Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz last night [October 2009 thread]

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The fact is the Pats have spent all their cap room under the Krafts. They may not have leveraged the future as heavily as they may have, but no cap room went unused. That is a fact which is not disputable.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The fact is the Pats have spent all their cap room under the Krafts. They may not have leveraged the future as heavily as they may have, but no cap room went unused. That is a fact which is not disputable.

This is not true. They have deliberately manipulated the cap to push money into later years. That's not spending all the cap room. I'm not complaining about the maneuver, but it does need to be pointed out in response to posts such as yours. The Patriots have used gimmicks like the LBTE to play games with the so-called hard cap.

Look, Felger overlooks the notion that big numbers in actual salary paid out in one year due to bonuses and the like can mean much smaller actual salary payouts in other seasons. Having said that, his point about what the Patriots have actually spent in the past couple of years does have some merit when one takes a cursory look. I don't view it as a problem, because I don't think that a lack of spent cash is the reason that the Patriots lost the Super Bowl in 2007 or failed to make a run at it in 2008, but actual outlay vs. cap number differences is what happens when you play games, and pay players, with a 'hard' cap that can be circumvented by pro-rated bonuses, LBTEs and the like.

 

[Pats726]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Felger's of the opinion that the Patriots are trying to keep the actual payroll a lot lower than it appears on the cap, and that the team is looking to spend only about $100 million dollars on player salaries. He's able to pull up some data to make his point seem plausible.

Kraft and company can deny that all they want, or they can explain it a way in whatever manner suits them, but the actual dollars spent in recent years has not been "to the cap", which is what Felger is calling them out on. I'm not saying that they should be spending each and every dollar up to the cap, because I don't think it's wise to do so every season, but Felger's argument does have at least a grain of truth in it.

Felger is in no position to be commenting on that really. The league goes by the cap THOSE are the numbers that the league go by..now he's trying to be a business authority. THAt is stretching it far far too much. His kowledge is poor and taking an article in teh US today and running with it like it's gold is silly. Yes he pulled up some data..but that is like taking numbers from a financial and not knowing all else about those numbers. He would not even let Kraft explain what those numbers were! That is not only rude, but shows how little Felger REALLY wanted to know..He had those numbers and he was going to shove them down Kraft's throat even though he really could NEVER explain them. Take the numbers and
run..forget about the explanation.
Numbers are always lower than the cap..I think all know they are not related. Felger is really trying to tell the Kraft's HOW to run their business...and really, THAT is out of line, especially when Felger KNOWS NOTHING about it. What is infuriating is that it wasn't even a REAL discusssion where there was knowledge gained..as Felger was cutting him off left and right. THAT I found totally offensive. Hey if you want to learn what numbers are, why they are what they are, what is included and why on a blanace sheet then STFU!!! I would enjoy learning about teh financials of a team, but THAT was not what Felger was about..it was about taking numbers that he doesn't understand and hitting him over the head with it.
Frankly, I think all fans should call Felger out on everything he says..as I said Tomase with a pretty boy face. Felger has no argument at all..and when he continually cuts one off for explaining when he knows nothing and shows no interest in REALLY undesrtanding.
I would like to understand how financials and the cap number relate and how, why there are differences..and other real in depth economics of a football team..I THINK that discussion would be quite interesting. But Fleger's lame attempt is HARDLY anything close to that.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

This is what Felger doesn't get or doesn't want to understand.

The NFL?s Smartest Business Team | BNET

For any of use who are managers, directors, VPs, etc, force ranking your employees is what you do. It's what you do when thinking about come budget time, when promoting, firing or laying people off.

The Pats follow this corporate philosophy to a "T" and never deviate from it.

 

[Pats726]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

This is what Felger doesn't get or doesn't want to understand.

The NFL?s Smartest Business Team | BNET

For any of use who are managers, directors, VPs, etc, force ranking your employees is what you do. It's what you do when thinking about come budget time, when promoting, firing or laying people off.

