ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
But your argument was certainly not dispositive. Just as an example of why, one of your arguments, that spending to the cap is somehow proof that one is not cheap, is clearly inaccurate/misleading. As I've pointed out, Miguel's pointed out, and the owners have now conceded during their negotiations, the salary cap is nothing more than an accounting tool with plenty of ways to maneuver it. That $50+ million dollar difference between the Cowboys and Patriots should have made that abundantly clear to you. If the Patriots were truly spending all they could, they'd have been #1 on the list or, at least, within a hair's breath of the top. Instead, the team's spending was more than $12 million per year less, on average.
Now, some of that may have been the result of timing on signing bonuses and the like, but a 4 year window is a fairly good snapshot, and it's not very likely that there was a $50 million payout missed by LaConfora from just the year before.
The Cowboys are about 50 million ahead of the Pats and the Cowboys gave about 47 million in signing bonuses in 2008 to Hamlin, Marion Barber, Newman and F. Adams.
The Cowboys went crazy that one off-season and I suspect that the huge signing bonuses they paid out that off-season are the bulk of the reason they're ahead of the rest of the NFL.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The Pats may have let some players go to higher bidders but (1) they've essentially maxed out their cap space every year, (2) they've employed highly paid coaches since Kraft came in, (3) they have the highest paid football player ever on their team, (4) have a new, nice stadium, largely paid for by the organization and (5) they spend, by all reports, as much as is needed on facilities, etc.
I agree with your overall point, but you're going too far in making some points. The Pats have not spent to the max cap every year. They also pay Belichick highly, yes, but have paid peanuts to coordinators since 2004. They also have the league's fewest assistants and smallest coaching staff for many years.
Jonathan Kraft has also been running a lot of the team over the past several years, so that's another reason why this entire discussion about Robert Kraft being cheap or not is silly.
The Cowboys are about 50 million ahead of the Pats and the Cowboys gave about 47 million in signing bonuses in 2008 to Hamlin, Marion Barber, Newman and F. Adams.
The Cowboys went crazy that one off-season and I suspect that the huge signing bonuses they paid out that off-season are the bulk of the reason they're ahead of the rest of the NFL.
You have to pay your players over time. That's why a longer time period is needed, rather than just a one year window. So, show me the $50 million in unusual bonuses that the Patriots paid in 2003, and that was taken off the board when it would have otherwise put them right at the top. After all, the 2004-2008 period includes Brady's contract following the 2005 season, and Seymour's extension after the 2006 season, just to point to a couple of the team's largest payouts.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
what can i say? i think the Owners LOW-BALLED the Players big time, led by Kraft. and now the season is in jeopardy.
i think an opening bid to the players didnt have to be "we take an extra billion off the top, and then give you a lower percentage thereafter. oh, also we want 18 games".
but thats just me. if you were a player, you would have said what? "hey where do i sign mr kraft?"
We're now at the point where both sides deserve blame for the current situation - but if I were a player I'd be asking the NFLPA* why the owners have now made TWO offers without a single counter offer having yet been made by the players.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...the reality is going to remain that one can argue that he has been, and do so with legitimate facts.
This is a ridiculous statement. What legitimate facts. Just because a team doesn't resign EVERY player isn't a "legitimate" reason to call them "cheap" or even make the case. Just because a team doesn't didn't misspend $50MM over a 4 year period on player salaries, doesn't mean they didn't underspend.
2004-2008 - you want to look at the difference in performance on the field between the Cowboys and the Pats. I think a more revealing figure would be the cost/victory in those four years.
Finally spending on players ISN'T the only way a team can spend money. Coaches. facilities, etc are other ways that haven't been quantified that a team can spend or underspend. As other have stated, the Pats don't stint on how they treat their players and their work environment
Some have mentioned in this thread how the Pats have one of the smallest coaching staffs in the league. Do you really think if BB wanted another coach, Kraft would veto it????? BB's staff is exactly the number that HE wants.... NOT what he is forced to deal with.
