A couple of Patriots tidbits from Mike Reiss

[Rob0729]

From his blog:

On Feb. 11, teams can start assigning the franchise tag to players. If it comes to that with the Patriots and Vince Wilfork, my feeling is that the tag wouldn’t be assigned until the last possible day (Feb. 25). It makes sense to think the sides will get back to the negotiating table in the coming weeks to try to hammer out a long-term deal, and I don't think it's out of the question that momentum could build toward that happening.

If the Pats get a deal done with Wilfork before he is tendered or as late as March after he is tendered, I think a lot of people have an apology due to the Pats.

There seems to be a growing perception that the Patriots don’t spend on players. Tom Curran, who covers the Patriots for Comcast SportsNet, presented this counter-point: Since 2005, the Patriots spent $540 million on player salaries, while the Colts spent just less than $546 million and the Jets $542 million.

Kinda shoots this recent theory that the Pats are cheap argument out of the water.

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[Gwedd]

The Patriots have always paid well, right up close to the cap every year. They aren't cheap by any means, but they ARE frugal.

 

[JSn]

The Patriots have always paid well, right up close to the cap every year. They aren't cheap by any means, but they ARE frugal.

They spend their money on having a strong middle class. They just don't always keep the right guys. It happens. C'Mon September.

 

[Gwedd]

They spend their money on having a strong middle class. They just don't always keep the right guys. It happens. C'Mon September.

BTW: Love the new avatar you have..

 

[Jackson 2]

From his blog:



If the Pats get a deal done with Wilfork before he is tendered or as late as March after he is tendered, I think a lot of people have an apology due to the Pats.





Kinda shoots this recent theory that the Pats are cheap argument out of the water.

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

Don't try to confuse people with facts.

 

[SanAngeloState]

Would they want to spend big money on a guarantee if there's not going to be a season in 2011?

I think they tag and trade him and they don't owe anyone an apology for it.

It's business, nothing personal. :rocker:

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Would they want to spend big money on a guarantee if there's not going to be a season in 2011?

I think they tag and trade him and they don't owe anyone an apology for it.

It's business, nothing personal. :rocker:

so I guess the pats aren't going to sign brady when his contract is up at the end of this year? or will they actually give him 30M up front to sit around in 2011? given that he is the player rep and all

 

[tanked_as_usual]

From his blog:



If the Pats get a deal done with Wilfork before he is tendered or as late as March after he is tendered, I think a lot of people have an apology due to the Pats.





Kinda shoots this recent theory that the Pats are cheap argument out of the water.

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

feel free to apologize to whomever you like.....but don't talk for others

 

[Deus Irae]

Kinda shoots this recent theory that the Pats are cheap argument out of the water.

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I've posted the breakdown about the money spent in the past. I don't think they've been cheap, although the notion that they spend to the cap in actual dollars is not true, but they are a top 5 income generating team and only a top 10 spending team.

That doesn't make them cheap, but it does give at least some ammunition to those who think that they should be spending more.

 

[emoney_33]

I've posted the breakdown about the money spent in the past. I don't think they've been cheap, although the notion that they spend to the cap in actual dollars is not true, but they are a top 5 income generating team and only a top 10 spending team.

That doesn't make them cheap, but it does give at least some ammunition to those who think that they should be spending more.

You've also been proven wrong over and over when you've tried to argue it.

Stop trying to defend people who are wrong, while at the same time saying you believe the exact opposite.

 

[tunafish]

You've also been proven wrong over and over when you've tried to argue it.

Stop trying to defend people who are wrong, while at the same time saying you believe the exact opposite.

Actually, Deus is right. Last year (2008), the pats had the 2nd highest revenue in the league, at 302 million dollars. In that same year, they spent the 3rd lowest amount of money in the entire league on their players. This past year they spent the 9th lowest amount of money on players, and i'd imagine their revenue was either the same or higher. Kraft happens to be extraordinarily cheap. Facts is facts.

And if you want to check these facts...:
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

And as a bonus, a local team whose owner is willing to do what it takes (in the patriots case that would be to resign wilfork immediately):
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/32/basketball-values-09_Boston-Celtics_326173.html

 

[Kontradiction]

From his blog:



If the Pats get a deal done with Wilfork before he is tendered or as late as March after he is tendered, I think a lot of people have an apology due to the Pats.





Kinda shoots this recent theory that the Pats are cheap argument out of the water.

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

The "Pats are cheap" theory is recent? I remember this going back to 2005-2006.

 

[Rob0729]

The "Pats are cheap" theory is recent? I remember this going back to 2005-2006.

