February 10, 200917 yr Okay, if you think its a good idea to tie up a fifth of the cap in two players when the best case scenario is that one of them never sees the field while the other rehabs then we disagree. I say use $14 million dollars and bring in the depth you need on an aging team. Let's see where Brady is and bring in a veteran QB to take the reigns for cheaper if he rehabs slowly, like a Leftwich. We keep talking about trading Cassell, but again if the Pats wanted to trade him then why franchise him? Why not try to sign him to a multi-year deal with a signifigcant raise? If you think that he could not be signed for a deal that paid him less than all but 1 or 2 QBs in the league then that is your opinion and I respectfully disagree. The Pats could have spread payments out a la what the Falcons did with Matt Schaub. That way you have cap flexability if no deal is made. Latch, we obvously disagree and I'll let you have the last word but I just feel like there were other options to be explored that are fiscally more responsible. Maybe the Pats did their due diligence and this was the best option to them, I don't know. I am fully ready to admit that I could be 100% wrong. Again, we'll see. :thumb: I think you're missing the key and I don't need the last word. He would never have signed w/ NE if he was allowed to become an unrestricted free agent. Never, ever. Now he either will be the starter b/c Brady isn't ready or he will bring the Pats picks. It is highly unlikely that he is the backup making $14M a year.
February 10, 200917 yr Several points... The Pats have the cap room to make this move. They could not have signed him to a long-term deal for less money. Certainly, they may have been able to sign him to a deal where the average yearly salary come in at less than $14 million. That's not the same as costing the team less money. Most likely, when you combine what his 2009 salary would have been, to the signing bonus he'd have demanded, they Patriots would have had to shell out more than $14 million. Additionally, Cassel would affect their salary cap past this season. I don't think the Patriots have any intention of keeping Cassel long-term if things work out with Brady. However, I do think they want to keep him for the 2009 season as an insurance policy. It gives them stability at QB in the event that Brady isn't ready to start the season, or if he suffers a major setback, or can't come back at all. The most important point is that the Pats have the cap room to do this. This is a one-year move to give them time to see how Brady returns from the knee injury. Cassel is basically a one-year, $14 million dollar insurance policy for the Patriots QB situation. If Brady, for some reason, can't come back, then they can sign Cassel long-term and their QB situation will be taken care of for the foreseeable future. Additionally, by doing this, the Pats have assured themselves that they will get ample compensation for Cassel if some decides they have to have him. It's not a bad move. It's a smart move. And, another reason why the Patriots are one of the smartest and best run organizations in the NFL.
February 28, 200917 yr Wow.....awfully risky move by the Pats without knowing for sure Brady will be 100%.
February 28, 200917 yr I believe that I was 1/2 correct, I thank you. Had they not signed Fred Taylor, I believe that Larry Johnson would have been involved in this.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.