If the Pat's don't spend the cap money, are they "cheap"?

[marty]

This organization has never been "cheap". (See state of the art facilities for their players and fans etc). They have been smart with their money and have spent to the cap every year.

Players(agents) love it when someone gets overpaid, especially their position because their value just went up. Just like a mansion going up next door to you, raises the value of your house.
Players (and agents of course) hate it when other players negotiate for themselves and/or take less as it lowers their value.

This to me is the basis of "the Patriots are cheap" talk, if not the underline ire of the NFLPA toward the Patriot's way of doing business.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'll second dryheat's short answer response of "Yes" - but note that I don't expect that to happen and don't believe the organization is cheap.

Although the Salary Cap is really an accounting device and doesn't reflect actual expenditures, there's no reason for the Patriots not to spend up to the limit of the cap.

Doing so this year will allow them to spend more in future years - and the only reason not to spend up to the cap now is so they won't/can't spend up to the cap in future years.

That being said, to spend up to the cap limit all they really need to do is to change the structure and frontload some of the existing contracts for premier players, who one would expect to be on the roster through the duration of their contract (barring injury - which is always a risk)

This is a unique year given the influx of new CBA cap limits so many teams had more leeway this year - and many teams were big players in the FA market.

The Patriots - wisely I think - chose not to get into that craziness this year and passed on the inflated salaries most worthwhile players were being given.

That's why they have so much more cap room (that and the fact that they were reserving some for Deion had he been more reasonable with us)

So the fact that they haven't yet spent up to the cap means nothing - and I would expect that by the end of the season existing contracts are ameneded to bring us up to the cap level.

 

[GoWesleyan]

Patschick:

"it could suggest that they haven't adjusted their numbers and strategy realistically to the current cap"

That to me is the same as being cheap.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This thread is basically asking an unanswerable question. Whether or not they are being "cheap" depends on what the team's intent is, which is something that none of us can answer.

If they are staying under the cap so that the team can be $10 million more profitable, then, yes, they are being cheap.

If they are doing what they are doing as part of a long term strategy that they believe, in their judgment, ultimately will give them the best chance to win, then no, they are not being cheap. They may be making a bad judgment or may be miscalculating, but that's not cheap.

You can never really know what's in someone else's heart or mind. All you can do is look at evidence. The Patriots have not in the last several years appeared to be interested in anything but winning. They have a pretty good track record. When you see the Arizona Cardinals under the cap, by comparison, you naturally jump to a different conclusion. At this point, I do not think them being under the cap on its own is evidence that they are being cheap. If it goes on for three years or something, then maybe it starts to look a little different.

As for the question whether it is wise for them to be this far under the cap -- that is a much much different question and one I'm more concerned about. I worry about the morale of the team knowing that several very well liked guys perhaps could have stuck around if the team had spent money it appears it might have been legally permitted to spend.

 

[patchick]

Patschick:

"it could suggest that they haven't adjusted their numbers and strategy realistically to the current cap"

That to me is the same as being cheap.

GoWes, we're going around in circles. You seem to define cheap in terms of how much they're willing to spend on a given player and given contract; I prefer to define cheap solely in terms of how many total dollars they're willing to spend. That's fine, we can simply disagree.

-Patchick, Wesleyan '91

 

[patchick]

As for the question whether it is wise for them to be this far under the cap -- that is a much much different question and one I'm more concerned about. I worry about the morale of the team knowing that several very well liked guys perhaps could have stuck around if the team had spent money it appears it might have been legally permitted to spend.

I do agree on this point. We can say "why should they spend money if it's not good value?" but this may be one real answer. Giving the money in some form to the guys who are there could be good long-term labor/management strategy. But as I said earlier, some value has to come in return. One possibility is longer-term contracts for some of the former UDFAs like Gay and Wright, if the team likes what they're seeing there.

 

[Miguel]

And FYI if you both spend to the cap and spend cash over cap (bonus paid but amotrized into the future) consistently, after a few years you end up in that place Miguel denies the exstence of called cap hell.

FWIW - I have never denied the existence of cap hell nor I have ever come close to implying that. I have said that I doubt that the Colts will be going to cap hell as long Peyton and Harrison play up to their contracts but that is not denying the existence of cap hell. I would have to be pretty stupid not to know that the Titans/49ers/Jets were recently in cap hell. And I am not stupid.

 

[QuiGon]

I've always bristled at accusations that the Pat's were cheap for not going after marquee players, since they spent on the middle class and depth players, but that ALL CHANGES IF THEY DON'T SPEND TO THE CAP.

