Are the Patriots cheap? The evidence here says no

[BradfordPatsFan]

According to Dan Pompei of NFP, most scouts and assistants have language in their contracts which state that in the event of a lock out they must take 25-50% pay cuts. However, the Patriots are among the few teams NOT to require this of their scouts who will be required to work as normal even through the lock out.


LINK

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Are the Patriots Cheap? The evidence here says no.

I would never say they're cheap at all. That's just a false accusation on the part of the people that hate the team. They've been willing to pay, and pay large, to more than a few people since Kraft has owned the team. With that said, though, they also do not spend to the limit every year either.

 

[signbabybrady]

Re: Are the Patriots Cheap? The evidence here says no.

I wonder what the average salary of a scout is throughout the league and the pats....I would imagine these guys are not getting paid more than an average person maybe even less so this would be a real tough thing to manage.

good for the pats for doing this.

and I think the myth is so wrong.

 

[BPF]

Re: Are the Patriots Cheap? The evidence here says no.

According to Dan Pompei of NFP, most scouts and assistants have language in their contracts which state that in the event of a lock out they must take 25-50% pay cuts. However, the Patriots are among the few teams NOT to require this of their scouts who will be required to work as normal even through the lock out.


LINK

yeah, I posted this in draft section: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...13/350696-interesting-thing-i-didnt-know.html

Good point.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Re: Are the Patriots Cheap? The evidence here says no.

I would never say they're cheap at all. That's just a false accusation on the part of the people that hate the team. They've been willing to pay, and pay large, to more than a few people since Kraft has owned the team. With that said, though, they also do not spend to the limit every year either.

OTOH, Kraft has, IIRC, never come anywhere close to the salary floor in the CBA, AND the Patriots carried money over from year to year, so it's not like he's been pocketing millions from the cap on a yearly basis, either.

 

[Fixit]

It's gotta be pretty hard to be cheap and still be the team of the decade and range from division champ to Superbowl contender every season.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Re: Are the Patriots Cheap? The evidence here says no.

OTOH, Kraft has, IIRC, never come anywhere close to the salary floor in the CBA, AND the Patriots carried money over from year to year, so it's not like he's been pocketing millions from the cap on a yearly basis, either.

I think I read somewhere (here?) a few years back a statement which said that the Patriots do not spend right up to the salary cap for injury-replacement purposes. BB and co. want to be able to field competent replacements in case of injury. Most injury replacements are on prorated veteran minimum deals but some years a team will be riddled with injuries and have to keep adding to their payroll. Being under the cap does help that.

 

[Gwedd]

Re: Are the Patriots Cheap? The evidence here says no.

I think I read somewhere (here?) a few years back a statement which said that the Patriots do not spend right up to the salary cap for injury-replacement purposes. BB and co. want to be able to field competent replacements in case of injury. Most injury replacements are on prorated veteran minimum deals but some years a team will be riddled with injuries and have to keep adding to their payroll. Being under the cap does help that.

Yup. It's called being responsible. Frugal doesn't mean cheap. It means planning for the "what if" scenarios.

 

[jmt57]

I think the whole 'Pats are cheap/Kraft is cheap' comes from two sources: opposing fans and never-satisfied Pats fans who are looking for something or anything to support their agenda.

I can recall in 2001 nearly the entire country cheered the Pats on. By the time the Pats were playing for the AFCCG two years later the sentiment had turned; I can recall people already saying 'I'm sick of the Pats winning all the time'. From there people just looked for more reasons to back up their dislike because most are not honest enough to admit it is simply because they want someone else to win. The result was focus on Belichick's attire, second guessing their philosophy for adding Dillon to the team, etc. When the Pats stuck to their philosophy in regards to players and the salary cap, that gave ammunition to opposing fans that the Ptas were cold, heartless, not loyal, and cheap when they let well known veterans sign with another team as free agents.

