Please jump of the wagon...

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

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Helmet..  remember the euphoria when the Pats scored first against the Bears in the SB way back when.. then the bubble burst!!!!

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!



    I was in boot camp and hit my freaking head on the top bunk.....should have been a harbinger!!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from HelmetofLeather. Show HelmetofLeather's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    My 1st real loss as a Pats fan was when they traded my then favorite Pat...Jim Plunkett. I was 8......

    "Don't touch my Leatherhelmet!!"

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    Pro, there is no such thing as "cap hell", as I explained back in March when I bludgeoned Rusty in our Jets/salary bet..

    Rusty, I didnt realize Spotrac was a "Jets dork"

    Pro is on the money, according to Spotrac, the Pats have their top 51 players on the books for 2014 at $112.2M and dead money of $8.5M...to total $120.7M against the 2014 cap

    This does not account for free agents Talib, Spikes, Svitek, Washington, Edelman, Blount, Fletcher, Aiken, Cole, Mulligan

    There are some salaries that could be redone. Vince is on the books at $11.6, and if cut, the team takes on $3.6M in dead money. Mankins on the books at $10.5M and if cut the team takes on $8M in dead money. Ghots $3.8/$800K. Gregory $3.1M/$800K. On the flip side, some one like Mayo is on the books at $7.6M, but if cut, the team takes a cap hit of $9.6M.

    I dont recall the PAts being this tight against the cap in recent memory....

    Just to compare, because Rusty loves to discuss his favorite team, the Jets, who he has labeled in "salary cap hell" maybe 500 times in the past 6 months, they have a 2014 cap number of $99M (inluding only 16K in dead money)...the figure of $99M does INCLUDE Sanchez and Holmes...assuming both are cut, the team creates another $16.5M in salary cap space....

    The Jets could be looking at $40M in cap space in 2014



    Cap hell is a bit of an exaggeration, but teams can be constrained in their moves by cap issues and may have trouble resigning or acquiring players because of cap issues.  However, there are usually workarounds in any year, and teams that have cap issues in one offseason should be able to resolve them by the next offseason. The issue then, though, is how much damage they do do their roster in resolving the cap issues.  In some cases they could be forced to jettison some key players and rebuild.  Dead money only lasts a year, so teams can absorb a lot of it one year and have a weak roster that year, but then should be in good shape the following year.  Cap hell, in other words, is nothing you really have to stay in more than one year.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     I am somewhat interested in the Pats' cap situation next year, but it's hard to figure out if there's any information in this thread underneath all the arguing.

     

    I did look up the info that Pezz posted earlier on "overthecap.com."  Not sure how accurate any of that data is, but here's what it seems to show:

     

    • The dead money for 2014 that the Pats have already accrued (and will have to account against the cap) is over $8 million, but most of it (over $7 million) is due to the Hernandez cut, which is an abberation and which the Pats I'm sure hope they can get relief for. 
    • The site does show the Pats with roughly $112 million in contracts for the top 51 players.  It isn't completely clear whether those contracts all extend into 2014, but I assume that's what the data is showing (it is presented as the information for 2014).  This seems like a reasonable amount.  
    • It also shows for each player under contract, the "dead money" that would have to be accounted for if the player were cut. Note that this dead money only comes into play if the player is cut.  If the player stays under contract, there is no dead money.  Most of the guys on that list that would cause large dead money hits are probably not going to be cut (Brady, Gronk, Mayo, etc.). And some of the guys have such large base salaries that a cut would result in net cap savings even with the dead money.  Assuming the data is correct, cutting Wilfork would create $3.6 million in dead money, but would eliminate $8 million in salary and workout bonus, resulting in a reduction of the cap hit for Wilfork from $11.6 million (if he's on the roster) to $3.6 million in dead money (if he's cut). 

    When I look at the data cursorily I don't see either a huge cap problem or a huge underspend.  Basically, the Pats could bring back 45+ of their current players and still have more than $10 million to play with to get the roster to 53.  A few select cuts will increase that cap room by several million (even while creating some dead money in some cases).  This isn't a huge amount of room, but it's also not "cap hell."  

