GoWesleyan

I've always bristled at accusations that the Pat's were cheap for not going after marquee players, since they spent on the middle class and depth players, but that ALL CHANGES IF THEY DON'T SPEND TO THE CAP.

There can be no argument that spending to the cap gives you a better chance of winning.

If the GM doesn't spend to the cap, he is not doing his job of putting the best possible team on the field (and compensating them in a way that gives you the best possible chance you have of retaining them.)

Agreed?

__________________
Felger: Just looking at it on paper...

BB: What difference does it make? What is paper? You're going to put my paper out there against Buffalo's paper?

dryheat44

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: It makes no sense to throw the salary structure out of whack just because we have cap space (ie all those morons from other teams and the media who said "pay Branch what he wants.....you have cap room"). I mean, Josh Miller or Gene Mruczkowski can come in and say he wants a new contract with a 10 million dollar SB. We can afford it, does it make sense to do it?

That being said, if we don't use the available cap room to extend some people or do some accounting tricks with future salary, I'll be extremely disappointed in our FO. Now that the Branch situation has been resolved, I expect those conversations to start happening soon.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

patchick

If they don't spend to the cap by design, just wanting to pocket the money, then they're cheap. If they don't spend to the cap because they allotted money to contracts and extensions but players turned them down, then they're not cheap...but they have other problems to contend with. And IF it should happen that they end the year sitting on a pile of cap space, we'll never know which of those scenarios is the right one.

At this point, though, I think the magnitude of the cap space is somewhat illusory. All it takes is picking up Seymour's option (a sure thing) and extending one mid-level player, and suddenly the leftover dollars don't look like much.

GoWesleyan

"If they don't spend to the cap because they allotted money to contracts and extensions but players turned them down, then they're not cheap...but they have other problems to contend with."


What do you mean by "other problems"? That they can't get anyone to sign for the price that New England wants to pay? That seems like more or less the same problem, especially if that's a pattern that leads to not being able to sign enough quality guys to spend to the cap.

__________________
Felger: Just looking at it on paper...

BB: What difference does it make? What is paper? You're going to put my paper out there against Buffalo's paper?

MoLewisrocks

No.

Spending for spending sake is a foolish and shortsighted business or football strategy. They had plans to spend to the cap but were not able to sign two players - Law and What's His Name. The cost of those two deals would have taken roughly $6M in 2006 cap space. The Seymour extension deal has been structured to take up $6.6M in 2006 cap space so that his future cap hits will remain manageable in the $<8M range. They are absorbing $14M of the $60M cap hit for their franchise QB this season which will allow them to maintain an average hit well below 10% of cap for him through 2010. Players may yet become available via trade until the deadline, but acquiring one who doesn't fit the system just because the cap space exists to would constitute pissing away cap (that could be better used in the future) to no avail.

Regardless of the outcome of the 2006 season, the franchise will go on. If it goes on with a cap credit in 2007 that means rather than having $2-3M less to spend that other clubs, which has been the case over the last few seasons because of their use of NLTBE incentives to stretch and maximize their cap space, we have $114M vs. $109M in 2007 (and two first round draft picks) we will have spent to the cap by banking additional cap for the future.

And FYI if you both spend to the cap and spend cash over cap (bonus paid but amotrized into the future) consistently, after a few years you end up in that place Miguel denies the exstence of called cap hell.

Jimke

The Pats have three starters who are eligible for free agency in 2007.

If they do not re-sign Daniel Graham or Dan Koppen or Assante Samuel

before March 2007, I think the fans should question the front office's

commitment to put the best possible team on the field. These losses

would compound the losses of Ty Law, Willie McGinest, David Givens,

and Deon Branch. We also lost Ted Johnson prematurely due to

health problems.

upstater1

I think the argument is that the cap jumped so much this year that you have to give management time to adjust to it. You can't expect them to suddenly start throwing money around because it would create havoc with what the rest of the team is paid. As the cap increases fall back to what they were previously (between 5-10%) then the salary structure becomes more amnageable. Any business that has double digit salary increases will experience turmoil among coworkers until management gets control of the budget.

For instance, Brady is averaging 10 million per under a contract he signed a while ago. If he had more of an ego, he could rightly complain if much lesser players were nabbing 70% or 80% of his contract simply because the cap had risen.

I see this in my field all the time. We have 3-4% salary increases a year, which just keeps track with inflation (essentially locking us into the salary we started with) but because businesses are much more compeittive and they usually offer higher raises to their employees, my employer has to offer a competitive starting salary in order to bring in talented new workers. Inevitably, you have people coming in at the same salary as people who have been there a decade. How does that foster a good atmosphere in the workplace? It doesn't.

RayClay

I went looking for a used car

I brought $4,000

Found the perfect one for $3,000

Made them take $4,000

Didn't want them to think I was cheap

__________________

RayClay

By best possible do you mean in your fantasy league or capable of winning multiple Super Bowls?

__________________

patchick

I think they're very different problems. As many here have said time after time, "how can the Pats be called 'cheap' when they always spend to the cap and beyond?" They've just maintained a strategy of a strong middle class and small upper class, being willing to let players walk rather than spending more than they're worth. That's completely different from simply wanting to keep the cash in your own pocket.

But players like Samuel and Koppen are exactly the productive middle class that has been the team's lifeblood in the past. If, if the team consistently tries and fails to retain such players, it could suggest that they haven't adjusted their numbers and strategy realistically to the current cap. Or worse, it could suggest that players are no longer enthusiastic enough about working here to make an extension a priority. And regardless of the reason, it means an erosion of continuity and a lot of holes to fill in one year.

But that's all "if." An extension of either Koppen or Samuel would be enough to allay a whole bunch of these hypothetical worries.