Belichick only pays for future, not past

[mikey]

http://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/15/etstory.pl?-sec-Sports+fn-fn-burtet.0322-20060322-fn

Belichick only pays for future, not past

(single page view)
(view as multiple pages)

Bill Burt

OK, let's get this straight.

Over the last two off seasons, the New England Patriots have decided to cut ties with the greatest cornerback in franchise history (Ty Law), the most consistent playoff wide receiver in franchise history (David Givens) and now the best and/or most clutch kicker in NFL history (Adam Vinatieri).

Before you run to the bathroom to throw up, again, especially after last night's announcement about Vinatieri-to-the-Colts deal, take a deep breath and repeat after me.

This ... is ... Bill ... Belichick's ... plan.

Didn't clear up the nausea? Still feeling a little queasy, are you?

It is understandable. Vinatieri is not Law or Givens. He was more important than Givens and, unlike Law, always seemed to say the right things.

Not to mention being the difference in all three of the Patriots Super Bowl victories.

Vinatieri was on commercials. He helped sell cars. He sold furniture. He attended many card shows.

The kid from South Dakota, who oozed confidence since the day he first arrived, became a man here. He got married here. He had two kids here. He caught Herschel Walker from behind here. He, most of all, won Super Bowls here.

What you have to understand is it would have been easy to pay Vinatieri $1 more than what the Colts paid him, making him the richest kicker in NFL history. Everyone — and I mean everyone — from Presque Isle, Maine, to Hartford, Conn., would have signed off Belichick's investment.

I don't know if you've been paying attention the last six years, but Belichick doesn't care about the past. When it comes to rewarding players for their past, a drop-kick in a meaningless finale rather than a $5 million bonus will have to do.

......

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

Everyone — and I mean everyone — from Presque Isle, Maine, to Hartford, Conn., would have signed off Belichick's investment.

He did call and ask, and I told him, yes, I would sign off on it. But that was only out of spite because I hate the Dolts so badly.

 

[Brick]

If you do not retain certain "past" players your success in the future becomes less certain. I am not afraid to say it, BB should've signed the greatest clutch kicker in the NFL, even if the Pats overspent it would've have had a miniscule impact on the 20 million under cap figure.

Every year it was a one season deal...no wonder he left.

 

[CrazyDave]

If you do not retain certain "past" players your success in the future becomes less certain. I am not afraid to say it, BB should've signed the greatest clutch kicker in the NFL, even if the Pats overspent it would've have had a miniscule impact on the 20 million under cap figure.

Every year it was a one season deal...no wonder he left.

He chose to leave. He did,nt want to sign with us.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Speaking from a pure business/economic standpoint.

With a season ticket waiting list a mile long...the Patriots can afford to lean to the success/business side.

If we were scraping to have sellouts...like in the 70's / 80's I say McGinest / Vinatieri would still be here...to help sell tickets and keep fans from not renewing.

 

[Brick]

He chose to leave. He did,nt want to sign with us.

The Pats would not have had to break the cap cieling to re sign him. I understand Givens cap hit but this one makes no sense, I won't drink the kool Aid on this one.

 

[PatsSteve1]

http://www.ecnnews.com/cgi-bin/15/etstory.pl?-sec-Sports+fn-fn-burtet.0322-20060322-fn

Belichick only pays for future, not past

* I think a case can be made that BB pays for the present. Not cutting Ty Law after he called him a liar in 2004 and carrying his 10 million cap figure wasn't for the future. That he pays for the year coming up and if after that, the player's cap figure or age or whatever isn't good for what would be the next present year, he's gone.

 

[primetime]

I think we've overvalued Adam's departure and undervalued Givens'. While Adam was a kicker (even for the best, a pretty much replaceable part), Givens was a productive #2 who worked very well in this system and stepped in up in the playoffs. Givens may not have peaked yet, and even if he has will be an effective receiver in the league for the better part of the next decade. Adam's placekicking skills appeared to decline last year and his kickoffs have never been spectacular. Maybe it's time to move on?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think we've overvalued Adam's departure and undervalued Givens'. While Adam was a kicker (even for the best, a pretty much replaceable part), Givens was a productive #2 who worked very well in this system and stepped in up in the playoffs. Givens may not have peaked yet, and even if he has will be an effective receiver in the league for the better part of the next decade. Adam's placekicking skills appeared to decline last year and his kickoffs have never been spectacular. Maybe it's time to move on?

In terms of performance in their roles they were both pretty good, in terms of future potential, Givens clearly has the edge. Either way, they both priced themselves higher then BB's economics degree allowed.

Mikey, nice find.

 

[maverick4]

re

1. Big Willie was the oldest linebacker in the NFL. Can't blame the Pats for not matching a 12M/3yr deal.

2. Adam was only 4 for 8 in FG's over 40 yards last year. There were a few times when Belichick didn't go for a long field goal and tried to convert a 4th down instead. The Colts just overpaid for a kicker with diminishing range.

3. Givens was a solid #2, I can't say anything bad about him. But he was set on going home to Texas, before the Titans offered him almost 5million a year for 5 years.

How can the front office be blamed for not resigning these guys? This is what happens to underpaid/paid players who win superbowls.

This is also what happens when all of your old coaches end up working in the same division or conference, and want to over-pay to bring their old players over.

Bill Belichick is about to re-tool for the next 3 Superbowl run. The bandwagon is about to get rolling, and I'm taking names this time.

.

 

[Pats726]

If you do not retain certain "past" players your success in the future becomes less certain. I am not afraid to say it, BB should've signed the greatest clutch kicker in the NFL, even if the Pats overspent it would've have had a miniscule impact on the 20 million under cap figure.

Every year it was a one season deal...no wonder he left.

I think you are missing the point..The future is less certain when a player is deemed on the downside and there is no doubt that AV is more on the downside now. But what you said is true IF those players who have made past success are still going to be successful in the future...THAT is the key!!
WHat you are missing here. Also what you miss is looking at a total picture of money and NOT a percentage of what the team had slated for AV. Say they had 2 million slated and it looks like AV with SB will get 3 million. That is 50% more than they wanted to pay. A much larger percentage. They do not make exceptions..once you do, everyone wants to be an exception. Brady is not for good reason...and it liooks like SEymour may not either. ANother problem may be AV's back. Given that it may at some point in the near future be a problem, the Pats did not want to gurantee that much money up front. The Colts did. I feel sad that he is gone, but sometimes looking to be a dynasty tough decisions have to be made.