Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    I don't mean placing the tag on Welker, because I think it was the right move, but being so passive about signing their tag players. It cost them money with Wilfork and it cost them money with Mankins. Now with the crazy money being tossed around to FA WR's did Welker's asking price skyrocket yesterday?

    It's aggravating that they didn't get this done earlier, as was the case with the others. Anyone else have the feeling this will happen again in 2 yrs with Gronk?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    It's just the way the Pats do business. It's part of the reason they stay competitive every year.

    For every Mankins price increase, there could have been a Samuel-like situation, where you now are paying a guy big money and it's killing the team. I don't disagree with how the Pats conduct their business with respect to the cap. The harsh reality is; the worst thing a team can do is give a lot of money to a player, then have him get hurt. Look at the Colts and Manning, and that's a deal they HAD to sign.

    It's how you mitigate the losses when something goes wrong and don't end up having to blow everything up. BB has rebuilt this team...what, 2 completely seperate times? 3 distinctly different Pats(01-04, 07, 11) teams have made the Super Bowl in 11 years, that's amazing. This is one of the frustrating downsides of that formula, they give out contracts, and let the player play it out, THEN address it, not before.

    The flip side is, to be honest, I can't think of any front-loaded contracts where the Pats then just cut the guy a few years later. Players HATE that, and the Pats really don't do it. They give fair contracts that can be taken at face value, let them play out, then reassess. They even did this with Brady and there were a lot of people freaking out about it.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    ma6 -

    I don't mind how they handle the cap because they've done a great job but in the cases of Wilfork, Mankins, and now Welker it seemed obvious that they wanted to get long term contracts done and made relatively poor offerings at the beginning of negotiation (at least from offers we hear about).  In the end they ended up paying more for those players then if they made offers that the market had dictated in the previous year. It's no shock that contracts go up every year so if your intention is to sign a player long term and you have the cap space in the year prior to needing to place the tag (which in every case they did) then why not try to sign a player a year before hand to a more market friendly offer at the time then wait it out and watch the market increase?

    IMO with Samuel they had no intention to keep him long term and only wanted him for another year or as trade bait so I don't think they made a reasonable attempt to resign him.

    This is only my opinion but the tag should only be used as a last resort, if you only want the player for short term while you find a replacement, or if you intend to trade the player. I don't like using it as a tool to squeeze 1 extra year out of a good contract because it tends to bit you in the end. If you intend to keep the player long term the extra you end up paying more often then not is more then that extra 1 year you saved. A great example of them thinking ahead is Mayo. They saw what the market was becoming for pro-bowl caliber ILB's (like Willis) and they acted quick realizing that he demands were going to increase come next year. Why is it they saw that coming down the pipe but are completely blind realizing that WR's were going to be offered so much?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    also Wleker is unique in that he blows out his ligament at the end of 09 after a GREAT season, and inexplicably managed to come back for 2010 when his numbers were good, but decidedly down for him: 86 catches for 848 yard, 7 TDs.

    So, coming into 2011, could the Pats really justify paying him a long-term deal? And IF they did, the end of 09, 2010 would have to play in greatly. At that point, Welker's best interest is to prove that he's healthy, which he did. But I don't see how you can pin this one on the Pats.

    As for Mankins...he got s c r e w e d. He felll into a CBA loophole when the last one ran out, the same thing Happened to V Jackson in SD. That's not the Pats fault, nor the player's. A case has been made that it wasn't right for the Pats to do it, but they DID try to pay him something like 3.5 for the year, more than they HAD to, and he refused. Then it got ugly between the player, Coach and Owner. But, to EVERYONE'S credit, even after all the public nonsense, both sides were able to come back, and he got a fair deal. I don't think the Pats got stuck on that one either. And if you look at the whole career's of both players, it worked out just fine on both ends. Both were a little underpaid at times, and both ended up getting paid BY the Pats.

    I really don't see much of a negative at the end of the day.

    As for Gronk...who knows? Again, a player is now coming off of an injury. Let's see how he does...then he'll be in his contract year and why would he sign before getting to FA? Or the Pats take one of those chances, and gamble he won't be injured very often, pay him this year or next, and be done with it.