The other part of the Pats/Kraft being cheap comes about from the simplistic focus on high priced players. If a team does not extend or resign a high priced veteran free agent, there are going to be some that immediately labe the team and ownership cheap. The Pats come more under that microscope because they are more in the public eye due to their success, and also because their business philosophy in regards to the cap probably results in more players being let go. Most that say words to that effect do not take the cap or budgets into consideration, and live in a make believe world where all players should be paid whatever they want, stay as long as they want, and at the same time the team should win a championship every year.

The thing is what is not looked at in those discussions is how the Pats spread the money throughout the entire roster. The thing is, a team not resigning a $5 million/year starter is newsworthy; a team not re-signing two or three $1 or $2 million/year players is not nearly as newsworthy.

We also notice this more because (a) we are pats fans, and (b) the Pats are relevant. For example, does anybody recall any talk about the Bucs being cheap when Warren Sapp and John Lynch finished their careers elsewhere, or when they cut Derrick Brooks? Did anybody blast the Ravens for letting Bart Scott go? The Jets were lauded for picking up LaDainian Tomlinson, but did anybody blast the Chargers for being cheap for letting LdT walk?

Bottom line is that the vast majority of the 'Kraft is cheap' talk comes from people with an agenda: most typically from people looking to get under the skin of Pats fans. Almost all of that commentary is without merit.

 

[ausbacker]

I think the whole 'Pats are cheap/Kraft is cheap' comes from two sources: opposing fans and never-satisfied Pats fans who are looking for something or anything to support their agenda.

I can recall in 2001 nearly the entire country cheered the Pats on. By the time the Pats were playing for the AFCCG two years later the sentiment had turned; I can recall people already saying 'I'm sick of the Pats winning all the time'. From there people just looked for more reasons to back up their dislike because most are not honest enough to admit it is simply because they want someone else to win. The result was focus on Belichick's attire, second guessing their philosophy for adding Dillon to the team, etc. When the Pats stuck to their philosophy in regards to players and the salary cap, that gave ammunition to opposing fans that the Ptas were cold, heartless, not loyal, and cheap when they let well known veterans sign with another team as free agents.

The other part of the Pats/Kraft being cheap comes about from the simplistic focus on high priced players. If a team does not extend or resign a high priced veteran free agent, there are going to be some that immediately labe the team and ownership cheap. The Pats come more under that microscope because they are more in the public eye due to their success, and also because their business philosophy in regards to the cap probably results in more players being let go. Most that say words to that effect do not take the cap or budgets into consideration, and live in a make believe world where all players should be paid whatever they want, stay as long as they want, and at the same time the team should win a championship every year.

The thing is what is not looked at in those discussions is how the Pats spread the money throughout the entire roster. The thing is, a team not resigning a $5 million/year starter is newsworthy; a team not re-signing two or three $1 or $2 million/year players is not nearly as newsworthy.

We also notice this more because (a) we are pats fans, and (b) the Pats are relevant. For example, does anybody recall any talk about the Bucs being cheap when Warren Sapp and John Lynch finished their careers elsewhere, or when they cut Derrick Brooks? Did anybody blast the Ravens for letting Bart Scott go? The Jets were lauded for picking up LaDainian Tomlinson, but did anybody blast the Chargers for being cheap for letting LdT walk?

Bottom line is that the vast majority of the 'Kraft is cheap' talk comes from people with an agenda: most typically from people looking to get under the skin of Pats fans. Almost all of that commentary is without merit.

A lot of it comes from fans wanting almost every big ticket free agent on board at Foxboro is a large part of the misconception that the Patriots are cheap. I forget how many times the "we could have had this player for these picks and paid them that much" comes up.

Great teams aren't built that way and never have been.. unless there's no salary cap and you can simply buy whoever you want. The reality is in systems where that operates, there's only one team that can win it all every year too.

 

[DarrylS]

The whole "cheap" thing makes me nutz, phrases like wise business decisions or depth of the squad are more appropo...

