The Patriots don't spend? Huh?

[Bostonian1962]

I hope this post starts a discussion where some of you more informed types can set the record straight on this issue.

I'm hearing alot lately about how the Patriots don't spend money, and it seems to be another one of those "let's make up a story and run with it" type deals.

All we hear over the last couple of years, is how the Patriots have been losing their key, best, veteran players. That much is obvious.

However, in 2007 the New England Patriots had the second highest payroll in the entire NFL. They've lost (through trade, retirement, and free agency) some of their higher paid players. Thus, in 2009 their payroll was 20th in the league.

Now there is this great emphasis that the Patriots have simply never been a team to pay. What? Yes they have. You can't complain that the team has lost veteran players since 2007, and because the payroll comes down, then say that the same team that was SECOND in the NFL in Payroll in 2007, has always been a cheap team.

Can anybody else run with some of this? I'm sure there are different angles to attack. Some of these discussions (brought up again because of recent comments for Moss) just seem false when I look at the facts.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

I hope this post starts a discussion where some of you more informed types can set the record straight on this issue.

I'm hearing alot lately about how the Patriots don't spend money, and it seems to be another one of those "let's make up a story and run with it" type deals.

All we hear over the last couple of years, is how the Patriots have been losing their key, best, veteran players. That much is obvious.

However, in 2007 the New England Patriots had the second highest payroll in the entire NFL. They've lost (through trade, retirement, and free agency) some of their higher paid players. Thus, in 2009 their payroll was 20th in the league.

Now there is this great emphasis that the Patriots have simply never been a team to pay. What? Yes they have. You can't complain that the team has lost veteran players since 2007, and because the payroll comes down, then say that the same team that was SECOND in the NFL in Payroll in 2007, has always been a cheap team.

Can anybody else run with some of this? I'm sure there are different angles to attack. Some of these discussions (brought up again because of recent comments for Moss) just seem false when I look at the facts.

Plenty of healthy discussion, bro

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

The Pats spend. Just not like the 'Skins and not like the Colts.

 

[Patspsycho]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

Some of these discussions (brought up again because of recent comments for Moss) just seem false when I look at the facts.

For posters to look at facts before posting is the exception not the rule.

 

[Wheelssps]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

People making these comments also have to realize that the salary range of teams in the NFL, with the salary cap and minimum salary floor, is really quite close. The difference in some years between being the 10th highest spending and 20th highest spending might be only a few million in spending. The different between the highest spending team and the lowest spending team is likewise nothing like MLB where the NYY approach 200million and the lowest (the Marlins I think?) are in the 30 to 40 million range. THAT is a big difference in spending, but the NFL with the CBA salary agreement really has a much smaller range of team salaries.

The interesting thing to see will be how team spending is affected by an uncapped and unfloored year. Just my guess, but I'm betting we'll be seeing more teams cutting payroll than adding it, and that this whole topic will shift away from the Pats when they end up in the top half of team spending. More of a focus will go onto some other teams that takes an opportunity to dramatically shed payroll.

Though, of course, the national media topic of the day will probably just shift to something else that tries to cast the Pats in a negative light. :rolleyes2:

 

[PatsChamp88]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

The Patriots spend but Kraft doesn't :bricks:

 

[Sicilian]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

I made this analogy once.

Two buyers want to get apples:

Buyer A buys 50 apples at $1 a piece.

Buyer B buys 10 apples at $3 a piece, and 40 apples at $0.50 a piece.

Both buyers paid the same amount for the same number of apples, one just preferred to have a small collection of really good apples and bunch of lower quality ones. They other preferred to have 50 consistently pretty good apples.

Neither is wrong, neither is right, neither is cheap, neither is "willing to go the extra mile" for their apples. It's a philosophical decision to bunch quality up at the top, or spread it out top to bottom.

 

[borg]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

I made this analogy once.

Two buyers want to get apples:

Buyer A buys 50 apples at $1 a piece.

Buyer B buys 10 apples at $3 a piece, and 40 apples at $0.50 a piece.

Both buyers paid the same amount for the same number of apples, one just preferred to have a small collection of really good apples and bunch of lower quality ones. They other preferred to have 50 consistently pretty good apples.

