The 2015 Roster

[Super Nomario]

Why am I starting a thread on the 2015 roster in the draft sub-forum? Because only about half of the Pats' top picks have been day 1 starters. Belichick's a believer in the "year one to year two leap," so it makes sense that draft picks are taken with 2015 and beyond in mind. Here's what the roster looks like for 2015:
 
QB:
Under contract, uncuttable: Brady
Free agent: Mallett
 
This is why so many mocks have the Pats taking a QB; Mallett's likely gone after the season.
 
RB:
Under contract, cuttable: Jonas Gray
Free agent: Ridley, Vereen, Bolden, Develin
 
It's probable they work out an extension with at least one of Ridley / Vereen, but RB looks like a must for the draft.
 
WR:
Under contract, uncuttable: Edelman, Dobson, LaFell
Under contract, cuttable: Amendola (tough cut), Thompkins, Mark Harrison, Boyce, Reggie Dunn, Greg Orton
Free agent: Slater
 
Depth here, but lacking star quality unless one of the youngsters takes a leap forward.
 
TE:
Under contract, uncuttable: Gronkowski
Under contract, cuttable: Hoomanawanui
Free agent: D.J. Williams
 
Depth is an issue even apart from Gronk's injury issues.
 
OT:
Under contract, uncuttable: Vollmer, Solder
Under contract, cuttable: R.J. Mattes, Jordan Devey
Free agent: Cannon
 
EDIT: Updated for Solder's option being picked up. Not much depth at this point.
 
Interior OL:
Under contract, cuttable: Mankins, Wendell, Josh Kline, Chris Barker, Braxston Cave
Free agent: Connolly
 
Probably the team's #1 need from a 2015-and-beyond standpoint, and not a strong point for 2014.

 

[Super Nomario]

Defense:
 
DT:
Under contract, cuttable: Wilfork (might be a tough cut), Chris Jones, Vellano, Armstead, Forston
Free agent: Siliga, Kelly
 
Another weak point.
 
Edge:
Under contract, uncuttable: Chandler Jones, Ninkovich
Under contract, cuttable: Bequette, Buchanan
 
Needs depth.
 
LB:
Under contract, uncuttable: Collins, Mayo, Hightower
Under contract, cuttable: Beauharnais, Ja'Gared Davis
Free agent: Chris White
 
Solid starters, needs depth.
 
CB:
Under contract, uncuttable: Arrington
Under contract, cuttable: Ryan, Dennard, Revis, Browner, Justin Green
 
Obviously Ryan and Dennard are really unlikely cuts. A lot depends on whether they can work something out with Revis long-term. Browner's due $5.5 MM next year with zero guaranteed; he needs to be an above-average starter for that to make sense. This is a curious position.
 
S:
Under contract, cuttable: Harmon, Ebner, Tavon Wilson, Kanorris Davis
Free agent: McCourty, Chung
 
Another position surprisingly in flux. I'll be surprised if they don't get something done with McCourty, and Harmon looks like a keeper, but this is a position of some need moving forward.

 

[Stitch01]

I think Gronk and LaFell are both cuttable in '15 and the Pats have an option on Solder.

 

[Super Nomario]

I think Gronk and LaFell are both cuttable in '15 and the Pats have an option on Solder.

LaFell is borderline; I almost put him in the other category. His cap figure is $3.2 and he's got $2 MM in dead money, so it only makes sense to cut him if he's useless. Gronk still has $13 MM dead money, so I don't see how he's cuttable. Good point on Solder; I'll update the chart.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

A lot of the strategy going in this draft seems like it may revolve around Armstead.  I'd love to know what the team actually thinks about him and whether or not he can play.  He is pretty much a complete unknown to everyone outside the Pats building.
 
I still expect them to draft the player at the top of their board when thier pick rolls around, but I'd love to know how they assess their level of need at DT vs. the DE and C/G position (which on paper seem like the two shallowest parts of the roster, assuming Solder and McCourty are retained)

 

[Stitch01]

LaFell is borderline; I almost put him in the other category. His cap figure is $3.2 and he's got $2 MM in dead money, so it only makes sense to cut him if he's useless. Gronk still has $13 MM dead money, so I don't see how he's cuttable. Good point on Solder; I'll update the chart.

I think im just using a looser definition of uncuttable.  To me, the only guys that are uncuttable are the guys where its just so detrimental capwise to cut them that unless they commit a double murder they will be on the roster. 
 
