Vince Wilfork (1 Viewer)

[massraider]

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-jus...ll-myself-short

Patriots defensive lineman Vince Wilfork appeared on the Dale & Holley Show (with Michael Holley and guest host Lou Merloni) to discuss his contract situation on Wednesday morning. With his six-year rookie contract now having ended, Wilfork could become an unrestricted free agent. However, the Patriots have the right to place a franchise tag on the star defensive tackle.

Wilfork made clear, however, that his goal is a long-term contract, whether with the Patriots or another team. The idea of a franchise tag, which would provide likely result in a one-year deal, did not sit well with the 28-year-old.

"I did honor my six-year deal. Now, that six-year deal is up. It’s time for me to move forward, with the Patriots or not with the Patriots," said Wilfork. "[A franchise tag] is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay.

"But I don’t look at myself as an okay player," Wilfork continued. "Like I said, it’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player."

Wilfork also suggested that he does believe it important to be part of a winning organization. That said, the defensive tackle made clear that he is not ready to compromise his best opportunity for a significant long-term deal in order to remain in New England.

"I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank. That’s how I’m looking at it, that’s how my family is looking at it. ... There’s a short window of opportunity for me to make the kind of money I want to make," said Wilfork. "I’m not selling my family short and I’m definitely not selling myself short just to stay back and to win and to be part of a great organization.

"Winning is a big part of sports, but a lot of teams win. A lot of teams win. So we’ll see. We’ll see. I will do what’s best for my family. But I definitely will not sell myself short of my ability. Not at all."

Wilfork said that he and the Patriots have not discussed his contract situation since the the start of the season. At that time, it became apparent to him that the two sides would not reach an agreement, and so he suggested that the team table discussions for the season. Now, with the season over, Wilfork and his agent haven't heard from the Patriots, but the two-time Pro Bowler said that he's not antsy to hear from the team.

"I’m not sitting by the phone waiting for them to call. Either they call or they don’t," said Wilfork. "Whenever they call, they call."

There's a link to full interview (audio) in that article.Wilfork seems like he's not gonna be happy playing under a one-year deal. It'll be the same franchise story this year--and maybe next: Player talks about sitting out, the story gets dragged out, same stories get written, same threads get started about what an ingrate said player is. Wilfork seems to be pretty clear that he isn't giving a happy-to-be-a-Pat discount, and wants what he's worth.

Wondering what Pats fans, as well as others, think is the right move here.

Do the Pats rent him for two more years under the franchise tag? With a new CBA, would they even be able to?

Long term deal? Has blown up in the past, especially for defensive tackles of a certain size.

Trade? Gotta think they can get a ransom. Is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Ron Brace?

The Pats have shown an admirable ability to keep emotion out of personnel decisions, not overpay, and maintain their core. Steelers did the same thing for years, and plugged in new players. Is Wilfork part of the core? How important is he to the defense? Is he worth what he wants?

 

[Spaz]

What's the problem? Slap the franchise tag on him and move on. He'll complain but he'll play.

I don't understand why the franchise tag is such an insult to players...if he gets hurt he's screwed. But if he stays healthy and plays decently he'll get a hefty bump with the next franchise tag or sign a monster contract at that time.

 

[David Yudkin]

Wilfork is more than likely going to end up franchised. Whether they can work out a deal after that is hard to tell, but I would tend to doubt it given the labor issues. NE has to omany other people they have to pay and re-sign that they will probably not go 100% to sign Wilfork to a long term deal. I doubt they value his services at the same rate as Wilfork does.

As a for instance, Brady and the Pats are way off on what Brady should be paid . . . and they need Brady way more than they need Wilfork. Vince will be effectively told to go to the back of the line and see what happens with everyone else.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

franchise

move along

 

[encaitar]

Vince Wilfork is the best nose tackle in the league, or at least right up there with the best. There is no salary cap this year(presumably unless a deal gets done in the next month). The Patriots are idiots if they don't sign him to a long term deal with a HUGE roster bonus going on this year. Get a good portion of his cap number onto this year's salary and make it manageable for the rest of his deal. Then they have a core player locked up for 5 years and don't have to worry about his cap number. It really wouldn't make sense to franchise a guy worth keeping around in a year without a salary cap.

 

[massraider]

Vince Wilfork is the best nose tackle in the league, or at least right up there with the best. There is no salary cap this year(presumably unless a deal gets done in the next month). The Patriots are idiots if they don't sign him to a long term deal with a HUGE roster bonus going on this year. Get a good portion of his cap number onto this year's salary and make it manageable for the rest of his deal. Then they have a core player locked up for 5 years and don't have to worry about his cap number. It really wouldn't make sense to franchise a guy worth keeping around in a year without a salary cap.

I guess I wondering the reason NOT to sign Wilfork to a long term deal. Has he shown signs of letting himself go after a big payday? Attitude?

 

[The Jacket]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play.

Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

 

[Buffaloes]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

 

[David Yudkin]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

The Pats have predominently been cheap. They don't like paying out big contracts and generally won't do so. That's part of the reason they have gotten themselves in to the situation they have, but it's also why they have remained competitive.Their model has been to get good players cheap . . . allowing them to have more cap dollars to spread across more players and have better depth. The problem has been when those young players need new contracts, they will want huge raises and that impacts the ability to sign everyone else. For the most part, they have asked players to take hometown discounts or let guys walk. Many times, players took less money to stay . . . or took more money and left (Asante Samuel comes to mind). They never really gushed about paying people top dollar.At this point, I can rest assure you that they don't view/value Wilfork anything near what he wants to be paid. They already snookered him in playing a year longer than most rookie contracts and now he wants to be paid. The Pats model generally involves rostering guys on their rookie contracts - OR - rostering players on their 3rd or 4th contracts but -NOT - their second contracts because that's when they get paid the most. New England has typcially gone with young guys and wily vets but not many players in the middle.It would not surprise me if the Pats have no interest at all in signing Wilfork to a long term, mega bucks deal. He's played 6 years, they can franchise him, and by then he'll be at a point where he will only decline. He's also made a living by being big and in their eyes that is a guy that will break down physically and skill wise as he ages. To them, that's not someone they want to hang a $100 million contract on.He's 29. If they franchise him once, he'll be 30 after that. I would guess they will make a deal with him similar to what they did with Samuel. That he will agree to play one more year and in return the Pats will agree not to franchise him again,based on some incentives or situations (like he plays in 8 games or they make the playoffs, etc.). Then they will part ways, he'll sign some big inflated deal, and the Pats will be happy with a 3rd round compensatory pick.For better or worse, that's how they operate. For them, it's predominently been effective. You can knock them on being stupid and not signing a big cog to the puzzle, but that has allowed them to consistently field a competitive team by not overpaying for a handful of players.What I find amusing is that folks and the media will say that the Pats could have had Seymour and Samuel and Vrabel and some other guys all on the same team and how good they would have been. But then they wouldn't have Moss or Welker or some other guys or they would have been about $20 million over the salary cap.I know people will scream that with no salary cap the team can afford to pay players what they want, but I suspect teams a huge majority of teams will operate business as usual as if there were still a salary cap. They are now millions and millions dollars apart in signing Brady to an extension. I don't see the Pats any more eager to spend money than they have been, nor do I see them modifying their philosophy on paying to re-sign their players. They'll get a deal done with Brady, but it will take a long time to get it done when they could have saved a lot of time by just getting it done and leaving out all the drama.

