Do you consider salary cost & draft pick when judging a player?

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

When making a judgment amount a player.

For example: One team has a #1 WR with a cap hit of $5 million a year and another team has a #1 WR B $500,000 a year. WR B is not quite as good as WR A. Do you take into account their cap hit and say wow team B got a great deal a WR almost as good as team A for peanuts. Or do you not even pay attention and berate team B for not going after WR A.

On the same vein: If Bo Ruud turns out to be a decent LB, but not as good Jerod Mayo would you be inclined to judging the Ruud pick as better than the Mayo pick cause of the difference in using a #1 pick and a #6?

When judging Matt Cassel in to the play of other NEP, do you take in consideration that Matt Cassel has the smallest cap hit on the NEP payroll of anyone who has started all season for the NEP.

When judging Stephen Gostkowski vs Adam Vinatieri and assuming the play equally well do you say Pats got a better deal, b/c the Colts have almost 5 times the cap hit. Or do you call it equal ignoring the cap cost.

Likewise when comparing Matt Cassel to Brad Johnson, Billy Volek or an other seasoned Vet being paid 2x - 3x as much as Cassel cost do you consider that in your expectation for play? Should the Cowboys expect more from Brad Johnson than the Pats expect from Cassel cause Johnson cost more?

Do you consider that NEP has saved about $1.5 to $2 million dollars per year in cap space by going with non-Vets as backups at QB instead of having a vet. Do you consider that if the Patriots went with an expensive Vet QB last year to hold Brady's clip board, the Pats would not have been able to afford Moss?

 

[xmarkd400x]

I think I probably speak for many fans when I say this.

I judge players based on what I see on the field. Great players are great players, regardless of salary. I never say "Oh, he is a great player but he's overpaid so I'm not really that high on him". I also never say "That guy is average, but cheap, so I like him better".

Now, when it comes to who I want the Pats to go after in free agency, sure that comes in to play. I don't want them to overpay and I would love for them to underpay.

In short: While it's a factor as to who the Pats can reasonably sign, it's not something I think about when creating my opinion of a player.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

When making a judgment amount a player.

For example: One team has a #1 WR with a cap hit of $5 million a year and another team has a #1 WR B $500,000 a year. WR B is not quite as good as WR A. Do you take into account their cap hit and say wow team B got a great deal a WR almost as good as team A for peanuts. Or do you not even pay attention and berate team B for not going after WR A.

On the same vein: If Bo Ruud turns out to be a decent LB, but not as good Jerod Mayo would you be inclined to judging the Ruud pick as better than the Mayo pick cause of the difference in using a #1 pick and a #6?

When judging Matt Cassel in to the play of other NEP, do you take in consideration that Matt Cassel has the smallest cap hit on the NEP payroll of anyone who has started all season for the NEP.

When judging Stephen Gostkowski vs Adam Vinatieri and assuming the play equally well do you say Pats got a better deal, b/c the Colts have almost 5 times the cap hit. Or do you call it equal ignoring the cap cost.

Likewise when comparing Matt Cassel to Brad Johnson, Billy Volek or an other seasoned Vet being paid 2x - 3x as much as Cassel cost do you consider that in your expectation for play? Should the Cowboys expect more from Brad Johnson than the Pats expect from Cassel cause Johnson cost more?

Do you consider that NEP has saved about $1.5 to $2 million dollars per year in cap space by going with non-Vets as backups at QB instead of having a vet. Do you consider that if the Patriots went with an expensive Vet QB last year to hold Brady's clip board, the Pats would not have been able to afford Moss?

I don't get hung up much on stuff like Rudd vs Mayo on drafting because it's such an inexact process but I very much DO consider examples of existing players and rosters as you cited. I was fine saying Bye to the Vinitraitor and agreed with the decision to develop a backup vs wasting cap space on a vet QB this season. A core strength of this team is the quality of players who fill in for the starters, a cadre that would not be here were it not for carefull cap management.

Fantasy football exacerbates the problem of fans who ignore the cap and just throw tantrums about wanting player X.

 

[JoeSixPat]

For me it's pretty simple equation... There's a wide range of salaries in the NFL but all have to be good enough to make the 53 man roster.

Among those 53 there's a depth chart at each position. Every team does their best to populate each position with the best players they can. Not all can be top earners on the team and every team makes their roster choices seeking balance among salaries allocated to certain positions, and among those on the depth chart.

Within these parameters the best players are at the top of the depth chart and earn the most money on the team relative to their positions. Sometimes, a player will exceed the value of their contract given the quality of their play, sometimes a player will fall short of the value of their contract given the quality of play.

