- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 29,794
- Reaction score
- 20,459
The Pats pay plenty of guys. Historically, they always have at least a few guys who are among the highest paid at their positions. Off the top of my head over the years: Brady, Gronk, Hernandez, Moss, Mankins, Wilfork, Seymour, Mayo, McCourty, Revis, Law. Even a lot of the guys who later go on to whine that they don't pay (looking at you, Moss).
But there's also truth to the claim that there are plenty of guys who are worth paying that they don't pay, and the reason why is simple: the salary cap is a thing, and therefore they can't afford to. This is an unavoidable reality of staying competitive over the long term. If you can afford to pay all your guys, then either there isn't much talent on your roster or you're rapidly moving toward cap hell. For any team with good and/or young talent on the roster, you're going to have more talented players than you can afford to pay, and some are going to have to walk and get paid elsewhere. I don't think anyone in Foxboro particularly likes this fact, but those are the rules that are put in place to try to drag us back to the pack.
So they make moves like this, where 2 years from now the Cardinals will be paying Jones ~$17-20M per year, while the Pats will have a young, promising player under contract for 2 years playing for peanuts, which helps them find the money to pay some combination of Butler/Hightower/Collins. I'm happy for Jones that he's going to get paid, and if there wasn't a cap I would love for the Pats to be the one to pay him. But between Butler, Hightower, Collins and Jones, someone had to be the odd man out, and IMO he was the clear choice. It was simply impossible to pay them all; maybe if we were ****tier at drafting and developing talent we'd only have two young defenders to pay instead of four and this wouldn't be an issue, but that's the curse of not sucking.
So I don't disagree with Jones, but I do disagree with the asinine conclusion that typically gets drawn out of statements like this. Yes, the Pats let a lot of talent walk rather than paying. No, it's not because they're cheap or they don't value talent. It's because of a cap system that the league has put in place to try to make it impossible for teams to dominate over the long term like the Pats have. This isn't Denver, if we cheated the salary cap we'd get the NFL death penalty.
But there's also truth to the claim that there are plenty of guys who are worth paying that they don't pay, and the reason why is simple: the salary cap is a thing, and therefore they can't afford to. This is an unavoidable reality of staying competitive over the long term. If you can afford to pay all your guys, then either there isn't much talent on your roster or you're rapidly moving toward cap hell. For any team with good and/or young talent on the roster, you're going to have more talented players than you can afford to pay, and some are going to have to walk and get paid elsewhere. I don't think anyone in Foxboro particularly likes this fact, but those are the rules that are put in place to try to drag us back to the pack.
So they make moves like this, where 2 years from now the Cardinals will be paying Jones ~$17-20M per year, while the Pats will have a young, promising player under contract for 2 years playing for peanuts, which helps them find the money to pay some combination of Butler/Hightower/Collins. I'm happy for Jones that he's going to get paid, and if there wasn't a cap I would love for the Pats to be the one to pay him. But between Butler, Hightower, Collins and Jones, someone had to be the odd man out, and IMO he was the clear choice. It was simply impossible to pay them all; maybe if we were ****tier at drafting and developing talent we'd only have two young defenders to pay instead of four and this wouldn't be an issue, but that's the curse of not sucking.
So I don't disagree with Jones, but I do disagree with the asinine conclusion that typically gets drawn out of statements like this. Yes, the Pats let a lot of talent walk rather than paying. No, it's not because they're cheap or they don't value talent. It's because of a cap system that the league has put in place to try to make it impossible for teams to dominate over the long term like the Pats have. This isn't Denver, if we cheated the salary cap we'd get the NFL death penalty.
Last edited: