putting "re do Vince" into contex

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    putting "re do Vince" into contex

    many off season posts having to do with the offseason shaping of the Pats 2014 roster, usually include the caveat, "I would re do Vince". Seems, assuming health, everyone wants Vince back on a contract that does not tax the cap. Can it be done?

    Vince will be 33 years old on Nov 4th 2014

    If the Pats do nothing with Vince's contract, he is owed a base salary of $7.5M. While Vince already has his bonus in his pocket, for salary cap purposes, Vince's signing bonus will count an additional $3.6M against the cap in 2014. Vince also had an additional $500k in bonuses in his contract language based on "work out and inventives". Lets assume that as weight related, and playing  a certain amount of snups per season. For the sake of this excercise, due to injury, lets assume Vince did not attain those incentives.

    Therefore, Vince currently counts against the cap for 2014 at $11.1M.

    If Vince is cut, he will count against the cap $3.6M in dead money. BY cutting Vince the Pats save $7.5M in 2014

    Does Vince wish to play in 2014? Lets assume yes. Do the Pats want him back? Lets assume yes.

    The Pats could cut Vince, and resign him for the Vet minimum, which is about $1M. Combined with the bonus of $3.6M, Vince would be on the books for $4.6M. WOuld Vince come back and put himself thru rehab, camp and another season for $1M? Doubtful.

    THe PAts could take the $11.1M owed Vince and convert it into another signing bonus and sign Vince to 3 more years. (risky at 33 years old). Thay could then pay Vince a base salary each year of $1-2M, meaning Vince is counted against the cap over he next 3 years $4.7M. I am sure that Vince would do that. But would the Pats?

    FOr sure the figures put forth probably are the low end and high end of a potential deal. Maybe some common ground can be found in between. But the decision to simply "re do Vince" is not so easy at 33 years old coming off injury.      

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dustcover. Show dustcover's posts

    Re: putting

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    many off season posts having to do with the offseason shaping of the Pats 2014 roster, usually include the caveat, "I would re do Vince". Seems, assuming health, everyone wants Vince back on a contract that does not tax the cap. Can it be done?

    Vince will be 33 years old on Nov 4th 2014

    If the Pats do nothing with Vince's contract, he is owed a base salary of $7.5M. While Vince already has his bonus in his pocket, for salary cap purposes, Vince's signing bonus will count an additional $3.6M against the cap in 2014. Vince also had an additional $500k in bonuses in his contract language based on "work out and inventives". Lets assume that as weight related, and playing  a certain amount of snups per season. For the sake of this excercise, due to injury, lets assume Vince did not attain those incentives.

    Therefore, Vince currently counts against the cap for 2014 at $11.1M.

    If Vince is cut, he will count against the cap $3.6M in dead money. BY cutting Vince the Pats save $7.5M in 2014

    Does Vince wish to play in 2014? Lets assume yes. Do the Pats want him back? Lets assume yes.

    The Pats could cut Vince, and resign him for the Vet minimum, which is about $1M. Combined with the bonus of $3.6M, Vince would be on the books for $4.6M. WOuld Vince come back and put himself thru rehab, camp and another season for $1M? Doubtful.

    THe PAts could take the $11.1M owed Vince and convert it into another signing bonus and sign Vince to 3 more years. (risky at 33 years old). Thay could then pay Vince a base salary each year of $1-2M, meaning Vince is counted against the cap over he next 3 years $4.7M. I am sure that Vince would do that. But would the Pats?

    FOr sure the figures put forth probably are the low end and high end of a potential deal. Maybe some common ground can be found in between. But the decision to simply "re do Vince" is not so easy at 33 years old coming off injury.      

    [/QUOTE]


    Very thoughtful input, Karp.  A lot to digest.  I'll have to chew on this a bit.  But you've certainly condensed the situation to a reasonable hypothesis. Kudos.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: putting

    Added info heard:

    Both sides are very interested and are currently negotiating.

    I take this to be very, very good news!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from teegee. Show teegee's posts

    Re: putting

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Added info heard:

    Both sides are very interested and are currently negotiating.

    I take this to be very, very good news!

    [/QUOTE]

    execellent thread start!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: putting

    If you're going to spread the $11 mil over three years, why not make it four? Or five? I don't see what the difference is to Vince, he's guaranteed the dough and it's his last contract.

