Kraft at Combine: Deal with Wilfork "close"

[pats1]

http://www.csnne.com/pages/landing_...p-at-NFL-Combine=1&blockID=186090&feedID=3946

 

[furry]

So we should expect a reply from Bianca in 5..4..3..2...

 

[slash83]

Very encouraging news for both sides!

 

[patsinthesnow]

Atleast we know he will NOT be traded.

 

[Deus Irae]

A couple of interesting, as well as somewhat misleading, comments:

Look, we're running a business and in a business you have to prioritize. We have a budget.

Looking collectively on an aggregate basis, we spend to be competitive.

I know we've committed enough capital to make us competitive and we want to spend it wisely. We went what, 10 years, four Super Bowls.

It's interesting, because he's giving both the "cheap" AND "not cheap" sides ammunition. It's somewhat misleading because, by using the entire decade, he covers for the reality of 2005-2009, which has been less successful than the previous portion of those 10 years, and which has seen the Patriots being less successful than the Colts and Steelers (albeit in different ways).

 

[ramon]

Not too surprising..both sides gave out clues in their press releases that they were working toward this.

Overall...I think most Pats fans correctly will see this as a huge plus.

Simply put you need a reliable run stuffer as part of your D. He is exactly that

 

[chevss454]

Atleast we know he will NOT be traded.

This is good news

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'm sure most of you have already seen it, but for those that haven't, Wilfork's Twitter has some comments from him about the whole situation:

Vince Wilfork (wilfork75) on Twitter

Specifically, he has the following exchange with some random guy from Boston:

Ravi: Don't think it's a good idea to go around saying $8mm+ is a slap in the face with all of those that are struggling right now.
===
Vince: thanks for the input... first off its not 8mill and 2nd off no matter what a person does in life they want to get paid for
Vince: no matter school teacher garbageman ect... everyone wants to be paid what they deserve
Vince: it is all relative to the job you have and the salaries within that job. 7 mil is great but for my job any my work it is diferent.
==
Ravi: Hey man, I'm on your side... fans won't be if they think players are greedy. We like guys like Brady who appear to take less...
Ravi: You've done all the right things, played out your deal, played hard, played hurt, all that. You deserve every penny.

My family is mostly teachers, and frankly I think it's a little insulting to claim that everyone does essentially the same as what he's doing. No, Vince, school teachers overwhelmingly did not get into it for the paycheck, I can promise you that. But then, the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like he had the right sentiment, but he just worded it incredibly poorly (a recurring tendency when athletes are quoted directly). Either that or he doesn't quite seem to get that getting paid $7M per year to play a game doesn't directly translate to other walks of life.

Just once, I wish an athlete would outright come out and say "there are a couple of ways to define 'deserve'. In the civic, ethical sense of the word, no, I don't deserve $7M. There are plenty of people that contribute more to society than I do and work just as hard as I do. Economically, I'm the on-the-field presence of a billion-dollar organization. I 'deserve' every cent of my salary, and I work damn hard for it. I am an incredibly valuable asset to my team--which is why I deserve the money that I'm asking for--and I owe it to the fans who watch the games, buy tickets, and spend their money on the sport." I thought that Vince hit on some of those points, though not nearly as well as he should have, and that was where his explanation was strongest. But the rest of the time, he was doing dumb crap like saying that his situation is analogous different to a school teacher's.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A couple of interesting, as well as somewhat misleading, comments:




It's interesting, because he's giving both the "cheap" AND "not cheap" sides ammunition. It's somewhat misleading because, by using the entire decade, he covers for the reality of 2005-2009, which has been less successful than the previous portion of those 10 years, and which has seen the Patriots being less successful than the Colts and Steelers (albeit in different ways).

Classic CEO speak. Some truth. Some distortion.

Nevertheless, glad to hear that the sides are making progress.

 

[alphilip77]

The two sides have finally reached a middle ground. And there was much rejoicing. Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BradyFTW!]

A couple of interesting, as well as somewhat misleading, comments:







It's interesting, because he's giving both the "cheap" AND "not cheap" sides ammunition. It's somewhat misleading because, by using the entire decade, he covers for the reality of 2005-2009, which has been less successful than the previous portion of those 10 years, and which has seen the Patriots being less successful than the Colts and Steelers (albeit in different ways).

How have 2005-2009 been anything other than successful? 4 playoff appearances, 2 AFCCGs, 1 SB, the only 16-0 season in history, highest scoring offense in history. I understand that, as fans, we expect more, and that at the end of the day championships are the trump card, so granted, you can argue that the Colts, Steelers, Saints, and Giants have all been more successful over that span.

Still, in terms of success, that still gives the Pats pretty much a slam dunk as the 5th most successful team out of 32 in that time span. I absolutely want more, but to imply that his business model is broken because the Pats haven't won a SB since 2004 is to outright state that at least 28 teams are broken.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sure most of you have already seen it, but for those that haven't, Wilfork's Twitter has some comments from him about the whole situation:

Vince Wilfork (wilfork75) on Twitter

Specifically, he has the following exchange with some random guy from Boston:

Ravi: Don't think it's a good idea to go around saying $8mm+ is a slap in the face with all of those that are struggling right now.
===
Vince: thanks for the input... first off its not 8mill and 2nd off no matter what a person does in life they want to get paid for
Vince: no matter school teacher garbageman ect... everyone wants to be paid what they deserve
Vince: it is all relative to the job you have and the salaries within that job. 7 mil is great but for my job any my work it is diferent.
==
Ravi: Hey man, I'm on your side... fans won't be if they think players are greedy. We like guys like Brady who appear to take less...
Ravi: You've done all the right things, played out your deal, played hard, played hurt, all that. You deserve every penny.

My family is mostly teachers, and frankly I think it's a little insulting to claim that everyone does essentially the same as what he's doing. No, Vince, school teachers overwhelmingly did not get into it for the paycheck, I can promise you that. But then, the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like he had the right sentiment, but he just worded it incredibly poorly (a recurring tendency when athletes are quoted directly). Either that or he doesn't quite seem to get that getting paid $7M per year to play a game doesn't directly translate to other walks of life.

Just once, I wish an athlete would outright come out and say "there are a couple of ways to define 'deserve'. In the civic, ethical sense of the word, no, I don't deserve $7M. There are plenty of people that contribute more to society than I do and work just as hard as I do. Economically, I'm the on-the-field presence of a billion-dollar organization. I 'deserve' every cent of my salary, and I work damn hard for it. I am an incredibly valuable asset to my team--which is why I deserve the money that I'm asking for--and I owe it to the fans who watch the games, buy tickets, and spend their money on the sport." I thought that Vince hit on some of those points, though not nearly as well as he should have, and that was where his explanation was strongest. But the rest of the time, he was doing dumb crap like saying that his situation is analogous different to a school teacher's.

We live in a capitalist society. Why on Earth should anyone say what you're asking these players to say?

And the situation is analogous to school teachers, and to any other profession covered under a CBA with defined 'values' for people at different stages of their careers.

 

[BritPat]

 

[BradyFTW!]

We live in a capitalist society. Why on Earth should anyone say what you're asking these players to say?

And the situation is analogous to school teachers, and to any other profession covered under a CBA with defined 'values' for people at different stages of their careers.

precisely because we live in a capitalist society: because every argument about how players don't deserve their money hinges around a civic definition of the word and not an economic one. The best statement a player could make, IMO, would be to get out in front of that and outright grant that that is the case. No football player 'deserves' more than a teacher, in a civic sense, but it's the capitalist notion of worth that defines how much we make, and in accordance to that athletes are worth a ton due to the sheer amount of money that is tied up in the sport.

In short: "I don't make 200 times what you make because what you do is essentially worthless; I make 200 times more because fans like you guys care so much about the sport that you've turned it into a multi-billion dollar industry, and I have a huge impact on my employer's stake in that industry. He's getting his cut either way, and I want to get mine too." A smart athlete would move the conversation as far away from any moral or civic notion of worth as humanly possible, and as quickly as possible; Brady, for example, has done exactly that to a certain extent. Wilfork, by insisting that what he's doing is analogous to the situations of everyday folk, is implicitly doing the opposite.

As for why the analogy doesn't hold up, you missed my point entirely. My point was that it's disingenuous to compare people who want to make more money because they barely make a living wage at the onset of their careers to people who have to suffer the indignities of $7M contracts. Any analogy that pretends that this stuff scales directly, and that athletes are in any way in-touch with the labor struggles of normal people, will inevitably blow up in their faces. It's unnecessary and it's a stupid PR blunder: they can make their case just fine without diminishing the struggles of others.