    The track record is in the Pats favor.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    Yeah the money is an issue but I bet the bigger issue is years. I don't think Bill wants to sign him to more then 3 and would prefer 2 years.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from HarryBallz. Show HarryBallz's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    I think that Mankins is a bad analogy here.  He held out, got a contract after a lot of angst then wind up grading out poorly this season relative to his $$$.  His performance in the SB was well beneath his pay grade.   Sometimes you have to ask what you get when you overpay for a guy that you know inside and out.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from HarryBallz. Show HarryBallz's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    Welker isn't as valuable to another team as he is to the Pats.  He fits a scheme here that allows him to be a top option.  OTOH, if the Pats bring in another WR that can actually get open and stretch the field then his catches will decline.  

    I set his worth at 3 years of plus value then a decline after that.  You can do a 5 year deal knowing that he won't make it that far.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    Maybe they're content letting Welker play for the tag money and see what happens in a year. He's no kid anymore and he takes a pretty good beating out there, so it could be they don't want to pay for his declining years. They'd rather move on a year early than a year late. It's a cold business and BB is as cold as it gets. Which is a good thing.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptnFoxboro. Show CaptnFoxboro's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

       As much as I want #83 here for 3 or 4 more years - the reality is that there's  much more pressing receiver concerns on the horizon .
      Wes needs to understand that in order for a long term deal to get done , one which would allow him finish out his career catching passes from Brady - it's in everyone's best interest for him to give that proverbial hometown discount.
       4 years for 30 mil ( 7.5 avg ) with something like 24 mil guaranteed seems fair ( 6 mil avg )
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]also Wleker is unique in that he blows out his ligament at the end of 09 after a GREAT season, and inexplicably managed to come back for 2010 when his numbers were good, but decidedly down for him: 86 catches for 848 yard, 7 TDs. So, coming into 2011, could the Pats really justify paying him a long-term deal? And IF they did, the end of 09, 2010 would have to play in greatly. At that point, Welker's best interest is to prove that he's healthy, which he did. But I don't see how you can pin this one on the Pats. As for Mankins...he got s c r e w e d. He felll into a CBA loophole when the last one ran out, the same thing Happened to V Jackson in SD. That's not the Pats fault, nor the player's. A case has been made that it wasn't right for the Pats to do it, but they DID try to pay him something like 3.5 for the year, more than they HAD to, and he refused. Then it got ugly between the player, Coach and Owner. But, to EVERYONE'S credit, even after all the public nonsense, both sides were able to come back, and he got a fair deal. I don't think the Pats got stuck on that one either. And if you look at the whole career's of both players, it worked out just fine on both ends. Both were a little underpaid at times, and both ended up getting paid BY the Pats. I really don't see much of a negative at the end of the day. As for Gronk...who knows? Again, a player is now coming off of an injury. Let's see how he does...then he'll be in his contract year and why would he sign before getting to FA? Or the Pats take one of those chances, and gamble he won't be injured very often, pay him this year or next, and be done with it. The track record is in the Pats favor.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]


    Mankins got screwed by being overrated, riding the Pats coat tails, using some irresponsible mean streak to make it seem like he's John Hannah, be selfish, etc?

    Really? Yeah, if that's what getting screwed professionally is all about, then I'd like to act like a jerk and be rewarded for it.

    I'd say Mankins is overpaid and made out VERY well after being so selfish. Sort of reminds me of Seymour holding out, getting paid big time and then not performing up to his peak level. We've seen the last of any Mankins games where he plays well, I am afraid.

    If anything, Pats fans got screwed.  I am not sure there is a more overrated player in the AFC.  Maybe D'Bustashaw Ferguson, but that's about it.

    Mankins held out because his agent is greedy.  His agent is also Revis's agent (Frank Bauer), another overrated player. Great player, but overrated. You'd think by listening to some fans or agents these guys are perfect players who dominate for 60 minutes every week.  

    I want my money back as a Pats fan with Mankins. He again led the team in penalties and really isn't all that good at pass blocking, which we do 60% of the time.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]I don't mean placing the tag on Welker, because I think it was the right move, but being so passive about signing their tag players. It cost them money with Wilfork and it cost them money with Mankins. Now with the crazy money being tossed around to FA WR's did Welker's asking price skyrocket yesterday? It's aggravating that they didn't get this done earlier, as was the case with the others. Anyone else have the feeling this will happen again in 2 yrs with Gronk?
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

