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

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

You can't really tell me that an owner discussing how drastically payroll has risen recently during the middle of a labor dispute can be taken as a fact.

Of course I can. If you think he's wrong or lying, please list all the teams that have been in "cap jail" for the past 3 seasons.

The cap is THE constraint on player acquisitions. Just because it has risen does not mean that the principles of cap management no longer apply. The fact that teams who mortgaged their future got a save does not equal a conclusion that the cap isnt an issue.
It is not an issue in widespread cutting of players to get under the cap.
It is certainly an issue in budgetting and limitiming the expense of player acquisition.
Could the Patriots have signed the top 8 FAs this summer? Of course not. Why not? Because the cap prevented it.

I'm not sure what part of "Functional" vs. "Absolute" you're struggling with here, so I'll just leave this part be. You're admitting that organizations "got a save", so you clearly acknowledge, if only to yourself in an unconscious and grudging manner, that there's a viable point about the cap that's been made by Felger.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

I used LBTE bonuses as an easy example, since I've mentioned them many times throughout this thread. As for the rest, feel free to pull up the data from all teams and verify that. I suspect you'll find that you're quite wrong, unless you use the term "roughly" quite loosely.

I did not specify that I was talking about teams who do spend to the cap. Some such as the Bengals do not, and they are not part of what I am saying.

LTBEs are so miniscule that they don't belong in the argument. You are using what probably adds up to less than 2% of the cap to argue the other 98%.
Not to mention you have totally ignore my comments explaing why those LTBE issues exist. If you want to chastise the team for making a bad decision by holding back the cost of one potential acquisition this year, then not being able to make it, and pushing that money to next year, be my guest. I will be very happy you have no say in Patriot cap management though, because I would not prefer the team to leave themselves incapable of making in season transactions or getting to a 2003-like roster cutdown where they cannot fit the 53 they wish to keep under the cap.
I will GLADLY leave $4mill of cap room open to move to next year in order to keep it available to spend wisely than throw it after a bad transaction in July. It seems you disagree.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

No I am saying that money spent is money spent. You are saying that if I choose to save it to spend later it disappeared.

The money is being pushed into later years, which is what I said and re-quoted when you falsely claimed that I was incorrect. You admitted that the money was being pushed to a later time even as you claimed it was being spent. Being spent in later years means it was pushed into later years. End of story.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Of course I can. If you think he's wrong or lying, please list all the teams that have been in "cap jail" for the past 3 seasons.



I'm not sure what part of "Functional" vs. "Absolute" you're struggling with here, so I'll just leave this part be. You're admitting that organizations "got a save", so you clearly acknowledge, if only to yourself in an unconscious and grudging manner, that there's a viable point about the cap that's been made by Felger.

Cap jail is not the only ISSUE created by a cap.
You are arguing that since no team had to cut players to get under the cap, the cap is not an 'issue to NFL teams'. Thats like saying no one who hasn't filed bankruptcy and been foreclosed on has an issue with the economy.

The fact that the cap has increased hereby giving teams more flexibility under it does not mean the cap is not an issue.
Once again, if the Patriots could not afford to sign every playerthey wished to because of the cap, how is the cap not an issue?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Of course I can. If you think he's wrong or lying, please list all the teams that have been in "cap jail" for the past 3 seasons.



I'm not sure what part of "Functional" vs. "Absolute" you're struggling with here, so I'll just leave this part be. You're admitting that organizations "got a save", so you clearly acknowledge, if only to yourself in an unconscious and grudging manner, that there's a viable point about the cap that's been made by Felger.

So you believe that when 2 sides are in a labor dispute comments about labor costs from either side are to be used as fact? You know that you know better than that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Cap jail is not the only ISSUE created by a cap.
You are arguing that since no team had to cut players to get under the cap, the cap is not an 'issue to NFL teams'. Thats like saying no one who hasn't filed bankruptcy and been foreclosed on has an issue with the economy.

