Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night
No, you really don't. Felger's argument is about the recent years. He's not talking about what happened in 2003.
You can't look at the years alone. If you spent a lot in years prior, then that is accounted for in the following years. Thus, you don't have as much cap room in the present because you spend more in the past. If the Pats had a lot of allocated bonus money in those years, then they had less cap room and less to spend. You can't look at those years without looking at the years prior and after.
This is misleading, because it's only partially accurate. The cap is an accounting number, nothing more. Some teams end up nowhere near that theoretical ceiling, some come up near it, and some use loopholes to get around it.
There are no "loopholes". The cap is a hard number every year. Every team has the same amount, the only difference being it is adjusted each year for incentives and estimates from the prior year.
What teams can do is play games on when the numbers hit the books. If you pay out a large signing bonus which is spread into future years, you are using that future cap space in the present. That allows you to spend more now, but means you have less space available in the future. It is like a credit card.
The cap is accounted for using the same method for all teams. It is a hard cap. You can play games in the short-term, but you can't get around it in the long-term.
That's clearly not correct for the years 2004-2008. If you have the data on the earlier years, please provide it. However, they are also clearly not "spending to the cap" in terms of actual dollars spent.
You are confusing cash and cap. In the long-term, they have spent to the cap. For instance, per the USA Today, the Pats spend the second most in the NFL in 2007, $117,963,182. They spent over the cap that year, but some of that money hits the cap in future years.
The Patriots have never lost cap room. By the end of the year it was all accounted for or it was carried over into the following year via the incentive adjustment process. All the cap room is used, what changes is when it is used and how it is used. I would argue the Pats have done a good job with the when and how, given their success.
Also, keep in mind when Belichick took over in 2000 the Pats were in poor cap shape. they had spent over the cap in years prior, and had amortized dollars eating up cap space. He deserves a lot of credit for resolving that while still winning.
I mentioned elevated spending in some years as opposed to others. However, as the data shows, it certainly hasn't 'averaged' out over 4 years, given that the Patriots have spent more than $50 million less than the Cowboys during that period of time, and are only 10th in committed money, behind teams like the Panthers, Colts and Steelers.
Again, you can't look at those years without looking at the years before and after. If the Pats already had a lot of amortized dollars on their cap from prior years, it gives them less dollars to spend now. You can restructure to create space, but eventually that money has to hit the cap.
In theory, you could restructure every contract on the team down to minimum salary (assuming the CBA was extended) and make up the difference in signing bonus. That would create more room to go out and spend additional money. However, that money is being pushed into the future and will eventually have to be counted. There is no "loophole" for that.
Because of the great growth in the cap the last 3 years, teams haven't had a problem creating space. However, that won't happen forever. When the cap growth slows, like it did prior to the last 3 years, you will see teams in the same predicament as teams like SF and Ten were a few years ago, where they had promised so much future cap space they had to have a year or two of playing mostly low-salary young players.
Miguel would probably be able to do a better job explaining this.