         This is Welker's last year as a Patriot. Either he'll resign at a discount next season, or, he's gone. No way that the Patriots will, or should, sign a 32 year old slot receiver to a huge deal. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]Anyone else find it comical that the best organization in handling a budget, gauging a market, generally not overpaying, etc, is now somehow shooting itself in the foot? The Jets just extended Sanchez in order to desperately hsvr some room to sign a 33 year old Pouha to a 3 year deal. If you want to panic, be a Jets fan or about 80% of other teams. Indy just unloaded their roster and just oddly resigned and overpaid an aging Reggie Wayne. Be thrilled your organization isn't so dumb.  PatsEng, who are you reading on line to brainwash yourself into such an odd panic? NE has about 7 million to spend in FA. That's not a lot.  Welker is owed 9.5 million.  It takes rookies around 5 million to come under contract.  BB can still flip a pick for a coveted player with possible control of a contract extension that the Pats control vs the agent/player controlling. If Light retires, which he hasn't and may not, NE has 8 million more. Something tells me he's not retiring becase he hasn't yet.  They don't have a lot of cash like moron Mazz and Gasper say, so he's going to use all of the chips on the table. It's not about how fast you move, but how you move.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Rusty you are missing the point in shooting themselves in the foot. If they took care of Mankins and Wilforks contracts earlier and ended up not paying as much as they needed to wouldn't they have more money this year? If they took care of Welker earlier say in 10' after his injury when his price was most likely lower would that cap hit also be lower then it currently is? If it's one thing that I can fault the Pats for is it's use of the tag. You can take care of your own without killing your cap and overpaying. Actually you're big into overpaying, do you not feel they could have gotten both Wilfork and Mankins for less if they acted a year sooner, hence they overpayed for waiting out the tag, or do you think using the tag to buy an extra year saved them any cash towards the cap in either the year they were tagged or the years proceeding the tag?

    The fact of the matter is that the 3 players they have last tagged have cost them more against the cap then if they worked out deals sooner rather then later. Good cap management and poor tag management aren't exclusive
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    Which makes his drop in the SB so much more painful.  I feel for the guy. I'd have a tough time getting over that if I was him.  I would have jumped at the 2 year deal and just asked for another year, at less money if I was him.

    Rumors are he is looking for top tier WR money, which he won't be getting here. If he wants to pull a Samuel, then I am afraid Welker's 2012 is his last in NE.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]Which makes his drop in the SB so much more painful.  I feel for the guy. I'd have a tough time getting over that if I was him.  I would have jumped at the 2 year deal and just asked for another year, at less money if I was him. Rumors are he is looking for top tier WR money, which he won't be getting here. If he wants to pull a Samuel, then I am afraid Welker's 2012 is his last in NE.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    And this is the sad part I'm trying to emphasize. After the 10' season it was clear he was recovering from injury and it looked as if he would return to his form but his numbers were still down. If they Pats approached him in that off-season with a good contract prior to the lockout or right after the lockout they might have been able to lock him up on a 3-4yr deal then at maybe $5-6mil/yr. Instead they held off until midway through the season to start negotiations. Welker had an all-time great first half of the season which sent his asking price through the roof and at which point I'm convinced he decided to wait until the off-season to discuss resigning. They had the perfect chance after a down year coming back from injury to lock him up to a more reasonable contract and they waited because the value they got from this past year was to good. Now they might have to pay the price by either letting Welker walk after this year, trading him (ala Branch) and POing Brady off again, or paying more for his services. This is extremely similar to what happened with Branch and the market is turning the same way that one did. We all remember what happened to the WR core that year too. It feels like history is repeating itself ala 06'
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again? : Are you seriously going back to 2010 and complaining about 3 massive deals that needed attention all at once entering a lockout with unknown, final parameters? Also, did you just say I am "big into overpaying"?  Lol!  ME????!! If anyone is big into NOT overpaying, it's me. Who is the guy who was talking about tagging and trading Mankins, to NOT overpay in 2010???! ME. Please don't go down the troll/irrational path where you're starting to look silly, so then you start to lie or put words in my mouth. The facts are, BB has a plan. His plan usually is VERY GOOD when he has control and base to work from. In 2008, 2009, both those years, he really didn't. I still think his plan to add a 2nd 1st rder in 2007 and the SPygate punishment set back his plans for 2008 to rebuild. Then, 2009 happened knowing Brady was not going to be Brady, and he set evetything back 1 year into the loaded 2010 draft. And 2011, for that matter. How on earth can you question BB's approach and plan when you dodn't even know what it is? NE needed to give market value to Wilfork, Mankins and Brady to show good faith heading into the lockout. Or, they could have traded on or more.  Are you not paying attention here? What other franchise, has arguably the best player at each position (I don't feel Mankins is the best LG in the NFL like most), all up for contract at peak level (even Brady), at once and keeps them all??? Are you watching what just happened to Indy, what;s happening in Pitt, with Balt, SD, etc, etc? With Welker, it could very well be, they didn't extend him pre-lockout because they had to deal with Mankins, WIlfork, Brady and a pending Mayo situation, WITH the harsh reality, they didn't want to extend Welker, who is older and whose skills may go quick with what he does. So, they itemized each's impact to the team, market value, and made their choices that way. You act like this is easy. NE isn't supposed to be in such a good postion, dude. This isn't supposed to happen.  Organizations are seething at how NE is able to balance all of this year after year, with this team actually trending WAY up right now.  Morons like Mazz, Gasper, Mt. Hurl, etc, aren't business people and have absolutely no idea how to run a budget and maximize an asset. They just whine like little girls who never played sports because they don't have a Lombardi trophy added to the case to brag about as a supposed fan. It's actually a good thing, BB has so many problems and has to extend his players and draft picks, whether it's Wilfork, Mankins or someone like Mayo, all 3 key cogs in their minds. I could complain all day about Mankins, but they like him enough to pay him and extend him. I like the logic, because you know what you get with a guy like Mankins, which is why I want more of a run game. hehe
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Rusty when I say you are big into overpaying I didn't mean you want to overpay I meant you were big into the concept (pro or con) of overpaying (you obviously being con).

