I figure because most teams don't want to pay 110 percent of last year's salary for someone who's not good enough to be picked up by another team that late in the year. Most of the time, those salaries are probably pretty high.
2017 Patriots FA & Trades Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I think a couple of considerations likely limit its use beyond the note about salaries for this type of player sometimes being high (which I agree with):
1) Because the player can sign immediately, you need to have cap room available for the guy and not have another plan for the space (e.g. extension)
2) Simiarily, you risk tying up the roster spot (not that important in this timeframe, but something) if he signs, and the cap room
3) You risk alienating the agent and the player, which impacts other years/other players by attaching this constraint to a player already late in the market
Interesting to me the Pats used it here---they seem unlikely to want Blount back, though perhaps at that salary they might figure out a way to keep him, and I guess they figured the risk of him taking it is very low and thus justified by the comp pick
1) Because the player can sign immediately, you need to have cap room available for the guy and not have another plan for the space (e.g. extension)
2) Simiarily, you risk tying up the roster spot (not that important in this timeframe, but something) if he signs, and the cap room
3) You risk alienating the agent and the player, which impacts other years/other players by attaching this constraint to a player already late in the market
Interesting to me the Pats used it here---they seem unlikely to want Blount back, though perhaps at that salary they might figure out a way to keep him, and I guess they figured the risk of him taking it is very low and thus justified by the comp pick
It's surprising to me that no one has signed him yet. He's come off a pretty nice year and doesn't have all that much wear and tear on him that a normal RB his age would have. It would be a nice insurance policy if he doesn't sign with anyone before training camp. That way, he would be able to be on the shadow roster in case somebody gets injured.
Indeed it is highly unlikely Blount will sign the tender which combined with the low salary played into the Pats decision.
I haven't seen anything definitive on whether the May 9 tender is guaranteed if signed. I could make the case either way on whether it should be, so I just don't know what situation is...
Lets say July 23 shows up and Blount is pissed. He is under contract for $1.1.
Can the Pats Trade him to another team on July 25th? Is the other team on the hook for the 1.1? Can they renegotiate immediately?
What is the realistic compensation pick he might earn if signed before July 23? 4th? 5th?
The Giants might love Blount for 1.1 million.....but not for 2 million per for multiple years. Maybe they are willing to give up a 5th rounder on July 25th for 1 year of LGBT at 1.1 million.
LGBT could still be pissed off (at the Pats which would no longer matter and at the New team for being "underpaid") but the New Team could spin it as "Hey we wanted you! we traded to get you away from the evil patriots! You play well and we can discuss that extension in the offseason"
That seems like the best way to negotiate with LGBT considering his past FA forays.
Can the Pats Trade him to another team on July 25th? Is the other team on the hook for the 1.1? Can they renegotiate immediately?
What is the realistic compensation pick he might earn if signed before July 23? 4th? 5th?
The Giants might love Blount for 1.1 million.....but not for 2 million per for multiple years. Maybe they are willing to give up a 5th rounder on July 25th for 1 year of LGBT at 1.1 million.
LGBT could still be pissed off (at the Pats which would no longer matter and at the New team for being "underpaid") but the New Team could spin it as "Hey we wanted you! we traded to get you away from the evil patriots! You play well and we can discuss that extension in the offseason"
That seems like the best way to negotiate with LGBT considering his past FA forays.
It's a comp pick, so a team signing him doesn't give up anything, right? So no problem for them?
I can't see Blount being upset by this. No one seemed to want him for more than that so far . . .
I can't see Blount being upset by this. No one seemed to want him for more than that so far . . .
You don't see him being upset if the Pats don't want him and he's unable to even negotiate somewhere once another back goes down in training camp?
We'll he'll be getting $1.1M if he's with the Pats. Is a team who loses their back in training camp is going to guarantee him much more than that?
There is no team I'd rather they face in the Superbowl. (Erm... assuming the NYfG have used up their 20 year supply of fairy dust)
He may be, but his contract is monstrous: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/navorro-bowman-6599/
$9.5m cap hit in 2017. $12m in 2018.
2017 would be dirt cheap for the Patriots with Bowman. Spotrac says his contract guarantees include his 2017 base salary plus SF paid him his $2.6 million roster bonus in March. If I'm reading this correctly, all the Patriots would owe him in 2017 is his per game bonuses which could total up to $750,000 and possibly a roster bonus of $187,500. I'm just not sure if the roster bonus was payable in March or if it kicks in after Week 1.
Looking ahead to 2018, they could easily get out of the contract if he's not working out. If they designate him a post June 1 cut or trade him post June 1 they would only carry over $5.294 million in dead money between '18 and '19 and save $10.1 million on the '18 cap.
They'd owe him his salary too. Guaranteed salary is treated different than guaranteed bonuses. SF would owe him his salary if they cut him, if they trade him the new team is responsible for the salary.