    None of this, however, addresses the quality of the players on the roster.  The Pats do a good job of managing their spend and cap.  The only debate is whether they end up with the best possible roster.  I think that debate is a lot harder to resolve, and I have seen good arguments both ways. On the pro side, you have a team that continues to be highly competitive year after year, that has an extraordinary regular season record, and that has acquired some very nice players despite having low draft picks every year.  On the con side, you have a team that has lacked great talent at certain positions, has struggled in big games in the playoffs, and has had a number of busts at some positions.  Both arguments are reasonable--the problem is gathering enough objective data to make a conclusive determination.  There are too many variables and too much information missing to do this.  So it never gets beyond argument . . . 

     

     




    Pro

     

    The Salaries listed do cover the top 51 but there are only 49 players listed as that is the total # of players under contract,   So, that's 121+ (with dead money) for 49 players.

    They would have to cut some serious talent (or players with + 2M in cap, ea)  ( or 1 biggie, ie Wilfork) to come up with that extra 8m. to keep 45.  It would also create 4 more slots they would have to fill on top of the FA's already not under contract.

    They would also create more dead money with those cuts.

    They could always trade and restructure/extend some of the existing contracts for some savings but cutting players looks ominous and they would have to be replaced with lessor contracts.

    They are also looking at replacing players like Talib  and the other 15(not under contract) to get back up to 61 with PS.  Some of that will be draft picks who will also eat 4-5M in cap, assuming they even take a first round pick. HA!

    They will likely have to carry over the 5M from this year, assuming they can, to get some relief.

    That means they have no or little money to spend this year.  Cap HELL!

    They could also use it to extend Talib or others, this year, but I wouldn't count Talib as an option.  More likely replaced with another rookie.

    They also have to have some $$$ in reserve for operating costs as Rusty puts it. LOL

    So," operating "cost and new rookies could easily eat up 10M. + More dead money + replacing  the remaining FA slots.

    Sorry, looks like hell to me.

    Damn shame all Brady's cap savings went to dead money. Damn shame!

    [/QUOTE]

    49 players is next to a whole roster.  They won't bring them all back, but if they did they'd only have to sign four more. Their biggest problem is the Hernandez dead money which was unexpected.  If they get relief on that they're in pretty good shape.  

    Remember most teams are close to the cap during the season.  They end up under the cap after the season by cutting players or by having contracts expire.  Teams like the Pats with 49 holdovers will be near the cap at season end, while teams with few holdovers will have lots of cap room.  But that doesn't mean that the team with few holdovers and lots of cap room (team A) is necessarily in better shape than the team with lots of holdovers and little cap room (team B).  Team A needs to sign a lot of players to get a full roster, while team B only has to sign a few.  Cap issues really arise only based on the cost of replacing the missing players.  If team B (with little cap room) only has to sign a few cheap players it could be in much better shape than team A (with lots of cap room) if A needs to sign a lot of expensive players. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     I am somewhat interested in the Pats' cap situation next year, but it's hard to figure out if there's any information in this thread underneath all the arguing.

     

    I did look up the info that Pezz posted earlier on "overthecap.com."  Not sure how accurate any of that data is, but here's what it seems to show:

     

    • The dead money for 2014 that the Pats have already accrued (and will have to account against the cap) is over $8 million, but most of it (over $7 million) is due to the Hernandez cut, which is an abberation and which the Pats I'm sure hope they can get relief for. 
    • The site does show the Pats with roughly $112 million in contracts for the top 51 players.  It isn't completely clear whether those contracts all extend into 2014, but I assume that's what the data is showing (it is presented as the information for 2014).  This seems like a reasonable amount.  
    • It also shows for each player under contract, the "dead money" that would have to be accounted for if the player were cut. Note that this dead money only comes into play if the player is cut.  If the player stays under contract, there is no dead money.  Most of the guys on that list that would cause large dead money hits are probably not going to be cut (Brady, Gronk, Mayo, etc.). And some of the guys have such large base salaries that a cut would result in net cap savings even with the dead money.  Assuming the data is correct, cutting Wilfork would create $3.6 million in dead money, but would eliminate $8 million in salary and workout bonus, resulting in a reduction of the cap hit for Wilfork from $11.6 million (if he's on the roster) to $3.6 million in dead money (if he's cut). 

