2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma

Do we keep JG as the successor?

  • Yes, Lifes unsure and Brady might actually be mortal and JG is showing too much promise

    Votes: 90 34.9%
  • We keep him for the life of his contract, If it works out it works out.

    Votes: 55 21.3%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1" asset this off season

    Votes: 72 27.9%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2" asset this off season

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3" asset this off season

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1+" asset this off season

    Votes: 27 10.5%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2+" asset this off season

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3+" asset this off season

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    258

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
If they wanted to absorb the cap cost, sure. But eating $5M around that time wasn't really an option and his salary was guaranteed.

Edit: and it's kind of the same situation. They weren't getting 1-1 for him and he had a limited market. If KC said we'll give you #33 and a 3/4, it's not anywhere outside the realm of possibility BB deemed the additional pick to be worth the cap space.
I can find no indication that his salary was guaranteed in 2009.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
First-round QBs often are busts. Backup QBs that look great in limited action and are traded or leave on big FA deals often are busts. I don't think comparing JG to a hypothetical QB drafted with #1 or #12 is a useful exercise.
But don't the browns need to make that comparison?
Or at least: BB will try to make them make that comparison.

Well, that or Brock.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
As far as I can tell, the savings would have been the same if he had been cut.
Ok. What are you seeing that leads you say 'as far as I can tell'? Just out of curiosity.

When the trade went down it was widely critiqued that the Pats didn't get as much as expected, to the point it was referred to as a steal for the Chiefs. The speculation was the Pats were ready to move past Vrabel and reduced their return to save the cap space. If you don't buy into that, okay, but 'probably nonsense' is a bridge too far imo and I don't see any evidence it was a sweetener and I don't see it relevant to Edelman. Feel free to make the argument in opposition though.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Ok. What are you seeing that leads you say 'as far as I can tell'? Just out of curiosity.

When the trade went down it was widely critiqued that the Pats didn't get as much as expected, to the point it was referred to as a steal for the Chiefs. The speculation was the Pats were ready to move past Vrabel and reduced their return to save the cap space. If you don't buy into that, okay, but 'probably nonsense' is a bridge too far imo and I don't see any evidence it was a sweetener and I don't see it relevant to Edelman. Feel free to make the argument in opposition though.
Most of the time, there is no cap difference between cutting a player or trading him. Any bonus money is stuck with the initial team, any non-guaranteed salary goes to the new team. So the null assumption should be that cutting and trading Vrabel would be the same. Moreover, it was the last year of Vrabel's deal per Sportrac, so it would be really unlikely for salary guarantees to still be in play there (guaranteed salary is almost always in the first year or two, as in Brock's deal, for instance).

The likeliest possibility is that Vrabel had value to the Chiefs, even at his salary.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Most of the time, there is no cap difference between cutting a player or trading him. Any bonus money is stuck with the initial team, any non-guaranteed salary goes to the new team. So the null assumption should be that cutting and trading Vrabel would be the same. Moreover, it was the last year of Vrabel's deal per Sportrac, so it would be really unlikely for salary guarantees to still be in play there (guaranteed salary is almost always in the first year or two, as in Brock's deal, for instance).

The likeliest possibility is that Vrabel had value to the Chiefs, even at his salary.
OK, let's try this a different way.

What do you think they would have gotten, from KC or another team, had they not included Vrabel? Do you find it at all relevant to including Edelman in a JG trade and what do you think the addition would be on return? Open to anyone.

Edit: I'll add that my point is that "probably nonsense" is a weak leg to stand on. It was speculated at the time by many media members that it was about saving cap space and until shown otherwise, I'm not going any further than ' certainly plausible one way or the other'.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Probably the same from KC or would have had to ship back a low pick on Cassell

No idea how its relevant to the JG trade scenarios and Edelman has more value than Vrabel had then.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
3,188
Ok. What are you seeing that leads you say 'as far as I can tell'? Just out of curiosity.

When the trade went down it was widely critiqued that the Pats didn't get as much as expected, to the point it was referred to as a steal for the Chiefs. The speculation was the Pats were ready to move past Vrabel and reduced their return to save the cap space. If you don't buy into that, okay, but 'probably nonsense' is a bridge too far imo and I don't see any evidence it was a sweetener and I don't see it relevant to Edelman. Feel free to make the argument in opposition though.
I can't find any evidence of guaranteed salary in his final year. I am hedging a bit by acknowledging that I haven't seen his contract.

