Can Pats structure contracts for "window" then crash and burn?

So, everyone is OK with losing Revis and McCourty as long as we don't hurt our ability to pay people in 3-4 years?

AndyJohnson said:

Because that method hasn't worked.
I get the concept, but no team has ever used it effectively.

Click to expand...

I disagree with ever doing that and have vehemently defended the Patriots and other teams never doing that. I think I've posted that over and over.

However, do we want to risk losing Revis, McCourty and more, as super bowl players demand big contracts, so we can be a decent team (poor interior line without Wilfork, Average secondary) now and a decent team with eirther an old, or untested QB later?

BB is always doing things he would never do (drafting linebackers, picking up Moss, then laying huge numbers in anticipation of a multi year contract for Revis).

BB majored in economics. Economics is situational, not constant. A fit and athletic tom Brady is the rarest commodity of all, and a real chance at winning multiple super bowls is too.

chasa said:

The redskins seem to go all in every year, and the broncos last year looked like they went all in..

Can't remember the last time a team went "All in" and won it all.

Click to expand...

The redkins are stupid. Are you saying the Redskins have a hall of fame qb who will be 40 in a few years?

It's like people don't eventhink about the situation and just give knee jerk responses.

I'm not even talking about5 going "all in", I'm talking about backloading some contracts to keep the core players together a few more years.

It would be great to read one response where someone actually thought before they posted.

FirstAndGoal said:

I'd rather compete every year than be a force one year and suck for 10 more.

Blowing up a team and rebuilding is not a good bet for getting back on top.

Besides, if 4 Super Bowl trophies and 6 Super Bowl appearances in 15 years isn't enough, what is?

In Bill I trust.

Click to expand...

Well, if you don't want any more super bowls, I guess we don't have a discussion.

By the way "Bill" is the one committed to 37 million in two years (?) for Revis right now.

AndyJohnson said:

Miguels answer will no doubt be more informed than mine, but I think this idea of pushing money into the future to load up now is overrated.
You could probably find some mathematical ways to do it but they aren't realistic within building a team.
The easiest way is to sign a bunch of players with huge bonusses amortized over the deal and small salaries, but that is already largely done. Pushing money to the future to create room to sign a player is feasible, IMO, but as a strategy to load up a roster, I don't think it can work.

Click to expand...

The roster is already loaded. We're close to the youngest teamin the league, with the greatest QB and there's no way we can keep all that together even one year with the old way. Revis and McCourty alone, plus all the young players coming off rookie contracts.

The team will just rot, player by player now, as we lose negotiations to every wannabe looking for the magic.

I guess no one has ever read my posts, because i was the biggest advocate of the Pats, or pitt,or dallas, whatever maintaining a decent team through prudent spending.

The train's already left the station, just look at the contracts/potential contracts we either redo or lose most everything we've built.

chasa said:

How about no?

Do you understand how hard it is to win the superbowl? its damned near impossible. So short of being able to see into the future and adding and subtracting parts that guarentees the superbowl, I'd rather the patriots didn't sacrifice the future, for a CHANCE at winning now.

Here is what we know about this current patriots team.

Without Wilfork they made it to the AFCCG.
Without Mayo They made it to the AFCCG and Won a Superbowl in consecutive years.

By not picking up vince's option, and potentially cutting Mayo. those two moves alone put this team under the salary cap. That means we will have the talent on the roster right now, that made it to a AFCCG, And would be two pieces on defense removed from a superbowl winning caliber team.

TLR This team right now with the players it has signed, is a favorite to win the superbowl this year, AND STILL NOT BE IN CAP HELL.

this team should continue doing what it's always done.

Click to expand...

Can I see into the future? did we clone Brady, or did he become immortal. If no, I damned well can't see into the future.

The future in the last decade and a half has included Tom Brady. I've seen damn near every QB who's passed through here, and it's not the same team. If we're lucky, it's decent.

It will be extremely less hard for us to win a super bowl in the next few years, than it will be 4-5 years down the road and i would bet money on it.

You are not thinkibng situationally. BB does.

I think the only way to assemble a SB-caliber roster is to just draft really well, so that you have a bunch of starters on rookie contracts. That leaves you with enough money to pay big money to a handful of guys, usually a bunch of your own homegrown players plus a big FA or two. This works because a rising cap means you can afford backloaded deals, but the best way to mitigate the risk of those deals is to sign guys who are still in or coming off of their rookie contracts (basically the youngest a FA can be), who are already playing for you. That minimizes system risk and age risk, so if you're drafting players worth extending it's pretty much a no-brainer that your FA budget should first and foremost go to locking up your own guys.

Unfortunately, the very nature of this roster construction, is that as that rookie-contract core plays out their rookie contracts, you simple won't have enough money to pay all of them. If you can afford to pay all of your FAs all the time, then that probably just means that you don't have very good players. So I think it's a foregone conclusion that the Pats have to make hard choices and let some guys go. It sucks, but that's the nature of the cap. The team has proven really good at making these evaluations in the past, and I have faith that they'll continue to be. The bottom line, though, is the only way to maintain this level of talent on a roster is to just keep drafting really well. You have to keep the pipeline full, so that when you do lose guys you can replace them and keep going.

