As long as they’re using cap space it doesn’t matter. Cash spending is more about how they structure signing bonuses.It's cyclical for the average team, but the Patriots have ranked at or near the bottom of the league by pretty much any time frame you want to measure cash spending in the past 15 years.
Sigh.
You certainly implied this year and that the Pats will be active over the next few days because of it.I never said "this year" but whatever. I thought my point was obvious--they have cap space, they need players, and and this is a new 3 year window. If you think pushing that 3 year window into the next 2 years and not this one is a good option, we disagree. Therefore, we gotta spend.
It was a throwaway line about the very obvious fact the Pats will be active.
Sure, but structuring signing bonuses is how you spend more money to put together a team under the same cap constraints as everyone else. Again, I'm not advocating for the Saints model, I just don't think they've done enough to use cash to add talent to the team while remaining cap compliant. There were teams last year spending 100 million more cash than the Pats for their 2023 rosters. I think that tends to reflect on the field (unless you have an All-World QB, but then again if you have that piece everything around him matters far less in general).As long as they’re using cap space it doesn’t matter. Cash spending is more about how they structure signing bonuses.
Sigh.
I also don't think he's worth a 1st, I was just pointing out that the raw catch type stuff is silly, it's pure volume and so offense/team dependent.I think market share of catches is something that matters for WRs. Yes, catches are a result of volume, but efficient volume is what you need from a true WR1. Can you operate at the highest level possible when everyone knows the ball is coming your way? That's what I pay a WR1 for. Higgins may be close, but close isn't worth a 1st that it may take to get him in my book.
He's the top guard on the market, what did you expect? I wouldn't be surprised to see him gone, guard is one of the few offensive positions that the Patriots probably don't need to be spending a bunch of money.Sigh.
This is my question though. If they basically always spend up to the salary cap, lower actual cash spending isn't a sign of being CHEAP...it's a sign of maybe not the best cap management. But those are two very, very different criticisms.This is where the Patriots have ranked in terms of actual cash spending over the last six seasons, per the Boston Globe. Generally on the cheaper side, which you can either interpret as cheapness or prudence.
Year NFL ranking 2018 23rd 2019 11th 2020 32nd 2021 3rd 2022 27th 2023 31st
If I remember right, the NFL is not a big fan of deals getting "rumored" 2 seconds after the tampering period starts, unlike the NBA they like to at least pretend that people are following the rules.WELL??????????????????????????
I dunno, I remember being at lunch 3 years ago when all the huge deals came out (Judon etc.). It was my uncle's funeral, pretty clear recollection.If I remember right, the NFL is not a big fan of deals getting "rumored" 2 seconds after the tampering period starts, unlike the NBA they like to at least pretend that people are following the rules.
No, they extended him.Bills are cutting Dion Dawkins. Another potential LT target.
no, they extended himBills are cutting Dion Dawkins. Another potential LT target.
I wish we would have tagged him with the cap space and lack of overall quality of talent out there.He's the top guard on the market, what did you expect? I wouldn't be surprised to see him gone, guard is one of the few offensive positions that the Patriots probably don't need to be spending a bunch of money.
I guess, I just don't think it makes sense, we don't need a 1/20M guard, and if we play him at tackle... he's not anywhere near as good and he'll be pissed. It's just not a good use of resources for where the team is in terms of actual needs.I wish we would have tagged him with the cap space and lack of overall quality of talent out there.
Dildos fly forever.Thought someone would reply “Why leave? Maybe you wanna make a Super Bowl.”
I think the mistake was letting it get to this point and not getting something done last year. They will have to go out and bring in some additional new talent in FA, and now use draft picks on the O Line.I wish we would have tagged him with the cap space and lack of overall quality of talent out there.
Not sure there was ever a real chance. He wanted to test the market and thought he was getting top dollar (he still may) even firing his agent. Sometimes keeping a guy early just isn't an option, takes 2 sides to work out extensions.I think the mistake was letting it get to this point and not getting something done last year. They will have to go out and bring in some additional new talent in FA, and now use draft picks on the O Line.