I made no claim about Edelman or anything else. I have no reason to believe that Vrabel was negative value in the trade. If the Patriots had the choice between cutting him and trading him and there was no difference in the cap implications, then I don't see why they would trade him for a decrease in draft compensation. I don't think it is reasonable to claim that including Vrabel lowered the return without any evidence or rationale.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I was the one who made the connection, and I was the one who posited that adding JE to the trade might make it worth it to Cleveland to part with the 1/1. Here's what I was thinking.
1. JG is not enough for 1/1.
2. BB would only trade JG if it could bring back 1/1.
3. As sweeteners go, trading a WR who has had past success with JG would increase JG's value to Cleveland
4. JE's value to NE is diminishing. He's in the last year of his contract, he may be on the decline, and he is prone to injury due to his style of play.
5. BB does not mind sacrificing a star/key player nearing the end of his prime, even if it may seem a year early.
6. Trading JE saves the Pats about $4M which would be helpful if you have to sign 1/1

My thought about the Cassell/Vrabel trade was that Cassell was not super valuable, having already been inked at Franchise tag, and with a very questionable history pre-2008. Besides having been a very late 7th round pick, IIRC, there was some speculation late in the 2008 training camp that he would be cut as he had had a very lackluster preseason. Meanwhile, Pioli had just taken over a KC team in disarray. Adding an established and esteemed vet like Vrabel would be highly beneficial in that rebuilding process so he had value to the Chiefs. Again, as I recall, Pioli had been around to watch BB rebuild a Patriots team by signing vets who knew and bought into the culture he was trying to create. So in my opinion, Vrabel did add value to that trade and likely helped make the return what it was.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I'm pretty skeptical one year of an older WR is going to be a difference maker on whether to include the number 1 pick for Jimmy G.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I was the one who made the connection, and I was the one who posited that adding JE to the trade might make it worth it to Cleveland to part with the 1/1. Here's what I was thinking.
1. JG is not enough for 1/1.
2. BB would only trade JG if it could bring back 1/1.
3. As sweeteners go, trading a WR who has had past success with JG would increase JG's value to Cleveland
4. JE's value to NE is diminishing. He's in the last year of his contract, he may be on the decline, and he is prone to injury due to his style of play.
5. BB does not mind sacrificing a star/key player nearing the end of his prime, even if it may seem a year early.
6. Trading JE saves the Pats about $4M which would be helpful if you have to sign 1/1
.
I'll avoid the Vrabel talk to try to no longer derail the thread. As to you points:

1. Most certainly agreed.
2. Most certainly disagreed. And it's kind of a ridiculous premise. He's a backup with one year left of control that has played six quarters. It's kind of insane to suggest BB would hold out for 1-1. It's the same premise you cite in your #5. Optimize value.
3. He caught 14 passes for 142 in two games he played with JG (and I'm not bothering to dig further to find out how many of those came with JB finishing off the Miami game). It's not exactly a storied relationship. I'll again reiterate that Edelman is a 31 yo slot receiver, with one year left and with an injury history and likely a concussion trail similar to Welker. His trade value is minimal.
4. You state the reasons #3 doesn't work yourself.
5. Agreed but that doesn't really bear relevance here. The important thing is what he gets back - be it trade value or cap space. The former is minimal in comparison and the latter is a non-issue right now.
6. That cap number is not an issue for them currently. They still have a ton of cap space and not many more moves to make. And signing 1-1, which is never going to be an issue, isn't what it used to be. You're talking like a $6M hit and they have far more than that if it were ever an issue.

This is like Fitzgerald all over again. It's not happening folks.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
Just curious, have they announced what number Cooks will be wearing next year? With him and JG both wearing #10, could this be what ultimatley forces the Patriots to deal Jimmy? ;)
Probably -- Larry Fitzgerald would've been on the Pats two years ago if Edelman didn't already have his number.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Nobody in their right mind thinks Brady is playing more than 2-3 more years at a level where he's penciled-in as starting QB.

He may prove everyone wrong, but I don't think anyone in the NFL takes Kraft's words on this seriously.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Nobody in their right mind thinks Brady is playing more than 2-3 more years at a level where he's penciled-in as starting QB.

He may prove everyone wrong, but I don't think anyone in the NFL takes Kraft's words on this seriously.
Kraft is generally having fun at the meetings, and good for him. Got the NYDN to bite on Revis.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
Nobody in their right mind thinks Brady is playing more than 2-3 more years at a level where he's penciled-in as starting QB.

He may prove everyone wrong, but I don't think anyone in the NFL takes Kraft's words on this seriously.
Moreover, PLANNING for Brady to play more than 2-3 more years at this level would represent a level of managerial incompetence that BB and crew have simply not shown during this run.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Source tells ESPN Cleveland reporter Tony Grossi that the Browns "will make another run" at JG at the owners meetings: http://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland/post/_/id/3091/browns-quarterback-tracker-clarity-on-jimmy-garoppolos-status-could-come-soon
He also believes either JG or Kessler is the Day One Browns QB starter.
Within limits.