    With Wilfork they could have gotten a deal done prior to the year they tagged him. They had the cap space but the market had increased in demand for NT's so the price went higher. So they tagged and waited the market out. Well it turns out that the next year even larger contracts were given out to DT/NT's. In the end not extending Wilfork before they needed to apply the tag cost them more then if they simply extended Wilfork.

    With Mankins, during his RFA period the average top salary for a G was $5-6mil after the RFA and tag period that jumped to $6.5-7.5mil. Again a perfect case in which if they thought of him as a long term option that getting a deal done earlier knowing the uncapped year was coming would have saved them cash in the end.

    That's twice they've taken this approach and both times it ended up costing them more cap space then if they took care of the dealer earlier.

    They should have learned from those experiences with Welker and took the golden opportunity that presented itself after the lockout. Instead they took the same approach and it appears that it will produce the same result.

    Come to think of it with the Branch situation many people point to if in 06' the Pats had Branch instead of Caldwell they could have won that SB. So, yet again using this tactic with the tag cost them in the end.

    I don't think you spend all out but also giving a market deal at that time will save you long term then trying to hold out for another year or two down the road. If it's one thing that's certain is market value raises every year so how do you think pushing off extending a player 2 years down the road if you want them long term is going to make it a more favorable deal for you in the end?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    Dude, listen to what I am telling you:

    They had him so cheap up through this year for his market value, they are choosing to address him last and to risk walking away from him.  I know this is hard  for people who love Welker to understand, but it's a harsh business when you have this thing called the salary cap.  It's just the way it is.

    Do you think Colts fans are happy they just walked away from Garcon, their best young WR or Dallas Clark, a great H Back, each two of Polian's prized draft picks over the past 5-7 years?

    It's like a double edged sword. With Gronk and Hernandez's situation, even if they had extended him at under market, we know deep down, we are turning to the younger Gronk and Hernandez to be able to pay THEM, not Welker.

    Also, Welker may not have wanted to do so at that time specifically because his agent may have known of the cap floor concept by 2014, the market being spiked because of that (right now), and the agent being able to use that as leverage.

    I agree that I would take a less than market deal if I am Welker. Because if he risks the tag, then leaving and then being miserable somewhere else in a worse organization as his career winds down.   Even if he has a great year here in 2012, under the tag, no way NE signs him to market value. He's gone like Samuel in 2008.

    Here is why I sign Welker to a 3 year deal, with the idea they won't cut or trade him in the life of the deal.  Guarantee the money, but backload it into 2014 when the cap goes up.

    1. You have a egit chance to continue to make SB runs.
    2. You still be paid at an elite level, just not a Andre Johnson level. But, the highest slot WR level.
    3. You know and I know you are better here with Brady than virtually any QB in this league.

    So, it may not be JUST NE not locking Welker down, but Welker choosing to wait.

