they had so desired.

I would say Mike Vrabel did. I would say Randall Gay did. IJ would say Rodney Harrison did. I would say Hank Poteat did whan he cam in in 2003 and helped win the SB. Corey Dillon. Deion Branch? Wasn't that what the whole debate was? He outperformed his contract? David Givens? Last year on the line Logan Mankins and Nick Kaczur, two rookies on the line, and they make the AFC semis. Kind of the hallmakk of the Pats is that continually players come in and outperform, winning SB's, or at least competing and having a chance.. Wouldn't you agree? That's been the business model. Players that nobody else really wanted, or players that underperformed in other places come into NE and play better. The failures like Chad Brown, Duane Starks (hurt the whole time, but a failure none the less), Monty Beisel, et al, stand out, because the success rate is so high. Look, you can debate it ad nauseum, but again, the proof is in the pudding. Three Superbowls in 5 seasons. Nobody else has done it in the cap era. Nobody else has come close. And, in one of th ose other seasons, they make the AFC Semis with an injury riddled team, IIRC, 5 of 22 starters, and an additional 4 second stringers on IR. That's depth, and solid team planning. You man not respect it, I do. You pick one year where they did not have a great draft and choose to make an example. Fair enough. They still had a great year in Free Agency that year, AND,won the Superbowl. There's two sides to personnel management. By the end of the season, they'll have spent the cap, they'll go deep into the playoffs, and they'll be one of the best teams in the AFC, again, just as they've been for the last 6 years. They have the best coach in the game, one of the best, IMHO the best QB, and though there are many ways to run a franchise, IMHO their model has proven the most successful in both the short and intermediate run. Nobody else has stayed at, or near, the top for this long, in the cap era. You can nit pick on one issue, or one year of a draft, but the Lombardis and wins continue to compile, showing you as just a bitter jealous fan of another team.

 

[Chili1034]

The 06' free agency class was awful since the huge cap increase. Good players stayed with their current team and marginal players got big moneysince fewer players were available.. Chester Taylor, David Givens, Antwaan Randle El got huge free agent deals and they are not top of the line players. New England elected to save some money and have more cap room available for future seasons. They will dump some future money into this year and be even more flexible in 07'.

 

[SSOG]

I would say Mike Vrabel did. I would say Randall Gay did. IJ would say Rodney Harrison did. I would say Hank Poteat did whan he cam in in 2003 and helped win the SB. Corey Dillon. Deion Branch? Wasn't that what the whole debate was? He outperformed his contract? David Givens? Last year on the line Logan Mankins and Nick Kaczur, two rookies on the line, and they make the AFC semis. Kind of the hallmakk of the Pats is that continually players come in and outperform, winning SB's, or at least competing and having a chance.. Wouldn't you agree? That's been the business model. Players that nobody else really wanted, or players that underperformed in other places come into NE and play better. The failures like Chad Brown, Duane Starks (hurt the whole time, but a failure none the less), Monty Beisel, et al, stand out, because the success rate is so high.

I would totally agree with Vrabel and Rodney Harrison as examples of free agents that came in and outperformed their contract. Of course, neither of them came in during the 2005 season, which was my point- it's been a while since the Patriots have made a good front-office decision. They're currently coming off of a pretty long string of mistakes... which is what leads me to view this Branch situation in a more negative light. This isn't like after the 2004 season when they signed Beisel and Starks and you had to give them the benefit of the doubt, because they were coming off a huge string of successful front office choices.

Look, you can debate it ad nauseum, but again, the proof is in the pudding. Three Superbowls in 5 seasons. Nobody else has done it in the cap era. Nobody else has come close. And, in one of th ose other seasons, they make the AFC Semis with an injury riddled team, IIRC, 5 of 22 starters, and an additional 4 second stringers on IR. That's depth, and solid team planning. You man not respect it, I do. You pick one year where they did not have a great draft and choose to make an example. Fair enough. They still had a great year in Free Agency that year, AND,won the Superbowl. There's two sides to personnel management.

Disagreed. The Denver Broncos not only won back-to-back in the Salary Cap era, but they also had HFA in 1996 and what many players say was the best team of the three, but they fell short. Denver also set the record for wins in a 3-year span. That's pretty close to 3 Superbowls in 5 seasons. Heck, that's pretty close to 3 Superbowls in 3 seasons... so as a Denver fan, I know what the end of a run looks like. Management comes in and makes a string of choices that all pan out, until the team acquires so much talent and catches fire, winning a ton of games. After 2-3 years, though, they stop hitting every single ball out of the park. They fall back to a league average 50% success rate. The team stays good and competitive, but is no longer a Superbowl Challenger. I respect what the Patriots have done, but I've seen this story before, and I firmly believe that there is no way they can maintain their level of success now that their front office is merely mortal again- and while they still have a very good front office, it *IS* merely mortal again. It's not like everything they touch still turns to gold anymore like it did during 2002-2004.Anyway, I'm not saying that 2001 was a bad year for the front office (although I *am* saying that 2005 was a HORRIBLE year for the front office). I think that 2001 was an average year- about a 50% success rate, which tends to be league average. I just think that 2002-2004 were on another level- pretty close to a 100% success rate. People start giving them the benefit of the doubt because of how good they were during that span, even though they're nowhere NEAR operating at that level again.

By the end of the season, they'll have spent the cap, they'll go deep into the playoffs, and they'll be one of the best teams in the AFC, again, just as they've been for the last 6 years. They have the best coach in the game, one of the best, IMHO the best QB, and though there are many ways to run a franchise, IMHO their model has proven the most successful in both the short and intermediate run. Nobody else has stayed at, or near, the top for this long, in the cap era. You can nit pick on one issue, or one year of a draft, but the Lombardis and wins continue to compile, showing you as just a bitter jealous fan of another team.

I agree that their model has proven successful, but the reason their model proved successful is because they were doing something different, and therefore had an advantage over the rest of the league. With all the copycats out there, they no longer have an advantage. They still have a solid model, and they will still have a solid team, but their days of being contenders are over.Again, like I said, I've seen this cycle before. I remember when Denver had the best model in the league, and then everyone caught on and Denver remained a very very good team, but not an annual contender anymore.

Speaking of Denver, again, that's a huge counterexample to your "Nobody else has stayed at, or near, the top for this long, in the cap era" claim. They have ONE losing season under Shanahan, in a year when they lost two HoF-caliber players on offense. Other than that, Bellichick has gotten 5, 11, 9, 14, 14, 10, compared to Shanahan's 8, 13, 12, 14, 6, 11 in his first 6 years. That's a one-win advantage for Denver under the salary cap. And since then, Shanny's gone 8, 9, 10, 10, 13. Again, that's a pretty solid history of long-term success under the salary cap, no? Want some more counterexamples? Philly went to 4-straight NFC Championship games. That's a pretty long run "at the top" under the salary cap. Indy's had 10 or more wins in 6 of the last 7 seasons (and 12 or more wins in 4 of the last 7 seasons). New England's only had two 12-win seasons during that span.

Look, I appreciate that you're actually addressing my points and having a very nice conversation about this, but please don't try to insinuate that I'm just a "bitter jealous fan of another team". I'm not jealous of New England's success, because I root for a team that has had every bit as much success under the salary cap (and which, incidentally, is 4-1 against New England since they started their "dynasty"). I'm providing thought-out and written-out arguements here. If you disagree with them, then so be it, but to call me a bitter fan is to dismiss all of my arguements outright, which I really don't appreciate. If you think I'm wrong, then please, respond and tell me why. Once again, I think we're having a very nice discussion here, and I definitely appreciate your responses, I'd just rather you attack my arguements and not me.