 

[domvin]

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-jus...ll-myself-short

Patriots defensive lineman Vince Wilfork appeared on the Dale & Holley Show (with Michael Holley and guest host Lou Merloni) to discuss his contract situation on Wednesday morning. With his six-year rookie contract now having ended, Wilfork could become an unrestricted free agent. However, the Patriots have the right to place a franchise tag on the star defensive tackle.

Wilfork made clear, however, that his goal is a long-term contract, whether with the Patriots or another team. The idea of a franchise tag, which would provide likely result in a one-year deal, did not sit well with the 28-year-old.

"I did honor my six-year deal. Now, that six-year deal is up. It’s time for me to move forward, with the Patriots or not with the Patriots," said Wilfork. "[A franchise tag] is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay.

"But I don’t look at myself as an okay player," Wilfork continued. "Like I said, it’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player."

Wilfork also suggested that he does believe it important to be part of a winning organization. That said, the defensive tackle made clear that he is not ready to compromise his best opportunity for a significant long-term deal in order to remain in New England.

"I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank. That’s how I’m looking at it, that’s how my family is looking at it. ... There’s a short window of opportunity for me to make the kind of money I want to make," said Wilfork. "I’m not selling my family short and I’m definitely not selling myself short just to stay back and to win and to be part of a great organization.

"Winning is a big part of sports, but a lot of teams win. A lot of teams win. So we’ll see. We’ll see. I will do what’s best for my family. But I definitely will not sell myself short of my ability. Not at all."

Wilfork said that he and the Patriots have not discussed his contract situation since the the start of the season. At that time, it became apparent to him that the two sides would not reach an agreement, and so he suggested that the team table discussions for the season. Now, with the season over, Wilfork and his agent haven't heard from the Patriots, but the two-time Pro Bowler said that he's not antsy to hear from the team.

"I’m not sitting by the phone waiting for them to call. Either they call or they don’t," said Wilfork. "Whenever they call, they call."

There's a link to full interview (audio) in that article.Wilfork seems like he's not gonna be happy playing under a one-year deal. It'll be the same franchise story this year--and maybe next: Player talks about sitting out, the story gets dragged out, same stories get written, same threads get started about what an ingrate said player is. Wilfork seems to be pretty clear that he isn't giving a happy-to-be-a-Pat discount, and wants what he's worth.

Wondering what Pats fans, as well as others, think is the right move here.

Do the Pats rent him for two more years under the franchise tag? With a new CBA, would they even be able to?

Long term deal? Has blown up in the past, especially for defensive tackles of a certain size.

Trade? Gotta think they can get a ransom. Is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Ron Brace?

The Pats have shown an admirable ability to keep emotion out of personnel decisions, not overpay, and maintain their core. Steelers did the same thing for years, and plugged in new players. Is Wilfork part of the core? How important is he to the defense? Is he worth what he wants?

They can't trade him if hes a FA, and no one would be willing to deal for him, with a short time left, except the Raiders(see Seymour deal)I'd concur, that they do a similar deal with Samuels, and use the Raiders 2011 1st rounder on a stout DT.

I would not be surprised if Seymour somehow winds up back in NE.....

 

[massraider]

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-jus...ll-myself-short

Patriots defensive lineman Vince Wilfork appeared on the Dale & Holley Show (with Michael Holley and guest host Lou Merloni) to discuss his contract situation on Wednesday morning. With his six-year rookie contract now having ended, Wilfork could become an unrestricted free agent. However, the Patriots have the right to place a franchise tag on the star defensive tackle.

Wilfork made clear, however, that his goal is a long-term contract, whether with the Patriots or another team. The idea of a franchise tag, which would provide likely result in a one-year deal, did not sit well with the 28-year-old.

"I did honor my six-year deal. Now, that six-year deal is up. It’s time for me to move forward, with the Patriots or not with the Patriots," said Wilfork. "[A franchise tag] is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay.

"But I don’t look at myself as an okay player," Wilfork continued. "Like I said, it’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player."

Wilfork also suggested that he does believe it important to be part of a winning organization. That said, the defensive tackle made clear that he is not ready to compromise his best opportunity for a significant long-term deal in order to remain in New England.

"I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank. That’s how I’m looking at it, that’s how my family is looking at it. ... There’s a short window of opportunity for me to make the kind of money I want to make," said Wilfork. "I’m not selling my family short and I’m definitely not selling myself short just to stay back and to win and to be part of a great organization.

"Winning is a big part of sports, but a lot of teams win. A lot of teams win. So we’ll see. We’ll see. I will do what’s best for my family. But I definitely will not sell myself short of my ability. Not at all."

Wilfork said that he and the Patriots have not discussed his contract situation since the the start of the season. At that time, it became apparent to him that the two sides would not reach an agreement, and so he suggested that the team table discussions for the season. Now, with the season over, Wilfork and his agent haven't heard from the Patriots, but the two-time Pro Bowler said that he's not antsy to hear from the team.