Neither is wrong, neither is right, neither is cheap, neither is "willing to go the extra mile" for their apples. It's a philosophical decision to bunch quality up at the top, or spread it out top to bottom.

And BB is the chef. He bakes pies with his $1 apples. Some of the apples are clearly better baking apples than others. One apple clearly is a top shelf apple, hangs out with a super model pear, and gets filmed with farm animals. The fans loves BB apple pies...but lately his country pies can't compete with the flashier Dutch Apple pies. BB takes his proven recipe to the weekly contests and beats the bakers he's supposed to beat, but has problems keeping Dutch Apple pies out of the end zone....mouths. The home fans remain quiet during the competitions, many hanging out at the Chile cookoffs instead of there assigned seats. Even older apples that have moved on to other pies tell eaters that BB's pies need better apples, mor $7 apples, like themselves. BB's assistant chefs, officially known as apron boys, praise BB's pies and work the recipe as instructed. Fans are eager to sample the pies' newest apples, those being harvested in April. Maybe a $5 Granny, or a few $3 Macs. Odds makers are booking for a "value" harvest of multiple $1.50 farmstand apples and some greenies with potential.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

However, in 2007 the New England Patriots had the second highest payroll in the entire NFL. They've lost (through trade, retirement, and free agency) some of their higher paid players. Thus, in 2009 their payroll was 20th in the league.

There are two distinct measurements that people trip over...

1) New money outlays. This measure how much cash Kraft had to pony up THAT year in salary, bonuses, etc. If you get new players that need new contracts, you have a bunch of new money going out. "Cash over cap" refers to new money and with Moss, Welker and Brady (restructure) getting lots of loot in 2007, I would imagine the Pats ranked pretty high in new money.

2) Cap charges. This takes into account prorated bonuses and other cap gymnastics. The Pats typically spend to the cap with a little breathing room for maintenance. So if the Pats spend big in 2007 (cash over cap), subsequent years have to balance that out.

Cap charges stay pretty level over time. New money outlays will rise and fall depending on contract dynamics. Using a dip in new money in a single year to call the Pats cheap is either misinformed or malinformed (don't think that is a word, but you get the idea).

 

[condon84]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

Gasper's column today:

Over the past five years the Patriots are in the top 16 in the NFL in actual dollars paid out to players -- or straight cash, homey, as Moss would say -- at $540 million. By comparison, the Colts and Jets spent $546 and $542 million, respectively, during the same time, as first reported by old pal Mike Reiss.

The top spenders during the last five years are Dallas, Washington and Oakland, who between them have three egomaniacal owners and one playoff win, the Cowboys' 34-14 wild card win over the Eagles in January, to show for it. That makes the point that it's not just what you spend, but how you spend.

Patriots remain on a spending plan - Christopher Gasper's Blog - Boston sports news - Boston.com

The Pats are in the middle of the pack.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

This is going to be fun.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

There are two distinct measurements that people trip over...

1) New money outlays. This measure how much cash Kraft had to pony up THAT year in salary, bonuses, etc. If you get new players that need new contracts, you have a bunch of new money going out. "Cash over cap" refers to new money and with Moss, Welker and Brady (restructure) getting lots of loot in 2007, I would imagine the Pats ranked pretty high in new money.

2) Cap charges. This takes into account prorated bonuses and other cap gymnastics. The Pats typically spend to the cap with a little breathing room for maintenance. So if the Pats spend big in 2007 (cash over cap), subsequent years have to balance that out.

Cap charges stay pretty level over time. New money outlays will rise and fall depending on contract dynamics. Using a dip in new money in a single year to call the Pats cheap is either misinformed or malinformed (don't think that is a word, but you get the idea).

I like the way you laid that out. Thanks. I also agree with the analogies above (Re: Apples).

Over the years, I have seen those that bash the Patriots, saying that they are cheap. Every poster on here can give a million examples. A great one that pops into my mind is when the Lions made Damien Woody the highest paid interior lineman in NFL history, and there were many who said the Patriots were cheap. Has Woody played like the best interior linemen in NFL History? Has he even played like the top 10, 20, 50, 200? No.