The fact that the cap has increased hereby giving teams more flexibility under it does not mean the cap is not an issue.
Once again, if the Patriots could not afford to sign every playerthey wished to because of the cap, how is the cap not an issue?

Functionally speaking, the cap has been all but non-existent as a factor over the past few seasons.

Pretty simple, pretty clearly true. Did you not bother to listen to Felger's argument before jumping into this thread and arguing against obvious truths like "money paid later is not money paid now" and the like?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

The money is being pushed into later years, which is what I said and re-quoted when you falsely claimed that I was incorrect. You admitted that the money was being pushed to a later time even as you claimed it was being spent. Being spent in later years means it was pushed into later years. End of story.

You are talking about a 4 year period.
You just admitted the money was spent. How can it not be spent if it is spent.
You are trying to use semantics in place of admitting you misunderstood or misspoke.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

So you believe that when 2 sides are in a labor dispute comments about labor costs from either side are to be used as fact? You know that you know better than that.

Just whip up that list of all the teams in cap jail over the last 3 years for me.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

You are talking about a 4 year period.
You just admitted the money was spent. How can it not be spent if it is spent.
You are trying to use semantics in place of admitting you misunderstood or misspoke.

I didn't misunderstand. I didn't misspeak. You're simply wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Pretty simple, pretty clearly true. Did you not bother to listen to Felger's argument before jumping into this thread and arguing against obvious truths like "money paid later is not money paid now" and the like?

Quoting the incorrect statement does not prove that your comments regarding it are correct.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Quoting the incorrect statement does not prove that your comments regarding it are correct.

Obviously, although that's not what happened in this instance. Also, claiming that an obviously correct statement is not correct does not prove that it's not correct, and implying that the son of the team's owner couldn't be counted on to be truthful in an admission about the salary cap contrary to his interests at the time because there are labor negotiations going on without having the facts to back up your assertion is not a convincing argument.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Just whip up that list of all the teams in cap jail over the last 3 years for me.

It is irrelevant.
You said functionally the cap has been all but non-existent as a factor over the last few years.
You have now chosen to define 'non-existent as a factor' as debilitating and disabling.
That is simply wrong:
Factors of the cap:
-The Patriots had to trade Matt Cassell to free the cap room to sign Free Agents.
FUNCTIONALLY, the cap would have prevented the Patriots from FUNCTIONING by keeping Cassell.
FUNCTIONALLY, the Patriots couldn't keep Cassel until they were 100% certain of Brady's help. If the could FUNCTION without a cap, they could have kept Cassel around, at least a little longer, if not as the backup.
FUNCTIONALLY, the cap prevented the Patriots from signing numerous free agents who would have made the team, many who would have started.
The Patriots have FUNCTIONED for years with a roster limited by the amount of cap space available to them.
The same goes for other teams.

What you are saying is that teams are FUNCTIONING under the cap exactly as they would if there was no cap. That is simply baloney.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Felger was the most obnoxious I haver ever heard him at and that is saying a lot.

Jonathan should just boycott Felger and interview with Zo or Damon; two guys who know what they are talking about and are respectful.

Felger and all the hockey talk are going sink the station (and the lame morning show).

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Obviously, although that's not what happened in this instance. Also, claiming that an obviously correct statement is not correct does not prove that it's not correct, and implying that the son of the team's owner couldn't be counted on to be truthful in an admission about the salary cap contrary to his interests at the time because there are labor negotiations going on without having the facts to back up your assertion is not a convincing argument.

See my last post.
Explain to me how FUNCTIONALLY the cap was NONEXISTENT when all teams have operated under it, and made transactions based upon it. If teams could function as if it were non-existent why has no team cornered the market on Free Agents?