I wouldn't even have an interest in him with our 2nd this season.I don't think Higgins is worth a 1st. He has been playing opposite a coverage magnet in Chase, has never had more than 74 receptions in a season, and is coming off an injury-marred 2023 season (including two hamstring injuries, which scare the crap out of me for a WR). He may get a 1st, but this isn't Stefon Diggs or Tyreek Hill. I think a 2nd and 4th are as high as I would go for Higgins.
Everyone basically spends up to the salary cap, because teams structure contracts to make sure they are cap-compliant and also cap-floor compliant. The salary cap isn't a good guide to whether a team is cheap or spending lavishly.This is my question though. If they basically always spend up to the salary cap, lower actual cash spending isn't a sign of being CHEAP...it's a sign of maybe not the best cap management. But those are two very, very different criticisms.
Over the past 10 years, the Patriots ranked last in the NFL in cash spending at $1.62 billion, according to Roster Management System. The Philadelphia Eagles, at $1.92 billion, were tops over that span.
I'd do a 2025 2nd for sure.I wouldn't even have an interest in him with our 2nd this season.
Does he end up better than the receivers left at the start of round 2? Probably. But this draft is heavy with tackles, and getting a really good LT on a rookie contract with the 34th pick feels like way more value than trading that pick for Tee Higgins AND having to cough up a huge contract for a guy that has never produced/been asked to produce like a #1. Not just was his 2023 injury plagued, but he's been hounded by similar injuries throughout his 4 year career. Lots of ankle sprains, lots of hamstring pulls, and his first concussion last season which opens him up to a higher likelihood of them later.
I'd gamble my second rounder for NEXT season on him, as I do think we end up closer to the middle of the 2nd round then where we are now. Otherwise, Id go with a 3+4 or a 3+3 (maybe 2) next season.
I guess I really just don’t get how cash spending works compared with cap hits. You can’t cash spend more than the cap. And since the Pats are always near the cap, how can they actually have spent more cash? I guess by structuring contracts better maybe?Everyone basically spends up to the salary cap, because teams structure contracts to make sure they are cap-compliant and also cap-floor compliant. The salary cap isn't a good guide to whether a team is cheap or spending lavishly.
Found a handy guide on total cash spending by NFL teams over the last three years (thanks Steelers Depot). The Patriots don't look bad here compared to the rest of the NFL (17th), but note that that makes them the 2nd-lowest cash spending team in the AFC. Didn't realise there was such a strong spending gap between the AFC and NFC.
View attachment 79273
In terms of longer-term spending, the Patriots have ranked last in the NFL in cash spending over the past 10 years, spending $300M less than the Eagles in that time span. From a Reiss article in January:
View: https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/1767239702162076121The Jags signing Gabe Davis might be significant for the Ridley pursuit.
Cash spending is the base salary of the contracts plus bonuses paid out within that league year. So a $50M signing bonus all counts that one year from a cash perspective.I guess I really just don’t get how cash spending works compared with cap hits. You can’t cash spend more than the cap. And since the Pats are always near the cap, how can they actually have spent more cash? I guess by structuring contracts better maybe?
Right. So I can see how cash spending is less than cap spending but low cash spending when the team is at the salary cap doesn’t mean they’re “cheap”, as some claim.Cash spending is the base salary of the contracts plus bonuses paid out within that league year. So a $50M signing bonus all counts that one year from a cash perspective.
Yeah, but if you're spending to the cap every year, then you're going to be spending 100 percent of your cap space in cash. It's a zero sum game. The only question is over how many years are you going to be spending it. You only get $1 on your cap if you pay a player $1 in cash. Every team that spends to the top of the cap will also be spending 100 percent of the cap in cash. It is just a question of which years it gets attributed to, and the 3 year thing makes sure that you can't keep kicking the can in order to pretend you're spending when you're not.Everyone basically spends up to the salary cap, because teams structure contracts to make sure they are cap-compliant and also cap-floor compliant. The salary cap isn't a good guide to whether a team is cheap or spending lavishly.