So is it cheap not to pay a lineman with serious weight issues that kind of money? No, it's smart. How many players that the Patriots didn't want to open up the vault for have gone on to dominate at their positions? McGinist? Woody? Branch? Law? Milloy?

The Patriots have done it a certain way over the last decade, and morons still say that the team is cheap. I say that they were the single best team over the last decade, so check your definition of cheap. There is probably a better word that fits how they do business.

 

[lostjumper]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

I made this analogy once.

Two buyers want to get apples:

Buyer A buys 50 apples at $1 a piece.

Buyer B buys 10 apples at $3 a piece, and 40 apples at $0.50 a piece.

I'm pretty sure this was a math problem I had in 3rd grade

 

[Bostonian1962]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

Gasper's column today:



Patriots remain on a spending plan - Christopher Gasper's Blog - Boston sports news - Boston.com

The Pats are in the middle of the pack.

Nice post. Opening up the vault for the high ticket free agents seems to get you higher on the spending list, but doesn't seem to work very well. The Patriots have done that a couple of times (can you say A. Thomas and Colvin), and the results were less than great.

 

[RichSeymour]

Pats fanatics say yes, actual NFL players, including ones that play for the Pats, say they don't. Make of that what you will.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I never understood this at all, in a sport that enforces a salary cap and we're up to the cap regularly.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Pats fanatics say yes, actual NFL players, including ones that play for the Pats, say they don't. Make of that what you will.

Team of the decade, even if guys like your binky had to go to the balck hole to get tagged while Al shops the rest of his not so well constructed roster... Make of that what you will. Of course I'll have to caution everyone to take your opinion with a grain of salt, since you boldly pronounced Manning the best football player ever weeks before he sealed that SB for NO with his pick 6...

 

[tanked_as_usual]

hey!

this thread made me throw up a little

 

[jsull87]

Re: The Patriots Don't Spend? Huh?

And BB is the chef. He bakes pies with his $1 apples. Some of the apples are clearly better baking apples than others. One apple clearly is a top shelf apple, hangs out with a super model pear, and gets filmed with farm animals. The fans loves BB apple pies...but lately his country pies can't compete with the flashier Dutch Apple pies. BB takes his proven recipe to the weekly contests and beats the bakers he's supposed to beat, but has problems keeping Dutch Apple pies out of the end zone....mouths. The home fans remain quiet during the competitions, many hanging out at the Chile cookoffs instead of there assigned seats. Even older apples that have moved on to other pies tell eaters that BB's pies need better apples, mor $7 apples, like themselves. BB's assistant chefs, officially known as apron boys, praise BB's pies and work the recipe as instructed. Fans are eager to sample the pies' newest apples, those being harvested in April. Maybe a $5 Granny, or a few $3 Macs. Odds makers are booking for a "value" harvest of multiple $1.50 farmstand apples and some greenies with potential.

mmmmmmm apples

 

[jmt57]

Three groups of people - Pats fans who are constantly complaining; opposing fans who are constantly looking to dog the Pats; and media members who count on those two groups for ratings - tend to beat 'the Pats are cheap' drum whenever a former Pat signs elsewhere, or a free agent with a familiar name is signed by any one of the 31 other teams. The reality is that due to the salary cap the difference in money spent is minimal. For example, the difference in the amounts between the teams in the link mentioned above is about 1%. That's not newsworthy, so plan B is to use the ranking of 16th. That's an inherent problem with taking a side, and then looking for stats to prove your case rather than looking at the stats with an open mind and then coming to a conclusion.

Since the team's philosophy is to spread more money throughout the roster, that means there will be a little bit less spent on the top moneymakers in comparison to other teams. That in turn means a few more vets will be lost than are lost on other teams - which is newsworthy. On the other hand, spending more money on the middle third and bottom third of the roster isn't going to make any headlines.

At this point 'the Pats are cheap' has been repeated enough times that many believe it to be true simply because they have heard it or read it so many times. It's just not true, unless your definition of being cheap is giving in to every vet's contract demands.

 

[Bostonian1962]

hey!

this thread made me throw up a little

If I'm being honest, that is my goal with ANY thread I start. Did you throw up externally, or did you swallow it?