Now DI, give me some of those supposed "legitimate facts" that show the Pats are hoarding their money.
I agree with your overall point, but you're going too far in making some points. The Pats have not spent to the max cap every year. They also pay Belichick highly, yes, but have paid peanuts to coordinators since 2004. They also have the league's fewest assistants and smallest coaching staff for many years.
Jonathan Kraft has also been running a lot of the team over the past several years, so that's another reason why this entire discussion about Robert Kraft being cheap or not is silly.
A small staff is BB's desire. He doesn't want too many cooks in the kitchen.
On top of that, NE had the most coaches on the staff in 2010 since 2001. If they wanted to, they could trim a few off and still be within their normal parameters.
__________________ "They have one objective," said Washington cornerback Shawn Springs. "They whoop people's [backsides]. If you understand that, it answers all your questions. They might not lose [this year]."
As I've said in many threads, I don't think Kraft is cheap. However, no matter how often some people insist that he's not, the reality is going to remain that one can argue that he has been, and do so with legitimate facts.
Thanks Deus. Jmt noted precisely what I expected, that the seperation in rankings is a little disproportionate to the seperation in money spent. I'd also prefer to have seen a larger sample because NE's biggest foray into the FA market happened the year before this started (Harrison, Poole, Colvin).
Not saying it would push them to the top or anything, just that a 4 year sample still has plenty of size issues to consider.
__________________ "They have one objective," said Washington cornerback Shawn Springs. "They whoop people's [backsides]. If you understand that, it answers all your questions. They might not lose [this year]."
This is a ridiculous statement. What legitimate facts. Just because a team doesn't resign EVERY player isn't a "legitimate" reason to call them "cheap" or even make the case. Just because a team doesn't didn't misspend $50MM over a 4 year period on player salaries, doesn't mean they didn't underspend.
2004-2008 - you want to look at the difference in performance on the field between the Cowboys and the Pats. I think a more revealing figure would be the cost/victory in those four years.
Finally spending on players ISN'T the only way a team can spend money. Coaches. facilities, etc are other ways that haven't been quantified that a team can spend or underspend. As other have stated, the Pats don't stint on how they treat their players and their work environment
Some have mentioned in this thread how the Pats have one of the smallest coaching staffs in the league. Do you really think if BB wanted another coach, Kraft would veto it????? BB's staff is exactly the number that HE wants.... NOT what he is forced to deal with.
Now DI, give me some of those supposed "legitimate facts" that show the Pats are hoarding their money.
Ken, as you're smart enough to know, it's not about misspending, it's about spending. Making obviously horrible arguments about how one team allocated its salary spending does not mitigate the cheapness/lack of cheapness of the allocated salary spending of other teams.
Now, since people seem unable to concede something as blatantly obvious as a $50 million dollar spending gap being a legitimate point when discussing the Krafts' willingness to spend, I'll step out of this thread before the insanity gets worse. Good luck to all of you who wish to keep pretending that a spending gap of more than $12 million per season isn't a legitimate point for those arguing Kraft is being cheap.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
Thanks Deus. Jmt noted precisely what I expected, that the seperation in rankings is a little disproportionate to the seperation in money spent. I'd also prefer to have seen a larger sample because NE's biggest foray into the FA market happened the year before this started (Harrison, Poole, Colvin).
Not saying it would push them to the top or anything, just that a 4 year sample still has plenty of size issues to consider.
My pleasure....
Just to finish up with this, since it posted before my last post was published, I understand the issue with a time window. However, any term used is going to be open to that same sort of complaint. In this case, though, the year window included big contracts for the likes of Brady and Seymour, as well as the big money paid to Samuel in 2007, so I'm certainly not persuaded that the window is unfair to the Patriots with regards to the "cheap" argument.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
9Likes
Re: Kraft is NOT Cheap
Linear Mode