PHOENIX -- The Cleveland Browns would do anything to improve their quarterback position, coach Hue Jackson said Tuesday at the NFL's annual meetings.

Except one thing.

The Browns will not trade the first overall pick in the draft.

"No," Jackson said. "I can tell you no on that one."
(emphasis added).

Nonetheless, until four weeks from the day after tomorrow, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
First off, barring a surprisingly strong offer (e.g. two firsts), I find myself in the "keep Jimmy G." camp at the moment.

A very important factor in how available to make Garropolo is how the Pats feel about Brissett, which is something we simply do not know. That said, unless they REALLY love Brissett, I'd imagine they may be looking to invest a high 2018 draft pick in a QB to replace Jimmy regardless of whether he's in Foxboro in 2017 or not, and it wouldn't suck to get a 2018 1st or second for that need.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Im the first rounder or close equivalent camp. If this was a video game Id be in the keep Jimmy G at all costs and trade Brady after '17 camp (assuming we are reading the Pats evaluation of JimmyG right and its something close to what Lombardi says in public)
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Been with you for a while myself, Mugsy, with their estimation of Brissett a huge pivot point.

IF they are inclined to deal him, I think they could get the #12 with little problem. Browns would grab Garrett and JG in the first round and have one hell of a Thursday night for themselves.

I'm interested in what else the Pats could peel away, assuming they want to deal.
 

steveluck7

Member
SoSH Member
May 10, 2007
3,994
Burrillville, RI
It's the NFL though. Everyone will likely be fired within the next 3-4 years anyhow. If they think JG is the real deal and can lead them for 10+ years, they would be right to trade #1
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
It's the NFL though. Everyone will likely be fired within the next 3-4 years anyhow. If they think JG is the real deal and can lead them for 10+ years, they would be right to trade #1
That is why I am constantly surprised more people don't make big ceiling moves.J. P. Ricciardi is one of the few GMs I can think of that "went for it" signing Bj Ryan and AJ Burnett, and seemed to say he knew he would be fired if it didn't work out.

I suppose it is all about the next job. It is more of a political job than anything in many ways.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
That is why I am constantly surprised more people don't make big ceiling moves.J. P. Ricciardi is one of the few GMs I can think of that "went for it" signing Bj Ryan and AJ Burnett, and seemed to say he knew he would be fired if it didn't work out.
Initially, they looked like smart moves
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
That's my point. You have a limited shelf life in a competitive field, seems most people are too cautious.

JP had to do something other than watch the Yankees and Sox win every year.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,020
Oregon
That's my point. You have a limited shelf life in a competitive field, seems most people are too cautious.

JP had to do something other than watch the Yankees and Sox win every year.
Oh, i was just joking about JP signing BJ and AJ
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
It's the NFL though. Everyone will likely be fired within the next 3-4 years anyhow. If they think JG is the real deal and can lead them for 10+ years, they would be right to trade #1
Right - you draft a QB first overall and he sucks, and you're gone too.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Edit - Actually, author's words don't exactly match up with what Jackson said. Nevermind.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Apologies if this has been posted. From the meetings. Via Phil Perry

I asked Patriots CEO and chairman Robert Kraft what he thought of potentially paying two starting-quarterback salaries, and he deferred to his coach. "I've assigned him the responsibility of football decisions at all positions," Kraft said. "He's done pretty good at it. We'll continue to do that. That's really a decision for him." When asked about Garoppolo in particular, and if there were any circumstances under which the Patriots might trade him, Kraft replied, "I think I don't have the right demeanor of our coach. I charged him to all football matters. We're priveleged to have the greatest quarterback in the history of the game, and it looks like he's playing pretty solid. He's off the charts in my view. We're lucky to have him. That's the most important position on the team. Needless to say, I don't think anyone would say you've got too much depth at that position. I've charged him to make those decisions, Bill, and I'll leave that with him."
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Does the Brady Bonus paid this morning give us any insight into the future? Regularly scheduled thing? Or does this help reduce salary later for a Cut/more affordable QB tandem?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,283
AZ
No implications of the Brady bonus. They agreed to do it as part of the last restructure. It's just the second half of his signing bonus. It has no cap consequence and it isn't a roster bonus. He was due it no matter what.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Now that Romo is nomo, for what price would we actually consider trading Jimmy to Houston?
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Thus far.
I think the Romo Retirement does swing the math a little more in the Pats favor.