    When I look at the data cursorily I don't see either a huge cap problem or a huge underspend.  Basically, the Pats could bring back 45+ of their current players and still have more than $10 million to play with to get the roster to 53.  A few select cuts will increase that cap room by several million (even while creating some dead money in some cases).  This isn't a huge amount of room, but it's also not "cap hell."  

    None of this, however, addresses the quality of the players on the roster.  The Pats do a good job of managing their spend and cap.  The only debate is whether they end up with the best possible roster.  I think that debate is a lot harder to resolve, and I have seen good arguments both ways. On the pro side, you have a team that continues to be highly competitive year after year, that has an extraordinary regular season record, and that has acquired some very nice players despite having low draft picks every year.  On the con side, you have a team that has lacked great talent at certain positions, has struggled in big games in the playoffs, and has had a number of busts at some positions.  Both arguments are reasonable--the problem is gathering enough objective data to make a conclusive determination.  There are too many variables and too much information missing to do this.  So it never gets beyond argument . . . 

     

     

     




    Pro

     

     

    The Salaries listed do cover the top 51 but there are only 49 players listed as that is the total # of players under contract,   So, that's 121+ (with dead money) for 49 players.

    They would have to cut some serious talent (or players with + 2M in cap, ea)  ( or 1 biggie, ie Wilfork) to come up with that extra 8m. to keep 45.  It would also create 4 more slots they would have to fill on top of the FA's already not under contract.

    They would also create more dead money with those cuts.

    They could always trade and restructure/extend some of the existing contracts for some savings but cutting players looks ominous and they would have to be replaced with lessor contracts.

    They are also looking at replacing players like Talib  and the other 15(not under contract) to get back up to 61 with PS.  Some of that will be draft picks who will also eat 4-5M in cap, assuming they even take a first round pick. HA!

    They will likely have to carry over the 5M from this year, assuming they can, to get some relief.

    That means they have no or little money to spend this year.  Cap HELL!

    They could also use it to extend Talib or others, this year, but I wouldn't count Talib as an option.  More likely replaced with another rookie.

    They also have to have some $$$ in reserve for operating costs as Rusty puts it. LOL

    So," operating "cost and new rookies could easily eat up 10M. + More dead money + replacing  the remaining FA slots.

    Sorry, looks like hell to me.

    Damn shame all Brady's cap savings went to dead money. Damn shame!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    49 players is next to a whole roster.  They won't bring them all back, but if they did they'd only have to sign four more. Their biggest problem is the Hernandez dead money which was unexpected.  If they get relief on that they're in pretty good shape.  

     

    Remember most teams are close to the cap during the season.  They end up under the cap after the season by cutting players or by having contracts expire.  Teams like the Pats with 49 holdovers will be near the cap at season end, while teams with few holdovers will have lots of cap room.  But that doesn't mean that the team with few holdovers and lots of cap room (team A) is necessarily in better shape than the team with lots of holdovers and little cap room (team B).  Team A needs to sign a lot of players to get a full roster, while team B only has to sign a few.  Cap issues really arise only based on the cost of replacing the missing players.  If team B (with little cap room) only has to sign a few cheap players it could be in much better shape than team A (with lots of cap room) if A needs to sign a lot of expensive players. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Nah that list includes practice sqaud. The 49 is total players under contract. It does not include expired contracts or free agents   Spikes. Talib and the others are not included in that. If they cut  4 more they will have to replace 16 guys. Ten million is not going to sign Talib and 15 other players. Not even close.  The rookies alone take up about 5 and will cut the needed players down. But that virtually leaves not much for any players they want to keep or resign. Oh and those dreaded operation cost. Also there would dead money to offset any cap savings so cutting 4 guys might only net you 5 million, not 10.    I understand the fluidity but they are going to have to let go some important cogs just to get by,  and that's no bueno. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    Ya gotta love Hart Lee Dykes references - I mean the guy had knees of paper mache but what a sterling football name, but I digress.