    I warned of this in 2010 when I said you had to choose between Mankins and Welker.  They chose Mankins, likely because they feel Welker benefits from Brady as much as the offense benefits from Welker, not to take anything at all away from Welker. Personally, I would havr tagged Mankins and traded him for a 1st rounder if possible.  That would have created 9 million in cap space in 2010 and 2011. 

    That would just be their thinking in terms of leverage against Welker.  It's partly true. Look at Randy Moss or any WR or TE who leaves here. They get WORSE.

    They took the safer bet with Mankins and are rolling the dice with Welker, but they hold the leverage with Brady, draft picks now, Gronk and Hernandez AND as small as it may seem, Edelman doing anything and everything to be on the roster.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again? : Rusty when I say you are big into overpaying I didn't mean you want to overpay I meant you were big into the concept (pro or con) of overpaying (you obviously being con). With Wilfork they could have gotten a deal done prior to the year they tagged him. They had the cap space but the market had increased in demand for NT's so the price went higher. So they tagged and waited the market out. Well it turns out that the next year even larger contracts were given out to DT/NT's. In the end not extending Wilfork before they needed to apply the tag cost them more then if they simply extended Wilfork. With Mankins, during his RFA period the average top salary for a G was $5-6mil after the RFA and tag period that jumped to $6.5-7.5mil. Again a perfect case in which if they thought of him as a long term option that getting a deal done earlier knowing the uncapped year was coming would have saved them cash in the end. That's twice they've taken this approach and both times it ended up costing them more cap space then if they took care of the dealer earlier. They should have learned from those experiences with Welker and took the golden opportunity that presented itself after the lockout. Instead they took the same approach and it appears that it will produce the same result. Come to think of it with the Branch situation many people point to if in 06' the Pats had Branch instead of Caldwell they could have won that SB. So, yet again using this tactic with the tag cost them in the end. I don't think you spend all out but also giving a market deal at that time will save you long term then trying to hold out for another year or two down the road. If it's one thing that's certain is market value raises every year so how do you think pushing off extending a player 2 years down the road if you want them long term is going to make it a more favorable deal for you in the end?
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    I think they intentionally allow the market to be set like that to use it as leverage in negotiations.  I know that sounds odd, but they may do that in certain spots because they can point to flawed reasoning in the market, etc.  I;d say they lost in the Mankins case because it's too high like Evans's, but at some point you can't control brainwashed players like Mankins.  Once the agent has control of the player, it's pretty much over. I am annoyed that the spoiled kid got the cookie, but whatever. It's over.

    That gives them a starting point to use v.s. just wildly ballparking or underquoting the player and turning it ugly. I think they feel they can still negotiate it down to more of a ballpark price where they can budget around it.

    I kept saying that Jhari Evans isn't the market when NOs stupidly signed him to a bloated deal. Same thing with Ferguson with the Jets. We paid Matt Light 8 mil per, 2 mil less than Ferguson, even though Matt Light is clearly superior to that of Ferguson.

    So, I think it just depends.  I think if they know they have an under market deal and the player signs it, they obviously jump on it. But, if they get into a greedy situation like they did with Mankins and his agent, they do lose some leverage just like any team would.

    Again, I would have called Mankie's bluff and dealt his rump to some crapy team like Oakland, preferably for a 1st. But, they love the guy, so whatever. Personally, I don't get it.  Mankins is like Seymour.  Overachieved around great company around him (LIght is underrated) and then uses that to get a major deal, only to underperform after the deal.

    Finally, again, there is no way on earth you can be this critical with saying things "they should have learned" when you're talking about BB, the guy who invented this game of economic cat and mouse.  There is no one better at this than BB. Not even close really. I said this years ago when people were raving about Poilan, when I'd point that BB is better because he uses the draft and FA in conjunction with one another, which creates more leverage than if you didn't.

    Pittsburgh is good at this, but now we'll see how they get out of their mess.

    It sounds pretty foolish knowing you had Wilfork, Brady, Mankins, Light, Mayo, etc, to sign going into a lockout and then whining about BB keeping these guys fairly and squarely.  Come on. This is ridiculous.   Going into a lockout, you're better off locking those guys down and showing good faith. The players had really good leverage there even if it was a lockout, because they were going to use that lockout to get what they wanted.   Stinks, but Brady had to get paid, as did Wilfork.

    The only thing I disagree with is Mankins, but I get it. They like knowing they have security blanket and they cross it off the list. Mankins's agent knew a team like the Saints would hand out an overpaid contract to a Guard (Evans in NOs) likely due to the overrated concept that "Guards are more valuable now" due it being a passing league and Steve Hutshinson's deal, so Mankins was going to the wall, the entire time.

