Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz last night [October 2009 thread]

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The $50M is a cash number. How much of that $50M is spread into the future? How much of the available cap room was spent in years prior?

The difference between actual cash and cap space can vary a great deal over a few years, but in the long-term in all will even out?

We HAVE the past several years' cap expenses and cash previously posted here.

If the $50M was spread into the future, the CASH OUT would be HIGH not low as cash bonuses get paid immediately. Future base salaries don't come into present and past years' cap spending nor does it show as cash out.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Actual NEP League
Spending vs. Cap # by year

92.7 ........ 116.7 ..... 2008
117.9 ...... 109.1 ...... 2007
105.1 ...... 102 ......... 2006
94.4 .......... 85.5 ..... 2005
77 ............ 80.5 ...... 2004
82 ............ 75 ......... 2003
46 ............ 71.1 ...... 2002
65.7 ......... 67.4 ....... 2001
51............ 62.2 ....... 2000

At a high-level, based on these numbers, since 2000, the Pats have issued player checks totalling $731.8m. The total cap $ avail has been $769.5m. Since 2000, the Pats have spent 95% of the available cap space and/or $37.7m less than they could of. This year, as Mo points out, they are $2.7m under, which (guesstimating here) that their cash outlay/cap is around the 95% mark.

Felgers arguement would be, "Why didn't you spend the $37.7m or extra $4.13m per year..?"

Jonathan's answer- "Because we didn't feel it would make our product better for BOTH the short and long term."

Who is to argue?

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Since 2000, the Pats have spent 95% of the available cap space and/or $37.7m less than they could of.

No, they have spent 100% of what they could have. it is just some was spent prior to 2000 and some was carried over into 2009.

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

We HAVE the past several years' cap expenses and cash previously posted here.

If the $50M was spread into the future, the CASH OUT would be HIGH not low as cash bonuses get paid immediately. Future base salaries don't come into present and past years' cap spending nor does it show as cash out.

The $50M could have been in the past as well. For instance, any money paid previously amortized into the future would be paid in prior years.

Also, that $50M wasn't what was allocated vs. the cap, rather the difference between them and another team. That other team may have spent more than the cap in those years, borrowing from future years. If you compare then against the Redskins or the Texans, who have been high payers in those years, it is probably more.

At the end of the year, all the cap room is accounted for, and the Pats have either used it all up or carried it over. In the long-term, they have spent 100% of what they are allocated.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

In the long-term, they have spent 100% of what they are allocated.

No, they haven't. The data shows that with absolute certainty (nor should it be expected that the amount spent would equal 100%). Or, is it that you're claiming that the data is incorrect?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

You might be correct if the money NOT spent represented anything other than small change. But it is small change. NO team spends down to the penny, but a few million one way of the other is simply one or two percent of the cap, and transaction change. Frankly, you can't expect to buy very much with a single extra million.

Felger's thesis is that you can "Go for it", and overspend in any one year; He is certainly correct. But then have to pay it back in another year.

The present Patriots ownership have said it explicitly several times. It is their Corporate POLICY that they want to be competitive and a contender EVERY year. That precludes "Go for It," years.

Felger's thesis is worse, though, it's that you should "go for it" every season and screw the future if in fact that is the ultimate price.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Actual NEP League
Spending vs. Cap # by year

92.7 ........ 116.7 ..... 2008
117.9 ...... 109.1 ...... 2007
105.1 ...... 102 ......... 2006
94.4 .......... 85.5 ..... 2005
77 ............ 80.5 ...... 2004
82 ............ 75 ......... 2003
46 ............ 71.1 ...... 2002
65.7 ......... 67.4 ....... 2001
51............ 62.2 ....... 2000

Felgers arguement would be, "Why didn't you spend the $37.7m or extra $4.13m per year..?"

Jonathan's answer- "Because we didn't feel it would make our product better for BOTH the short and long term."

Who is to argue?

Your $37.7M assumes that none of that was to make up for overages prior to 2000 ... see my last paragraph for more on that.