I should have asked Miguel about Gronk's contract.  I think there's an issue with the way the dead money shows up on Miguel's cap page and on overthecap because it is accounting for the $10MM option bonus that has to be picked up during the '15 league year to trigger the rest of the contract.
 
Gronk's salary isn't guaranteed for anything but injury until the '14 league year is over, so (I think) the only dead money in '15 if he was cut before then would be the unamortized $3.2MM of the $8MM signing bonus from 2012 (EDIT: there's a $250K offseason bonus from '14 that's also amortizing, so there'd be another couple of hundred K of dead money) 
 
If they picked up the option in '15 and then cut him, they would have something like $13MM in dead money, but they'd obviously only do that under super odd circumstances.  Once the '15 league year starts his salary is guaranteed so cutting him wouldn't make any sense.
 
I cant figure out any way they'd have close to $13MM in dead money if they cut Gronk before the end of the '14 league year.

 

[wutang112878]

RB:
Under contract, cuttable: Jonas Gray
Free agent: Ridley, Vereen, Bolden, Develin
 
It's probable they work out an extension with at least one of Ridley / Vereen, but RB looks like a must for the draft.

 
I had been thinking RB was a necessity in this draft too, but now I wonder if we can wait.
 
Lets start with the assumption that Vereen is probably more likely to get an extension given Vereen's unique skillset and Ridley's fumbling problems, then...
 
RB is one of the few positions where you can come in and contribute in year 1.  Generally the biggest obstacle for rookie RBs is pass protection, but if we are trying to replace Ridley then we really need more of a pure running RB and pass protection isnt as much of an issue. 
 
Perhaps they can go this year with what they have, extend Vereen, and then draft Ridley's replacement in the 2015 draft.  In that scenario to fill out the roster for 2014 they would really just be looking for a depth 'we hope you dont see the field much' type of guy.  Basically, I could envision them not spending a pick in the first 3 rounds in the 2014 draft on a RB, and then in rounds 4 and beyond I'm all for drafting best available because the odds of hitting on someone are so slim anyway.

 

[Stitch01]

What stands out to me is
---McCourty extension really needs to happen
---Interior line help is a huge draft priority

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Agreed. The biggest needs to me are DT and interior line. First two rounds should focus on those positions

 

[Super Nomario]

A lot of the strategy going in this draft seems like it may revolve around Armstead.  I'd love to know what the team actually thinks about him and whether or not he can play.  He is pretty much a complete unknown to everyone outside the Pats building.

Yeah, there are a few guys - Armstead, Kline / Barker, Harmon, Beauharnais, Buchanan, Dobson - where the internal evaluation is really important to the draft prioritization.
 

I think im just using a looser definition of uncuttable.  To me, the only guys that are uncuttable are the guys where its just so detrimental capwise to cut them that unless they commit a double murder they will be on the roster. 
 
I should have asked Miguel about Gronk's contract.  I think there's an issue with the way the dead money shows up on Miguel's cap page and on overthecap because it is accounting for the $10MM option bonus that has to be picked up during the '15 league year to trigger the rest of the contract.
 
I cant figure out any way they'd have close to $13MM in dead money if they cut Gronk before the end of the '14 league year.

That's interesting, but probably moot - unless 2014 is a disaster, I don't see them cutting Gronk.
 
I could have had two categories of uncuttable, representing that some of the players are really uncuttable (Brady) and some there's just no benefit to cutting them unless they're garbage (like LaFell or Dobson). I used the rule of thumb of "cap savings > dead money" for them to be cuttable.
 

 
I had been thinking RB was a necessity in this draft too, but now I wonder if we can wait.
 
Lets start with the assumption that Vereen is probably more likely to get an extension given Vereen's unique skillset and Ridley's fumbling problems, then...
 
RB is one of the few positions where you can come in and contribute in year 1.  Generally the biggest obstacle for rookie RBs is pass protection, but if we are trying to replace Ridley then we really need more of a pure running RB and pass protection isnt as much of an issue. 
 
Perhaps they can go this year with what they have, extend Vereen, and then draft Ridley's replacement in the 2015 draft.  In that scenario to fill out the roster for 2014 they would really just be looking for a depth 'we hope you dont see the field much' type of guy.  Basically, I could envision them not spending a pick in the first 3 rounds in the 2014 draft on a RB, and then in rounds 4 and beyond I'm all for drafting best available because the odds of hitting on someone are so slim anyway.