    They probably offered him many deals that were in and around (actually they did and he rejected at least 2 deals) the Evans eventual number, but Evans just beat Mankins to the punch. Remember?  Evveryone got angry because Evans's deal from the Saints quickly was announced, but that was actually irresponsible by the Saints at the time. Said it then, say it now. Now look at the Saints. Yep.

    I can't blame BB for that. No way.  Ironic NOs now has no 1st rd pick, likely less picks in the future, Brees is incensed and Meachem just left, isn't it?

    Funny how all these trendy loveable teams like GB, NOs, the Giants, etc, are all going to fade away at some point down the line because they slip up just once or twice in making the right decision.  GB just signed Finley to a huge deal, but maybe that was a mistake? I would  have just promoted Quarless and let Finley walk. Good player, but he drops the ball a lot. It could be a mistake just like letting Jenkins, Poppinga, Barnett and Bigby walk, was a mistake for their D last year.

    That's not happening here mainly because BB covers himself with the draft picks.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    umm - Dallas Clark was with the colts for 9 years - not 5 to 7.  Big difference.  And I am not all that disappointed with Garcon leaving.  He seemingly drops easy catches while making difficult ones.  Further he had the luxury of being opposite Reggie Wayne.  He is now being paid to be the #1, and I don't think you'll see great results from him. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    yeah its stupid that they don't get these guys locked up right away before the free agency and then the draft so we know exactly the $ we have and what type of holes we'll need to fill.

    Regardless of the market the 1st year of a new long-term is going to be less of a cap hit than the franchise tag.

    If we had Wilfork signed earlier I don't think we draft Ron Brace and he has been a huge bust, that is a draft pick around 40-45 that could have been a serious actually NEEDED addition like Connor Barwin.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]umm - Dallas Clark was with the colts for 9 years - not 5 to 7.  Big difference.  And I am not all that disappointed with Garcon leaving.  He seemingly drops easy catches while making difficult ones.  Further he had the luxury of being opposite Reggie Wayne.  He is now being paid to be the #1, and I don't think you'll see great results from him. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Ok, 9, not 7. But Clark didn't emerge until a couple years in. I was going back to when he had an impact on the team.  Marcus Pollard was Manning's TE target there prior to Clark.

    Garcon will be trying to mesh into a new system in DC with pressure on this RG3 character, yes.

    But, you cannot be happy with them overpaying Wayne due to a spiked market, just so Luck has someone to throw to.  It basically means your wasting a year of Luck's development with a lead WR for no other reason than making Luck feel better about throwing to a pro.