The Pats follow this corporate philosophy to a "T" and never deviate from it.

Thanks...a great article..I think with Felger it's the latter...a REAl discussion on the economics of a football team would be boring to many..but to some who wish to undesrtand how it all is put together with the cap and other financials REALLY interesting from many view points. I now myself, I would never venture into commenting on that because I don't understand the details. Felger wishes NOT to understand, but rather throw a grenade and then filibuster and cut off, afraid to really have anyone explain anything. How cowardly is that?

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

This is what Felger doesn't get or doesn't want to understand.

The NFL?s Smartest Business Team | BNET

For any of use who are managers, directors, VPs, etc, force ranking your employees is what you do. It's what you do when thinking about come budget time, when promoting, firing or laying people off.

Nothing there precludes the team from spending more in actual dollars if it so chooses. In fact, the claim of a 'maximized' revenue stream gives more credence to Felger's assertion that the team should be spending more money. A more effective rebuttal would be to point out the debt service on the stadium, as one example, rather than pointing out how good the team is about bringing in money to fill its pockets above and beyond the salary cap.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Nothing there precludes the team from spending more in actual dollars if it so chooses. In fact, the claim of a 'maximized' revenue stream gives more credence to Felger's assertion that the team should be spending more money. A more effective rebuttal would be to point out the debt service on the stadium, as one example, rather than pointing out how good the team is about bringing in money to fill its pockets above and beyond the salary cap.

There is no way on gods green earth that the Krafts would ever come out and say, "We can't afford to pay X." Not when the team just shelled out $350m for Patriot Place and in 2008, the team had a $39.2 million in operating income on revenues of $282 million last year.

JK said the right thing. He talked about cap and said cash outlay was a by-product of contract structure. As an example, the Pats like to spread out bonus payments- see Brady's deal at the end of 06. They like to conserve cash and only dole it out when it's absolutely necessary.

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

This is not true. They have deliberately manipulated the cap to push money into later years. That's not spending all the cap room. I'm not complaining about the maneuver, but it does need to be pointed out in response to posts such as yours. The Patriots have used gimmicks like the LBTE to play games with the so-called hard cap.

It absolutely is true that they have spent all their cap room. Each year is not an individual entity, over the long haul all cap room is spent. If not, where did it go? The cap is a finite number each year. You can spend over it some years and under it in others, but in the long haul it comes out even as long as you carry over it isn't lost. That is an undeniable fact.

You can use signing bonus and guarantees to spend future earnings in the present (like a credit card) or save some for the future. As long as you don't let it expire, you are spending it all. The Patriots haven't, so they have been spending to the cap every year.

No cap room is lost if not used, it is carried over. There is no "trick" to that. That is a decision on how to manage it. Given their record of winning over the long-term, I would argue they are managing it well.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Felger's of the opinion that the Patriots are trying to keep the actual payroll a lot lower than it appears on the cap, and that the team is looking to spend only about $100 million dollars on player salaries. He's able to pull up some data to make his point seem plausible.

That's rather ridiculous since, except for the minor vet exclusion (which leads to actual cash spending greater than the cap), all cash paid to players in the form of salary/bonus/whatever counts against cap and the cap only covers player salary/bonus/whatever. In other words, it's essentially a 1 for 1 deal. If you pay it to the players, it counts against the cap. If you don't, it doesn't. It's silly and wrong to argue otherwise when the cap rules are pretty straigtforward in this regard. (Imagine, Felger being silly and wrong. )

Of course, you can make any (next to useless) argument you want about an individual year. That's clearly what Felger must have done. It's also next to irrelevant from my point of view and very irrelevant from a long-term perspective. It's well known that the Patriots use 99% of their cap space every year which always, ultimately, translates into dollars into players pockets.