While I do think he's ultimately a better guard, he's a perfectly suitable starting tackle. He gave up the 5th least amount of pressures of all qualified tackles last season. I don't think thats a true barometer of his skill - he struggles against top end pass rushers and his matchups were pretty light on those this season. Still, he wins the battles he should against the rest of the league, which makes him a consistent starter at RT. Considering the alternatives are overpaying for bad tackles, I'd much rather just overpay Onwenu.I guess, I just don't think it makes sense, we don't need a 1/20M guard, and if we play him at tackle... he's not anywhere near as good and he'll be pissed. It's just not a good use of resources for where the team is in terms of actual needs.
I don't think he's all that good, I know PFF thinks he's pretty good at RT, but they seem like the outlier. I think I fall more on the Brandon Thorn side, where he's just not a good enough pass pro guy to play RT full time at a league average or better level.While I do think he's ultimately a better guard, he's a perfectly suitable starting tackle. He gave up the 5th least amount of pressures of all qualified tackles last season. I don't think thats a true barometer of his skill - he struggles against top end pass rushers and his matchups were pretty light on those this season. Still, he wins the battles he should against the rest of the league, which makes him a consistent starter at RT. Considering the alternatives are overpaying for bad tackles, I'd much rather just overpay Onwenu.
The best use for cash spending measures is that when someone complains about low cash spending, you know they can be safely ignored.Right. So I can see how cash spending is less than cap spending but low cash spending when the team is at the salary cap doesn’t mean they’re “cheap”, as some claim.
And with the cap shooting up, it’s a brief overpay anyway.While I do think he's ultimately a better guard, he's a perfectly suitable starting tackle. He gave up the 5th least amount of pressures of all qualified tackles last season. I don't think thats a true barometer of his skill - he struggles against top end pass rushers and his matchups were pretty light on those this season. Still, he wins the battles he should against the rest of the league, which makes him a consistent starter at RT. Considering the alternatives are overpaying for bad tackles, I'd much rather just overpay Onwenu.
I am not saying or trying to make the point that the Patriots are cheap. I was surprised to find what the delta was between the highest- (Eagles) and lowest- (Patriots) cash spending teams over 10 years, precisely because of what you outlined - I assumed over such a long period of time, cash numbers and cap numbers would roughly even out since it's a zero sum game and so no teams could even be "cheap" in that sense but it turns out that the delta was $300M. That isn't even mostly a function of recent spending by the Eagles to go for it now - the difference in spending in the last three years between those two teams has only been something like $33M total. Basically it means during the good years, the Patriots spent way less than the Eagles (and got good returns on that), and I found that interesting. No judgement on the Patriots for doing that, since the results obviously bore it out, but the sustainability of that approach in a post-Brady world seems tougher.Yeah, but if you're spending to the cap every year, then you're going to be spending 100 percent of your cap space in cash. It's a zero sum game. The only question is over how many years are you going to be spending it. You only get $1 on your cap if you pay a player $1 in cash. Every team that spends to the top of the cap will also be spending 100 percent of the cap in cash. It is just a question of which years it gets attributed to, and the 3 year thing makes sure that you can't keep kicking the can in order to pretend you're spending when you're not.
Conversely, every team that spends to the cap will also be spending exactly 100 percent of the cap on cash spending. Because every dollar you spend will count toward the cap. If it didn't then it would be a cap loophole. Again, it's all just about timing.
Baseball Jones fundamental point is correct. If you spend to the cap, you're spending cash to the cap. You don't take a cap charge unless you spent the money. Now, you may be doing it inefficiently (for example what the Broncos did with Russell Wilson) or hyper efficiently (Tom Brady) but a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. It's just a question of when it hits.
The Patriots will easily spend more than 100 percent of the cap this year. I already gave as an example the cash to sign the number 3 pick. It will be about $28 million in 2024 cash spending, but will only count about $6.5 million against the cap. Similarly, they are going to pay signing bonuses.
Consider a player that gets a $30 million signing bonus on a 5 year deal. That's $30 million in spending in 2024, but only a $6 million cap hit (for the bonus part).
I really don't know what the discussion here is meant to show. If it's that the Patriots are cheap, it's just not correct. You spend over the cap when you're going for it and borrow against future liabilities. You save your cap when you're not competitive so you can spend later.
