McCourty Resigned: 5yrs/$47.5m with $28.5m guaranteed
- Thread starter Super Nomario
- Start date
28/47.5 is a lot for a safety. Would have preferred they franchise him instead of Gost, and be very aggressive with Gost (at a cheaper position) and see how Harmon, Butler, and Ryan develop (namely Harmon, of course) next year and re-evaluate the offer then.
If they sign Revis, and they draft the trenches, I won't really care though.
If they sign Revis, and they draft the trenches, I won't really care though.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Still cheaper than what it costs for an elite defensive end, defensive tackle, outside linebacker, or cornerback though. I feel like safeties are maybe a little underpaid relative to their contribution.
Franchise tender is all paid that year whereas a longer deal can be manipulated with different bonuses to lower cap hits in early years.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
By signing him to a five year deal, they can push some of that guaranteed money into the cap in 2018 and 2019. So instead of an 8.5 million hit this year, they can reduce it down to 6 or so. (Sme are saying as low as 5, but that seems pretty low.)Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Just as an example, say $14 million of the 28 guaranteed is signing bonus. That means they shift about $6 million of the $28 million to years 4 and 5 cap, where it will probably be dead money, but they are basically just borrowing $3 million of their 2018 and $3 million of their 2019 cap.
So it's just a kick the can strategy that assumes taking advantage of a higher team salary cap each year down the line? So you're just taking on long term risk in order to manipulate to whatever the cap is every upcoming year. And I assume we're doing it this way now, in order to get a lower cap this year so it's easier to sign Revis, who won't be around in year 5 (and neither will Brady)?
Ok then, I'm on board.
Ok then, I'm on board.
Are they going to be able to restructure the cap hit in 2019, without signing him to another extension?
Yeah, I just didn't pay attention too much because it was Brady and Wilfork most likely and I liked them more than McCourty, and it was coming off non-SB winning years.RedOctober3829 said:
it's gonna be sad when the Brady era is over.
Could they have misread the market in not franchising him, though? McCourty it seemed wouldn't have minded a franchise tag, and perhaps was amenable to a long-term extension that would lower his 2015 cap in the process.
It sounds like some teams were ready to give him over $10 million per and over $30 million in guaranteed money. There would have been a new baseline for top safety contracts.
But who knows, maybe the Pats thought Ghost was more of a flight risk, so they franchised him instead.
It sounds like some teams were ready to give him over $10 million per and over $30 million in guaranteed money. There would have been a new baseline for top safety contracts.
But who knows, maybe the Pats thought Ghost was more of a flight risk, so they franchised him instead.
The situation in 2018 will probably be that they either keep him for upwards of $14 million per year or cut him and take around $3 million in dead money hits each of the next two years for the signing bonus they are about to give him. If they restructure, they can give him new cash that gets spread forward, but they will never be able to avoid taking that deferred signing bonus against the cap.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
The amortized bonus money never goes away in terms of cap accounting (you can move it up by cutting a guy but you can't move it back and you can't get rid of it). If he's here in year 5 then 1/5 of his signing bonus will be included in his cap hit. But the rest of his contract in year five will surely be non-guaranteed so they can always tear it up and replace it with something else.
In light of the far more important negotiation still at hand - some guy named Revis - I'm not sure I love the news of BB, et al, changing their offer dramatically at the last minute. I mean, obviously that's an element of negotiations that happens all the time, and has even happened with the BB Era Pats, but I don't remember ever reading anything like that, and I'm not wild about reading it right now, given the delicacy and import of the next domino.
If nothing else, we've learned over the past decade that the Patriots put a value on players and don't sway from that. I get what you're saying, but I can't fathom BB et al, fresh off of a Super Bowl victory, panicking to sign a guy over what they objectively valued him at. The fact that he had other, perhaps higher, offers bears out the idea that they merely ended up paying about what the market dictated. There's nothing in that repose that says their final offer was "dramatically" larger, just that they increased it.
My guess is that the McCourty and Revis negotiations are totally apart from one another.
My guess is that the McCourty and Revis negotiations are totally apart from one another.
Thanks for this - that sounds familiar now but I didn't know that about Edwards. Interesting insight - years ago and way before Seattle - on Carroll's preference for size at CB. He's certainly consistent.Super Nomario said:
On the signing - I couldn't be more wrong nor more happy. Not that the Pats ever cash out, but this speaks volumes to the team's commitment to maximizing Brady's remaining years. If you're going to go the extra mile to retain top talent, now is exactly the time to do it.