 

[Metaphors]

A couple of interesting, as well as somewhat misleading, comments:

It's interesting, because he's giving both the "cheap" AND "not cheap" sides ammunition. It's somewhat misleading because, by using the entire decade, he covers for the reality of 2005-2009, which has been less successful than the previous portion of those 10 years, and which has seen the Patriots being less successful than the Colts and Steelers (albeit in different ways).

What part of the statements did you find in any way misleading? I don't have the cap figures for 2005-2009 but I don't recall boatloads of unspent cap space during those years. So while I don't have data to back it up, I don't have the feeling that 2000-2004 was success with deep pockets and 2005-2009 was less success with a tight wallet.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

His comments aren't the least bit misleading if you take them in context. But then you don't appreciate the context...All well run businesses run on a budget and prioritize. This one has performed better over time than any of the other 31 in it's industry. Those who have outspent them significantly in the aggregate in that time frame have nothing to show for it. Some have had more limited success spending more or less than them periodically. Which the law of averages dicates would likely be the case regardless since no one wins all the time...and teambuilding wins championships, not rash spending - or Dan snyder would have the market cornered. 4 trips to the big dance and 3 wins in a decade competing in a 32 team league and absent a HOF caliber starting QB for 2 of those years. Yeah, you've done OK Bob. Just ignore the malcontents.

 

[PatsandTrojans55]

Quote from the article
"Q. How close is a deal with recently-franchised NT Vince Wilfork

A. Look, we're running a business and in a business you have to prioritize. We have a budget. We want to develop a team that puts us in the best position to win. Vince was a priority. And we worked very hard and I think both sides have worked hard and I think we're close and I hope we close something but in the end, he was our priority, the first priority. We have a number of other deals we've got to do. We're going about building our team and I hope in this process we get to close this out. I know he's a very important part of our team and I think we made an offer that can hopefully get it done."



If Mr. Kraft did indeed say "was" as oppose to "is" it could mean a couple of things here.

1. A deal is close and pretty much done with a few kinks to iron out.
But it could be this
2. The Pats have upped their initial offer to something they believe is in the ballpark of Vince's request and now basically the ball is in Vince's court to accept the deal or shop to see if he could get more on the market.

I say this because for the owner to say "was a priority" is past tense.
and he gives the organization an out here when he says "I think both sides have worked hard and I think we're close and I hope we close something but in the end, he was our priority, the first priority."

He says I think we're close and I hope we close it out but in the end he "was" our first priority.

This makes me think the Pats offered their best offer they are willing to offer and are preparing to move to phase two of the offseason deals they need to get done.

So in other words, Vince take our offer it's the best you'll get or shop and see for yourself and get back to us.

This is what is sounds like to me reading the tea leaves here.

 

[Deus Irae]

How have 2005-2009 been anything other than successful? 4 playoff appearances, 2 AFCCGs, 1 SB, the only 16-0 season in history, highest scoring offense in history. I understand that, as fans, we expect more, and that at the end of the day championships are the trump card, so granted, you can argue that the Colts, Steelers, Saints, and Giants have all been more successful over that span.

Still, in terms of success, that still gives the Pats pretty much a slam dunk as the 5th most successful team out of 32 in that time span. I absolutely want more, but to imply that his business model is broken because the Pats haven't won a SB since 2004 is to outright state that at least 28 teams are broken.

I didn't say that the team lousy in the second half of those 10 years or anything. If you don't see a difference between 2001-2004 and 2005-2009, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I, personally, see a clear difference.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I didn't say that the team lousy in the second half of those 10 years or anything. If you don't see a difference between 2001-2004 and 2005-2009, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I, personally, see a clear difference.

Me too. The difference between "one of the best runs in the history of any sport" and "still among top tier in the sport". They went from amazing to good, so the point holds whether you're looking at 2000-2009, 2000-2004, 2000-2009, or whatever other increment you care to carve out.

 

[Deus Irae]

His comments aren't the least bit misleading if you take them in context. But then you don't appreciate the context...All well run businesses run on a budget and prioritize. This one has performed better over time than any of the other 31 in it's industry. Those who have outspent them significantly in the aggregate in that time frame have nothing to show for it. Some have had more limited success spending more or less than them periodically. Which the law of averages dicates would likely be the case regardless since no one wins all the time...and teambuilding wins championships, not rash spending - or Dan snyder would have the market cornered. 4 trips to the big dance and 3 wins in a decade competing in a 32 team league and absent a HOF caliber starting QB for 2 of those years. Yeah, you've done OK Bob. Just ignore the malcontents.

Actually, it's exactly the context around the statements which makes them misleading.