    I'm a Pats fan - an old one and in both senses of the word.  I've been a fan since the franchise was formed (yeah, I was a kid) and I'm older than a lot of guys on this board.  Doesn't mean I know more, just means my birth certificate has an earlier date stamp.

    It is certainly not my place to prescribe what does and what does not constitute a legit Pats fan.  As far as I'm concerned if you want the Pats to win on a week in/week out basis you're by definition a fan.  Ya wanna dump on BB?  Hey, fire away.  He's not without his faults.  Ya wanna criticize Brady - by all means.  I don't think he had one of his better games last Sunday.  Think the young wide outs need work? He11, yeah they do.  All in all, though, I just flas-a_ss love this football team and there's no other management team anywhere that I'd rather seen in place than the Kraft/BB combo.

    Been in Manhattan since Sunday and I'm posting this on the Amtrak train that was 45 %#@% minutes late.  I think I left my hand print on the bar in Traffic (Pats sports bar) after one of the Pats miscues on Sunday.  Ah well, next week the Saints.

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

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I've seen this team lose 336 times and I'm still a fan. How many "core fans" here can claim the same?

     




     

    Pretty much every loss since 1975. i am guessing it's not 336 times but enough to understand where this orginization has come from.

    [/QUOTE]


    1966

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I can't see into the future, don't pretend to be an expert on all things Patriots, but if the Patriots offense turns it around and the defense continues it's dominant ways than I hope the moaners who have been calling BB a bad GM, who have been screaming about Brady's best years being passed by either apologize or F off.

    Sorry, that's the way it is.  Without BB's draft picks and free agent picks this team wouldn't be as good as it is now, Chandler Jones, Mayo, Spikes, Kelly, Talib is about as good as it gets.  Feel free to bite me if you disagree...

     



    Superb post.

     

    Love it when Wozzy is real and honest.  We have it in front of us and are waiting on the GOAT.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And not a word about Brady being a problem from wozzy, MEGAFOOL. LMAO@U

    You are as phony as they come.

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

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I've seen this team lose 336 times and I'm still a fan. How many "core fans" here can claim the same?

     

     




     

     

    Pretty much every loss since 1975. i am guessing it's not 336 times but enough to understand where this orginization has come from.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    1966

     

    [/QUOTE]

    1966?  So you were Patriots1966...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    Nah that list includes practice sqaud. The 49 is total players under contract. It does not include expired contracts or free agents   Spikes. Talib and the others are not included in that. If they cut  4 more they will have to replace 16 guys. Ten million is not going to sign Talib and 15 other players. Not even close.  The rookies alone take up about 5 and will cut the needed players down. But that virtually leaves not much for any players they want to keep or resign. Oh and those dreaded operation cost. Also there would dead money to offset any cap savings so cutting 4 guys might only net you 5 million, not 10.    I understand the fluidity but they are going to have to let go some important cogs just to get by,  and that's no bueno. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The overthecap.com list doesn't include the practice squad, though it does include injured reserve guys.  Of course it doesn't include players whose contracts will be expired or will be free agents after 2013: it only includes guys whose contracts continue into 2014.  There are 48 of them by my count, so if all those guys were to come back, they'd just need to sign (or re-sign) a handful of other players. Yeah, with 121 million or so occupied, they couldn't sign too many high cost free agents (Talib or others).  But they are almost certain to let some guys go.  Cutting Gregory, Connolly, Gostkowski, and the two Wilsons would give them almost 10 million more in cap space to work with (after accounting for the dead money those cuts result in).  Sure, they'd have to replace those positions, but they might be able to do that for much less than $10 million.  Cutting Kelly (who is getting old) opens up 2.5 million in cap space after accounting for dead money. We don't know what the cap is going to be, but the Pats will almost certainly have $10 to $15 million to work with in the offseason. That could be enough to sign Talib and one or two other free agents as well as the rookies.  