 
Depth is a concern for 2014, too, given Ridley's (fumbling) and Vereen's (injury) historic issues, that Bolden is the only backup, and general injury rates at the position. They lost 1/4 of their RB snaps with Blount leaving; it's great to say Vereen will be healthier and Ridley more sure-handed in 2014 to make that up, but if they're not the result is a lot of Brandon Bolden.

 

[wutang112878]

Depth is a concern for 2014, too, given Ridley's (fumbling) and Vereen's (injury) historic issues, that Bolden is the only backup, and general injury rates at the position. They lost 1/4 of their RB snaps with Blount leaving; it's great to say Vereen will be healthier and Ridley more sure-handed in 2014 to make that up, but if they're not the result is a lot of Brandon Bolden.

 
There is also the roster spot issue, its not impossible but its difficult to carry 5 RBs.  Obviously they need a 4th.  But I dont want them carrying and drafting a JAG to be your 5th guy because they dont have faith in Vereen and Ridley, that seems foolish.  If they didnt have faith in those guys I would want them to go get a player they feel they can depend on to take those roles away from them. 
 
Now maybe they dedicate a high pick to a RB in the draft to do just that.  I just want them to make a decisive move.  Either trust or replace Vereen and Ridley.  Personally, I want them to trust Vereen and Ridley and reassess in a year.

 

[crystalline]

Referring to discussion above from Stitch01, Super Nomario:
In baseball, people used to talk explicitly about sunk costs- meaning if you thought a guy was below replacement value then you should release him even if you had to pay out his contract (equivalent to dead money).

For this reason I don't understand why there is such a focus on dead money in football. If a team owes a player $3M and if he stinks and is cut that money becomes dead money--- does that matter? It's a sunk cost.

I know football contracts have different features than baseball. In particular because cap hits can be accelerated, in some cases (Brady, Sanchez last year), its far worse to cut than keep the player. That's not just a sunk cost, it's a cutting penalty on top of the sunk cost.
And the bigger football rosters, especially in preseason, means that if the player has any upside its often worth keeping them, where in baseball they'd be DFAd to clear up 25-man roster space. The existance of a salary cap does not make sunk costs worth worrying about, but the ability to move cap hits from year to year can sometimes change the calculus.


In summary I don't think dead money if cut is the way GMs think about it. Those costs are sunk. They probably care more about cap acceleration penalties when deciding whether a player is cuttable or not.

 

[Super Nomario]

Referring to discussion above from Stitch01, Super Nomario:
In baseball, people used to talk explicitly about sunk costs- meaning if you thought a guy was below replacement value then you should release him even if you had to pay out his contract (equivalent to dead money).

For this reason I don't understand why there is such a focus on dead money in football. If a team owes a player $3M and if he stinks and is cut that money becomes dead money--- does that matter? It's a sunk cost.

I know football contracts have different features than baseball. In particular because cap hits can be accelerated, in some cases (Brady, Sanchez last year), its far worse to cut than keep the player. That's not just a sunk cost, it's a cutting penalty on top of the sunk cost.
And the bigger football rosters, especially in preseason, means that if the player has any upside its often worth keeping them, where in baseball they'd be DFAd to clear up 25-man roster space. The existance of a salary cap does not make sunk costs worth worrying about, but the ability to move cap hits from year to year can sometimes change the calculus.


In summary I don't think dead money if cut is the way GMs think about it. Those costs are sunk. They probably care more about cap acceleration penalties when deciding whether a player is cuttable or not.

Any player's cuttable if he's bad enough or has bad stuff happen off-field. I'm not really talking about sub-replacement-level situations when I talk about whether these guys are "cuttable." I probably should have used "possible cap casualty" instead; the guys who I deem "uncuttable" are really just players where the team isn't going to save any money by cutting them, so they're going to keep them unless their play slips considerably or they murder a dude.
 

 
There is also the roster spot issue, its not impossible but its difficult to carry 5 RBs.  Obviously they need a 4th.  But I dont want them carrying and drafting a JAG to be your 5th guy because they dont have faith in Vereen and Ridley, that seems foolish.  If they didnt have faith in those guys I would want them to go get a player they feel they can depend on to take those roles away from them. 
 
Now maybe they dedicate a high pick to a RB in the draft to do just that.  I just want them to make a decisive move.  Either trust or replace Vereen and Ridley.  Personally, I want them to trust Vereen and Ridley and reassess in a year.

If you agree they need a 4th RB, how do you envision them filling that need?

 

[wutang112878]

If you agree they need a 4th RB, how do you envision them filling that need?