Kraft and company can deny that all they want, or they can explain it a way in whatever manner suits them, but the actual dollars spent in recent years has not been "to the cap", which is what Felger is calling them out on. I'm not saying that they should be spending each and every dollar up to the cap, because I don't think it's wise to do so every season, but Felger's argument does have at least a grain of truth in it.

It has no grain of truth over the long-term. It does have a grain of (useless) truth over the short-term which should quickly devolve into the real question of what is the best way to spend cap dollars over time as opposed to whether or not the Patriots do spend the actual dollars (which is the errorneous point Felger was apparently pushing and which he has pushed in the past).

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Nothing there precludes the team from spending more in actual dollars if it so chooses. In fact, the claim of a 'maximized' revenue stream gives more credence to Felger's assertion that the team should be spending more money. A more effective rebuttal would be to point out the debt service on the stadium, as one example, rather than pointing out how good the team is about bringing in money to fill its pockets above and beyond the salary cap.

The cap is the same for all teams. You can spend more actual dollars, but what you are doing is spending future cap money. At some point, that will have to be accounted for.

If you spend like crazy now, you are hoping for one of two things:

1) The cap will continue to rise indefinitely by a large amount
2) The cap will disappear

However, there is no certainty either of those will happen.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The cap is the same for all teams. You can spend more actual dollars, but what you are doing is spending future cap money. At some point, that will have to be accounted for.

If you spend like crazy now, you are hoping for one of two things:

1) The cap will continue to rise indefinitely by a large amount
2) The cap will disappear

However, there is no certainty either of those will happen.

If you want to understand "committed cash", wins, who has spent the most, etc.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/06/26/moneyball-nfl-style/

http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/06/29/more-moneyball-the-economics-of-wins-and-losses/

Looks like the Pats spend alot IMO....As opposed to Tampa

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Felgie et. al. fail to realize that 2010 and beyond is unknown. Competent businesspersons take steps early to hedge their bets on future outcomes. The "brilliant" ones are those risk takers who guessed correctly and in retrospect look like geniuses. But it's easy and more probable to mis-estimate the next CBA, cap, whatever and destroy the franchise's competitiveness for several seasons. I for one have had my fill of really bad, uncompetitive Patriots seasons. By and large, with some criticisms, I like the way the Krafts run the business. The lack of top echelon productivity from AD's contract should serve as a warning flag to those inclined to place most of the cap on the cute babe in the window.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

NFL.com Blogs Blog Archive Moneyball, NFL style

The Patriots were 'only' 10th in the league in actual spending from 2004-2008, and they spent more than $50 million less than the Cowboys did during that time. Again, Felger's argument has merit if you are looking at spent money.

No team spends every dollar. There's room to spend more, if the team chooses to do so. The salary ceiling is not identical to the salary floor. People here need to stop being so knee jerk in their defense of all aspects of this team.

There are valid responses to Felger's argument, such as noting this article:

NFL.com Blogs Blog Archive More Moneyball (the economics of wins and losses)

and those arguments don't have to pretend that the Patriots are spending money left, right and center when they aren't. They are up near the top, and they don't play on the cheap. Fans don't need to defend that by pretending they pay out more than they do when we've seen the Yankees fail all decade (to date) to buy a championship, because money spent is only part of the equation.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Not one year cap roll fwds but...What are the specific categories of dollar allocation that constitute the gap between dollars actually spent on players vs the cap number that take effect over a 5 year period?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Felger's of the opinion that the Patriots are trying to keep the actual payroll a lot lower than it appears on the cap, and that the team is looking to spend only about $100 million dollars on player salaries. He's able to pull up some data to make his point seem plausible.

Kraft and company can deny that all they want, or they can explain it a way in whatever manner suits them, but the actual dollars spent in recent years has not been "to the cap", which is what Felger is calling them out on. I'm not saying that they should be spending each and every dollar up to the cap, because I don't think it's wise to do so every season, but Felger's argument does have at least a grain of truth in it.