    The only real problem the Pats have is Hernandez.  He's got a very large dead money cost because he was cut at a time when the Pats clearly weren't expecting to cut him.  He causes over 7 million in dead money.  Take that 7 million away and the Pats are in very decent shape.  With teh $7 million, they are in a tighter position than I'm sure they'd like to be, but really they are still in better shape than many teams (including the Broncos, Seahawks, and Ravens, for instance).

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    In response to Harvey-Wallbanger's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     



    Nah that list includes practice sqaud. The 49 is total players under contract. It does not include expired contracts or free agents   Spikes. Talib and the others are not included in that. If they cut  4 more they will have to replace 16 guys. Ten million is not going to sign Talib and 15 other players. Not even close.  The rookies alone take up about 5 and will cut the needed players down. But that virtually leaves not much for any players they want to keep or resign. Oh and those dreaded operation cost. Also there would dead money to offset any cap savings so cutting 4 guys might only net you 5 million, not 10.    I understand the fluidity but they are going to have to let go some important cogs just to get by,  and that's no bueno. 

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The overthecap.com list doesn't include the practice squad, though it does include injured reserve guys.  Of course it doesn't include players whose contracts will be expired or will be free agents after 2013: it only includes guys whose contracts continue into 2014.  There are 48 of them by my count, so if all those guys were to come back, they'd just need to sign (or re-sign) a handful of other players. Yeah, with 121 million or so occupied, they couldn't sign too many high cost free agents (Talib or others).  But they are almost certain to let some guys go.  Cutting Gregory, Connolly, Gostkowski, and the two Wilsons would give them almost 10 million more in cap space to work with (afteraccounting for the dead money those cuts result in).  Sure, they'd have to replace those positions, but they might be able to do that for much less than $10 million.  Cutting Kelly (who is getting old) opens up 2.5 million in cap space after accounting for dead money. We don't know what the cap is going to be, but the Pats will almost certainly have $10 to $15 million to work with in the offseason. That could be enough to sign Talib and one or two other free agents as well as the rookies.  

     

    The only real problem the Pats have is Hernandez.  He's got a very large dead money cost because he was cut at a time when the Pats clearly weren't expecting to cut him.  He causes over 7 million in dead money.  Take that 7 million away and the Pats are in very decent shape.  With teh $7 million, they are in a tighter position than I'm sure they'd like to be, but really they are still in better shape than many teams (including the Broncos, Seahawks, and Ravens, for instance).

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.   The other thing is, look at the talent on this team.  The starting, very good players here are all under contract.  Spikes is gone. They will put their efforts towards Talib. Collins was drafted to transition away from the Spikes skill set and I like Spikes. Someone will pay him too much on the market, and it will be more than we can pay.

    You won't find a lot of high priced free agents looking at attractive prices for themselves in a flat cap, because of the soft market. That is really what this is about with regards to a team's position.

    So, any FA in 2013 is going to not like their options.   A team like the Jets who have such awful talent, no base, so many needs, are screwed for years.   Buying up a bunch of people every year never works.  Swapping out a name on a jersey never works.  You need a base to work from.

    BB knows this.    The key is this: Did you have your team built off the lockout?  With us, the answer is a resounding YES.  The roster will be pretty much the same next year. We'll go 12-4 or better again and it will be the same, generally speaking.

    It's flat out comical to me, not only how Pezzy lies or is so stupid I can't even explain it, or he does not want to learn what is going on. He just shows himself to be an embarrasing rube with his BBWs like MT Hurl, Babe and the others.  They don't get this kind of thinking. THey're not business people. 