I wouldn't read much into that or be bothered by it.Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
They were likely hoping to get DMC for less than their ultimate max but went to that bottom line number at the end when it became clear that it was necessary.
My guess is that they have not had to go to their ultimate maximum in a lot of other negotiations but who knows?
I wonder how much they would have saved had they got McCourty done last offseason. Possibly could have gotten him at 7.5-8 per season with less than the 28.5 guaranteed?
I agree with someone up thread that franchising him would have been the smart play if only to prevent other teams from setting the market. You likely get him at or at least closer to your number if you franchise since he doesn't hear the other offers.
If someone wants to give Ghost silly money you thank him for his services, kickers are becoming fungible given how many good ones are out there now.
Obviously we will never know but I suspect that decision cost NE millions in cap space and we still have the problem of a kicker with a 4.5M cap hit right now.
If someone wants to give Ghost silly money you thank him for his services, kickers are becoming fungible given how many good ones are out there now.
Obviously we will never know but I suspect that decision cost NE millions in cap space and we still have the problem of a kicker with a 4.5M cap hit right now.
I love Reiss, but I'm taking that account with a healthy dose of salt. It makes for a tidy, dramatic narrative -- the farewell phone call followed by a last-second capitulation -- but somehow I doubt it really unfolded quite like that. While I certainly don't consider BB infallible, I have to think that there was always an understanding of how high they'd be willing to go to keep DMC here. I don't consider this a sign of weakness re: Revis.Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
j44thor said:
Yup, agree with everything here. I like that we have DMC back but it's definitely a higher overall figure than I was hoping for. But you have to believe that BB & Co. are ok with giving it to McCourty and the cap ramifications - if they weren't ok with it, he wouldn't be a Patriot any more.
I barely understand the cap but that doesn't sound right to me. If he gets franchised my understanding is that you are forced to pay the full value of the contract against the cap. It would seem you are predicating this entire scenario on the idea that DMC would necessarily negotiate an extension that mitigates the cap hit. It may well be that he would have been amenable to something like that. But what if he wasn't?j44thor said:
Again, this is all way above my pay grade. But it seems like the Patriots' whole focus w Ghost and DMC has been less guaranteed money (as both players did well on that front) and more deals that mitigate the impact on the cap. Which seems to make sense given the Revis situation.
Nobody set the market on DMC because he wasn't franchised. We knew the top of the market with Thomas and Byrd. This deal is fair value when you factor in age, ability, scarcity of suitable replacements, and his standing in the locker room as a key team leader. He is an elite player and was paid as such.
The Pats might have saved money on McCourty's deal had they signed him earlier but they also would have been taking injury risk. By signing him now, they avoided any risk associated with a big injury during the 2014 season (which thankfully didn't occur but might have).
Either way, I think it's premature to second guess the timing of the deal or failure to use the tag in absence of all of the pertinent details.
Either way, I think it's premature to second guess the timing of the deal or failure to use the tag in absence of all of the pertinent details.
From what I hear, AAV second only to Thomas -- and more guaranteed money than any safety in the game. And I'm happy about it.
Now get Revis, a RB and address the lines in the draft. And with Suh in division, take particular care of the interior OL.
Now get Revis, a RB and address the lines in the draft. And with Suh in division, take particular care of the interior OL.
They locked up one of the better safeties at a fixed cost for his prime, and it took just a modest financial stretch. They were never going to steal DMC for a big hometown discount.
We should be all good on this one.
On to Revis
We should be all good on this one.
On to Revis
bankshot1 said:
And let's not overlook the fact that not only is he a top safety, but he's also a defensive leader on a team that may lose a few key defensive veterans (Wilfork, Mayo and God forbid, Revis).
McCourty is now the top of the market. Would he have turned down 22M guaranteed if he was franchised? I think there was a number south of 28 guaranteed that gets it done if he doesn't hear other offers and if someone offer sheets him you throw a parade.RedOctober3829 said:
No one offer sheets him ever of course, but he signs the 1 year deal with a cap number of 9.6MM for this season if they don't meet his number and hits the open market next offseason.
I do think he turns down $22MM guaranteed given he'd make $9.6 guaranteed this year anyways.
McCourty playing the year under the tag was a likely outcome if they tagged him and the Pats didn't want to do that so they didnt tag him. Don't think its much more complicated than that and I doubt it ended up costing them anything given McCourty turned down bigger offers to stay here.
I do think he turns down $22MM guaranteed given he'd make $9.6 guaranteed this year anyways.