Even if the #37.3M under the cap is accurate, it is easy to see that the Patriots spent $38M less than the cap in years 2000-2002. Since that time, they have spent almost exactly to the cap (years 2003 to 2008). If they were cheapskates it was 7-10 years ago during a 3 years span that included a SB Championship, not now.

Felger suggests in his battering of JK that they are being (present tense) cheapskates and not spending to the cap. He is wrong. The numbers above prove he is wrong.

Also, since the $38M shortage happened in the first 3 years, it is plausible to assume it is a result of making up for prior years in which the Pats were over the cap.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

No, they have spent 100% of what they could have. it is just some was spent prior to 2000 and some was carried over into 2009.

Not sure if you are confusing cash spent with cash committed. Two different things as Mo's is cash spent. Cash committed certainly would account for previous & future years.

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

No, they haven't. The data shows that with absolute certainty (nor should it be expected that the amount spent would equal 100%). Or, is it that you're claiming that the data is incorrect?

They have spent 100% of their cap room. That is an indisputable fact. Some years they actually spent more and the following years cap was adjusted down. Other years it was adjusted up if they carried over room (this did so this year).

I'm not talking cash. You are confusing the two. In the long-run they are spending 100% of the cash they can, though. During a given period they may spend more or less, but that is management.

The job of the management is to manage their cap to maximum benefit. They have to weight the present-vs-future. I think, given their results, they have done a great job of that.

Felger thinks they should spend it differently, which is fine. However, the fact is they have not lost any cap room. They use 100% of it.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

No, they haven't. The data shows that with absolute certainty (nor should it be expected that the amount spent would equal 100%). Or, is it that you're claiming that the data is incorrect?

What data?

This data:

Actual NEP League
Spending vs. Cap # by year

92.7 ........ 116.7 ..... 2008
117.9 ...... 109.1 ...... 2007
105.1 ...... 102 ......... 2006
94.4 .......... 85.5 ..... 2005
77 ............ 80.5 ...... 2004
82 ............ 75 ......... 2003
46 ............ 71.1 ...... 2002
65.7 ......... 67.4 ....... 2001
51............ 62.2 ....... 2000

If so, see my other post where it shows the shortages in years 2000-2002, and could be explained by overages in years prior to 2000.

If you are talking about the data comparing our spending to other teams over a 4 year period, it proves nothing other than that some other teams are willing to mortgage future years to spend more than the Pats in the short term.

Please explain what data you are referring to.

As for the accuracy of the 100% claim by NE39, I am less certain. It is theoritcally possible to do by rolling over any unused cap space in ways already outlined. I'm just not sure that the Pats would bother in cases were the amount were negligible.

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Not sure if you are confusing cash spent with cash committed. Two different things as Mo's is cash spent. Cash committed certainly would account for previous & future years.

Committed cash is guaranteed future payments. Either way it works.

The fact is, every dollar spent on player salary counts toward the cap. If they pay it, then it hits the cap.

The only thing different is when it hits the cap. You can play a lot of games with the when, but if it is spent it has to be accounted for at some point.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

What data?

This data:

Actual NEP League
Spending vs. Cap # by year

92.7 ........ 116.7 ..... 2008
117.9 ...... 109.1 ...... 2007
105.1 ...... 102 ......... 2006
94.4 .......... 85.5 ..... 2005
77 ............ 80.5 ...... 2004
82 ............ 75 ......... 2003
46 ............ 71.1 ...... 2002
65.7 ......... 67.4 ....... 2001
51............ 62.2 ....... 2000

If so, see my other post where it shows the shortages in years 2000-2002, and could be explained by overages in years prior to 2000.

If you are talking about the data comparing our spending to other teams over a 4 year period, it proves nothing other than that some other teams are willing to mortgage future years to spend more than the Pats in the short term.

Please explain what data you are referring to.

Lloyd, you're trying to draw me into an argument that I'm not going to have. I'm not defending Felger in any "the Patriots would have won if they'd spent more" discussion. I don't agree with that notion, unless you wanted to say that my longtime argument that the team should have found a way to keep Daniel Graham falls somewhere under that category.