    Lean years ahead for Indy.  Like, 1988ish stuff with Jack Trudeau. lol
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again? : I think they intentionally allow the market to be set like that to use it as leverage in negotiations.  I know that sounds odd, but they may do that in certain spots because they can point to flawed reasoning in the market, etc.  I;d say they lost in the Mankins case because it's too high like Evans's, but at some point you can't control brainwashed players like Mankins.  Once the agent has control of the player, it's pretty much over. I am annoyed that the spoiled kid got the cookie, but whatever. It's over. That gives them a starting point to use v.s. just wildly ballparking or underquoting the player and turning it ugly. I think they feel they can still negotiate it down to more of a ballpark price where they can budget around it. I kept saying that Jhari Evans isn't the market when NOs stupidly signed him to a bloated deal. Same thing with Ferguson with the Jets. We paid Matt Light 8 mil per, 2 mil less than Ferguson, even though Matt Light is clearly superior to that of Ferguson. So, I think it just depends.  I think if they know they have an under market deal and the player signs it, they obviously jump on it. But, if they get into a greedy situation like they did with Mankins and his agent, they do lose some leverage just like any team would. Again, I would have called Mankie's bluff and dealt his rump to some crapy team like Oakland, preferably for a 1st. But, they love the guy, so whatever. Personally, I don't get it.  Mankins is like Seymour.  Overachieved around great company around him (LIght is underrated) and then uses that to get a major deal, only to underperform after the deal. Finally, again, there is no way on earth you can be this critical with saying things "they should have learned" when you're talking about BB, the guy who invented this game of economic cat and mouse.  There is no one better at this than BB. Not even close really. I said this years ago when people were raving about Poilan, when I'd point that BB is better because he uses the draft and FA in conjunction with one another, which creates more leverage than if you didn't. Pittsburgh is good at this, but now we'll see how they get out of their mess. It sounds pretty foolish knowing you had Wilfork, Brady, Mankins, Light, Mayo, etc, to sign going into a lockout and then whining about BB keeping these guys fairly and squarely.  Come on. This is ridiculous.   Going into a lockout, you're better off locking those guys down and showing good faith. The players had really good leverage there even if it was a lockout, because they were going to use that lockout to get what they wanted.   Stinks, but Brady had to get paid, as did Wilfork. The only thing I disagree with is Mankins, but I get it. They like knowing they have security blanket and they cross it off the list. Mankins's agent knew a team like the Saints would hand out an overpaid contract to a Guard (Evans in NOs) likely due to the overrated concept that "Guards are more valuable now" due it being a passing league and Steve Hutshinson's deal, so Mankins was going to the wall, the entire time. They probably offered him many deals that were in and around (actually they did and he rejected at least 2 deals) the Evans eventual number, but Evans just beat Mankins to the punch. Remember?  Evveryone got angry because Evans's deal from the Saints quickly was announced, but that was actually irresponsible by the Saints at the time. Said it then, say it now. Now look at the Saints. Yep. I can't blame BB for that. No way.  Ironic NOs now has no 1st rd pick, likely less picks in the future, Brees is incensed and Meachem just left, isn't it? Funny how all these trendy loveable teams like GB, NOs, the Giants, etc, are all going to fade away at some point down the line because they slip up just once or twice in making the right decision.  GB just signed Finley to a huge deal, but maybe that was a mistake? I would  have just promoted Quarless and let Finley walk. Good player, but he drops the ball a lot. It could be a mistake just like letting Jenkins, Poppinga, Barnett and Bigby walk, was a mistake for their D last year. That's not happening here mainly because BB covers himself with the draft picks.
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Just because a system works doesn't mean that it can't be improved and in this case it can be.

    As I said market values have always risen every year, I don't ever remember them falling. If it's one thing you can count on is stupid teams giving out stupid contracts.

    So the name of the game for the Pats should be to beat the market and lock up players they intend to keep at the current market values before those values go up shouldn't it?

    As for the lockout situation you keep bringing up they could have locked up all those players before the lockout. You are saying they were smart to do so but they could have locked them up well before hand. What I am saying towards that end was at the time (1 year before needing to tag) they could have offered all the players market value contracts to extend. They had cap space in all those years to do so. It wouldn't have been bad cap management since they maintained that cap space throughout those seasons. It's not like extending those players would have prevent them or hindered them in any way during those seasons. Past those seasons because they extended earlier they would of had more cap space in the years those players were tagged and they would of had lower cap numbers with lower contracts after they signed the long term deals. If you really think about it for use of a small amount of cap that they had and never used in those seasons they could have saved themselves more cap space in the following years. They do that with FA's now. They front load the deals taking the hit in the years they can afford to do it in order to have a more cap friend long term solution. By waiting the tags out all they are doing is kicking the signings down the road in which market values are higher.

    If they have no long term plans for the player then this is a great tactic but if they have long term plans for the players then it's not a great tactic to use. I think Mayo's extension proves this. I think they finally understood this concept and decided to extend Mayo this year at market value since they had the extra cap space available and before the market value raised again. They'd be smart to extend Gronk and Hern next off-season before the 14' cap expansion happens and I think you'll see that happen too. Extending players you want long term at market value today saves you cap space long term then trying to expend them 2 off-season down the road when the market values increase. It's common business sense (provided the player wants current market value and not projected value). It doesn't mean overpay players it means giving them market value now so that 2 years down the road their contracts are below market value. That means continueing to sign the contracts the way the Pats have. Backloading it like other teams makes the matter worse but balancing the contract or even front loading if (if you have the space) only serves to give you long term cap health
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again? : Ok, 9, not 7. But Clark didn't emerge until a couple years in. I was going back to when he had an impact on the team.  Marcus Pollard was Manning's TE target there prior to Clark. Garcon will be trying to mesh into a new system in DC with pressure on this RG3 character, yes. But, you cannot be happy with them overpaying Wayne due to a spiked market, just so Luck has someone to throw to.  It basically means your wasting a year of Luck's development with a lead WR for no other reason than making Luck feel better about throwing to a pro. Lean years ahead for Indy.  Like, 1988ish stuff with Jack Trudeau. lol
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    Sorry Russ - your comment clearly inferred draft picks of the last 5-7 years.  Its ok.  I don't expect you to know everything even as you talk like you do. 

