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

[Deus Irae]

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, 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.

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.

The bolded part is the point I'd been trying to get across to people from the beginning, and it's the only part where I was defending Felger. His argument has been about recent seasons.

It's impossible to prove Felger's overall argument wrong, just as it's impossible for him to prove his overall argument correct. I'm of the opinion that Felger's overall argument is wrong, and that he is misapplying the assumedly correct data. I'm of the opinion that a 16-0 regular season which was just minutes away from being the only 19-0 season in NFL history pretty well demolishes Felger's argument. However, his argument is certainly more interesting when it comes to the year 2006, and to the decision not to re-sign Samuel (if you feel that was strictly based upon money), even though I don't agree with him.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

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.

I agree, it is a lifetime to us fans. To the Pats front office though... is it a lifetime? They must have to think this longterm wouldn't they?

Any spreadsheet showing cash spent = cap would technically have to go back to the beginning of this cap era, unless the Pats front office publically anounces all of the info in the equation below:

Money Spent in 2009
+ Any prior years' cap overages being applied to the 2009 cap
+ Any unused 2009 cap money rolled forward to next year
+ Any unused 2009 cap money not rolled over (ie. JK is a cheapskate)
= 2009 Cap

 

[NE39]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

It's impossible to prove Felger's overall argument wrong, just as it's impossible for him to prove his overall argument correct.

I think where he is wrong is when he says the cap is no longer a factor. He seems to be under the impression you can create cap room by some clever trick. You can't. The cap is a hard number, and if you spend money it is going to count. What you can change is the management of the cap and when it counts.

That said, I do think the Pats have been hesitant to do long-term deals for big money recently. I think that is largely due to the CBA uncertainty.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The bolded part is the point I'd been trying to get across to people from the beginning, and it's the only part where I was defending Felger. His argument has been about recent seasons.

It's impossible to prove Felger's overall argument wrong, just as it's impossible for him to prove his overall argument correct. I'm of the opinion that Felger's overall argument is wrong, and that he is misapplying the assumedly correct data. I'm of the opinion that a 16-0 regular season which was just minutes away from being the only 19-0 season in NFL history pretty well demolishes Felger's argument. However, his argument is certainly more interesting when it comes to the year 2006, and to the decision not to re-sign Samuel (if you feel that was strictly based upon money), even though I don't agree with him.

What exactly is the point of isolating a fact brought up in an overall poor argument? Felger has no valid argument, and the isolation of a few years of spending is pointless in and of itself.

With Samuel as every other player they've signed or not signed, it will always be about value. As he brought up the point to Felger, just because you have enough money in your bank account today to go out and buy a Ferari that doesn't mean you should.

As Jonathan stated time and time again, it's not about spending just to spend. Samuel is NOT worth his contract, he is NOT worth what he was asking, and thus there is NO valid argument for specifically signing Samuel.

You can argue Samuel's value and whether the Patriots undervalued him, fine. But Felger was trying to argue that they should have overspent on Samuel because they had the extra money and no one to immediately replace him. That is a ridiculous argument IMO. Argue the Patriots policies of how they value players, or how they choose to spend in order to remain competitive every year, fine. But Felger was trying to argue that they should become INCONSISTENT in their philosophies and overpay for players like Samuel whenever they have the extra money just so they can remain competitive in that specific year.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The bolded part is the point I'd been trying to get across to people from the beginning, and it's the only part where I was defending Felger. His argument has been about recent seasons.

It's impossible to prove Felger's overall argument wrong, just as it's impossible for him to prove his overall argument correct. I'm of the opinion that Felger's overall argument is wrong, and that he is misapplying the assumedly correct data. I'm of the opinion that a 16-0 regular season which was just minutes away from being the only 19-0 season in NFL history pretty well demolishes Felger's argument. However, his argument is certainly more interesting when it comes to the year 2006, and to the decision not to re-sign Samuel (if you feel that was strictly based upon money), even though I don't agree with him.

C'mon Deus... Felger went way beyond those facts... he drew incorrect assertions (which you now acknowledge) and he badgered JK unfairly with those lousy assertions.

We can agree on the facts whech Felger drew on, but how Felger used them is what everyone is ticked off about.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

I agree, it is a lifetime to us fans. To the Pats front office though... is it a lifetime? They must have to think this longterm wouldn't they?

Any spreadsheet showing cash spent = cap would technically have to go back to the beginning of this cap era, unless the Pats front office publically anounces all of the info in the equation below:

Money Spent in 2009
+ Any prior years' cap overages being applied to the 2009 cap
+ Any unused 2009 cap money rolled forward to next year
+ Any unused 2009 cap money not rolled over (ie. JK is a cheapskate)
= 2009 Cap

OK...I see where you are coming from now.

With respect to their financial model, I would assume that they operate like any business would which would lead me to think that their model is based on 1, 3 and 5 year windows. Looking at what BB did in 2000 was masterstroke. He took it on the chin cap/spending wise to set himself up for 2003 FA.