My sole point in 'defense' of Felger, from the beginning, has been about the committed money spent in recent years. Felger is right about that. It's indisputable, unless one claims that the data given by the NFL Mangement Counsil was wrong, or that Jason La Canfora added the numbers incorrectly. If that's where you're going, your beef would be with the NFL, or NFL.com.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Committed cash is guaranteed future payments. Either way it works.

The fact is, every dollar spent on player salary counts toward the cap. If they pay it, then it hits the cap.

The only thing different is when it hits the cap. You can play a lot of games with the when, but if it is spent it has to be accounted for at some point.

We agree 100% on that point. I get that.

I think the disconnect is the Pats have spent to the penny every year. Mo's graph shows that is not the case. I'm not bashing the Pats in any way. I just look at the math and see that their cash spent is 95% of the cap available over the 2000-2008 timeframe. Next year it could bring the number to 98% as I have no idea what their cash situation is for 09.

 

[maverick4]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

One thing's for sure, the Pats DID try to go super cheap in 2002, and the product certainly showed...

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

One thing's for sure, the Pats DID try to go super cheap in 2002, and the product certainly showed...

Maybe that goes back to why Jonathan and BB had their little tiff.

BB knew he needed to be a player in FA in 03 and needed the cap space to do it. He wanted to spend and Jonathan busted his chops over running counter to his philosophy in spending on the Colvin's when he could coach up the Vrabels for 1/2 the price.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

My sole point in 'defense' of Felger, from the beginning, has been about the committed money spent in recent years. Felger is right about that. It's indisputable, unless one claims that the data given by the NFL Mangement Counsil was wrong, or that Jason La Canfora added the numbers incorrectly. If that's where you're going, your beef would be with the NFL, or NFL.com.

I don't think the numbers are wrong, I think that for the timeframe they cover, that they are correct. However, Felgers insinuation that the Pats are cheapskates is wrong.

As I, and others, have continued to try to explain... the Patriots spend to the cap long term. If you spend less than the cap for that year(s) then it is because you are paying off debt from earlier years where you spent over the cap OR you are freeing up money to spend over the cap in future years. Why would you do this? Well, in the case of 2009, you may suspect that the 2010 cap number will flatline or retreat since the 2009 increase was deemed to high. Therefore, you might want to give your team a little extra wiggle room.

The only way to spend less than the cap is to let unused money under the cap to expire (ie. not roll excess money over to the next year) The pats are not doing that.

You can't look at one year or even a handfull to determine whether or not any team is spending to the cap.... you have to look long term to determine that.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

One thing's for sure, the Pats DID try to go super cheap in 2002, and the product certainly showed...

It does appear that way, but again, without knowing what the numbers were for the late 90s, how can we be sure that this wasn't to make up for overages in previous years.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

I don't think the numbers are wrong, I think that for the timeframe they cover, that they are correct.

However, as I and others have continued to try to explain, the Patriots spend to the cap long term.

You can't look at one year or even a handfull to determine whether or not any team is spending to the cap.... you have to look long term to determine that.

I hear what you are saying, Lloyd but 2000-2008 is a lifetime in NFL years. That sampling is pretty lengthy.

I'm in the same boat at Deus. I'm confused. Where is a spreadsheet that shows cash spent=cap. Not trying to bust ya as it's in all of our best interests to be on the same page here.

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The Pats spent a lot in 2007, 2nd most in the NFL. Since then they have gone the other way, finishing 30th in 2008 and I would guess in the lower half this year as well.

I think part of the reason for that is the uncertainty regarding the CBA. The Pats are not sure what the scope is going to be for the coming seasons because the CBA is expiring. I think that has them hesitant to sign guys to long-term extensions with big guaranteed money. They were the same way before the last CBA extension as well. If they are uncertain, they wait.

If a new CBA is agreed upon they would feel less risky spending money in the future.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

It does appear that way, but again, without knowing what the numbers were for the late 90s, how can we be sure that this wasn't to make up for overages in previous years.

No question. There were some brutal contracts like Bruce Armstrong, Ted Johnson, Willie Mac, Todd Rucci, Max Lane..Ug.