There can be no argument that spending to the cap gives you a better chance of winning.

If the GM doesn't spend to the cap, he is not doing his job of putting the best possible team on the field (and compensating them in a way that gives you the best possible chance you have of retaining them.)

Agreed?

I must reluctantly agree. I would be very disappointed if we lose McGinest, Vinatieri, Branch and Givens because we needed "value" at those positions then don't go out and spend up to the cap.

I am, however, optimistic that they will shuffle the money around one way or another so that the 2006 cap is maxed out.

 

[QuiGon]

This thread is basically asking an unanswerable question. Whether or not they are being "cheap" depends on what the team's intent is, which is something that none of us can answer.

Well, I would hope that their intent is to field a Super Bowl Champion. I think their actions demonstrate this intent. They are fortunate to play in a league where you can field a champion without outspending others into oblivion. Teams can spend up to the cap and still turn a profit.

 

[GoWesleyan]

Patschick, I don't mean to stalk you on this... or to go around in circles, but I think I'm still not stating my point clearly:

"You seem to define cheap in terms of how much they're willing to spend on a given player and given contract; I prefer to define cheap solely in terms of how many total dollars they're willing to spend."

I do NOT define cheap in terms of how much they're willing to spend on a particular player or contract. I DO define cheap as not spending to the cap.

IF there is a pattern of the Pats not being able to sign players (previously on the roster or not) because the pats "haven't adjusted their numbers and strategy realistically to the current cap" AND as a result they don't sign players they thought they might and have money left over. That is no "intent" defense. Their intention was to get people cheaper than they could be had for, i.e. they were consistently being cheap.

Maybe they weren't planning from the start to end the season with $10M in their pocket, but they didn't do enough to find and sign players that could work out for them. They couldn't open the wallet wide enough to close deals and/or they didn't have enough conversations & negotiations to close deals with other players. You can't be low bidder on every player and not be cheap.

I don't care what the "intent" is behind not spending to the cap. The INTENT should be to use every source of leverage to field the best team possible. Part of that challenge is to attract and retain the best players you can every year. Money IS a source of leverage in the attraction and retention of players. If the FO doesn't use it all, they have not done their job.

EW (also '91 BTW)

 

[patchick]

Maybe they weren't planning from the start to end the season with $10M in their pocket, but they didn't do enough to find and sign players that could work out for them. They couldn't open the wallet wide enough to close deals and/or they didn't have enough conversations & negotiations to close deals with other players. You can't be low bidder on every player and not be cheap.

OK, I think I getcha now. Intent aside, if the effect of your policy is that you're consistently outbid and end up under the cap, that is de facto cheapness. Fair enough.

EW (also '91 BTW)

Now that's just plain weird. At Wes, that makes us a significant portion of the student body....

 

[DESERTPAT]

I've always bristled at accusations that the Pat's were cheap for not going after marquee players, since they spent on the middle class and depth players, but that ALL CHANGES IF THEY DON'T SPEND TO THE CAP.

There can be no argument that spending to the cap gives you a better chance of winning.

If the GM doesn't spend to the cap, he is not doing his job of putting the best possible team on the field (and compensating them in a way that gives you the best possible chance you have of retaining them.)

Agreed?

Do you think all those Super Bowl rings were free?

 

[Kdo5]

The Patriots and Steelers have been labled "cheap" and guess what?

They've together won the last 5 out of 6 Superbowls.

 

[DESERTPAT]

I think the argument of not having enough money to adjust is good - to a point, but if they don't spend the money by year's end... it falls apart. They will have had time to get contracts done... and it's their job to get them done. There is no "We were taken by surprise" excuse.

You only get to spend so much per year...and you need to do that if you are trying your hardest to win. If that means you need to bump some current salaries in order to keep them in line with others, then do a bunch of that. I'm not saying across the board, but where strategically prudent. Isn't there some place for that when the landscape changes and the cap grows? Giving people raises based on performance is sound business.

RayClay:
How about this? You are sent to the supermarket to buy food to feed 5 people for a month. You can buy whatever you want, but only have $100.

How can you justify spending only $75? What sort of strategy would that be?

How bout calling it good ole fashioned yankee (eech) thriftiness

 

[dryheat44]

The Patriots and Steelers have been labled "cheap" and guess what?

They've together won the last 5 out of 6 Superbowls.

Which team one the fifth? To my knowledge, out of the last six Super Bowls, the Pats have won 3, the Steelers 1, the Buccaneers 1, and the Ravens 1. But I could be wrong*.


* But I'm not.

