Basically drafting well is what gets you marquee players virtually for free, for a few years. We've hit on Samuel, though he only got good in his contract year, as well as Warren, Wilfork, Seymour, and, it seems, Maroney. For a few years (coincidentally, the Super Bowl run,) our cap situation was ridiculously good, because we hit the megamillions jackpot with Brady. Then the Pats FO made sure they did not get too attached to guys not worth the coin they were demanding (Law, Milloy, Branch), in the eyes of the FO. Obviously the Colts had the same feeling about, for instance, Cato June. Super Bowls exaccerbate the trend, since people will pay a bit more for a guy with a ring, on the theory, evidently, that there's a contagious condition called Lombardism, which leads people to win super bowls because a guy with a ring is in town (like Branch, Givens, Law, Milloy, Vinatie... oh never mind that last one.)
As much as it galls us, the Colts are doing pretty much what we did, and refusing to be held hostage by contract year players that just scored a ring. They have retirements and departures, and they're biting the bullet and looking to do without. I doubt they make it. It was unexpected that the Pats could. Either a new law is in place, whereby teams get better by subtracting after a super bowl run, or the Pats case was the exception not the rule. I think the latter will prove to be the case.
People mention Harrison, Wayne, Manning, Freeney, et al.... The contrast to the Pats use to be eye-popping, but now instead of two or three guys counting at or north of three mill a year, the Pats have a positively Indianapolian 9 guys. Now granted, the cap is 40% higher than in 2002 (for instance.) But adjusting for inflation just makes it 9 players instead of 6.
These numbers are always in flux, because the total cash a guy is going to make has little to do with how you apply it to the cap. Tom Brady isn't suddenly getting something like 40% less money this year... he's just getting it in later years. He's not going to double his money next year because he's worth twice as much... he just pushed that money forward to get Randy on board. But overall, the Pats have bit the bullet and abandoned the "special cap hits for special players" rule.
How is this happening? Simple. In 2001-2004, we had a lot of JAGS and a lot of diamonds in the rough. In 2007, we have a lot of veterans. We're doing a lot to limit the financial damage of emphasizing veteran pickups. I really like that Welker - the relatively inexpensive WR pickup - got the guaranteed money, while the marquee players all got "prove-it" years. But those "prove-it" years still ain't cheap compared with a talented rookie or 2nd-year player (especially if that young player was not a high-round pick.)
I use to think there was a philosophy that kept the Pats in a certain mold, but that seems to be a philosophy that's honored in the breach, as time goes by (and as an accelerated infusion of new cap money for 5 years suggests locking up talented players at "cheap" 2006/2007 prices, perhaps.)
I think the reality was, we had a lot of good relatively young talent early in the decade... and during that time, it made sense to look at the cap as essentially static.
The cap's dynamic now, inflating every year for the length of the current CBA at rates higher than earlier in the decade (especially the first year.) You should expect that acceleration to hit the league, and of course, that's just what we're seeing. There's a new, larger money supply out there, for basically the same commodity (53 players a team.)
It might be that the Foxboro logic is, if we play this right, we want to make this move toward the bottom, not the top, of the new money acceleration. We don't know what comes after this CBA, it might be uncapped... but we may have figured (basically,) that "now is the time to buy." Not stupidly, mind you... just as a general principal.
The Colts? They're going... "Wow! And we got away with it!" But they're also doing what we're doing -- trying not to get irrationally exuberant about that fact, and working smartly through their recent Super Bowl triumph, so they can move forward with a mindset dealing in years, not months.
I do like that we've retained a decent standard deviation among our players' cap hits. We're far from the worst in the league in terms of inequality, and the curve's still a curve, not a hockey stick. But it's no longer true that we have an essentially "classless" (economically speaking) locker room.
I'm thinking now, that may never have actually been a goal so much as an affectation of youth.
Plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose,
PFnV