If they fall too short they will be cut, or forced to renegotiate - if they far exceed their value they can place themselves in a position to renegotiate.,

Those are all team management and salary cap issues - and while are related to the overall "health" of an organization, once the whistle blows, everyone on the field is simply judged on their performance on the task they have at hand.

At this point in time for example, Cassell is the starter - the value of his contract means nothing to any of us, nor the coaches, in determining whether he should continue to be the starter. He gets the job done or if there's someone better, they get the chance.

Whether particular players represent better "cap value" or "draft value" doesn't factor in whether I view them as better players compared to others, but is relevant to overall team management.

Those offseason decisions certainly have a bearing on how a team will weather a rash of injuries if they need make guys from down the depth chart starters - but for me everyone is judged by the quality of their play on the field.

 

[apple strudel]

You need to clarify judge - there's equivocation here.

1) Judging what you see on the field
2) Judging how one player fits in the organization

For performance on the field, all things are equal, and you don't factor in draft status or cost. A guy plays how a guy plays, that's it.

But in determining whether a guy is worth signing or drafting, yeah, of course you take in to account the cost. Say you sign the world's best football player to a 100 million dollar a year contract, since you've got no other players on your team, that's a bad signing. He's still the best player in the world though.

 

[mgteich]

Of course, I do.

As an extreme, if a player is being paid at a salary of $8M a year, I expect him to produce or be cut. On the other hand, if a player is being paid $800K a year, my expectations are a lot less, and I would keep this player even with much weaker performance than the first player.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

You need to clarify judge - there's equivocation here.

1) Judging what you see on the field
2) Judging how one player fits in the organization

For performance on the field, all things are equal, and you don't factor in draft status or cost. A guy plays how a guy plays, that's it.

But in determining whether a guy is worth signing or drafting, yeah, of course you take in to account the cost. Say you sign the world's best football player to a 100 million dollar a year contract, since you've got no other players on your team, that's a bad signing. He's still the best player in the world though.

Fair point of clarification.

Both but mostly the second. When second guessing Scott and Bills personnel movements.

But the first also in this way in his meeting your expectations. If we draft someone in the 7th round and he starts the 5th game of his rookie season. I am more inclined to go wow! Than if it was someone from the first round. If we pay $5 million for a FA and he sucks I am not as pissed as if he was someone we are paying league min.

 

[Rob0729]

It depends on the context you are judging the player. If you are just judging their skills or their place in the rankings in the NFL, I would say no. If you are judging him based on his value to the team or whether or not he is good acquistion or not, yes of course you have to.

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

In regards to Gostkowski I think he's actually better than Vinatieri at this point in time, I mean don't get me wrong Adam is or was the greatest clutch kicker of all time but he's up in years and Steven is one of the best kickers in the league right now and is a fraction of the cost, not only that but he's a million times better at kick offs than Adam ever was.

 

[Miguel]

Do you consider that if the Patriots went with an expensive Vet QB last year to hold Brady's clip board, the Pats would not have been able to afford Moss?

No, because I do not accept the premise. Not when Eckel got a $5.6 million LTBE incentive at the end of the year.

 

[JoeSixPat]

No, because I do not accept the premise. Not when Eckel got a $5.6 million LTBE incentive at the end of the year.

You've been consistent on this point that is frequently made - in a way noting that there's almost ALWAYS a way to find the money to pay for a player if that player is deemed a priority.

I don't disagree - but I think your point is only valid in the context of a well run organization like the Patriots.

BECAUSE the Patriots are a fiscally responsible organization, who don't overspend for players, and in fact seem to have a clear idea of what value they place at certain positions, they in fact DO have the flexibility you speak of.

And while I appreciate the ability of a Capologist to defer cap impact until future years, at SOME POINT irresponsible spending does catch up with a team, and DOES limit their ability to afford expensive players. That impact has certainly been lessened by the most recent CBA and the influx of money and increasing salary cap, but it also seems like the owners are intent on reigning that in by calling for a new CBA - so one can't count on the same rate of increase either (assuming they don't do away with the cap entirely, which I hope they don't)

For example, does San Francisco's status having $11 million tied up in backup Quarterbacks have no impact on their ability to spend like drunken sailors at other positions as well? While they can cut Smith they still have to accept the salary cap hit. Keep making moves like that and eventually it catches up with you - especially if other teams can outbid you and grab the players you want - and even more so if a new CBA limits the increase in the salary cap.