McCourty playing the year under the tag was a likely outcome if they tagged him and the Pats didn't want to do that so they didnt tag him. Don't think its much more complicated than that and I doubt it ended up costing them anything given McCourty turned down bigger offers to stay here.
Presumably McCourty playing at 9.6 wasn't cool with them b/c that makes it more difficult to land the bigger prize in Revis.
Well, I was dumb and wrong here about how high the Pats would go here. As always, we'll need to see structure to see what it really looks like.Super Nomario said:
It's not really a kick-the-can strategy; typically the guaranteed money remaining goes down each year, so if the cap hit is too high they can cut him or restructure.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Probably not. Typically you have to give up something to get something.Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Exactly. Franchising McCourty would either cost us any chance at keeping Revis or force us to make other drastic moves to get under the number such as trading our some draft slots. Franchising McCourty wasn't even an option for these very reasons. Surprised so many are/were supporting this when the real prize is ensuring we're able to match or get close enough to whatever it is the Jets have on the table.Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:
HomeRunBaker said:
Could they have used the franchise tag and then extended McCourty, thereby lowering the 2015 cap hit? I thought you could do this, but I may be wrong.
What were the chances he would agree to the extension though, and how much would that have saved the Pats compared to the risk of him just playing under the tag and killing their cap space?theapportioner said:
Yeah, that's probably true once you decide to commit nearly $5 million to a kicker. That's the decision that started the dominoes tumbling the way they did. I think teams work out lots of kickers throughout the year in case they need a guy in a pinch, so the Patriots must know the pickings are slim, but they really didn't need to do anything too drastic to tag McCourty and still compete for Revis, other than go a different direction at kicker. Gostkowski better be good next year!HomeRunBaker said:
theapportioner said:
You would essentially replace the 2015 franchise number with the new contract, which is what I expect them to do with Gostkowski. The reason for not doing it with DMC is that it is obviously a higher number, so it ties up greater resources for the time being while you eventually do a re-worked deal. By going about it this way, you never have the higher cap number on your books, which could hamstring you in negotiations. We're not sure what the cap number will be for the first year, but let's assume it's somewhere around $6M. If that's the case, then right now you have both DMC and Gostkowski under contract at a total cap hit of $10.5, versus just having DMC under contract at a cap hit of $9.5.
Stitch01 said:
We know his preference was to stay in NE and that he would accept 28. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to think he would have accepted a guaranteed # lower than 28 if he knew he had no other offers. 9.6 is nice but it is only for one season. He would have always been one play away from possibly never seeing anything close to that again. I think 22-25 would have gotten it done rather easily. It is all about leverage and while he had some, the Pats would have had a lot more with the franchise tag.
Why would he do that though? He'd either be hitting the market again in a year or would have been tagged again and made 120% more in 2016. He could have made almost $20 million in guaranteed money just by standing pat, playing for the tags, and then getting a long-term deal at age 30. He probably would have topped the $28 million guaranteed by doing so.j44thor said:
McCourty said he'd have been very comfortable playing for the franchise number.
He ultimately signed a deal that was basically the franchise tag for the next three seasons guaranteed.
Supposedly he had turned down a lesser deal and told the Pats if that's what they had to offer, he would move on, so he wasn't coming back here at all costs.
He'd only have had to make $12.5MM over two years in the open market next offseason after signing the franchise to come ahead of a deal where he was signing for $22MM guaranteed over three years now.
I think there is very little chance the Pats could have signed McCourty cheaper (particularly for something like $6MM less guaranteed), a very high chance McCourty played under the tag, and the Pats actions lead me to believe that McCourty playing under the tag was not a desirable outcome for the Pats.
Id rather have franchised him and let Ghost go rather than risking McCourty walk, but they ended up with a better outcome on McCourty this way.
He ultimately signed a deal that was basically the franchise tag for the next three seasons guaranteed.
Supposedly he had turned down a lesser deal and told the Pats if that's what they had to offer, he would move on, so he wasn't coming back here at all costs.
He'd only have had to make $12.5MM over two years in the open market next offseason after signing the franchise to come ahead of a deal where he was signing for $22MM guaranteed over three years now.
I think there is very little chance the Pats could have signed McCourty cheaper (particularly for something like $6MM less guaranteed), a very high chance McCourty played under the tag, and the Pats actions lead me to believe that McCourty playing under the tag was not a desirable outcome for the Pats.
Id rather have franchised him and let Ghost go rather than risking McCourty walk, but they ended up with a better outcome on McCourty this way.