Have continually been impressed by the Kraft family and their commitment to this team and the fans.. never noticed anything "cheap"....

 

[MoLewisrocks]

A lot of it comes from fans wanting almost every big ticket free agent on board at Foxboro is a large part of the misconception that the Patriots are cheap. I forget how many times the "we could have had this player for these picks and paid them that much" comes up.

Great teams aren't built that way and never have been.. unless there's no salary cap and you can simply buy whoever you want. The reality is in systems where that operates, there's only one team that can win it all every year too.

I think the bulk of it comes from a disgruntled, frustrated media whose real issue is that this organization is tight (with money, access, information...) and doesn't make their jobs easier by making flashy signings or stupid signings or spewing (including discouraging their players from spewing) titilating sound bites. And that starts with the locals whose tenor towards this team sets the tone for the nationals. It's as silly as I think they impacted Cassel's value come tag time because they had planted the seeds of doubt about him so deeply no one but the guys who knew better were prepared to grab him...

They resent our winning because we somehow did it without them (selling the outfit) and to some extent despite them. They need organizations to believe on some level you need the media in your corner to win. And in all too many cases you do need the media to save your job because you're as incompetent as most of them are (I think that's where bonds form). Guys like Borges (and Carafdo and Mannix and Hobson) who fully expected the next Will McDonough to emerge from their ranks a decade ago, told us out of the gate that Kraft was meddlesome and in over his head fanboy owner and made a huge mistake trading a draft pick for a psycho loser HC...who promptly won it all and cleaned house of their toady's in the process. So then Borges, who was the only survivor in that lot and thereafter a HOF voter, told us and his HOF voting peers and the next generation of Boston mediots, just you wait, this bs system that asks players to subjugate ego for the greater good and care more about winning than getting every last dollar and didn't blow smoke up it's best talent's ass would wear so thin no one would come here. Then they won two more rings and the nationals got bored with covering the tight ship, too. Just like competitors who got so jealous one of them tried to take it down off the field. Remember the glee with which Mediots savored that story, only to have this team go to another superbowl in it's wake, this time undefeated in the face of the most unrelenting, intense media scrutiny ever... They took perverse pleasure in the fact we didn't win. Almost made up for being finally vindicated when a former employee's tall tales of taping walkthroughs turned out to be bull****...

Even in 2008 when Brady (who according to mediots either made BB or visa versa) went down this team won 11 games with a QB who hadn't started since HS and whom the local media had determined was a slam dunk camp cut. Drives them batty. They will simply keep picking at this organization and it's HC like their own personal scab in hopes of drawing blood probably until the day he leaves. In their fondest dreams it will be because they finally bested him...

 

[fgssand]

I think the bulk of it comes from a disgruntled, frustrated media whose real issue is that this organization is tight (with money, access, information...) and doesn't make their jobs easier by making flashy signings or stupid signings or spewing (including discouraging their players from spewing) titilating sound bites. And that starts with the locals whose tenor towards this team sets the tone for the nationals. It's as silly as I think they impacted Cassel's value come tag time because they had planted the seeds of doubt about him so deeply no one but the guys who knew better were prepared to grab him...

They resent our winning because we somehow did it without them (selling the outfit) and to some extent despite them. They need organizations to believe on some level you need the media in your corner to win. And in all too many cases you do need the media to save your job because you're as incompetent as most of them are (I think that's where bonds form). Guys like Borges (and Carafdo and Mannix and Hobson) who fully expected the next Will McDonough to emerge from their ranks a decade ago, told us out of the gate that Kraft was meddlesome and in over his head fanboy owner and made a huge mistake trading a draft pick for a psycho loser HC...who promptly won it all and cleaned house of their toady's in the process. So then Borges, who was the only survivor in that lot and thereafter a HOF voter, told us and his HOF voting peers and the next generation of Boston mediots, just you wait, this bs system that asks players to subjugate ego for the greater good and care more about winning than getting every last dollar and didn't blow smoke up it's best talent's ass would wear so thin no one would come here. Then they won two more rings and the nationals got bored with covering the tight ship, too. Just like competitors who got so jealous one of them tried to take it down off the field. Remember the glee with which Mediots savored that story, only to have this team go to another superbowl in it's wake, this time undefeated in the face of the most unrelenting, intense media scrutiny ever... They took perverse pleasure in the fact we didn't win. Almost made up for being finally vindicated when a former employee's tall tales of taping walkthroughs turned out to be bull****...