So while I think your point is valid, at the end of the day, there's a reason why Belichick traded back in this draft and did not want to pay a high guaranteed salary to a player he didn't believe was worth it at #7 - instead getting the player he wanted cheaper and later in the draft.

 

[Miguel]

When making a judgment amount a player.

For example: One team has a #1 WR with a cap hit of $5 million a year and another team has a #1 WR B $500,000 a year. WR B is not quite as good as WR A. Do you take into account their cap hit and say wow team B got a great deal a WR almost as good as team A for peanuts. Or do you not even pay attention and berate team B for not going after WR A.

On the same vein: If Bo Ruud turns out to be a decent LB, but not as good Jerod Mayo would you be inclined to judging the Ruud pick as better than the Mayo pick cause of the difference in using a #1 pick and a #6?

When judging Matt Cassel in to the play of other NEP, do you take in consideration that Matt Cassel has the smallest cap hit on the NEP payroll of anyone who has started all season for the NEP.

When judging Stephen Gostkowski vs Adam Vinatieri and assuming the play equally well do you say Pats got a better deal, b/c the Colts have almost 5 times the cap hit. Or do you call it equal ignoring the cap cost.

Likewise when comparing Matt Cassel to Brad Johnson, Billy Volek or an other seasoned Vet being paid 2x - 3x as much as Cassel cost do you consider that in your expectation for play? Should the Cowboys expect more from Brad Johnson than the Pats expect from Cassel cause Johnson cost more?

Do you consider that NEP has saved about $1.5 to $2 million dollars per year in cap space by going with non-Vets as backups at QB instead of having a vet. Do you consider that if the Patriots went with an expensive Vet QB last year to hold Brady's clip board, the Pats would not have been able to afford Moss?

Here are my problems with your premise.
1.) Some players are in their rookie contracts. Some players are not. In most cases the former will be cheaper than the latter.
2.) A team builds their team their way. A team may value cover cornerbacks differently, zone-blocking offensive lineman differently. Teams can play different schemes which places different values on players.
3.) These days teams are not using all of the cap.
The National Football Post | Monday Money Matters
The average team had over $7 million in cap space as of the 13th.

 

[Miguel]

You've been consistent on this point that is frequently made - in a way noting that there's almost ALWAYS a way to find the money to pay for a player if that player is deemed a priority.

I don't disagree - but I think your point is only valid in the context of a well run organization like the Patriots.

My point had nothing to do with how well the Pats manage the cap. It is a fact that the Patriots entered the 2007 regular season well under the cap as did a majority of NFL teams. Therefore, the OP's contention that the Patriots could not have afforded both a vet QB AND Moss simply does not hold water.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

My point had nothing to do with how well the Pats manage the cap. It is a fact that the Patriots entered the 2007 regular season well under the cap as did a majority of NFL teams. Therefore, the OP's contention that the Patriots could not have afforded both a vet QB AND Moss simply does not hold water.

Okay, the team could have found a way to have both Moss and a vet QB. But some where along the line something would have to break. I am not going to argue cap dynamics with you. I won't win. I assume you would agree that long term by having a less expensive backup insurance for QB allows the Patriots to invest more of the salary cap on other players that other than this year saw the field more and had a greater impact on the team success then the clip board holder.

 

[signbabybrady]

I dont think we always judge good players based on what they make. If your one of the best in the league than you are that good doesn't matter what you get paid. but if you are getting paid high than you get judged on how you perform relative to other guys with similar salary. No if you play OK but not as good as others getting paid the same than people look at you as if you are bad even though an underpaid player with similar performance may be consider average or good.

Player X gets paid 7 mil a year to be an OLB
Player Y gets paid 750 thousand to be an OLB

they each have similar stats say 50 tackles 2 sacks no pics. People will say player y is OK but player x sucks when in reality they had the production. One played below expectations and one played above but that doesnt mean one was any worse than the other.

 

[JoeSixPat]

My point had nothing to do with how well the Pats manage the cap. It is a fact that the Patriots entered the 2007 regular season well under the cap as did a majority of NFL teams. Therefore, the OP's contention that the Patriots could not have afforded both a vet QB AND Moss simply does not hold water.

I guess I was slightly off topic - but it seems to me that your point that there are numerous ways to squeeze someone under the cap can be misinterpreted that there's no adverse consequence to poor drafting or bad contracts, in terms of being able to sign players in the future.

I think there IS a consequence to poor drafting (well, mainly in the Top 5 picks) and a cap consequence to signing bad, costly contracts. Maybe it's been lessened by the influx of money under the new CBA in recent years but I still contend that teams that better manage the cap are better positioned to make better offers to players who are in demand.