Well, 2005-2006 since the Pats came off of back to back Super Bowls in 2003-2004, the spin was the Pats were all about value. Now that they have had a disapointing season and it has been a half a decade since the last Super Bowl win, it is that they are cheap. What people thought was a plus during the Super Bowl years and shortly after is now considered a failure by Belichick because the natives are restless.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Actually, Deus is right. Last year (2008), the pats had the 2nd highest revenue in the league, at 302 million dollars. In that same year, they spent the 3rd lowest amount of money in the entire league on their players. This past year they spent the 9th lowest amount of money on players, and i'd imagine their revenue was either the same or higher. Kraft happens to be extraordinarily cheap. Facts is facts.

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that in 2007 the Patriots spent the second-highest total in the league. . . .

 

[emoney_33]

Actually, Deus is right. Last year (2008), the pats had the 2nd highest revenue in the league, at 302 million dollars. In that same year, they spent the 3rd lowest amount of money in the entire league on their players. This past year they spent the 9th lowest amount of money on players, and i'd imagine their revenue was either the same or higher. Kraft happens to be extraordinarily cheap. Facts is facts.

And if you want to check these facts...:
USATODAY.com
NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com

And as a bonus, a local team whose owner is willing to do what it takes (in the patriots case that would be to resign wilfork immediately):
#8 Boston Celtics - Forbes.com

Salary Cap. Learn it or troll elsewhere.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course, that's ignoring the fact that in 2007 the Patriots spent the second-highest total in the league. . . .

Your response is a great one, because this sort of spending breakdown is something that you have to take in an aggregate to get any real feel for what's going on. Lump sum bonuses and the like make a year-by-year approach a lousy way to evaluate. We were actually just going over this about 2 weeks ago:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/317666-my-early-perception-patriots-3rd-best-afc-east.html#post1709674

 

[Rob0729]

Actually, Deus is right. Last year (2008), the pats had the 2nd highest revenue in the league, at 302 million dollars. In that same year, they spent the 3rd lowest amount of money in the entire league on their players. This past year they spent the 9th lowest amount of money on players, and i'd imagine their revenue was either the same or higher. Kraft happens to be extraordinarily cheap. Facts is facts.

And if you want to check these facts...:
USATODAY.com
NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com

And as a bonus, a local team whose owner is willing to do what it takes (in the patriots case that would be to resign wilfork immediately):
#8 Boston Celtics - Forbes.com

But the fact of the matter is the Pats had little cap room in the cap to have a high payroll the last two years. They might have had a higher payroll last season if Peppers took Belichick's advice and signed the franchise tag since Belichick stated publically that he wasn't going to trade for him until he did and by the time he did it was too late to make a trade. It is very conceivable the Pats could have traded for Peppers and increased their actual payroll last year by $15-20 million. A trade for Peppers could have easily pushed their payroll into the top 15.

The one thing the Pats won't do is just spend money of free agents because they should spend money. There actually has to be free agents they want to sign them. I don't think the Pats are cheap at all. When Belichick wants to spend money on players, Kraft seems to open his wallet. But unlike a Daniel Snyder, Belichick isn't about collecting names.

BTW, it is conceivable if both Brady and Wilfork get deals that the Pats have the actual highest payroll in the league this year.

 

[emoney_33]

The best discussion occurred when Felger's dumbass tried to argue with Jonathan Kraft and then we got:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...89-jonathan-kraft-felger-mazz-last-night.html

The patriots spend to the cap, and that is the maximum allowed.

 

[Nikolai]

Well, 2005-2006 since the Pats came off of back to back Super Bowls in 2003-2004, the spin was the Pats were all about value. Now that they have had a disapointing season and it has been a half a decade since the last Super Bowl win, it is that they are cheap. What people thought was a plus during the Super Bowl years and shortly after is now considered a failure by Belichick because the natives are restless.

This...no one had issues when the frugal route was working.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Actually, Deus is right. Last year (2008), the pats had the 2nd highest revenue in the league, at 302 million dollars. In that same year, they spent the 3rd lowest amount of money in the entire league on their players. This past year they spent the 9th lowest amount of money on players, and i'd imagine their revenue was either the same or higher. Kraft happens to be extraordinarily cheap. Facts is facts.

And if you want to check these facts...:
USATODAY.com
NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com

And as a bonus, a local team whose owner is willing to do what it takes (in the patriots case that would be to resign wilfork immediately):
#8 Boston Celtics - Forbes.com

kraft just signs the checks.