Okay, the thing about the 6s? Come on dudes. Don't get superstitious.
Here's why I'm an optimist the Pats will pay on the order of the top bid for Randy (though I agree something in the 6s apy ain't gonna do it):
There's a BB/Pioli tenet from way back: When you find a talent who literally changes the way the game is played, you pay him, and you build around him. See Lawrence Taylor. Tom Brady. At the time (and probably again, soon), Richard Seymour.
The Pats are smart, not cheap. But part of the smartness part means figuring out the players who do not change the way the game is played, and paying them in a way that retains a large middle class.
There are more and more present-day Pats stars via free agency. This might be just the inevitable result of a team with some vet talent at highly paid positions (their cap distribution around 2001-2003 was much flatter, except the Milloys and Laws of the world.) Now we've got at least a half dozen guys in the bright-but-not-super- star price range. Meanwhile, cap inflation is providing us some relief. That's being thrown toward both the veteran add-ons and the middle class, but if you look at how the team is paid, there's an obvious widening of the gap. I don't think there was an original model of a big middle class and very few superstars; I think that was a misinterpreted affectation of (team) youth. But I also think we've succeeded because of quality depth in the past.
Here's what I see as the sort of zero sum connundrum for us: What are the choices, over, say, 5 years?
1) change the distribution of the $ pool available to WR versus other starting positions. Easy choice when you phrase it as Moss versus (your favorite other Pat not named Brady here). More difficult when you phrase it as $10M-$20M to find elsewhere every year, based on the increased emphasis on WRs in general.
2) Or, change the distribution of outlays to starters versus outlays to depth positions. So you ditch the principle of middle class quality depth.
3) Depend on huge success in the draft, which, after all, can not be relied on (but can be tried,) and let some name vets go. This is pretty much a synonym for thinning out elsewhere on the team, and possibily thinning out depth as well, or
4) Leverage the fact of ongoing rapid cap inflation, cashing in on the almost guaranteed huge (cap) money supply in general, and go on the spending spree earlier rather than later. After all, in an inflationary world, holding onto a dollar is a pretty sketchy proposition, whereas spending profligately may actually pay benefits, since every dollar today might be worth 75 cents tomorrow.
Taking number 4 would militate toward what will look like insanely irresponsible behavior, making some deals with the devil, and standing pat in later years. I honestly don't think (4) is the direction we're going, because the risk is loaded on the organization when you go down that road. You pay with the dollar now, knowing you're only paying 75 cents in tomorrow's money... but what if you gave today's dollars to a guy who can't stay healthy or get open anymore?
Well, we built in the "prove-it" years for all our new acquisitions but Welker, to cut down this risk. But now that they've proven it they're not the huge discount deals they'd be "sight unseen".
Is (4) in effect? Are we now about to bonus the hell out of Dante, pay (perhaps) $10+m/annum to Randy, negotiate Washington down a peg to keep him around?
Or have we got our answer as to "which will stick" (assuming the season continues something like it's begun)? In other words, is the WR corps the final answer to the question of "whither the Pats"?
I doubt we'd get objections this year. When we've fallen a peg or two more on D -- if that happens -- that might be another story. I take it we're all good with Asante leaving? How about one of the D-linemen we know and love, down the road? Or maybe Rosie Colvin or Mike Vrabel? Or maybe we go back to musical chairs at O-line, waiting to gel for a few games each season? Or is it a matter of depth erosion?
I know I keep running into guys selling me the NFL version of voodoo economics. But beyond the "discount" idea (which just is not in effect for most players past a certain marginal amount,) there is a zero-sum aspect to what the front office does.
Yes the pie is getting bigger, but it's not doubling or tripling (though our outlays at WR are.) In the microcosm, we got away with murder at the position for 2007... but in the macrocosm, it would cost us to keep this group together (even minus Washington, which is almost certain to happen, at least in terms of Washington-as-currently-structured.)
Again: nice problems to have. We have received immediate overwhelming impact especially from Randy and also from Wes. We are looking at gradual problems in association with future hits. These are something the FO is obviously much better at handling than we are.
I'm actually leaning toward the notion of Stallworth being gone in 2008, but again, who knows. Also the second half of the season would have a lot to do with that.
It's tempting to be psychotically attached to all 3 of the big guns, and maybe the team plans on keeping them all. It'll certainly make for an exciting team on offense, assuming the integrity of the O line allows plays to develop.
I'm just saying that there's no free lunch. If you liked that Pats D that didn't smother, didn't dominate, but just damn well beat everybody... well, maybe that's a nostalgic memory. We're going down the road to the old Colts model (early 2000s.) No we're not there yet, it's just where the structure of the team's headed.
Maybe it's the right time to go there. Likely, if we go, that's the calculation... but that's hard to do without some compunction.
PFnV