"I’m not sitting by the phone waiting for them to call. Either they call or they don’t," said Wilfork. "Whenever they call, they call."

There's a link to full interview (audio) in that article.Wilfork seems like he's not gonna be happy playing under a one-year deal. It'll be the same franchise story this year--and maybe next: Player talks about sitting out, the story gets dragged out, same stories get written, same threads get started about what an ingrate said player is. Wilfork seems to be pretty clear that he isn't giving a happy-to-be-a-Pat discount, and wants what he's worth.

Wondering what Pats fans, as well as others, think is the right move here.

Do the Pats rent him for two more years under the franchise tag? With a new CBA, would they even be able to?

Long term deal? Has blown up in the past, especially for defensive tackles of a certain size.

Trade? Gotta think they can get a ransom. Is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Ron Brace?

The Pats have shown an admirable ability to keep emotion out of personnel decisions, not overpay, and maintain their core. Steelers did the same thing for years, and plugged in new players. Is Wilfork part of the core? How important is he to the defense? Is he worth what he wants?

They can't trade him if hes a FA, and no one would be willing to deal for him, with a short time left, except the Raiders(see Seymour deal)I'd concur, that they do a similar deal with Samuels, and use the Raiders 2011 1st rounder on a stout DT.

I would not be surprised if Seymour somehow winds up back in NE.....

If they franchise him, they can trade him. And deals for franchised players have happened before.

 

[David Yudkin]

I would not be surprised if Seymour somehow winds up back in NE.....

Seymour has already said the Pats are dead to him and that if he isn't franchised in Oakland he would sign with any other team in the league but NO WAY would he go back to New England. Maybe later in his career ih he wanted to play out the string for next to nothing, but no way would he come back in the immediate future.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Based on how they treated Richard Seymour, I see no reason to think the Pats will do Vince right but after seeing what Haynesworth got last year, Vince knows he would get a super payday, something north of $50 million in the deal...I can understand why he wants to leave.

This is why i don't like the franchise tag. Teams want guys, sign them to contracts...nothing in this deal favors the player. Sure they get $8-$10 million ofr a season when they were getting $2.5 million before we'll say.

But they want a $20 million or more in guaranteed money so teams don't just dispose of them so quickly. Plus if Wilfork were to go down with a terrible injury, sure it stinks the pats are on the hook for it but the player deserves some kind of cushion in this too. Why should Wilfork bust his hump next year and risk injury?

I understand a lot of fans don't see it that way but the owners make a fortune, don't fault the players for wanting fair treatment.

 

[domvin]

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-jus...ll-myself-short

Patriots defensive lineman Vince Wilfork appeared on the Dale & Holley Show (with Michael Holley and guest host Lou Merloni) to discuss his contract situation on Wednesday morning. With his six-year rookie contract now having ended, Wilfork could become an unrestricted free agent. However, the Patriots have the right to place a franchise tag on the star defensive tackle.

Wilfork made clear, however, that his goal is a long-term contract, whether with the Patriots or another team. The idea of a franchise tag, which would provide likely result in a one-year deal, did not sit well with the 28-year-old.

"I did honor my six-year deal. Now, that six-year deal is up. It’s time for me to move forward, with the Patriots or not with the Patriots," said Wilfork. "[A franchise tag] is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay.

"But I don’t look at myself as an okay player," Wilfork continued. "Like I said, it’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player."

Wilfork also suggested that he does believe it important to be part of a winning organization. That said, the defensive tackle made clear that he is not ready to compromise his best opportunity for a significant long-term deal in order to remain in New England.

"I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank. That’s how I’m looking at it, that’s how my family is looking at it. ... There’s a short window of opportunity for me to make the kind of money I want to make," said Wilfork. "I’m not selling my family short and I’m definitely not selling myself short just to stay back and to win and to be part of a great organization.

"Winning is a big part of sports, but a lot of teams win. A lot of teams win. So we’ll see. We’ll see. I will do what’s best for my family. But I definitely will not sell myself short of my ability. Not at all."

Wilfork said that he and the Patriots have not discussed his contract situation since the the start of the season. At that time, it became apparent to him that the two sides would not reach an agreement, and so he suggested that the team table discussions for the season. Now, with the season over, Wilfork and his agent haven't heard from the Patriots, but the two-time Pro Bowler said that he's not antsy to hear from the team.

"I’m not sitting by the phone waiting for them to call. Either they call or they don’t," said Wilfork. "Whenever they call, they call."

There's a link to full interview (audio) in that article.Wilfork seems like he's not gonna be happy playing under a one-year deal. It'll be the same franchise story this year--and maybe next: Player talks about sitting out, the story gets dragged out, same stories get written, same threads get started about what an ingrate said player is. Wilfork seems to be pretty clear that he isn't giving a happy-to-be-a-Pat discount, and wants what he's worth.

Wondering what Pats fans, as well as others, think is the right move here.

Do the Pats rent him for two more years under the franchise tag? With a new CBA, would they even be able to?

Long term deal? Has blown up in the past, especially for defensive tackles of a certain size.

Trade? Gotta think they can get a ransom. Is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Ron Brace?

The Pats have shown an admirable ability to keep emotion out of personnel decisions, not overpay, and maintain their core. Steelers did the same thing for years, and plugged in new players. Is Wilfork part of the core? How important is he to the defense? Is he worth what he wants?

They can't trade him if hes a FA, and no one would be willing to deal for him, with a short time left, except the Raiders(see Seymour deal)I'd concur, that they do a similar deal with Samuels, and use the Raiders 2011 1st rounder on a stout DT.

I would not be surprised if Seymour somehow winds up back in NE.....

If they franchise him, they can trade him. And deals for franchised players have happened before.

...and I think he'd have to sign the franchise tender, to be traded. It just doesn't sound like he's enamored with signing the franchise tender from the article.

 

[massraider]

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-jus...ll-myself-short

Patriots defensive lineman Vince Wilfork appeared on the Dale & Holley Show (with Michael Holley and guest host Lou Merloni) to discuss his contract situation on Wednesday morning. With his six-year rookie contract now having ended, Wilfork could become an unrestricted free agent. However, the Patriots have the right to place a franchise tag on the star defensive tackle.