    Babe fixes elevators, HUrlie bakes cakes and Pezzy does whatever he does. lmao

    I don't know what you do, Prolate, but I can tell you know what you are talking about when you speak on these topics.  The others are belligerent and ignorant morons.

    I would rather cut Gotskowski than Tommy Kelly in 2014, too. Save a million on a kicker and keep a valuable impact player.  I don't care if he is 33. I go by what I see.

    The team you see here now will be very close to the one you see next year. This was done by design.  If your base is built, you can let the chips start to fall at favorable, well under market prices.  

    That's why these CBS all signed these 1 year deals. They're rolling the dice the market will somehow be better by chance, but it won't be. I would do the same thing because you never know, but it won't be.  Basically, many of these CBs would need to blow out ACLs or be arrested for felonies in the next couple of months to change the market tied to a very weak CB draft market. Likely ain't happening.

    All these teenie boppers here or adults who never went to college need to wake up. Wake up and learn.

    Any Pats SB trophy in the next few seasons will be raised by the people who here and who have been drafted since 2010.   We don't need to race around like unprepared idiot franchises trying to sell our fans on Mike Wallace at 13 million or other overrated players who are completing duping GMs all over the place.  That is what unprepared teams do.  We're not unprepared. We couldn't be MORE prepared.

    If the cap was raising, teams knew when and how much it would go up, sure. But, not now.

    This is why it was vital you had the base of your team built through the draft off that lockout, with lower priced contracts and quality out of those players who are ascending in a system. That's what BB has done and is doing.

    Anyone ovee the age of 30 this year as a FA or next year is up the creek. This is why Moss wanted his deal before the lockout. Perfect example. Even he knew it.  He took a year off an then got a piddly deal from SF, and now he's done. The players who are 30 and over who are now fringe players are in trouble.  They will retire or play for well under what they think their market value is.

    Warnings were out.  The new CBA changed the market. I laid all of this out here for the board to read in 2011 during the Lockout Debates of 2011.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You make some good points Russ. If the defense loses spikes and Talib, we are going to regress. More worried about signing Talib than anyone else. God knows we don't draft nor come across in FA many corners like Talib. He is ultra talented and totally changes our defensive backfield. Without him we are back to Arrington or ryan on the outside and that is a very big drop off.

    i haven't seen anything from Collins indicating he is even half capable of replacing spikes. I have more confidence in fletcher. Without spikes the enforcer, our lb corps changes as well. I am not a huge fan of spikes because of his liability in coverage but he adds a tough shell to the middle of the defense. 

    Point is, the pats have built decent depth on d, but losing 2 players like that and replacing them with Collins and Ryan aren't going to cut it. See offenses woes this year to understand what I mean. The 6 year defensive rebuilding effort will be flushed down the toilet fast.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

     

     On the linebackers, it Spikes goes next year, I wouldn't be surprised if Hightower moves to the MLB position and Collins (or someone else) moves to Hightower's position. Mayo could also move back to the middle.  Spikes, Hightower, and Mayo are all quite capable of playing the middle position, so the replacement for Spikes might really be replacing whichever current OLB moves inside. Collins certainly looks like a candidate for OLB.  Beauharnais might also be a Spikes type at MLB.

     

    I really would like to see Talib back.  Remember that there are ways to structure contracts to minimize the cap hit early on.  Talib will be expensive no matter what, but the Pats could offer a longer-term contract that is backloaded to push some of the cap hit into the future when they might have more room. 

     

    It's hard to imagine the Pats cutting Wilfork, but doing so would give them big cap relief even after significant dead money is accounted for ($8 million in cap savings, assuming the overthecap data is right).  I doubt they'll cut him, but a restructure may be in the works to reduce the cap hit of his $7.5 million base salary next year. 

     

     

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Please jump of the wagon...

    I would think Talib is looking for a 4 year deal with $12-15 guaranteed...looking at other CB deals, that is below what many CB's signed for....I would have to assume he is on the books the next 3-4 years at $4-7m per....plus do they sign McCourty? 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share