I'm beginning to think Kraft did this because he simply believed that the time and energy this took from the team would be detrimental in the long run. From a prepping standpoint, etc., that is probably true, BUT it raises the question as to whether protecting a legacy is more important than being maximally prepared for the future. Here is an interesting question: in an ideal scenario, would you rather the Pats be totally exonerated from these charges and never win another SB in the BB-Brady era, or would you rather win more SBs but continue to have many people question the legitimacy of previous victories?
This is tough call---I would take the second because I believe there is sufficient evidence this was trumped up charge, and even if it wasn't, it didn't make the difference between them winning SBs and not. But it really stinks to have bragging rights taken away because Pats haters reject every prior SB (though many of them do anyway because of their misunderstanding of Spygate). But, I could see where a Kraft and possibly even a BB would say the distraction moving forward is too great, and it is better just to take unjust lumps and prepare for the future. The problem with this, of course, is that 1) the future is harder with draft picks taken away (though they probably weren't going to get those back anyway), and 2) it is really, really hard to win in this league. Given that another SB is by no means assured, it might be worth allowing the distraction and fighting to save your name. I lean this way, but I can see where the other view is not altogether unreasonable. Especially if you consider that the Wells rebuttal has been issued, and none of those go away by Kraft softening his stance. Notice that Kraft never apologized for this rebuttal, though he did kind of qualify it by saying it came in a moment of anger. But the point is, he still got his rebuttal in.