I'm not totally opposed to building your roster for a window--I adamantly supported it back in 2011 or so, and clearly hindsight shows that I was very wrong then--but it seems to backfire more often than it pays off. Probably because the strategy of paying big, backloaded money to high-priced import veterans also typically screws with your depth. The Patriots' shotgun approach of 'collect draft picks and sign mid-tier undervalued FAs' is not only sustainable, but it also facilitates the kind of depth that keeps you from being a "two injuries and you're done" sort of team like the Saints.

So I guess I would be suspicious of any method of building the roster to fit a window that went further than it already goes. The Pats already backload money above and beyond the extent to which most contracts are inherently backloaded (they're paying $4M for Mankins and another $4M for Revis' 2014 work on this year's cap), and they already sign big FAs when they're a good fit. They'll continue to backload money when it comes time to sign their own young talent, and with the rate at which the cap is rising I don't think they'll worry too much about that. But to go further than that, and into the realm of Saints-stype cap shenanigans, just doesn't strike me as a good solutoin.

By the way, there is no necessity of crashing. you could call it future belt tightening (with better picks, possibly). You could certainly make the case that our 2oo1 team was a bite the bullet, low spending team, after extravagant contracts for the likes of Max Lane, Rucci, Bledsoe and others.

It's not about money, to me. It's the fact we already have a great core with chemistry and it's going to take a lot of resources to keep it together for a while. I do not advocate expensive free agents.

The Pats already backload their contracts (Amendola, Mankins, Mayo, early Brady contracts, Law, Milloy, and so on).

Miguel said:

The Pats already backload their contracts (Amendola, Mankins, Mayo, early Brady contracts, Law, Milloy, and so on).

Click to expand...

They manage it well, though. Like they stagger contracts so they don't have a year where they have to cut a bunch of players at once, like some do [salary cap hell].

If you wouldn't mind giving your opinion, could they manage large contracts for Revis and McCourty, without too much of an offset, and have the cap results show up severely, but not for 3-4 years?

It seems other teams [not usually intentionally] do that, then drop some big contracts and spending in a tight year or two.

RayClay said:

Can I see into the future? did we clone Brady, or did he become immortal. If no, I damned well can't see into the future.

The future in the last decade and a half has included Tom Brady. I've seen damn near every QB who's passed through here, and it's not the same team. If we're lucky, it's decent.

It will be extremely less hard for us to win a super bowl in the next few years, than it will be 4-5 years down the road and i would bet money on it.

You are not thinkibng situationally. BB does.

Click to expand...

BB Thinks Rationally. It's rational to cut fan favorites that are over the hill, and its irrational to go "all in"

RayClay said:

Well, if you don't want any more super bowls, I guess we don't have a discussion.

By the way "Bill" is the one committed to 37 million in two years (?) for Revis right now.

Click to expand...

Well, I know you're one of those who put words in people's mouths to support your position now so have a good one while you play "I'm a better GM".

If they started backloading Brady's contract alone, like heavily, that would have the desired effect no?

That would be one of those huge signing bonuses spread over x number of years right?

FirstAndGoal said:

Well, I know you're one of those who put words in people's mouths to support your position now so have a good one while you play "I'm a better GM".

Click to expand...

If stating a fact is putting words in people's mouths, then I'm guilty.

Jlaff said:

If they started backloading Brady's contract alone, like heavily, that would have the desired effect no?

That's would be one of those huge signing bonuses spread over x number of years right?

Click to expand...

I don't really understand what teams do to secure high priced players for a few years then end up in cap hell a few years later, that's why I ask people who do.

If there's a way, I think keeping this high priced core together for a few years is worth having to deal with cap issues, limited budget in transition years. Basically giving the tom Brady of now the great team we assembled and doing what we need to in the future.

I've never known BB to be limited by a rigid philosophy, he adapts to different situations.

Super Bowl hangover is real. Championship teams that bring back everybody often find that the exact same group lacks something.

We are going to draft a bunch of players and unless we cut them all, some players from the 2014-15 roster will have to leave to make room.

I have no problem doing a few simple restructures each year to create flexibility and build this year's team. But there's a limit, probably at most 5-10 million. The rest comes from making tough decisions like Mankins and Wilfork.

RayClay said:

The roster is already loaded. We're close to the youngest teamin the league, with the greatest QB and there's no way we can keep all that together even one year with the old way. Revis and McCourty alone, plus all the young players coming off rookie contracts.

The team will just rot, player by player now, as we lose negotiations to every wannabe looking for the magic.

I guess no one has ever read my posts, because i was the biggest advocate of the Pats, or pitt,or dallas, whatever maintaining a decent team through prudent spending.

The train's already left the station, just look at the contracts/potential contracts we either redo or lose most everything we've built.

Click to expand...

