Winning Super Bowl may cause a NFL monopoly

[Swingline747]

Here's why . . .

Patriots are a team that attracts players that want to win a ring. Veteran players from on the team itself as well as from the league have demonstrated they are willing to play for for the Patriots for less than market value.

So now the Patriots have a system in place where they are attracting top talent yet do not have to pay what others would need to pay for it by offering a non-salary cap fringe benefit of having a solid chance at a championship. This reminds me of Microsoft back in the mid '90's and google of today. Those companies didn't pay top dollar in salaries but they gave you stock options that could make you very successful. The Pats don't give you options instead they give you a solid chance of a trophy every year.

So while there will always be a few players that have their 'rings' and now want to get some cash elsewhere they will leave; but the flip side is there is basically an equivalent amount of players with talent that already made their cash and want a trophy. Hence they look towards playing for the Patriots. These are the players that want to win and are required to check their attitude at the door and do exactly as the coach tells them to. And oh yes, Bill much prefers veteran players over younger ones who are smart and can play in his complex schemes.

The only way this formula does not work is if the Patriots don't make a serious push to the championship. Last year they were one play away from another trophy. Even look at the Colts, obviously they won the championship last season, but they lost people and no one really took a big pay cut to go play for them; they came to NE instead.

Kraft is running this organization like a company aspiring to be a monopoly in its industry. Best yet is no other team can even copy this strategy if they don't win the Super Bowl and show consistently each year they are making a deep push.

After another successful season and after we lose a few players to retirement and free agency look carefully at the quality veteran players knocking at the Patriots door. If the veteran players come in and at less then market value . . . a NFL monopoly will have been born with no stopping it in sight.

 

[oldskool138]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Even look at the Colts, obviously they won the championship last season, but they lost people and no one really took a big pay cut to go play for them; they came to NE instead.

Who that was on the Colts last year plays for the Pats now?

Interesting point but the Colts are paying the 1A QB in the league and the top WR and TE. Their cap can't support the kind of depth that the Pats have right now. The Pats (usually) don't look for big name players...just roll-players.

BTW, the Pats will be coming up on some cap issues here in the near future.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

It's no different than it has been. Veterans without a ring like Rodney and Seau will play here at a cheap price - but veterans with rings, like Asante, will leave with their rings and a shrug. It helps bring cheap veterans in but makes it easy for guys like Givens, Branch and Graham to leave.

 

[BionicPatriot]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Here's why . . .

Patriots are a team that attracts players that want to win a ring. Veteran players from on the team itself as well as from the league have demonstrated they are willing to play for for the Patriots for less than market value.

So now the Patriots have a system in place where they are attracting top talent yet do not have to pay what others would need to pay for it by offering a non-salary cap fringe benefit of having a solid chance at a championship. This reminds me of Microsoft back in the mid '90's and google of today. Those companies didn't pay top dollar in salaries but they gave you stock options that could make you very successful. The Pats don't give you options instead they give you a solid chance of a trophy every year.

So while there will always be a few players that have their 'rings' and now want to get some cash elsewhere they will leave; but the flip side is there is basically an equivalent amount of players with talent that already made their cash and want a trophy. Hence they look towards playing for the Patriots. These are the players that want to win and are required to check their attitude at the door and do exactly as the coach tells them to. And oh yes, Bill much prefers veteran players over younger ones who are smart and can play in his complex schemes.

The only way this formula does not work is if the Patriots don't make a serious push to the championship. Last year they were one play away from another trophy. Even look at the Colts, obviously they won the championship last season, but they lost people and no one really took a big pay cut to go play for them; they came to NE instead.

Kraft is running this organization like a company aspiring to be a monopoly in its industry. Best yet is no other team can even copy this strategy if they don't win the Super Bowl and show consistently each year they are making a deep push.

After another successful season and after we lose a few players to retirement and free agency look carefully at the quality veteran players knocking at the Patriots door. If the veteran players come in and at less then market value . . . a NFL monopoly will have been born with no stopping it in sight.

Dude, do you really think all the good vets are gonna come here and ignore all the money? No goddamn way, it didn't happen when we won 3 superbowls, it wont happen now. However, the way some homers on this board can be, just about anyone who walks through the door will be a great vet.

 

[ALP]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

i believe there is something to the theory....and that yes, it can selfsustain...

it is a very brilliant idea....but happens when we need the vet, elite, expensive playmakers?


well have to wait and see eh?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

It's no different than it has been. Veterans without a ring like Rodney and Seau will play here at a cheap price - but veterans with rings, like Asante, will leave with their rings and a shrug. It helps bring cheap veterans in but makes it easy for guys like Givens, Branch and Graham to leave.