While it certainly isn't proof that the son of the owner isn't speaking truthfully about labor costs while in the middle of a labor dispute, it certainly is dubious to use comments about labor costs during a labor dispute as your sole fact.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

It is irrelevant.
You said functionally the cap has been all but non-existent as a factor over the last few years.
You have now chosen to define 'non-existent as a factor' as debilitating and disabling.
That is simply wrong:
Factors of the cap:
-The Patriots had to trade Matt Cassell to free the cap room to sign Free Agents.
FUNCTIONALLY, the cap would have prevented the Patriots from FUNCTIONING by keeping Cassell.
FUNCTIONALLY, the Patriots couldn't keep Cassel until they were 100% certain of Brady's help. If the could FUNCTION without a cap, they could have kept Cassel around, at least a little longer, if not as the backup.
FUNCTIONALLY, the cap prevented the Patriots from signing numerous free agents who would have made the team, many who would have started.
The Patriots have FUNCTIONED for years with a roster limited by the amount of cap space available to them.
The same goes for other teams.

What you are saying is that teams are FUNCTIONING under the cap exactly as they would if there was no cap. That is simply baloney.

It's not irrelevant, no matter how often you pretend it is. Oh, and they could have kept Cassel around, according to Belichick.

So he's now lying too...... I love this game!

Look, I'd love to keep going around and around about 2 obvious points that come from an argument that I think applies those points incorrectly, really.

But I'm not going to, so have yourself a great time with this topic.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

It's not irrelevant, no matter how often you pretend it is. Oh, and they could have kept Cassel around, according to Belichick.

So he's now lying too...... I love this game!

Look, I'd love to keep going around and around about 2 obvious points that come from an argument that I think applies those points incorrectly, really.

But I'm not going to, so have yourself a great time with this topic.

They could have kept Cassell, AT THE EXPENSE OF siging Free Agents.
See, they have to FUNCTION UNDER THE CAP.
The cap is an issue because you must choose among options and are limited from choosing all of your options.

So just so I understand your position is the cap has been FUNCTIONALLY non-existent so every transaction the Patriots have made for the last 'few years' are exactly the ones they would have made if the cap did not exist. Correct?
IF thats the way you want to leave it, go ahead and make your escape, its a good move.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

Of course I can. If you think he's wrong or lying, please list all the teams that have been in "cap jail" for the past 3 seasons.



I'm not sure what part of "Functional" vs. "Absolute" you're struggling with here, so I'll just leave this part be. You're admitting that organizations "got a save", so you clearly acknowledge, if only to yourself in an unconscious and grudging manner, that there's a viable point about the cap that's been made by Felger.

So if I ran up debt by poor spending habits this year, and then by luck I hit the lottery at the end of the year and cleared up my debt, would that then be a valid excuse as to why YOU should have spent your money poorly as well?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

It's not irrelevant, no matter how often you pretend it is. Oh, and they could have kept Cassel around, according to Belichick.

So he's now lying too...... I love this game!

Look, I'd love to keep going around and around about 2 obvious points that come from an argument that I think applies those points incorrectly, really.

But I'm not going to, so have yourself a great time with this topic.

You know what, it is relevant. It is one miniscule factor in whether the cap is FUNCTIONALLY NON-EXISTENT. It is irrelevant to the argument of proving your point though.
You have effectively proven that no teams have been in whatever you define 'cap jail' as, but have not even attempted to prove that teams are not at all constrained in functioning due to the existence of a salary cap. Its simply ludicrous to even suggest.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

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

You forgot the big one:

1999: Ty Law = 7yrs/$50M

Using 2000 as the starting point for the data is horrible as the cap was completely mismanaged during the Carroll years. Notice the biggest gaps in money spent vs. cap are in those early years as BB was trying to get out from under those late '90s obligations?

Regards,
Chris

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Jonathan Kraft On Felger and Mazz Last Night

So if I ran up debt by poor spending habits this year, and then by luck I hit the lottery at the end of the year and cleared up my debt, would that then be a valid excuse as to why YOU should have spent your money poorly as well?

No, and that has nothing to do with what I've been discussing on this thread.