Borges misleads his readers once again

[Miguel]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/02/03/union_prepares_for_fight/?page=2

"An NFLPA source familiar with those numbers said the Patriots had spent only $76 million on player salaries last year despite a cap of $85 million, while Jones spent only $66 million on revenue of more than $300 million. The source produced NFLPA documentation to support those figures. Washington's Daniel Snyder was not lumped in that group because, according to the union's figures, he spends to the cap."

Well, look at
http://www.nflpa.org/PDFs/Shared/20...y_Averages_&_Signing_Trends_November_2005.pdf

Page 9 - The Cowboys are listed as spending $82 million.
Page 13 - The Patriots are listed as spending $94 million.
Page 20 - The Redskins are listed as spending $66 million.

I find it hard to believe that the Patriots spend only $76 million in 2005 when Brady took home $15.5 million, Dillon - $4 million, Green $3.4 million, Colvin - $2.6 million, Mankins - $3 million, Light - $7.5 million, McGinest - $2 million, Seymour - $4.5 million, Starks - $3.5 million, Vrabel - $6.7 million while having Adam playing under his franchise tag of $2.5 million and having 3 players playing under the RFA tag of $1.43 million.

IMO, it is wrong to look at just one year's worth of data to determine if a team is spending up to the cap.

 

[DarrylS]

I would not expect anything less of Borges, between him and Cafardo they continue to contribute to the demise of the Globe. They seize any opportunity to denigrate the Patriots staff.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Thanks, Miguel.

That's an incredible figure, considering how many others are posted all the time that say something completely different (not to mention how desperate the Pats have been to sign players, and how sorry they have been to have to let players go because they couldn't afford them under the cap -- Ty Law, anyone?)

My only point to be fair to Borges (yes, I know, he isn't fair to anyone else, but still ...) is that he is quoting a figure from an "NFLPA source". Of course, he makes no effort to check or question such an obviously wrong number from such an obviously biased source ...

 

[PATSNUTme]

Isn't there always a difference between the cap spending and the actual spending on player salaries?

Bonuses have something to do with it, I think. Also "dead money" has something to do with it, I think.

But the last few years, the Patriots have always been very close to the cap number.

 

[Mainefan]

If I have to chose between trusting Miguel and trusting Borges--well, it isn't even close.

 

[Ring 6]

Its all convoluted. They are talking about 'player salaries' but appear to be talking about payroll expense. Then say Wash 'spends to the cap'.
These are 3 different things made to sound like one.
The Pats spend to the cap. In fact it was said we had to leave ps spots open because we didnt have the cap room left to fill them.

Spending to the cap is all you can do. Depending on the year, salaries and payroll may be higher or lower, because you are limited by the cap, i.e. if you have a higher amount of unamortized bonusses paid out before, your payroll is lower, and in years when you bring in new players with sb, your payroll is higher. That would lead to it being lower the next year.

 

[Pats67]

If I have to chose between trusting Miguel and trusting Borges--well, it isn't even close.

Amen.

I spread the message over to BSMW, hope that's OK. Hopefully Bruce will address it in the day's links.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Amen.

I spread the message over to BSMW, hope that's OK. Hopefully Bruce will address it in the day's links.

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/archives/2006/02/cellar_dwellers_no_more.php

It's done. Amazing how the net has totally kicked tail vs the dinosaur media.

 

[Pats67]

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/archives/2006/02/cellar_dwellers_no_more.php

It's done. Amazing how the net has totally kicked tail vs the dinosaur media.

Yeah, just a few years ago, these things would come and go without ever being addressed. Now with people like Miguel and Bruce, this crap can be refuted and thrown back in the offender's face by 9:30 in the morning. Priceless.

 

[Michael]

Borges has readers?

 

[Miguel]

Today's update

I think that I figure out where Borge's sources came up with their $76 million. They are adding up each player's cap number - "figure of $76 million in actual cap spending on players this season". Ron Borges is doing a disservice to his readers by not pointing out that the union is not including dead money in the calculations or by not pointing out that the Patriots' actual cap number of 82,597,805 is less than the announced cap number of $85.5 million because of incentives reached in 2004.

Borges goes out of his way NOT to acknowledge the role of signing bonus proration.

"More to the point, how can a team claim to have made more than $94 million in cash payments when the cap is $85.5 million? One way is whether the accounting is based on the calendar year or the fiscal year. Another is if some of those cash payments are actually ones made in the previous year and carried over to the next year for accounting purposes." Ron, the Patriots did make over $94 million in cash payments in 2005. How is that possible when their adjusted cap number was $82.5 million?? Because a signing bonus is prorated over the course of the contract. Example, Light's $6.5 million option bonus counted only $1.3 million against the 2005 cap event thoi. It is telling that Ron's source does not dispute the $94 million cash payment figure.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Thanks, Miguel -- it must be galling to have to correct such simple and unprofessional mistakes.

 

[patsfaninpa]

Smartest team in the league...Also, the smartest fans.