Wilfork made clear, however, that his goal is a long-term contract, whether with the Patriots or another team. The idea of a franchise tag, which would provide likely result in a one-year deal, did not sit well with the 28-year-old.

"I did honor my six-year deal. Now, that six-year deal is up. It’s time for me to move forward, with the Patriots or not with the Patriots," said Wilfork. "[A franchise tag] is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay.

"But I don’t look at myself as an okay player," Wilfork continued. "Like I said, it’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player."

Wilfork also suggested that he does believe it important to be part of a winning organization. That said, the defensive tackle made clear that he is not ready to compromise his best opportunity for a significant long-term deal in order to remain in New England.

"I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank. That’s how I’m looking at it, that’s how my family is looking at it. ... There’s a short window of opportunity for me to make the kind of money I want to make," said Wilfork. "I’m not selling my family short and I’m definitely not selling myself short just to stay back and to win and to be part of a great organization.

"Winning is a big part of sports, but a lot of teams win. A lot of teams win. So we’ll see. We’ll see. I will do what’s best for my family. But I definitely will not sell myself short of my ability. Not at all."

Wilfork said that he and the Patriots have not discussed his contract situation since the the start of the season. At that time, it became apparent to him that the two sides would not reach an agreement, and so he suggested that the team table discussions for the season. Now, with the season over, Wilfork and his agent haven't heard from the Patriots, but the two-time Pro Bowler said that he's not antsy to hear from the team.

"I’m not sitting by the phone waiting for them to call. Either they call or they don’t," said Wilfork. "Whenever they call, they call."

There's a link to full interview (audio) in that article.Wilfork seems like he's not gonna be happy playing under a one-year deal. It'll be the same franchise story this year--and maybe next: Player talks about sitting out, the story gets dragged out, same stories get written, same threads get started about what an ingrate said player is. Wilfork seems to be pretty clear that he isn't giving a happy-to-be-a-Pat discount, and wants what he's worth.

Wondering what Pats fans, as well as others, think is the right move here.

Do the Pats rent him for two more years under the franchise tag? With a new CBA, would they even be able to?

Long term deal? Has blown up in the past, especially for defensive tackles of a certain size.

Trade? Gotta think they can get a ransom. Is there a young buck waiting in the wings? Ron Brace?

The Pats have shown an admirable ability to keep emotion out of personnel decisions, not overpay, and maintain their core. Steelers did the same thing for years, and plugged in new players. Is Wilfork part of the core? How important is he to the defense? Is he worth what he wants?

They can't trade him if hes a FA, and no one would be willing to deal for him, with a short time left, except the Raiders(see Seymour deal)I'd concur, that they do a similar deal with Samuels, and use the Raiders 2011 1st rounder on a stout DT.

I would not be surprised if Seymour somehow winds up back in NE.....

If they franchise him, they can trade him. And deals for franchised players have happened before.

...and I think he'd have to sign the franchise tender, to be traded. It just doesn't sound like he's enamored with signing the franchise tender from the article.

All this has happened before. If there's a deal in place, he signs the tender, gets traded, and signs long term deal with new team. Which is what he wants.

 

[David Yudkin]

...and I think he'd have to sign the franchise tender, to be traded. It just doesn't sound like he's enamored with signing the franchise tender from the article.

Deals get done for franchised players in that the trade gets worked out to the new team and a new contract is agreed to in advance, so the "signing" of the franchise contract is no more than a formality and that franchise contract gets tossed as soon as the trade and new deal are implemented.On rare occasion a player will get traded and no new deal agreed to (Matt Cassel last year), but he was thrilled to get a one year deal for $16 million, so his case was certainly atypical.What's interesting is the history of the franchise tag. IIRC, back in 1994 when they created the salary cap. the players union was the one that wanted it. And each team was originally slated to have two franchise tags per year. But the teams were the ones that asked to have only one and at the time the players union was the one insisting that their be a franchise tag in the first place. The thought then was that teams should have to try to keep their mainstay players and this would give the player a better chance of playing on the same team. It was felt that without it, players would be effectively forced to leave town unwillingly. Funny how 15 years later how things have changed . . .

 

[encaitar]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

It doesn't make any sense in this situation though. Vince Wilfork is 28. Dominant NTs can be very effective players into their mid-30s. A long contract would be a good thing for both sides IMO. Pat Williams is 37. He played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and close to it again this year. I have no doubt Wilfork can keep his production up as long. I think locking Wilfork up would be in the best interest of the NE organization.

 

[Spaz]

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform.

IIRC the Niners used to have this same philosophy under Walsh.

 

[Buffaloes]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

It doesn't make any sense in this situation though. Vince Wilfork is 28. Dominant NTs can be very effective players into their mid-30s. A long contract would be a good thing for both sides IMO. Pat Williams is 37. He played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and close to it again this year. I have no doubt Wilfork can keep his production up as long. I think locking Wilfork up would be in the best interest of the NE organization.

They have Brace and this year's draft's DT talent crop is pretty good, scratch that, I think it's very good. Maybe they think they can line up a talented, cheaper, younger option and still use Wilfork for another year or so. Or maybe they trade him? I think it makes plenty of sense.

 

[David Yudkin]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

It doesn't make any sense in this situation though. Vince Wilfork is 28. Dominant NTs can be very effective players into their mid-30s. A long contract would be a good thing for both sides IMO. Pat Williams is 37. He played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and close to it again this year. I have no doubt Wilfork can keep his production up as long. I think locking Wilfork up would be in the best interest of the NE organization.

Read what I posted several posts ago. Locking up players for big money for many years goes against the Patriots model. While we could debate if that is smart or not, even not winning a title in 5 years the Pats still went 59-21 in the regular season in that time (second only to the Colts record wise).The team would debate you whether signing Wilfork to Haynesworth-esque money is in the best interest of the team. And from what I have heard, the team and Wilfork are nowhere even close in terms of signing bonus/guaranteed money, number of years, average contract value, and annual salary. I really don't see how a long term deal will get done.