 

[Brarrell]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The bolded part is the point I'd been trying to get across to people from the beginning, and it's the only part where I was defending Felger. His argument has been about recent seasons.

It's impossible to prove Felger's overall argument wrong, just as it's impossible for him to prove his overall argument correct. I'm of the opinion that Felger's overall argument is wrong, and that he is misapplying the assumedly correct data. I'm of the opinion that a 16-0 regular season which was just minutes away from being the only 19-0 season in NFL history pretty well demolishes Felger's argument. However, his argument is certainly more interesting when it comes to the year 2006, and to the decision not to re-sign Samuel (if you feel that was strictly based upon money), even though I don't agree with him.

My point is this franchise QBs don't grow on trees and when the day comes when he hangs them up you will find out what life will be like without one. So we will see what "value" does for you then. IMO the Pats have not maximized what they could be doing for Brady in his prime and the perfect example was the year that he almost took them to the superbowl with no wr's in the name of value. Whether you believed they should have signed Branch or Givens is really not the point, If you remember Brady signed a below value contract for a player of his status because he wanted there to be money to sign other good players which is not what happened. See my biggest beef with the Pats is when you have good young players who fit your system and you know they can play tie them a couple of years before their contract is due instead of trying to squeeze every penny out of their rookie contracts. So I'm not a cap guy but I always believe what I see with my eyes.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

What exactly is the point of isolating a fact brought up in an overall poor argument?
...
Samuel is NOT worth his contract, he is NOT worth what he was asking, and thus there is NO valid argument for specifically signing Samuel.
...
You can argue Samuel's value and whether the Patriots undervalued him, fine. But Felger was trying to argue that they should have overspent on Samuel

Your entire post was very well put.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

I think where he is wrong is when he says the cap is no longer a factor. He seems to be under the impression you can create cap room by some clever trick. You can't. The cap is a hard number, and if you spend money it is going to count. What you can change is the management of the cap and when it counts.

That said, I do think the Pats have been hesitant to do long-term deals for big money recently. I think that is largely due to the CBA uncertainty.

Ok, now you're putting me in a position of defending him again (albeit to a lesser extent), damn it!

Kraft himself conceded the point that there was no salary cap jail in the past 3 years because of the huge increases in the salary cap. This meant, again, that Felger was correct on a very specific and limited point, albeit only functionally so rather than absolutely so in this case. Functionally speaking, the cap has been all but non-existent as a factor over the past few seasons.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

My point is this franchise QBs don't grow on trees and when the day comes when he hangs them up you will find out what life will be like without one. So we will see what "value" does for you then. IMO the Pats have not maximized what they could be doing for Brady in his prime and the perfect example was the year that he almost took them to the superbowl with no wr's in the name of value. Whether you believed they should have signed Branch or Givens is really not the point, If you remember Brady signed a below value contract for a player of his status because he wanted there to be money to sign other good players which is not what happened. See my biggest beef with the Pats is when you have good young players who fit your system and you know they can play tie them a couple of years before their contract is due instead of trying to squeeze every penny out of their rookie contracts. So I'm not a cap guy but I always believe what I see with my eyes.

Not every superbowl is won by the team with a HOF QB.

The Patriots goal is to remain competitive every single year, not to remain competitive for as long as Tom Brady plays. Were they competitive last year without Tom Brady?

Also what are you saying they could have done more to better the team in the last few years? Do you suggest they should have broken their model and overpaid for players like Samuel?

What if they had broken their model and overpaid for Branch when there were no replacements for him? Would we still have Randy today if they had done that then?

There are always things that look like you should do today but tomorrow they come back to bite you. I think the Patriots have done a pretty damn good job.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

C'mon Deus... Felger went way beyond those facts... he drew incorrect assertions (which you now acknowledge) and he badgered JK unfairly with those lousy assertions.

We can agree on the facts whech Felger drew on, but how Felger used them is what everyone is ticked off about.

No, people are ticked off because someone dared to question the Patriots. It happens here all the time. If it had just been the way Felger used the facts, people wouldn't have been jumping on me about those facts, because I'd made it abundantly clear that I didn't buy into Felger's argument and was only conceding his point about the committed money in recent seasons.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Ok, now you're putting me in a position of defending him again (albeit to a lesser extent), damn it!

Kraft himself conceded the point that there was no salary cap jail in the past 3 years because of the huge increases in the salary cap. This meant, again, that Felger was correct on a very specific and limited point, albeit only functionally so rather than absolutely so in this case. Functionally speaking, the cap has been all but non-existent as a factor over the past few seasons.