 
I still think there are a few options, like using a 6th/7th rounder on a RB, signing another UDFA rookie RB and another veteran FA RB to a close to minimum deal, and then hope 1 of the 3 works out.  I just dont like approaching a draft and saying 'I have to leave this draft with a X' unless you plan to spend a high pick on that position and you know the talent will be there, because I think the further you go in the draft and the more you draft position and not best on board the worse your results are going to be.

 

[Super Nomario]

 
I still think there are a few options, like using a 6th/7th rounder on a RB, signing another UDFA rookie RB and another veteran FA RB to a close to minimum deal, and then hope 1 of the 3 works out.  I just dont like approaching a draft and saying 'I have to leave this draft with a X' unless you plan to spend a high pick on that position and you know the talent will be there, because I think the further you go in the draft and the more you draft position and not best on board the worse your results are going to be.

I don't think we're that far off. I'm not going to be pissed if the Pats take a RB in the 6th instead of the 4th or something. I just think between a) the immediate need for a 3rd / 4th RB, b) the longer-term need for a starting (or at least platoon) RB given Ridley / Vereen's contract situation, and c) the depth of talent in the middle rounds at RB, the stars are aligned for a RB somewhere in that range. Lots of things can happen either on draft day or before that can alter that, of course.

 

[wutang112878]

I'm going to contradict myself, if we are talking Day 3 picks, go ahead and draft on need if you want to.  The more I think back to our late picks the more I realize its really not much more than throwing darts at the board.  I think its reasonable to say that we have to finish the draft with a RB, obviously I dont want to do something idiotic like 'we will pick a RB in the 2nd round no matter what'. So yeah, we arent that far off at all.

 

[crystalline]

Quote fn not working. SN:

Any player's cuttable if he's bad enough or has bad stuff happen off-field. I'm not really talking about sub-replacement-level situations when I talk about whether these guys are "cuttable." I probably should have used "possible cap casualty" instead; the guys who I deem "uncuttable" are really just players where the team isn't going to save any money by cutting them, so they're going to keep them unless their play slips considerably or they murder a dude.

-------
I agree that guys who are above replacement value at a reasonable cap number are unlikely to be cut in preseason when rosters are large.

However I don't think 'dead money' factors into the decision to cut players. Cap savings matter, cap acceleration matters, but dead money is a sunk cost and doesn't matter. It makes people feel bad inside to see a big dead money number but dead money is already spent. Smart front offices should ignore it.

(This post is meant more for media covering the teams than for anyone in this thread)

 

[wutang112878]

However I don't think 'dead money' factors into the decision to cut players. Cap savings matter, cap acceleration matters, but dead money is a sunk cost and doesn't matter. It makes people feel bad inside to see a big dead money number but dead money is already spent. Smart front offices should ignore it.
 

 
 
I think dead money does matter because you can manage your dead money in a way. 
 
Scenario 1 : the Pats could cut Mankins this offseason and save $2.5M this year and if they spread the $8M in dead money over 2 years they could save $6.5M this year. 
Scenario 2: you keep him this year and next year you cut him and save $7M and take the full $4M in dead money that year, or split the $4M and save $9M next year. 
 
From a cash perspective you save more money in Scenario 1.  From a talent perspective you are better this year with Mankins than you are without Mankins and $2.5M more in cap space to spend.
 
Or look at the Cowboys, if they were intelligent and projected their current cap problems and spread their dead money out over a few years they wouldnt have a 1/6th of their cap or whatever it is in deadmoney this one offseason and have a complete throw away year.

 

[crystalline]

From a cash perspective you save more money in Scenario 1.  From a talent perspective you are better this year with Mankins than you are without Mankins and $2.5M more in cap space to spend.
 

Managing the cap and moving cap hits around does matter for sure. I will note however that everything you say about the decision to cut Mankins has to do with 1) his talent level and 2) the change in cap space due to cutting him. (I.e. not dead money, which is already spent). I concede that cut decisions can be affected by the ability to spread dead money over multiple years, which of course does not factor into baseball decisions because guaranteed contracts cannot be changed by cut decisions.

Re: the cowboys, yes, a high dead money number is bad. But teams take on dead money when they decide to sign a player who later declines in talent, not in their cut decision process. When it is time to cut a player, dead money doesn't factor in --- it is what it proverbially is, it was specified at signing. So the Cowboys put themselves in dead money hell when they signed bad contracts, not by making bad decisions about what players to cut-- that decision is about talent evaluation and cap acceleration.

 

[mpx42]

Pats picked up Solder's option today:
 
https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/459104912551706624
 
A no-brainer.