Are you talking artificial contracts, like the present Revis deal - the absurd "salary to make you the highest paid player"-type deals? I always view the "win now" approach as locking players in with high value contracts (outbidding other teams) with bonuses to match (creating lots of "dead money" problems down the road when player skills deteriorate). The artificial deals mean little in terms of flexibility, so I assume you are talking about the latter.

If you want the Pats to get into a bidding war with other teams, then I would disagree on the approach if it locks the Pats into bad deals. Brady is a special player, but he does not win alone. I never believed his strength was throwing the long ball, and that is one of the first things to go, so I would not project his end either as he (1) isn't mobile and (2) may not fade as fast as you might expect with short to intermediate passing effectiveness. If he shocks the world and lasts longer than projected, that window could affect him as well as you would have him but no supporting cast.

If he does leave, then right team can propel less than stellar QBs (see Eason and Bledsoe) to the title game. The Pats build depth with the best 53-man roster possible. Age and value creates constant transition on the Pats. You cannot freeze a moment in time and keep everyone, unless everyone is committed to below market deals to stay under the cap. Even if you could, players age (for better or worse), making those deals better or worse values to the team in the future. The Pats, over the past 15 seasons, tend to have the highest turnover rate in a season (I saw a 2011 version (players on the roster since 2009) putting them at 10, but that feels like every year). With that process, they have remained at the top of the NFL. Brady is a big piece of that, but so is BB and the rest of the teams put on the field. If you believe Brady is the only reason, then ask why his statistically poorer seasons have yielded championships while his best years have not.

RayClay said:

So, everyone is OK with losing Revis and McCourty as long as we don't hurt our ability to pay people in 3-4 years?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that.

I disagree with ever doing that and have vehemently defended the Patriots and other teams never doing that. I think I've posted that over and over.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like now you are endorsing it.

However, do we want to risk losing Revis, McCourty and more, as super bowl players demand big contracts, so we can be a decent team (poor interior line without Wilfork, Average secondary) now and a decent team with eirther an old, or untested QB later?

Click to expand...

You are creating a false set of choices, as well as a false solution.
How do you propose we keep those players? Just to say mortgage the future and win now to suck later doesn't mean it can even be done.

BB is always doing things he would never do (drafting linebackers, picking up Moss, then laying huge numbers in anticipation of a multi year contract for Revis).

Click to expand...

None of those are things he 'would never do' they were opportunities that presented himself.
He will rarely draft LBs, but in a couple of cases he did is not the same as he has a spending philosophy and now will do a 180.

BB majored in economics. Economics is situational, not constant. A fit and athletic tom Brady is the rarest commodity of all, and a real chance at winning multiple super bowls is too.

Click to expand...

Back to my point though. Trying to win by spending and mortgaging the future has never worked for teams that tried it.
Sure, take advantage of the last years of Brady, but using a provenly failed plan to do it wouldn't be the right way.

RayClay said:

I don't really understand what teams do to secure high priced players for a few years then end up in cap hell a few years later, that's why I ask people who do.

If there's a way, I think keeping this high priced core together for a few years is worth having to deal with cap issues, limited budget in transition years. Basically giving the tom Brady of now the great team we assembled and doing what we need to in the future.

I've never known BB to be limited by a rigid philosophy, he adapts to different situations.

Click to expand...

Teams end up in cap hell by overpaying overrated players. It is a strategy to lose.
You are substituting "voodoo ecomonics" for the reality that we simply do not have the cap room to pay every player on the roster whatever he wants. That is what happens when you have a top team. The sum total of value of your players is greater than the sum total of their contracts. When they come due, you cannot afford them all. You must replace them rather than pine about how you can keep what you cannot afford.

RayClay said:

The roster is already loaded. We're close to the youngest teamin the league, with the greatest QB and there's no way we can keep all that together even one year with the old way. Revis and McCourty alone, plus all the young players coming off rookie contracts.

The team will just rot, player by player now, as we lose negotiations to every wannabe looking for the magic.

I guess no one has ever read my posts, because i was the biggest advocate of the Pats, or pitt,or dallas, whatever maintaining a decent team through prudent spending.

The train's already left the station, just look at the contracts/potential contracts we either redo or lose most everything we've built.

Click to expand...

This is what the cap is about.
If you made every player on the Oakland Raiders free agents, they could resign them all, and have room to spare under the 143mill cap. If you did that with the Patriots, you would probably need 180 mill.
When you have the best talent in the league, in a capped league, it means you are getting more for your $ than anyone else. When that fixed and low $ comes up for renewal, you cannot afford the new cost unless you change something else.
We went through this from 04-06, its the price of success.

RayClay said:

If stating a fact is putting words in people's mouths, then I'm guilty.

Click to expand...

You're not stating facts, You are shouting out nonsense and claiming them to be facts.

Everyone here would love to win a superbowl, ALMOST everyone here knows that overspending and committing the future on a chance to win now is incredibly stupid.

BB is not going to sacrifice the future by giving players like andre johnson and Suh 50 million dollar bonuses on 5 year contracts for tiny cap hits this year in order to MAYBE win another superbowl this year.

It's incredibly stupid planning, and reeks of "I'm pretty okay at madden and fantasy football" thinking