Here is the easiest way to look at it: Low cash to cap percentage means that a team is not borrowing future cap in order to compete now. High cap to cash spending means that they are borrowing future years' cap space in order to get players paid now. It is hardly surprising that the Patriots are low on cash spending. It's all going to work out. When the 2024 cash spending chart comes out, the Patriots will be over the cap in spending. Unless something really wacky goes wrong.
Good thoughts. Yeah, I don't know what is ideal. I think you have the key variable. What is the cap going to do? If it's going to jump $15 million a year then it probably requires a different strategy from when it is stagnant. The Patriots had the luxury of Tom Brady always helping them be a pay as you go team. Even when they drew down future years, they always had kind of a safety net.I am not saying or trying to make the point that the Patriots are cheap. I was surprised to find what the delta was between the highest- (Eagles) and lowest- (Patriots) cash spending teams over 10 years, precisely because of what you outlined - I assumed over such a long period of time, cash numbers and cap numbers would roughly even out since it's a zero sum game and so no teams could even be "cheap" in that sense but it turns out that the delta was $300M. That isn't even mostly a function of recent spending by the Eagles to go for it now - the difference in spending in the last three years between those two teams has only been something like $33M total. Basically it means during the good years, the Patriots spent way less than the Eagles (and got good returns on that), and I found that interesting. No judgement on the Patriots for doing that, since the results obviously bore it out, but the sustainability of that approach in a post-Brady world seems tougher.
From what I've seen and read, you can't fit every team into the "spend when you're going for it / save for later" dichotomy. Andrew Brandt has frequently said that the Packers philosophy is to pay-as-you-go and match cap and cash, for example, and that this was true throughout the Favre and Rodgers years. Pretty sure pay-as-you-go was also Belichick's model, even when the Patriots were going for it. The flip side would be a team like the Saints, which loves pushing the cap hits. What I am curious about is whether the Belichick philosophy towards cap management - which tended to be more pay-as-you-go, matching cap and cash amounts for most years - is still going to be the approach the Patriots use going forward, or going to be more of what many other teams do, which is what you described.
In addition I'm curious about what the "right" philosophy towards cap management should even be in an era of relatively large annual jumps in the cap. A few years ago there were a number of commentators writing about how the Eagles and Rams were in cap hell because of the dead cap hits from the Wentz and Goff contracts, but that doesn't seem to have set either team back very much, so perhaps much as prudence and pay-as-you-go sound like good philosophies it may be that cap spending is more like managing a government budget deficit, where an environment of constantly increasing limits means pay-as-you-go might be overly cautious and detrimental.
Or not at all…And with the cap shooting up, it’s a brief overpay anyway.
Wonder what they could have gotten in a tag and trade. I wouldn't want to pay him the tag or the kind of extension these guys are getting, but maybe he had flip value that they missed out onShould've just tagged Onwenu with all these guard contract numbers.
Interesting. Not much financial upside to doing it now, wonder why they chose to.
Correcting BB’s mistake of extending this lousy player.Interesting. Not much financial upside to doing it now, wonder why they chose to.
Maybe they know they're getting Ridley plus a draft pick and it's just a number of bodies thing?Interesting. Not much financial upside to doing it now, wonder why they chose to.
I read that if it's designated post-June 1 it saves $1.7MInteresting. Not much financial upside to doing it now, wonder why they chose to.
could be. Might also just be doing a vet a solid after nobody would send them a pick for him. I doubt they would assume they'll take a WR though, they probably will but no need to make the roster moves yet before you know. I guess one other option is they want him on the market because they think one of the teams they talked trade with will sign him and take away competition for the mid-tier FAs they'd rather have.Maybe they know they're getting Ridley plus a draft pick and it's just a number of bodies thing?
sure, but given their space that's minimal, and they certainly don't need it today.I read that if it's designated post-June 1 it saves $1.7M
Yes, they basically added some money into this year when they had tons of cap space to open space last year.... probably what they used on ZekeWasn't the original extension just a way to buy cap space ?
Parker can finally say he got some separation with the Pats.Interesting. Not much financial upside to doing it now, wonder why they chose to.
True. Some teams like to move on early because it gives player more time.sure, but given their space that's minimal, and they certainly don't need it today.