 

[phthalatemagic]

The smart thing to do is to trade him. Wilfork did this the right way, and now he's going to be screwed. Hopefully he signs the franchise tender, then mysteriously has migraine headaches, keeping him from playing much in 2010. Then after the Patriots decide to not give him another franchise tender, he'll sign with a decent team and get his migraines cured forever. I wonder what effect all these disgruntled players from NE will have on their ability to sign cheap good FAs. Seymour, Wilfork, Thomas, Ted Johnson have all complained about how this team does business. There are significantly more complaints about this team than any other, except the Raiders.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

It doesn't make any sense in this situation though. Vince Wilfork is 28. Dominant NTs can be very effective players into their mid-30s. A long contract would be a good thing for both sides IMO. Pat Williams is 37. He played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and close to it again this year. I have no doubt Wilfork can keep his production up as long. I think locking Wilfork up would be in the best interest of the NE organization.

and if ANYONE thinks you can just scoop up a player as good as Wilfork in the draft whenever you want, you are mistaken. And Brace, on his best day is still worse than Wilfork on his worst. This will always be true.

 

[encaitar]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

It doesn't make any sense in this situation though. Vince Wilfork is 28. Dominant NTs can be very effective players into their mid-30s. A long contract would be a good thing for both sides IMO. Pat Williams is 37. He played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and close to it again this year. I have no doubt Wilfork can keep his production up as long. I think locking Wilfork up would be in the best interest of the NE organization.

They have Brace and this year's draft's DT talent crop is pretty good, scratch that, I think it's very good. Maybe they think they can line up a talented, cheaper, younger option and still use Wilfork for another year or so. Or maybe they trade him? I think it makes plenty of sense.

Well, it's tough to argue with NE's track record, but Wilfork is one of the best 2 or 3 NTs in the league. NE's defense has a ton of holes than need to get fixed and adding one in the most vital part of a 3-4 seems a little misguided to me. Maybe Brace will pan out, most likely though he'll never get to Wilfork's level of dominance, and I doubt they use the draft to address the D line when LB, O line, and DB needs seem much more glaring. I just feel that with the lack of a salary cap, NE has a chance to lock up guys like Wilfork and Brady with big roster bonuses, making their cap number manageable in the future. I would be the smartest way to go about it IMO, but then again maybe that's why I'm not employed by an NFL team.

 

[David Yudkin]

The smart thing to do is to trade him. Wilfork did this the right way, and now he's going to be screwed. Hopefully he signs the franchise tender, then mysteriously has migraine headaches, keeping him from playing much in 2010. Then after the Patriots decide to not give him another franchise tender, he'll sign with a decent team and get his migraines cured forever. I wonder what effect all these disgruntled players from NE will have on their ability to sign cheap good FAs. Seymour, Wilfork, Thomas, Ted Johnson have all complained about how this team does business. There are significantly more complaints about this team than any other, except the Raiders.

What's odd is that the Pats have (rightfully so) earned the rep of being cheap . . . yet they still have been able to attract what at the time appeared to be decent signings and notable players. And usually not for premium dollars. Teams see the Pats as a team where they have a decent shot at winning a title. So for players that care more about winning then salary, the Pats are a decent option. For guys looking to get a max contract, they won't go to N.E. or probably even talk to them.

 

[domvin]

I realize it's happened before. I know NE has him by the nads on this one. He can't even sit out, unless he reports in like week 6/8/10 to try and vest his Franchise tendered season......

Honestly, the Pats are bold enough to go against his wishes, Franchise him, and take any pick for him, just as Yudkin points out above.

I just think, it's gonna get ugly, I don't see him cooperating here in the least.....why would he? He got duped on signing a 6 year deal, and it's his last big payday

 

[vandyt]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play.

Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

Whoa whoa whoa...Decent? Compared to who? Hes gotta be one of the dirtiest players in the league. JP Losman's knee and Brandon Jacobs' eye would agree.

 

[encaitar]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

It doesn't make any sense in this situation though. Vince Wilfork is 28. Dominant NTs can be very effective players into their mid-30s. A long contract would be a good thing for both sides IMO. Pat Williams is 37. He played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and close to it again this year. I have no doubt Wilfork can keep his production up as long. I think locking Wilfork up would be in the best interest of the NE organization.

Read what I posted several posts ago. Locking up players for big money for many years goes against the Patriots model. While we could debate if that is smart or not, even not winning a title in 5 years the Pats still went 59-21 in the regular season in that time (second only to the Colts record wise).The team would debate you whether signing Wilfork to Haynesworth-esque money is in the best interest of the team. And from what I have heard, the team and Wilfork are nowhere even close in terms of signing bonus/guaranteed money, number of years, average contract value, and annual salary. I really don't see how a long term deal will get done.

The Patriot's model makes a ton of sense when there is limited money to go around(i.e. a salary cap). I don't think many people are willing to argue with the results that NE has achieved. However, NE is one of the richest teams in the league. Their revenue is much higher than your average team and with no salary cap, they can use huge roster bonuses this year to lock up Wilfork(and Brady) and keep their cap number low in the future. It would still be the same strategy of not letting any one position get too high of a cap number, while keeping one of the best DTs in the league for many years.And no way that Wilfork gets Haynesworth money, with NE or no. Haynesworth adds as much to the running game as Wilfork, but also is completely disruptive in the pass rush. Wilfork likely gets 50-60 million in a new contract.

 

[David Yudkin]

I just feel that with the lack of a salary cap, NE has a chance to lock up guys like Wilfork and Brady with big roster bonuses, making their cap number manageable in the future. I would be the smartest way to go about it IMO, but then again maybe that's why I'm not employed by an NFL team.

I believe that the issue will be that if they do bring back a salary cap, teams will have to meet the same rules and conditions as before. So if they paid out a $40 million bonus for a 5 year contract and there is only one year without a salary cap, I would guess that the league will exempt them for the first year but prorate the cap hit for the remainder of the contract. So basically they would have to account for $32 million of the bonus over the remaining 4 years of the contract. Certainly not official or scientific, but the way I think it will eventually work out.

 

[encaitar]

I just feel that with the lack of a salary cap, NE has a chance to lock up guys like Wilfork and Brady with big roster bonuses, making their cap number manageable in the future. I would be the smartest way to go about it IMO, but then again maybe that's why I'm not employed by an NFL team.