My quick glance at Miguel's website (which oddly is not yet updated with Gillislee or White's extension), seems to indicate that if the Pats did sign LGBT that if almost any of the RB's (well, at least Burkhead, Lewis or Develin) were to get cut during training camp, the net effect on the cap would be minimal if anything.
Ok thanks. It's still not that much of a risk given the cap room and the relatively cheap out after '17 .
Interesting. I dismissed it just with a quick glance of the cap numbers but let me ask you this.
What pick would you give up for Bowman? If available, would you pay a higher price to get Sherman instead?
What pick would you give up for Bowman? If available, would you pay a higher price to get Sherman instead?
I wouldn't. They're set at CB and Sherman is getting older, with a bigger cap number. LB could still use some help, given Hightower's injury issues. (Someone smarter than me will have to speak to how he'd fit in the defensive scheme and being on the field at the same time as DH).
Blount will cost the Patriots about $2 million against the 2017 cap if he signs the tender and is not cut before week 1. None is guaranteed. The Patriots get charged with the cap amount on July 15, but can cut him right up to week 1 and save it.
If Blount pays for the Patriots in 2017 at the tender amount it is not currently clear how much it would cost the Patriots in cap space. It depends on who goes off the roster to make room. The most it could cost is about $1.4 million. That is because the cap only takes into account the top 51 cap hit players on the roster. Currently, number 51 has a cap hit of about $600k. That means that adding Blount to the roster at $2 million will drop number 51 down to 52, and so only add $1.4 million to the cap. If a player making more gets cut, then the cost would be greater and theoretically could even turn into a savings.
Pats current cap space is about $19.9 million. Rookies will be negligible. Maximum impact of Blount addition would be to drop cap space to somewhere in the neighborhood of $18.5 million.
Of course, that all assumes he plays under the tender. The could negotiate anything at this point.
Why are you saying $2million? I thought it was $1.1.
My point is that Blount, Burkhead, Lewis and Develin all have contracts that in the case of any one of them getting cut in camp yields vaguely the same impact.
My point is that Blount, Burkhead, Lewis and Develin all have contracts that in the case of any one of them getting cut in camp yields vaguely the same impact.
Him and High could be interchangeable parts in this defense. They both can play Sam and Mike so depending on the opponent they can switch off. Pats normally have 2 LBs on the field and man would these two work well together. Bowman can still tackle well but can cover better than High and High at this point in his career is better suited near the line in the running game/pass rusher.
Bowman has injury issues of his own but if he's right he'd be a great fit for BB's multiple looks.
Yes, they'll have to keep enough money to pay two probably rookie level contracts to the cap once the year starts and the roster is at 53. But we already know what those amounts will be give or take $10k. The math on the impact of Blount still remains the same.
But, yes, the actual 53-man when the season starts will add about $1 million to the off-season cap for the Patriots and everyone else.
IIRC, it's not just the 53, I believe the practice squad, people on IR, etc. count as well
I actually wasn't sure of that but you're right. I guess you need to have the space on your cap to have PS squad players in the year in which you have them. But do they have any further impact on your cap otherwise?
For example, team has $20 million in space under rule of 51 in August. First day of the season they cut down to 53 players and sign 10 PS players. To make the math easy, say that numbers 52 and 53 make $500k each and the ten PS players make $1 million. Let's also say that a player goes on IR and so another $500k player moves on to the roster during the year.
The team needed $2.5 million in space to have all this happen but is this really $2.5million in true cap lost? In other words, when the adjusted cap is calculated for the next year, I was under the impression this team would carry forward $19 million (the amount of the space above the active 53 man), not any mid season accounting stuff (in my case $17.5 million). But I could be wrong.
As I understand PS math, those guys are paid weekly only when they are on the PS. Thus it would seem that their hit on the cap is fungible, so if Ray Ventrone occupies PS slot 10 in Week 1 and Ross Ventrone takes his spot in Week 2, there is no change to the cap. IOW, PS guys have no dead money as they come and go, unless there is a wacky contract situation, which likely means they aren't getting cut anyways.
Wouldn't it be similar to Butler? As in, they could only trade him if and when he signs the tender?
Pats released TE Michael Williams
Mike ReissVerified account @MikeReiss 25m25 minutes ago
Patriots announce release of TE Michael Williams. Played in 15 games (9 starts) in '15 before missing '16 with torn ACL.
Mike ReissVerified account @MikeReiss 25m25 minutes ago
Patriots announce release of TE Michael Williams. Played in 15 games (9 starts) in '15 before missing '16 with torn ACL.
Surprised at this. He played a lot in '15. I guess they have a bunch of tackles now so if they want an extra blocker they'll just put Fleming or Garcia on the field.
Yes. Every dollar you spend counts against the cap.
The Patriots opened last season with about 10M in cap space, they ended up rolling over a bit over 5M.
Also, players that hit incentives that aren't LBTE(likely to be earned), are not currently counted against the cap, but go on to the cap once they hit them. Practice squad expenses count. Guys who aren't in your current top 51 and get cut before week 1, any guaranteed money they received go on to the cap.