Didn't Jonathan also say that in hindsight we can see that but not in foresight. They determine the cap on estimates before doing the actual calculations. And then anything more or less than the actual calculation is added or taken from the next year. So for example 2010 would have had a lower cap year and if they guessed correctly in 2008, they may have been fine in 2009 but then in trouble in 2010 assuming there was a CBA still.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

My point is this franchise QBs don't grow on trees and when the day comes when he hangs them up you will find out what life will be like without one. So we will see what "value" does for you then. IMO the Pats have not maximized what they could be doing for Brady in his prime and the perfect example was the year that he almost took them to the superbowl with no wr's in the name of value. Whether you believed they should have signed Branch or Givens is really not the point, If you remember Brady signed a below value contract for a player of his status because he wanted there to be money to sign other good players which is not what happened. See my biggest beef with the Pats is when you have good young players who fit your system and you know they can play tie them a couple of years before their contract is due instead of trying to squeeze every penny out of their rookie contracts. So I'm not a cap guy but I always believe what I see with my eyes.

Your argument is the best one I have seen against the Patriots model.

However, there are so many moving parts.

All the free agents that they gamble on that may not pay off and make the decision look really bad. The rookies that may or may not pan out. Young players already on the team that look like they are ready to break out but then don't. Not to mention injuries.

In the case of Branch, we kind of got screwed on that if you remember... I believe that was some tampering going on there. And to the Pats credit, they made up for their miscalculation by getting Moss and Welker the next year.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

No, people are ticked off because someone dared to question the Patriots. It happens here all the time. If it had just been the way Felger used the facts, people wouldn't have been jumping on me about those facts, because I'd made it abundantly clear that I didn't buy into Felger's argument and was only conceding his point about the committed money in recent seasons.

That's a fairly big leap. Felger is arguing things within a limited scope of the last few years. The only way the Patriots could have done things differently is by either A) breaking their model or B) changing their model.

So argue which one and why, don't just grab a few "underspent" years and make the claim that they should have done something different. THAT is what people get ticked about. The fact that people are adamant that there are/were better ways to do things yet offer 0 plausible alternatives.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

What exactly is the point of isolating a fact brought up in an overall poor argument? Felger has no valid argument, and the isolation of a few years of spending is pointless in and of itself.

With Samuel as every other player they've signed or not signed, it will always be about value. As he brought up the point to Felger, just because you have enough money in your bank account today to go out and buy a Ferari that doesn't mean you should.

As Jonathan stated time and time again, it's not about spending just to spend. Samuel is NOT worth his contract, he is NOT worth what he was asking, and thus there is NO valid argument for specifically signing Samuel.

You can argue Samuel's value and whether the Patriots undervalued him, fine. But Felger was trying to argue that they should have overspent on Samuel because they had the extra money and no one to immediately replace him. That is a ridiculous argument IMO. Argue the Patriots policies of how they value players, or how they choose to spend in order to remain competitive every year, fine. But Felger was trying to argue that they should become INCONSISTENT in their philosophies and overpay for players like Samuel whenever they have the extra money just so they can remain competitive in that specific year.

OF COURSE the team should have overpaid to keep Samuel, if they considered it overpaying. I'd say that the play of the defensive secondary last season showed that pretty conclusively. They'd overpaid for him the season before already. And that's coming from someone who thinks that Samuel is a good cornerback who's been overrated, and has stated that on this site. The problem is that overpaying him for one season wasn't possible, because the team had screwed up earlier by agreeing not to franchise him again.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

That's a fairly big leap. Felger is arguing things within a limited scope of the last few years. The only way the Patriots could have done things differently is by either A) breaking their model or B) changing their model.

So argue which one and why, don't just grab a few "underspent" years and make the claim that they should have done something different. THAT is what people get ticked about. The fact that people are adamant that there are/were better ways to do things yet offer 0 plausible alternatives.

They "broke" their model when they franchised Samuel. Felger clearly has an avenue for his argument, even though I don't agree with him.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

OF COURSE the team should have overpaid to keep Samuel, if they considered it overpaying. They'd overpaid for him the season before already. And that's coming from someone who thinks that Samuel is a good cornerback who's been overrated, and has stated that on this site. The problem is that overpaying him for one season wasn't possible, because the team had screwed up earlier by agreeing not to franchise him again.

Would he have played if they didn't agree to not franchise him again?

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

They "broke" their model when they franchised Samuel. Felger clearly has an avenue for his argument, even though I don't agree with him.

I don't think that's breaking their model. It also doesn't have much impact on other players, as I don't think another player will use that as any sort of bargaining chip.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

No, people are ticked off because someone dared to question the Patriots. It happens here all the time. If it had just been the way Felger used the facts, people wouldn't have been jumping on me about those facts, because I'd made it abundantly clear that I didn't buy into Felger's argument and was only conceding his point about the committed money in recent seasons.

I think most people didn't get where you were coming from despite you feeling that you had been "abundantly clear".

There may be some of the "how dare you question the Patriots" playing into it, I really don't know, but it wasn't from me. I have no problem questioning the Patriots when the argument make sense... even if the argument is questionable but has some merit... see my response to the post from Brarrell in this thread.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Would he have played if they didn't agree to not franchise him again?

Don't know, don't care. If it's all about the model, it's all about the model. They shouldn't have caved.