    He gets the same net payout, the Pats get some cap relief as long as he's playing. Makes the hit a wee bit larger when he finally does hang it up, but worry about that then.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: putting

    IMHO, VW may be in the same mindset as Brady.  He wants to play out his years in the NFL as a Patriot and will redo his contract to meet that desire. Why go somewhere else at this stage of his career for just the money?  In the end, he will have had a very lucrative career as a Patriot and be happy about it.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: putting

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you're going to spread the $11 mil over three years, why not make it four? Or five? I don't see what the difference is to Vince, he's guaranteed the dough and it's his last contract.

    He gets the same net payout, the Pats get some cap relief as long as he's playing. Makes the hit a wee bit larger when he finally does hang it up, but worry about that then.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because the shortterm gains of ~$1 million per season in cap relief would not be worth the larger cap hit when he does retire.  "Worry about that then" is how some teams operate, but not the Pats. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: putting

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If you're going to spread the $11 mil over three years, why not make it four? Or five? I don't see what the difference is to Vince, he's guaranteed the dough and it's his last contract.

    He gets the same net payout, the Pats get some cap relief as long as he's playing. Makes the hit a wee bit larger when he finally does hang it up, but worry about that then.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because the shortterm gains of ~$1 million per season in cap relief would not be worth the larger cap hit when he does retire.  "Worry about that then" is how some teams operate, but not the Pats. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Fair enough, but the larger hit will (I expect) be offset to some extent by increases in the cap.

    On the other hand, I'd be in favor of taking the $3.6 mil cap hit this year and just give him a new one year contract with no dead money down the road, and if he doesn't want it, so be it. I don't like giving a 33 yr old fat, injured nose tackle $11 mil in guaranteed money. That doesn't make business sense to me and seems to be driven more by sentimentality than football. If he can't play, they're screwed. 

    He's not going to be a hot commodity on the FA market and they have leverage. Use it.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: putting

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    many off season posts having to do with the offseason shaping of the Pats 2014 roster, usually include the caveat, "I would re do Vince". Seems, assuming health, everyone wants Vince back on a contract that does not tax the cap. Can it be done?

    Vince will be 33 years old on Nov 4th 2014

    If the Pats do nothing with Vince's contract, he is owed a base salary of $7.5M. While Vince already has his bonus in his pocket, for salary cap purposes, Vince's signing bonus will count an additional $3.6M against the cap in 2014. Vince also had an additional $500k in bonuses in his contract language based on "work out and inventives". Lets assume that as weight related, and playing  a certain amount of snups per season. For the sake of this excercise, due to injury, lets assume Vince did not attain those incentives.

    Therefore, Vince currently counts against the cap for 2014 at $11.1M.

    If Vince is cut, he will count against the cap $3.6M in dead money. BY cutting Vince the Pats save $7.5M in 2014

    Does Vince wish to play in 2014? Lets assume yes. Do the Pats want him back? Lets assume yes.

    The Pats could cut Vince, and resign him for the Vet minimum, which is about $1M. Combined with the bonus of $3.6M, Vince would be on the books for $4.6M. WOuld Vince come back and put himself thru rehab, camp and another season for $1M? Doubtful.

    THe PAts could take the $11.1M owed Vince and convert it into another signing bonus and sign Vince to 3 more years. (risky at 33 years old). Thay could then pay Vince a base salary each year of $1-2M, meaning Vince is counted against the cap over he next 3 years $4.7M. I am sure that Vince would do that. But would the Pats?

    FOr sure the figures put forth probably are the low end and high end of a potential deal. Maybe some common ground can be found in between. But the decision to simply "re do Vince" is not so easy at 33 years old coming off injury.      

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much what I've been saying since Nov. Every so often it's nice to confirm your thoughts and feelings. Hope this gets done as imo it greatly benefits both

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: putting

    In response to JIMMYPROFFER's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am sure that Vince would do that.       

    [/QUOTE]


    You are sure he would do that??!!

    Did you discuss it with him over tea and crumpets yesterday?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, as a matter of fact, he did.  And I'm told the crumpets were delicious!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: putting


    Wilfork finishes his career as Ted Washington 2.0. He will gain 30 pounds and be a 400 pound run stuffing immovable object that will anchor the Pats D line for another Super Bowl. The Pats will also draft his protege and have Vince Wilfork 2.0....

    VW was made the highest paid NT in the league by this organization. He will remain a Patriot until he retires.

     

Share