SVN

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/pat...ticleid=157302
that seems to be the gist of it...
" Once again, the brains and talent of Belichick, Scott Pioli and the Kraft family won out. They beat the system. Maximized their value. They now have more than $12 million in cap space in 2006 and two first-rounders for 2007. It all looks great on the spreadsheets up in the front office of Gillette Stadium.
Now what about on the field?
You know, the team?
Remember, you’re supposed to care more about winning on the field than the negotiating table. The Pats held the line on Branch the last few years and now he’s in Seattle. That may be a win for the organization, but how is that a win for the players and coaches in the locker room?"

Man these guys seem like red sox writers.

BelichickFan

This is why Kraft gave Belichick total control but not Parcells. Parcells would have done everything he could to win now then left. Belichick will keep this thing rolling forever it seems.

Next 6 years - Branch at $6M per year. Or a #1 pick at less than $2M per year (I used Maroney's 5 year/$8.8M deal, assumed contract inflation and also the pick being lower than #21).

I'll take the pick every time. Seriously, if they keep drafting well this looks like it'll never end - at least until Brady retires.

14thDragon

Am I the only one a little wierded out how he cuts at the Patriots for doing buisness the Patriots way, but is praising the Jets for doing things the Patriots way. Very strange to me.

Anyway, why exactly will it be hard to sign Koppen or Samuel? Sure Koppen has been a full time starter, but Samuel has just recently been playing up to the level of a full time starter. Why should either of them be terribly difficult to sign? Was Hochstien difficult to resign? He was a superbowl starter too.

Maybe I am missing the boat here, but were they not trying to resign Branch early? Shouldn't that have allowed to get the deal done easier by this logic? If you are going to have pay players like they are free agents, ala Branch, Vinitieri, Seymour, etc. what is the incentive to resign them before their rookie deal is done? None of these guys seems willing to take a discount to get more money now.

But I seriously believe the Branch situation has taken the whole resign and extension time table out fo whack. The Pats are pretty methodical on these things, once they have recaculated the salary-cap impact, then things will start with Koppen, then Graham, then Samuel, then TBC etc... (I think Koppen is next just because of BB love of lineman, then TE)

EDIT:

Slight off-topic. Why exactly are people speculating we will be in nickle more this year? A lack fo Bodies upfront? When did we get a lack of bodies upfront? Maybe he means thin depth at ISLB? But then he references the nickle package where we took out a lineman. We have a surplus of lineman, not a deffeciency.

PatsChick87

Once again, where's the balance in his reporting???? How about FA's(Neal & Troy for example) that went out to test market and came back. How about the vets that stayed and were well paid(Willie Mac comes to mind) and worked with the team for years, adjusting their salaries to work with the cap.
His whole article is slanted for one reaction, and sadly he'll get it from those who've not followed the details of the BB era.

__________________
Enjoying this Championship era!!

PatsFan37

One of the points that Football Outsiders made a while back (maybe a year or two ago) is that winning on the field comes back ultimately to 'winning' in negotiation. Felger says that you don't have to win every negotiation, which is akin to saying you don't have to win every game.

You certainly wouldn't want the Pats to go on the field and let another team win. They have to approach every negotiation the same way, even with Brady. And they do. The reason they gave Brady and Seymour the money is because those guys were worth it, plain and simple. Branch wasn't.

Every player who is 'better' than their contract raises the overall quality of the team per cap dollar. Every player who is worse lowers it. To field a better team, you must have more bang for the 'cap dollar' and there's only two ways to get that: scouting well and negotiating hard. Do either poorly and the win/loss column suffers.

Coming to terms with Branch at a pay level that exceeds his value would hurt them on the playing field eventually. Their error, which I'm sure they know, was in not recognizing that Branch would hold out for the season and not replacing him earlier, e.g. by more aggressively bargaining for Stallworth.

They heck with all that 'shouldn't have offered the trade' baloney. The game was over by then, and they'd already lost Branch. Getting the first rounder was salvaging something from an error made much earlier.

This is an obvious point that the columnists don't ever seem to make because, I suppose, it doesn't play to emotions.

BelichickFan

I do think it'll be hard because they're close to non franchisable as the franchise numbers for their positions are really high and if the players wait it out they know someone will offer big money.

I'm sure we'll find good players to extend, though, even if we have to dip into our FA in 2008 instead of 2007 - who, like you said about Branch, would then be signed a year early.

brady2brown

So what's his point? That teams are better off losing negotiations? Does that make sense?

I agree with the other posters that the Patriots way of doing business keeps them competitive year after year. It's been a while since we had a losing season.

If back in 2001, BB had listened to guys like Felger, how many Lombardis would the Pats have now?

The sad thing is that we take Felger at his word, and likely he doesn't believe what he is saying. He is going for reaction. And getting it. He must be laughing his ju-ju's off at us right now.

PlattsFan

Felger is an Internet troll with a real media gig. The only way he has any point is if the Patriots get to the end of the year and still have all this cap room.

If they do that, I'll be *pissed*. That will be extreme mismanagement and going for profits over the product on the field. But, I really doubt they'll do that. They'll probably start adding money to this year's cap fairly soon to save it in later years (Sey's bonus, maybe some of Brady's money somehow, etc). Then they'll be strengthening the team for the future, and Felger can ... well, find something else to say to get people riled up and paying attention to him.

deeds

If the Pats won one SB 4 years ago and didn't win again, I can see questioning the "Patriot way". However, they have won THREE SUPER BOWLS over the last 5 years. How can you be critical of that....

If the Pats don't make the playoffs this year and come back with a so-so season next, then say all you want about the "Patriot way" of doing things. Until then, shut the F up!

14thDragon

We might not be able to franchise them, but we would have been hard pressed to franchise Brady, but he got his deal done, as Well as Seymour and Neal found the best deal was back at Foxboro.

Why should it be automatically that these two guys would want to leave, or that someone else is going to offer them an overall better deal?