All in all we'll have some choices to make between now and '010.

I would not assume that Asante will be one of those choices, though his value to the team may be exceeded by his value on the free market. Last off-season, I was one who very much doubted Asante's worth. He's a proven commodity now, moreso than at the end of 06. That has a value in and of itself. It may be that we make do with a comparatively porous secondary based on what others will pay to bring him on-board. It may also be that the team opens the piggy-bank and Asante's guys come down in their demands (or at least hold even,) to the point where we hire him on long-term, in the "exceptional player" category. We'll have to wait and see what the offseason negotiations bring. We clearly have to get Moss done as well, unless all the happy smiles go away once the season is over and the off-field side begins, and he becomes dead set on an exorbitant deal.

Success did breed success in this off-season, but so did savvy risk-management. We could also phrase this as "guessing right." We indemnified ourselves against the possibility of the Bad Randy, while making the Good Randy an incredible bargain on a one-year basis. Randy got his career jump-started, after he was written off by the league. The Pats half-got and half-made the league's best receiver. Randy will get his ring. All indications are that he and the team will be able to both give a little to get a lot, and keep him on-board.

We can afford both. What we can't afford is both of these guys plus every other luxury out there. Tellya what else: Stallworth will be asked to restructure to stay with the team. Washington will have to do likewise if we even retain him. Gaffney will have to stay relatively cheap. We've locked in Welker to a brilliant deal, from the team's point of view. He's cheap for the long haul.

The sky's not falling, and we're not going into some kind of endless feedback loop of super bowls either. Last season was a perfect storm. Everybody suddenly wanted to join the team and get us another ring. The previous season, people were making snide remarks like "sure I could play for the Patriots for five dollars." Fashionable attitudinal trends are not going to be a panacea for the Patriots.

We've all talked about how the Pats replenish linebackers through free agency. Well, as free agency options get constrained, it becomes that much more incumbent on the Belichick/Pioli FA brain trust to get FA bargains especially at LB. It will be great if drafted linebacker talent ever becomes a big part of the mix, but so far no good (unless you go back to Parcell/Grier.)

It is what it is, to coin a phrase

PFnV

 

[oldskool138]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

All in all we'll have some choices to make between now and '010.

Wow! '010 is like in 1,000 years! That is a long time.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Wow! '010 is like in 1,000 years! That is a long time.

Blink of an eye, m'boy, blink of an eye... same period of time since our last Lombardi Trophy. I still have trouble when someone refers to the Colts as the "champs"... sounds weird LOL

 

[oldskool138]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Blink of an eye, m'boy, blink of an eye... same period of time since our last Lombardi Trophy. I still have trouble when someone refers to the Colts as the "champs"... sounds weird LOL

No it really! 10010 or 20010 (abbreviated '010) is a long ways from now. They probably won't have football that far in the future.

 

[KoolAidDrinker]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Here's why . . .

Patriots are a team that attracts players that want to win a ring. Veteran players from on the team itself as well as from the league have demonstrated they are willing to play for for the Patriots for less than market value.

So now the Patriots have a system in place where they are attracting top talent yet do not have to pay what others would need to pay for it by offering a non-salary cap fringe benefit of having a solid chance at a championship. ...

The only way this formula does not work is if the Patriots don't make a serious push to the championship. Last year they were one play away from another trophy. ...

Kraft is running this organization like a company aspiring to be a monopoly in its industry. Best yet is no other team can even copy this strategy if they don't win the Super Bowl and show consistently each year they are making a deep push.

After another successful season and after we lose a few players to retirement and free agency look carefully at the quality veteran players knocking at the Patriots door. If the veteran players come in and at less then market value . . . a NFL monopoly will have been born with no stopping it in sight.

I've thought the same thing, but could not have put it in words as well as this. This is a masterful salary-cap strategy and the Pats appear to be the only team capable of executing it in this era.

I'm shocked that the illustrious "mediots" haven't figured this out yet!

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

I don't think we have a monopoly. But the rich will get richer.

Moss was willing to go to Green bay or NE. And had he maybe Greenbay would be 15-0 right now, instead of the NE. Moss might not be willing to go to SF if they offer him twice the what the Pats do, but if Greenbay offers him 10-15% more than the Pats he might have Farve throwing the ball to him next year.

Adam V was willing to leave the Pats for the Colts, he didn't go to the Lions who also have a dome. And it is not like you can really say one team (Pats/Colts) has big advantage over the other.