Even in 2008 when Brady (who according to mediots either made BB or visa versa) went down this team won 11 games with a QB who hadn't started since HS and whom the local media had determined was a slam dunk camp cut. Drives them batty. They will simply keep picking at this organization and it's HC like their own personal scab in hopes of drawing blood probably until the day he leaves. In their fondest dreams it will be because they finally bested him...

Post of the day if not the summer, right there!

 

[NYCPatsFan]

I think the whole 'Pats are cheap/Kraft is cheap' comes from two sources: opposing fans and never-satisfied Pats fans who are looking for something or anything to support their agenda.

.....

Bottom line is that the vast majority of the 'Kraft is cheap' talk comes from people with an agenda: most typically from people looking to get under the skin of Pats fans. Almost all of that commentary is without merit.

Aren't you forgetting that some of the players, both former and current Pats, made such statements? That carries more weight than comments from the fans.

And of course, the biggest reason for that myth to exist: the 'experts' in the media who just prefer to repeat the claim without researching about it. So, I agree with your conclusion but not with the start.

 

[Fencer]

This uncapped year is the first time it's even made sense to judge the Pats' cheapness or lack thereof based on their player-pay decisions.

Facilities, etc.? First-class.

Coaches' salaries? Well, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely that below BB the budget isn't the highest.

I'd say they're neither spendthrift nor cheap.

 

[TrueBeliever]

It's gotta be pretty hard to be cheap and still be the team of the decade and range from division champ to Superbowl contender every season.

That's worth a +1 right there.

With the passing of George Steinbrenner in recent memory, I am reminded of how some haters like to think of the Patriots as "the Yankees of the NFL." The difference, of course, is that people who criticize the Yankees for spending like crazy on players are probably the same ones who hate on the Pats for NOT spending money like crazy on players.

 

[signbabybrady]

Coaches' salaries? Well, we don't know for sure, but it seems likely that below BB the budget isn't the highest.

Since BB has chose to hire from within this is likely true of the Cooridinators (thru the years and the defactos ones now) But I would tend to guess that Charlie and Romeo were very well compensated for their time here. Also I would think, with a recent story that Patriots informed their scouts they will not have their pay cut in a lock out year which apparently is teams rights, that they pay them well to begin with.

 

[Synovia]

Re: Are the Patriots Cheap? The evidence here says no.

I think I read somewhere (here?) a few years back a statement which said that the Patriots do not spend right up to the salary cap for injury-replacement purposes. BB and co. want to be able to field competent replacements in case of injury. Most injury replacements are on prorated veteran minimum deals but some years a team will be riddled with injuries and have to keep adding to their payroll. Being under the cap does help that.

During the season, you're correct. Generally though, by the playoffs, they've renegotiated someone's deal that puts them within $10K of the cap. (sometimes just carrying it forward). They spend everything the NFL allows them to.

 

[Synovia]

Aren't you forgetting that some of the players, both former and current Pats, made such statements? That carries more weight than what comments from the fans.

Please name a team for me that has never had a player leave for more money, or called the old team cheap. Please.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Please name a team for me that has never had a player leave for more money, or called the old team cheap. Please.

don't understand your question considering that my comment was about departing/current players calling the pats cheap. Where do I say that players never leave for more money?