    The colts overpaid Wayne at under 6 mill per year for 3 years?  I don't think so. The pats paid ocho 5.5 last year and gave away a 5th and a 6th for him.  In the colts year without a QB, Wayne still caught 75 balls, hasn't missed a game in 9 or 10 years, and will provide the kind of mentoring Luck can use.  You are a context guy russ.  Think context and production.  Good work by the colts.  Fair pay for Wayne. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    In Response to Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?:
    [QUOTE]Why do you continue to ignore the fact a lockout was looming?  You can't say "they had cap space" and then ignore the lockout, not to mention not reference HOW MUCH cap space in those years.  Suggestion: Don't buy into the Tony Mazz/Gasper junk. They're morons who are here to throw junk at the wall to get you to read their material. By calling Kraft and BB cheap, it generates hits on their articles. They write the same articles every year. They just change the premise depending on the time of year. Around draft time, it will be how BB got no one to help the weaknesses. Dude, you're way smarter than this.  I am shocked you've fallen off the edge. "What happened to you, man. You were beautiful."  - Ordell Robbie, 1997 lmao http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5954311246691208967
    Posted by BassFishing[/QUOTE]

    The lockout is not a factor Rusty you are not understanding this. They signed all the players (except Mankins) to contracts before the lockout. They could have extended them before the lockout, so with the exception of Mankins they could have either extended before the lockout and were in fact signed before the lockout. What I am saying is the year before they resigned (the year before the tag) if they extended them instead of applying the tag they could of had a market value contract in the year before the tag was applied. Instead they got a market value contract after the tag year which was higher then the previous year. In this case the deal they actually received was higher then the market value in the year I thought they should have extended them costing them more cap space overall.

    For examples Wilkfork was resigned in 10'. What if the Pats extended Wilfork in the 08' off-season (1 year before his contract was up). The market value for Wilfork was a lower contract in 08' then 10'. If they had planned on tagging him anyways they could have extended him in 08' with the idea of a 5-6 year deal having a lower cap number in 08'. It would have slightly increased his cap number in 08' but not to a point they couldn't handle. Then in 09' they could have increased the base salary to match the estimated tag number letting a majority of the cap hit be applied to that year without actually affecting the planned cap in that year. Because 10' was uncapped and you had an increase in base in 09' they could of carried over the same base into 10' without worry of penalty. Over the 3 year period you would pay the large portion of the contract (front loaded) with minimal cap impact in the 08' and 09' years compared to what actually happened. Now in 11' Wilfork base would drop and his cap hit would also dropping reducing his hit this year and in the progressive years.

    For Welkers example. Late in the 10' season during the uncapped year you could have extended Welker for 4 more yrs guarantying his base in 11' as a bonus and increasing the overall bonus by 20% (what is allowed). The going rate back then for a WR of Welkers caliber was $20-25mil with $12-15mil guaranteed. Converting his his 2011 base with the additionally 20% to signing bonus meets half the guarantee money. Then you would guarantee a $4-5mil base salary in 2011 (there is some inherent risk do to the lockout but that salary is minimal risk). That would then mean you've already paid out $6-7mil in base (10' and 11' base) with only $7-13mil base remaining in 12', 13', and maybe 14'. The bonus spread out would be about $2mil cap hit so you are talking about a $5mil cap hit for the term of his contract. Very reasonable imo. Actually if you planned on tagging him in 12' and estimating $9mil in tag amount they could have loaded most of that base into 12' year and made 13' and 14' even more favorable. That's how extending Welker at market value late in the 10' season could have benefited the up coming caps in a positive way, being within league rules, and not negatively affected the cap pr salary at that time
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    When players leave the Pats for simply "mo' $$$$$", they just about disappear.  They got paid and their hunger is satisfied.  One would think Welker wouldn't be one of these types.  Who is to say it is not his agent driving up the price and Welker is just sitting back.  Also, if he REALLY wanted to stay with the Pats, he's still get a very rich contract from them and would have signed by now.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from CAPITALIST_AVENGER. Show CAPITALIST_AVENGER's posts

    Re: Pats shot themselves in the foot waiting with the tag again?

    BB LIKES TO FOLLOW THE MARKET, NOT SET IT.. ELK'S ASKING PRICE SUDDENLY SEEMS REASONABLE. NO way he'll get 2 years. will be 3 years and 8m or so.. for  a total of 25m.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share