Sorry, Ray. I absolutely agree that Kraft has been the best owner of this team, and has done plenty of good things in that regard. That history buys him some slack in decisionmaking.
With that said, I see nothing in the handling of Deflategate that would persuade me to believe he is playing chess here. He backed the Commissioner
publicly after his mishandling of Rice. That not only was dumb, but it put the Pats name in a Ravens problem, synonymous with callous disregard for DV claims. This donation would appear to be a mea culpa on that, nothing more.
He was photographed walking alone with Goodell at the owners meeting when fans were fuming. He then is reported talking to Berman after a favorable decision with Brady (anyone who has ever dealt with an attorney should know that is going to find its way into a motion to recuse if this case ever returns to that judge after appeal). In both cases, the two people had to be there, but the effects of looking chummy in no way inure to the benefit of Brady or the team if you have any sense of PR issues.
I cannot profess to have studied the team's ability to appeal, even after making the statement he would not appeal. Is that effort shut down by the CBA, even now, under the circumstances? Is the evidence of the equipment handler 'misconduct' any better than Brady's evidence? If not, then why do you believe it was pointless to appeal the decision? Why would it be pointless to fight for that now, given the double talk going on with those two targets and who precisely suspended them?
If you read the statements he has made in the course of Deflategate, please explain how that represents more than a person who completely misreads public opinion and his fanbase. The final PR push reflects an acknowledgement he may have finally clued in to that. Do I believe he may have initially trusted the Commissioner in error? Sure. But what level of trust exercise would make you risk your billion dollar business and its well-being in giving up a valuable commodity in the hope you would be taken care of in the end? Wouldn't you want to know the what's and when's of these events? How long do you let this go on before you question that decision, and take some action?
I have stated from the beginning I am open for an explanation for all this, other than the obvious. All the evidence available (his statement and actions) suggests his decision-making is either naive, clueless or self-interested (meaning he has an ally in Goodell and has declined to pull the trigger on decisions in an effort to save Goodell or save himself). I don't hate him for that, but I certainly will not celebrate that he has handled any of this well. I submit if you are hoping for the story that explains how his decision-making with the Commissioner will one day be actions for the good of the team or game, then you may be waiting a long time for that day as it likely will never come.