Felger is FOS as his basic argument is screw the cap, there are ways around it, business plans are a crock, if you can make it you should spend it because spending it is how you win. It's flawed on so many levels it's not even worth discussing it with him. He does this to try to light a fire under those who harbor lingering issues of their own to convince them there are tons of reasons to be critical of this team and the absolute proof is they don't win it all every year when we all know they easily could if they didn't care about the ridiculous bottom line.

The Patriots always spend to the cap whether they spend it in the current year or the future (by rolling cap forward). They've also gone over the cap (NLTBE) and paid the piper via adjusted down cap the following season. They spend cash over cap although not to the ludicrous extent the great owners Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones have because they have nearly unlimited cash and/or unbridled egos determined to squander it on players who aren't worth it and while formulating no long range plan to remain competitive on the field because they can't even become truly competitive after a decade of ownership because of piss poor decisionmaking across the board and creeping dead cap or cash crunch.

NE developed a business plan, predicated on long term franchise financial stability as well as consistent competitiveness, that encompassed not exceeding the cap in cash repeatedly in consecutive seasons because that is when your cap a few years out starts to get squeezed by all that unfolding amortization and you lose flexibility and adaptability and the ability to acquire or retain competent, often veteran depth that can play in this system. One of the little known facts he attempted to explain to Felger or his audience since Mike wasn't listening is that since the the 2009 cap was pre set it increased more than the 2008 revenue ultimately dictated. Ergo if there is a cap in 2010 or beyond it won't increase dramatically if at all since the deal is they set these caps based on anticipated financial outcomes and adjust up OR DOWN retrospectively depending on the actual financial performance.

And because he was whining about who cares about overseas markets, Jonathan also pointed out to him that that everyone in the game has a right to a reasonable expectation of increasing returns on their investment or talent/career and if owners don't manage the league well nobody will achieve those expectations because if you're not growing you are by measure shrinking. But again, Mike wasn't interested in what he had to say. He was just intent on spinning his totally ignorant agenda to pump up his following who desperately want to believe that they and he are merely smarter and more objective than the average joe fan...


Really, Felger is the poster child for arrogance meets ignorance and doesn't care as long as he maintains a following that fuels his ego as well as his ratings. He realized while cutting his teeth on WEEI that if you simply raise your voice and dominate conversation those who see through you will tune you out while those who don't will see themselves in you and flock to defend you against the blind homers who mock your obvious intelligence and objectivity. Mix in a little juvenile self deprecating humor, which he and Mazz are increasingly filling increasingly obvious intellectual gaps with, and you have what this show and these on airs are all about, doing whatever it takes to create increasing returns on their careers despite incredibly limited talent.

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The Patriots were 'only' 10th in the league in actual spending from 2004-2008, and they spent more than $50 million less than the Cowboys did during that time. Again, Felger's argument has merit if you are looking at spent money.

That is a 5-year window. You need to know how much space teams carried over from 2003 and how miuch they carried into 2009 as well.

The cap is the same amount for all teams. You can spend more, but you are spending the same cap dollars in the long-term. The Pats job is to manage the cap for both this year and future years.

You can't say they aren''t "spending to the cap". They are over the long haul. They are managing how much they spend year-to-year, but they aren't leaving unspent cap space. If they didn't carry over unused cap space, your argument would have merit. However, they have been doing that. They have the same amount of money over the long haul as other teams, and have spent it.

Is your criticism that they haven't been using the credit card enough for success in the present? If so, I would argue their success over the last decade indicates they have been managing their cap well when compared to their peers. Each decision isn't made in a vacuum, so deciding to spend today may lead to being unable to do something in the future. Nobody is going to be right all the time, but they have done excellent when held up against their peers in terms of success vs. management of the cap.

According to the USA Today database, the Pats spend a lot some years and not so much in others. In 2007, they spent the 2nd most in the NFL. In 2002, they spent the second least. However, in the long haul it averages out if you carry unused space over.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

According to the USA Today database, the Pats spend a lot some years and not so much in others. In 2007, they spent the 2nd most in the NFL. In 2002, they spent the second least. However, in the long haul it averages out if you carry unused space over.