 

[Kdo5]

Which team one the fifth? To my knowledge, out of the last six Super Bowls, the Pats have won 3, the Steelers 1, the Buccaneers 1, and the Ravens 1. But I could be wrong*.


* But I'm not.

I guess I should have said 5. 4/5. Bucs won in 2002.

 

[Bostonian1962]

I've always bristled at accusations that the Pat's were cheap for not going after marquee players, since they spent on the middle class and depth players, but that ALL CHANGES IF THEY DON'T SPEND TO THE CAP.

There can be no argument that spending to the cap gives you a better chance of winning.

If the GM doesn't spend to the cap, he is not doing his job of putting the best possible team on the field (and compensating them in a way that gives you the best possible chance you have of retaining them.)

Agreed?

Completely disagree!

Most of the cap space would have been spent had they Law and Branch agreed to their sizable offers.

The way you worded your post implies that by spending to the cap you automatically put the best team on the field.

Everybody that says that has to have blinders on. What great talent is available right now? Give me a list of talent that will make this team better.

It'd be one thing if some great LB or WR were available, but they are not.

Now, you can spend to the cap in a way that won't get more players on the squad, and that is to front load the contracts of guys like Seymour. That way in out years, they would be much better off.

The could leave a buffer for safety, in the event of injury.

What's wrong with having the $$$ available for next year's free agents? Should they just spend to the cap for the sake doing so, like Felger wants? That is assinine.

I have more to say on this, but have to run.

 

[RayClay]

I think the argument of not having enough money to adjust is good - to a point, but if they don't spend the money by year's end... it falls apart. They will have had time to get contracts done... and it's their job to get them done. There is no "We were taken by surprise" excuse.

You only get to spend so much per year...and you need to do that if you are trying your hardest to win. If that means you need to bump some current salaries in order to keep them in line with others, then do a bunch of that. I'm not saying across the board, but where strategically prudent. Isn't there some place for that when the landscape changes and the cap grows? Giving people raises based on performance is sound business.

RayClay:
How about this? You are sent to the supermarket to buy food to feed 5 people for a month. You can buy whatever you want, but only have $100.

How can you justify spending only $75? What sort of strategy would that be?

Here's an example of a team that spent as much as they could on long term contracts without the benefit of sound fiscal management.

Coincidentally, the have the same owner you called cheap.

http://archive.profootballweekly.com/content/archives/features_2000/nflist_030501.asp

Patriots the team that's most set up for failure
By Joel Buchsbaum, Contributing editor
As published in print March 5, 2001

The question posed to NFL insiders was: Which team had the least chance of making the playoffs or going to the Super Bowl in the next five years? The Patriots were a unanimous choice, but several other teams will have more than their share of obstacles to overcome as well.

Almost all the scouts we spoke to gave the following reasons for picking the Patriots.

1. The Patriots are in salary-cap hell because they spent money unwisely due to their inability to evaluate their own talent.

It continues..............................................

 

[PlattsFan]

I'll bet that by the end of the season the Patriots will have found a use for the extra cap space.

But, if they don't, they aren't utilizing all of their resources. You can blame it on other factors, but the basic fact is that they are given finite resources to use, and if they don't find a way to utilize all that they have, they aren't being efficient. In terms of putting the optimum team on the field, unused cap money is no better than "dead money," and it may be worse (at least "dead money" usually involves a contract from which you got some value before). I don't know if it's "cheap" or not (I think it isn't), but it's not good. It's wasted opportunity.

That said, I'd be very surprised if they didn't do some renegotiating to move some cap hits onto this year to give themselves flexibility for future years.

By the way, that archived article is great to read ... 2001! HA!

 

[RayClay]

I'll bet that by the end of the season the Patriots will have found a use for the extra cap space.

But, if they don't, they aren't utilizing all of their resources. You can blame it on other factors, but the basic fact is that they are given finite resources to use, and if they don't find a way to utilize all that they have, they aren't being efficient. In terms of putting the optimum team on the field, unused cap money is no better than "dead money," and it may be worse (at least "dead money" usually involves a contract from which you got some value before). I don't know if it's "cheap" or not (I think it isn't), but it's not good. It's wasted opportunity.

That said, I'd be very surprised if they didn't do some renegotiating to move some cap hits onto this year to give themselves flexibility for future years.

By the way, that archived article is great to read ... 2001! HA!

Yeah, debate is great, but sometimes we forget how far we've come.

Jonathan Kraft says of course the money will be spent. Considering the generosity of this owner, it's hard to believe people doubted it.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=41637