I believe that the issue will be that if they do bring back a salary cap, teams will have to meet the same rules and conditions as before. So if they paid out a $40 million bonus for a 5 year contract and there is only one year without a salary cap, I would guess that the league will exempt them for the first year but prorate the cap hit for the remainder of the contract. So basically they would have to account for $32 million of the bonus over the remaining 4 years of the contract. Certainly not official or scientific, but the way I think it will eventually work out.

I am talking about roster bonuses, not signing bonuses. The Vikings have used roster bonuses very effectively to take huge cap hits in a single year and have a manageable cap number for the remaining years(see Jared Allen). I don't think Wilfork and Brady will care if their bonus comes in the form of a roster bonus or a signing bonus.

 

[phthalatemagic]

The smart thing to do is to trade him. Wilfork did this the right way, and now he's going to be screwed. Hopefully he signs the franchise tender, then mysteriously has migraine headaches, keeping him from playing much in 2010. Then after the Patriots decide to not give him another franchise tender, he'll sign with a decent team and get his migraines cured forever. I wonder what effect all these disgruntled players from NE will have on their ability to sign cheap good FAs. Seymour, Wilfork, Thomas, Ted Johnson have all complained about how this team does business. There are significantly more complaints about this team than any other, except the Raiders.

What's odd is that the Pats have (rightfully so) earned the rep of being cheap . . . yet they still have been able to attract what at the time appeared to be decent signings and notable players. And usually not for premium dollars. Teams see the Pats as a team where they have a decent shot at winning a title. So for players that care more about winning then salary, the Pats are a decent option. For guys looking to get a max contract, they won't go to N.E. or probably even talk to them.

That was the past. The Patriots have 0 playoff wins in the past 2 years. We shall see if players are going to take less money to sign with a team that *might* see the AFC Divisional Round in future years.

 

[David Yudkin]

Quite frankly I think it's a joke that he hasn't been extended before now--long before now in fact. What were they thinking even letting it get to this stage where they have to pay an unhappy player a guaranteed one-year rental contract? He's young, good, a decent enough character, plays a critical position and more importantly a position that's difficult to find guys to play. Pats are not nearly as smart as they used to be.

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform. This is right in line. If they franchise him, they'll get at least another year out of him and may be able to make the same choice in a year. But at least they won't be stuck paying a guy who may or may not be performing at a high level top 5 money for a few years. It only looks like they are getting dumber because they haven't won a Super Bowl recently.

It doesn't make any sense in this situation though. Vince Wilfork is 28. Dominant NTs can be very effective players into their mid-30s. A long contract would be a good thing for both sides IMO. Pat Williams is 37. He played at a Pro-Bowl level last year and close to it again this year. I have no doubt Wilfork can keep his production up as long. I think locking Wilfork up would be in the best interest of the NE organization.

Read what I posted several posts ago. Locking up players for big money for many years goes against the Patriots model. While we could debate if that is smart or not, even not winning a title in 5 years the Pats still went 59-21 in the regular season in that time (second only to the Colts record wise).The team would debate you whether signing Wilfork to Haynesworth-esque money is in the best interest of the team. And from what I have heard, the team and Wilfork are nowhere even close in terms of signing bonus/guaranteed money, number of years, average contract value, and annual salary. I really don't see how a long term deal will get done.

The Patriot's model makes a ton of sense when there is limited money to go around(i.e. a salary cap). I don't think many people are willing to argue with the results that NE has achieved. However, NE is one of the richest teams in the league. Their revenue is much higher than your average team and with no salary cap, they can use huge roster bonuses this year to lock up Wilfork(and Brady) and keep their cap number low in the future. It would still be the same strategy of not letting any one position get too high of a cap number, while keeping one of the best DTs in the league for many years.And no way that Wilfork gets Haynesworth money, with NE or no. Haynesworth adds as much to the running game as Wilfork, but also is completely disruptive in the pass rush. Wilfork likely gets 50-60 million in a new contract.

I have heard that there are whispers that there will be a gentlemen's agreement amoung owners that teams will not go crazy going over what the cap number would be projected to be to keep some semblence of order to the league. So to your point of the Pats spending like the Yankees, it's not likely to happen. As I just mentioned above, there's nothing to say that a cap won't be coming back soon and teams will be forced to meet the cap then. I doubt teams will get passes on signing bonuses or excemptions becuase they went on a feeding frenzy for new players. From what I have heard and discussed with others tied in to the game, they do not expect a huge free agent offseason and instead many feel it will be a soft market with the uncertainty of the league moving forward.

 

[encaitar]

I have heard that there are whispers that there will be a gentlemen's agreement amoung owners that teams will not go crazy going over what the cap number would be projected to be to keep some semblence of order to the league. So to your point of the Pats spending like the Yankees, it's not likely to happen. As I just mentioned above, there's nothing to say that a cap won't be coming back soon and teams will be forced to meet the cap then. I doubt teams will get passes on signing bonuses or excemptions becuase they went on a feeding frenzy for new players. From what I have heard and discussed with others tied in to the game, they do not expect a huge free agent offseason and instead many feel it will be a soft market with the uncertainty of the league moving forward.

I have no doubt it will be a soft market. Half the teams in the league will likely use it as a way to dump overpriced players and drop their salary. Teams like Jacksonville, Buffalo, Oakland, etc. are barely making any money and will likely use the uncapped year to lower their salary significantly. Especially with the prospect of less revenue sharing.It will also be affected by the increased years for RFAs. A lot of the good, young players that would've been UFAs will still be RFAs due to the CBA. These are the guys who, in the past were getting the huge contracts(Hutchinson, Haynesworth, etc.) There won't be many young UFAs left this year.And there might be a gentleman's agreement, but have no doubt that Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder, et el, will use this offseason to position their teams nicely for the future. And signing two major players in Brady and Wilfork would not make the Pats go crazily over the salary cap either. Likely well within the "gentleman's agreement" to resign your own players.

 

[David Yudkin]

That was the past. The Patriots have 0 playoff wins in the past 2 years. We shall see if players are going to take less money to sign with a team that *might* see the AFC Divisional Round in future years.

Over the past 2 years with their 0 playoff wins (one year without Brady), only IND and MIN had a better combined regular season record than N.E. did.For all the hoopla surrounding the Patriots this year, they were a play or two away in losses to HOU, MIA, NYJ, IND, and DEN from being 15-1 this year. I realize that that's NOT how things turned out, but they were a first down, a penalty, a 3rd down stop, a 4th and 2, etc. from winning all of those games.For all their shortcomings, I believe their supposed demise is being greatly exaggerated.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have heard that there are whispers that there will be a gentlemen's agreement amoung owners that teams will not go crazy going over what the cap number would be projected to be to keep some semblence of order to the league. So to your point of the Pats spending like the Yankees, it's not likely to happen. As I just mentioned above, there's nothing to say that a cap won't be coming back soon and teams will be forced to meet the cap then. I doubt teams will get passes on signing bonuses or excemptions becuase they went on a feeding frenzy for new players. From what I have heard and discussed with others tied in to the game, they do not expect a huge free agent offseason and instead many feel it will be a soft market with the uncertainty of the league moving forward.

I have no doubt it will be a soft market. Half the teams in the league will likely use it as a way to dump overpriced players and drop their salary. Teams like Jacksonville, Buffalo, Oakland, etc. are barely making any money and will likely use the uncapped year to lower their salary significantly. Especially with the prospect of less revenue sharing.It will also be affected by the increased years for RFAs. A lot of the good, young players that would've been UFAs will still be RFAs due to the CBA. These are the guys who, in the past were getting the huge contracts(Hutchinson, Haynesworth, etc.) There won't be many young UFAs left this year.And there might be a gentleman's agreement, but have no doubt that Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder, et el, will use this offseason to position their teams nicely for the future. And signing two major players in Brady and Wilfork would not make the Pats go crazily over the salary cap either. Likely well within the "gentleman's agreement" to resign your own players.

If, as we both seemed to agree on, there are hardly any notbale high impact, young free agents on the market, will there be owners who overpay on the few past their prime guys for a zillion dollars? Unless teams decide Willie Parker is worth $12 million a year, I don't see a ton of mega contracts being awarded this go round . . . but we'll see.

 

[phthalatemagic]

That was the past. The Patriots have 0 playoff wins in the past 2 years. We shall see if players are going to take less money to sign with a team that *might* see the AFC Divisional Round in future years.

Over the past 2 years with their 0 playoff wins (one year without Brady), only IND and MIN had a better combined regular season record than N.E. did.For all the hoopla surrounding the Patriots this year, they were a play or two away in losses to HOU, MIA, NYJ, IND, and DEN from being 15-1 this year. I realize that that's NOT how things turned out, but they were a first down, a penalty, a 3rd down stop, a 4th and 2, etc. from winning all of those games.For all their shortcomings, I believe their supposed demise is being greatly exaggerated.

Ohh sorry. I thought you were talking about players taking less money for a chance at a ring, not to join a team that does well only in the regular season.

 

[encaitar]

If, as we both seemed to agree on, there are hardly any notbale high impact, young free agents on the market, will there be owners who overpay on the few past their prime guys for a zillion dollars? Unless teams decide Willie Parker is worth $12 million a year, I don't see a ton of mega contracts being awarded this go round . . . but we'll see.

No, I don't think teams will overpay for older players. However, there are a couple very good players in their prime that will get big contracts. It will definitely have an effect on Wilfork's attitude about it. Julius Peppers will get paid bigtime. Aaron Kampman will likely get a good deal. Richard Seymour will either get a huge deal or get franchised himself. Aubrayo Franklin will get paid a big contract. Casey Hampton and Ryan Pickett too. All these D lineman will get big deals and Wilfork is younger(and likely more talented) than all of them. He won't take lightly to being franchised and probably won't sign it without a clause making it impossible to franchise him next year. Then NE is relying on Ron Brace to become a difference maker at the most important position on their D. Sorry, but it just seems the wiser path would be to sign Wilfork to a big deal now, when the can lower the damage to his cap number.

 

[Spaz]

That was the past. The Patriots have 0 playoff wins in the past 2 years. We shall see if players are going to take less money to sign with a team that *might* see the AFC Divisional Round in future years.

Over the past 2 years with their 0 playoff wins (one year without Brady), only IND and MIN had a better combined regular season record than N.E. did.For all the hoopla surrounding the Patriots this year, they were a play or two away in losses to HOU, MIA, NYJ, IND, and DEN from being 15-1 this year. I realize that that's NOT how things turned out, but they were a first down, a penalty, a 3rd down stop, a 4th and 2, etc. from winning all of those games.For all their shortcomings, I believe their supposed demise is being greatly exaggerated.

They were also a play or two away from a couple more losses. What's your point? That a lot of games in the NFL aren't blowouts?

 

[phthalatemagic]

That was the past. The Patriots have 0 playoff wins in the past 2 years. We shall see if players are going to take less money to sign with a team that *might* see the AFC Divisional Round in future years.

Over the past 2 years with their 0 playoff wins (one year without Brady), only IND and MIN had a better combined regular season record than N.E. did.For all the hoopla surrounding the Patriots this year, they were a play or two away in losses to HOU, MIA, NYJ, IND, and DEN from being 15-1 this year. I realize that that's NOT how things turned out, but they were a first down, a penalty, a 3rd down stop, a 4th and 2, etc. from winning all of those games.For all their shortcomings, I believe their supposed demise is being greatly exaggerated.

They were also a play or two away from a couple more losses. What's your point? That a lot of games in the NFL aren't blowouts?

IME, the coulda/woulda/shoulda talk only can have positive outcomes

 

[Boston]

I really get the feeling there's more to this than is being reported...meaning the Pats may have some concerns about him whether it be his conditioning or something else we don't know about it. The Pats have had two years to redo Wilfork and have appeared to be in no rush. If anything should have been learned from the Asante Samuel situation it's that the longer you wait the more you're going to have to pay. There's little doubt that Wilfork would have come cheaper a year and a half ago than he would now that he's on the doorstep of free agency.

When you look at the current Patriot D it's not a pretty sight. They are mediocre without too much upside. Wilfork is probably their best asset and the fact he plays the most important position in a 3-4 can not be overlooked. To subtract him from this defense just doesn't add up...especially since Brace was basically MIA this year (i.e. there's no definite replacement for Wilfork right now). On the surface this just doesn't make too much sense unless Wilfork is looking for silly money or (and I will be repetitive here) there's another factor involved. As Yudkin stated it maybe as simple as the Pats not wanting to pay Wilfork and trying to ride him out one more year at the franchise number. If that's the case than a D that already needs a lot improving just dug themselves a bigger hole as far as getting better in the future is concerned.