You got it. In 07, you can directly tie to the AD, Welker, Moss, Asante's 1 year franchise tage $, and Brady 1st or 2nd payment (i forget) deals which had sizable initial payouts- IE checks that left the door.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Not one year cap roll fwds but...What are the specific categories of dollar allocation that constitute the gap between dollars actually spent on players vs the cap number that take effect over a 5 year period?

Not answering directly as I don't have the depth of knowledge on the matter, but recommend Miguel's FAQ.

Miguel's Frequently Asked Questions Page

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

That is a 5-year window. You need to know how much space teams carried over from 2003 and how miuch they carried into 2009 as well.

No, you really don't. Felger's argument is about the recent years. He's not talking about what happened in 2003.

The cap is the same amount for all teams. You can spend more, but you are spending the same cap dollars in the long-term. The Pats job is to manage the cap for both this year and future years.

This is misleading, because it's only partially accurate. The cap is an accounting number, nothing more. Some teams end up nowhere near that theoretical ceiling, some come up near it, and some use loopholes to get around it.

You can't say they aren''t "spending to the cap". They are over the long haul. They are managing how much they spend year-to-year, but they aren't leaving unspent cap space. If they didn't carry over unused cap space, your argument would have merit. However, they have been doing that. They have the same amount of money over the long haul as other teams, and have spent it.

That's clearly not correct for the years 2004-2008. If you have the data on the earlier years, please provide it. However, they are also clearly not "spending to the cap" in terms of actual dollars spent.

Is your criticism that they haven't been using the credit card enough for success in the present? If so, I would argue their success over the last decade indicates they have been managing their cap well when compared to their peers. Each decision isn't made in a vacuum, so deciding to spend today may lead to being unable to do something in the future. Nobody is going to be right all the time, but they have done excellent when held up against their peers in terms of success vs. management of the cap.

It's not my criticism. I don't care if they've spent $100 million or $200 million. I care that they've fielded a team that's been capable of winning the Super Bowl pretty much every season since 2001. Unless you want to count Seymour as a 2009 salary issue, I don't really give a damn about the team's manipulation of cap money v. committed money. It was Felger v. Kraft, not Deus v. Kraft. I'm simply noting that Felger's assertion does, in fact, have merit if you're looking at it strictly from a 'spent money' angle.

According to the USA Today database, the Pats spend a lot some years and not so much in others. In 2007, they spent the 2nd most in the NFL. In 2002, they spent the second least. However, in the long haul it averages out if you carry unused space over.

I mentioned elevated spending in some years as opposed to others. However, as the data shows, it certainly hasn't 'averaged' out over 4 years, given that the Patriots have spent more than $50 million less than the Cowboys during that period of time, and are only 10th in committed money, behind teams like the Panthers, Colts and Steelers.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

I'm simply noting that Felger's assertion does, in fact, have merit if you're looking at it strictly from a 'spent money' angle.



I mentioned elevated spending in some years as opposed to others. However, as the data shows, it certainly hasn't 'averaged' out over 4 years, given that the Patriots have spent more than $50 million less than the Cowboys during that period of time, and are only 10th in committed money, behind teams like the Panthers, Colts and Steelers.

Exactly...

IMO. Felger took the wrong approach with Kraft.

If he simply asked, "Jonathan, help me understand something. Every team can spend to the cap. Right? But according to XYZ.com, since 2003, the Pats have spent $50m less than the Cowboys. It seems to me that the Pats are 100% times better than the Cowboys when it comes to judging talent, coaching, etc. you would want to do more. Plus accoording to Forbes, you are in the top 5 in revenues, debt-to-equity ratio, operating income, etc which tells me the team is in outstanding financial health which makes me think you can go after better players. Why is that the case?" (and then he shuts up and listens to Kraft)