Jason Taylor is tired of being a Dolphin. I suspect he would be happy as a Colt, Pat, Packer, or Cowboy. But I doubt he would take a pay cut to become a Jet.

And we might have a disadvantage. Some players might want to make a SB run with the Colts where there is zero chance of lingering spygate taint on the ring. Note: I am not saying the wins are tainted, just that the annoyance from others perceptions might be discouragement.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Swingline I totally agree except for one part, where you give all the credit to Kraft in creating this monopoly, when it is all Belichick/Pioli.

Kraft is a good owner, but players come here because of Bill Belichick, not Bob Kraft. If Belichick moved to another team, the monopoly scenario you described would follow Belichick there.

 

[aluminum seats]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Dude, do you really think all the good vets are gonna come here and ignore all the money? No goddamn way, it didn't happen when we won 3 superbowls, it wont happen now. However, the way some homers on this board can be, just about anyone who walks through the door will be a great vet.

I don't think he suggested that "all" good vets would come to N.E. Of course not. But the sustained success unquestionably makes the Pats a more appealing destination for veterans who want to experience a championship. It's another successful ingredient.

Teams at the top need what the Patriots have--the owner, the player personnel guy, the coach, and the qb. If you have that, you're going to be in the mix year after year. The only one of the 4 that ever seems threatened is the player guy--Pioli. Because all it takes is a couple of years of bad player management and the slide commences. So far so great for this group.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

No it really! 10010 or 20010 (abbreviated '010) is a long ways from now. They probably won't have football that far in the future.

In the year twenty-oh-ten
Bill's gonna shake his mighty head
He'll either say I'm pleased with what's been
Or tear it down, and start again...

- Zager and Evans

 

[Swingline747]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Maverick,

I give credit to Kraft first because he saw some genius in Belichick and also realized that Bill also realized that coaching in a salary-cap era would take considerable evaluation of talent and value of positions. Kraft negotiated to get Bill and the rest is history.

Similarly most teams are looking to make a 'push' for a couple of years then realize they will have to rebuild. Kraft, Pioli, Bill, et al have built an organization to be competitive for the championship every year. Thus my thinking we have a monopoly in the making.

 

[363839]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Not only do I agree with the OP, but I also think it may have been
part of the reason for the smear campaign conducted by the media
and the NFL to justify taking a draft pick.

Yes, I believe that whole thing was a set up in an attempt to weaken this franchise.

 

[onegameatatime]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

This effect has some value, but it might be overrated locally.

Jevon Walker and Derrick Mason both turned down the Pats and I believe for similar money elsewhere. There will always be people who decide for different reasons and not take the absolute top dollar in various places.

"Monopoly" way overstates the case. Small advantage, maybe.

 

[shakadave]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Maverick,
Thus my thinking we have a monopoly in the making.

I think Swingline's entire theory is right, and has been happening for a few years already. Monopoly may be a strong word, since even this year the Colts could sneak in and take it from us, and I hate the d-word although it will look appropriate if we win in February.

Players who leave us are overvalued due to the team's success, and this negates some of the effect of drawing underpriced veterans. Still, the total effect is in our favor. Especially considering that the players who value winning so highly help us win.

 

[DaedalusX]

Re: Winning SuperBowl may cause a NFL monopoly

Patriots put brainpower into their cap

The Kraft family was in its third year of ownership at the time, and felt strongly about the importance of a salary cap. Robert Kraft had said in the past that his family wouldn't have bought the Patriots if a cap wasn't in place.

The Krafts felt the cap ensured that any team could compete if it was managed the right way.

"We understood the cap back in '94, but had no football knowledge," recalled Jonathan Kraft. "Really, the cap is just a series of equations, doing math and accounting, but if you don't have the ability to put football and planning on top of it, it's meaningless.

"I think that's what makes the relationship with Bill and Scott so special. They have tremendous football knowledge, and they get the cap, the consequences of the cap, the benefits of the cap, and they understood the value system dictated by the cap."

In other words, Kraft bought the Patriots because he believed he could create a monopoly in the league by exploiting the cap. The league wanted to create parity. Kraft, Belichick and Pioli believe it sowed the seeds of an unending dynasty for whoever was smart enough to see it first.

 

[sdaniels7114]

I believe in the premise of this thread, I just think its counter-balanced by the fact that winners get their rosters picked over more than losers. Who's more valuable, the guy with the rings or the guy without, assuming the stats are the same? Besides there's the fact that winners are more famous. This means that a team that needs some breathing room to develop may bring in a 'name' rather than the best possible player because the fans recognize the name and will continue to support the team during rebuilding on the assumption that at least the team is trying.