As for Seymour that's a totally different story. He vastly underperformed his contract and there was no way the Pats were going to resign him. Like Ty Law, Seymour is a player that will not give an inch when it comes to money and he's a great candidate to be overpaid on his next deal. I don't fault the Pats one bit for the trade they made...if there's an issue it's that they did it too close to the season and the moves they had made in the offseason did not take this transaction into account.

 

[TitusIII]

I don't think they screw with Wilfork's head...they either sign him long-term or let him go. I think VW has earned that level of respect, and I hope the Patriots operate that way...

 

[treat88]

It's worth noting that the Steelers are in the exact same spot with Casey Hampton.

It will be interesting to see how similarly these franchises handle their respective situations.

 

[Jewell]

A good 3-4 defense requires a monster in the middle. The Steelers had it in the hey-day of Casey Hampton. The Chargers had it in the hey-day of Jamaal Williams. And the Pats had it in the hey-day of Ted Washington. Wilfork is as good as those guys. The Pats should pay him.

 

[encaitar]

It's worth noting that the Steelers are in the exact same spot with Casey Hampton.It will be interesting to see how similarly these franchises handle their respective situations.

There is a bit of disparity between Hampton and Wilfork though. Hampton is 32, will turn 33 next season. He's on the backside of his prime and probably won't command as big of a contract as Wilfork. Vince is 28, will turn 29 in November. He's right in the center of his prime and will likely be playing at Pro Bowl level for another 3-5 years and a solid level for a few years after that. He's looking for his second contract(which is usually the biggest a player receives) while Hampton is looking for his third. His contract will be much bigger than Hampton's, but yes they are both vital parts of the defenses they are on.

 

[treat88]

It's worth noting that the Steelers are in the exact same spot with Casey Hampton.It will be interesting to see how similarly these franchises handle their respective situations.

There is a bit of disparity between Hampton and Wilfork though. Hampton is 32, will turn 33 next season. He's on the backside of his prime and probably won't command as big of a contract as Wilfork. Vince is 28, will turn 29 in November. He's right in the center of his prime and will likely be playing at Pro Bowl level for another 3-5 years and a solid level for a few years after that. He's looking for his second contract(which is usually the biggest a player receives) while Hampton is looking for his third. His contract will be much bigger than Hampton's, but yes they are both vital parts of the defenses they are on.

True on all counts.

 

[David Yudkin]

A good 3-4 defense requires a monster in the middle. The Steelers had it in the hey-day of Casey Hampton. The Chargers had it in the hey-day of Jamaal Williams. And the Pats had it in the hey-day of Ted Washington. Wilfork is as good as those guys. The Pats should pay him.

Washington played only one season for the Pats.

 

[Jewell]

A good 3-4 defense requires a monster in the middle. The Steelers had it in the hey-day of Casey Hampton. The Chargers had it in the hey-day of Jamaal Williams. And the Pats had it in the hey-day of Ted Washington. Wilfork is as good as those guys. The Pats should pay him.

Washington played only one season for the Pats.

... and they won the Super Bowl primarily on the strength of their defense.EDIT: Let me reword it this way -- Rather than his season with the Pats being the hey-day of Ted Washington (which it wasn't), Washington's one season with the Pats was the hey-day of the Pats defense (which it was). That's what I was getting at.

 

[Kit Fisto]

That was the past. The Patriots have 0 playoff wins in the past 2 years. We shall see if players are going to take less money to sign with a team that *might* see the AFC Divisional Round in future years.

Over the past 2 years with their 0 playoff wins (one year without Brady), only IND and MIN had a better combined regular season record than N.E. did.For all the hoopla surrounding the Patriots this year, they were a play or two away in losses to HOU, MIA, NYJ, IND, and DEN from being 15-1 this year. I realize that that's NOT how things turned out, but they were a first down, a penalty, a 3rd down stop, a 4th and 2, etc. from winning all of those games.For all their shortcomings, I believe their supposed demise is being greatly exaggerated.

Ohh sorry. I thought you were talking about players taking less money for a chance at a ring, not to join a team that does well only in the regular season.

You have to win in the regular season to even have that chance at a ring.

 

[munchkin]

Maybe, just maybe teams in situations similar to the Pats wait until the clock strikes midnight on the uncapped year and signs players (Wilfork, Brady and Mankins in NE) to deals with most the money in the first year and reasonable contracts for subsequent years. That way they can take the big financial hit in the uncapped year and secure their desired players for the long term at lowers salaries giving themselves more wiggle room down the road. Of course I have no idea what Kraft and Belichick deem a reasonable hit to take in year one.

No team can afford to be foolish in any situation. Even this short term hit long term advantage approach (at least in theory) has long term ramifications for future negotiations with other players.

 

[phthalatemagic]

That was the past. The Patriots have 0 playoff wins in the past 2 years. We shall see if players are going to take less money to sign with a team that *might* see the AFC Divisional Round in future years.

Over the past 2 years with their 0 playoff wins (one year without Brady), only IND and MIN had a better combined regular season record than N.E. did.For all the hoopla surrounding the Patriots this year, they were a play or two away in losses to HOU, MIA, NYJ, IND, and DEN from being 15-1 this year. I realize that that's NOT how things turned out, but they were a first down, a penalty, a 3rd down stop, a 4th and 2, etc. from winning all of those games.For all their shortcomings, I believe their supposed demise is being greatly exaggerated.

Ohh sorry. I thought you were talking about players taking less money for a chance at a ring, not to join a team that does well only in the regular season.

You have to win in the regular season to even have that chance at a ring. :whoosh:

Well, sure. But then you need to win in the post season to get the ring. I'll walk you through this slowly if you want.

 

[Donnybrook]

I've read that the Pats have a philosophy that it is better to cut bait a year or two early than lock a guy in for a bunch of years and have him underperform.

IIRC the Niners used to have this same philosophy under Walsh.

I thought it was the Pats philosphy to sign injury prone players who are way past their prime. See Fred Taylor, Chris Baker, Joey Galloway, and Shaun Springs.