Kraft at Combine: Deal with Wilfork "close"

[JFK]

A deal to ship him off for some draft picks or another player?

 

[emoney_33]

Me too. The difference between "one of the best runs in the history of any sport" and "still among top tier in the sport". They went from amazing to good, so the point holds whether you're looking at 2000-2009, 2000-2004, 2000-2009, or whatever other increment you care to carve out.

1996 to 2002 looks a lot different than 2003 to 2009.

 

[Kontradiction]

Good to hear on this one. I thought that the deal would have come next offseason, myself.

 

[zimmy]

These quotes don't look that positive to me. Kraft has basically said what the press statement said. As Trojan pointed out as well he constantly uses the past tense when describing the talks. He even says "we made him an offer that we hope would get it done". This suggests the talks have finished and the Pats have made their final offer. It's up to Wilfork now. I don't think anything Kraft has said rules out trade if a good offer came in.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is immodest to say but over the last 10 years no football team won more football games than the New England Patriots so I guess we're doing OK.

2005-2009

Colts: 65-15, 1 Super Bowl win, 6-4 in playoffs
Patriots: 59-21, 0 Super Bowl wins, 5-4 in playoffs
Steeler: 50-30, 2 Super Bowl wins, 7-1 in playoffs

As I noted..... somewhat misleading. It's not that Kraft is outright lying, but he's deliberately choosing his time window to make his argument seem stronger than it currently is. In doing so, he's using the first half of the '10 years' to cover the second. It's not as if the team went from the outhouse to the penthouse but, in the context of his interview, it's managerial spin in action.

 

[BradyFTW!]

1996 to 2002 looks a lot different than 2003 to 2009.

hence why 1996-1999 was not included as an option. Select any multi-year span of time over the past decade, and the only conclusion that you cna come to is that the Pats have done quite well.

 

[fair catch fryar]

IMO anyone who feels insulted by Wilfork's comments about being disappointed about making 7M needs to get over themselves. Seriously, the guy is a gifted athlete that struggled when he was at the U of Miami and even married his pregnant girlfriend who supported him while he played in college. He comes to NE, plays out and honors his 6-year rookie contract, is now considered one of the best NT in the game whose shelf life is very short and this is his time to do what every red-blooded person would do in his shoes and get what he should be getting. I'm a teacher and I am in no way insulted by it. The Patriots played within the rules and tagged him and he wants a long-term deal because this is the time he needs to act for his family. He plays in the friggin' NFL and he should be paid whether it's with NE or someone else.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Good. Now Peppers and Dansby are next.

 

[RobertWeathers]

precisely because we live in a capitalist society:

Actually, the NFL and how monies are distributed is pretty close to socialism.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

part of it is that all the other NT's that might options to wilfork (like pickett and franklin) just got tagged, so the question would have been 'proven NT or no proven NT'?

I just wonder why it has to be kraft to come out and say it........his doggie muzzled himself?

 

[BPF]

Facts are facts.

Pre Kraft ownership: 6 playoff appereances, 0-1 in SB in 34 yrs.

Kraft era: 10 playoff appereances, 3-2 in SB in 15 yrs.

Kraft has nothing to apologize for and he is not misleading anyone.

 

[Deus Irae]

precisely because we live in a capitalist society: because every argument about how players don't deserve their money hinges around a civic definition of the word and not an economic one. The best statement a player could make, IMO, would be to get out in front of that and outright grant that that is the case. No football player 'deserves' more than a teacher, in a civic sense, but it's the capitalist notion of worth that defines how much we make, and in accordance to that athletes are worth a ton due to the sheer amount of money that is tied up in the sport.

In short: "I don't make 200 times what you make because what you do is essentially worthless; I make 200 times more because fans like you guys care so much about the sport that you've turned it into a multi-billion dollar industry, and I have a huge impact on my employer's stake in that industry. He's getting his cut either way, and I want to get mine too." A smart athlete would move the conversation as far away from any moral or civic notion of worth as humanly possible, and as quickly as possible; Brady, for example, has done exactly that to a certain extent. Wilfork, by insisting that what he's doing is analogous to the situations of everyday folk, is implicitly doing the opposite.

As for why the analogy doesn't hold up, you missed my point entirely. My point was that it's disingenuous to compare people who want to make more money because they barely make a living wage at the onset of their careers to people who have to suffer the indignities of $7M contracts. Any analogy that pretends that this stuff scales directly, and that athletes are in any way in-touch with the labor struggles of normal people, will inevitably blow up in their faces. It's unnecessary and it's a stupid PR blunder: they can make their case just fine without diminishing the struggles of others.

You're assigning a "deserves" value one way or the other. You just want these players to use your value numbers rather than their own. In a capitalist society, they don't need to accept your valuation, and they don't have to apologize for their own.

I didn't miss your point. I simply don't hold to it. As for diminishing the struggles of others, their struggles are diminished all the time. Players would be foolish not to try to equate their situation with other labor groups.

 

[Sivy]

I'm sure most of you have already seen it, but for those that haven't, Wilfork's Twitter has some comments from him about the whole situation:

Vince Wilfork (wilfork75) on Twitter

Specifically, he has the following exchange with some random guy from Boston:

Ravi: Don't think it's a good idea to go around saying $8mm+ is a slap in the face with all of those that are struggling right now.
===
Vince: thanks for the input... first off its not 8mill and 2nd off no matter what a person does in life they want to get paid for
Vince: no matter school teacher garbageman ect... everyone wants to be paid what they deserve
Vince: it is all relative to the job you have and the salaries within that job. 7 mil is great but for my job any my work it is diferent.
==
Ravi: Hey man, I'm on your side... fans won't be if they think players are greedy. We like guys like Brady who appear to take less...
Ravi: You've done all the right things, played out your deal, played hard, played hurt, all that. You deserve every penny.

My family is mostly teachers, and frankly I think it's a little insulting to claim that everyone does essentially the same as what he's doing. No, Vince, school teachers overwhelmingly did not get into it for the paycheck, I can promise you that. But then, the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like he had the right sentiment, but he just worded it incredibly poorly (a recurring tendency when athletes are quoted directly). Either that or he doesn't quite seem to get that getting paid $7M per year to play a game doesn't directly translate to other walks of life.

Just once, I wish an athlete would outright come out and say "there are a couple of ways to define 'deserve'. In the civic, ethical sense of the word, no, I don't deserve $7M. There are plenty of people that contribute more to society than I do and work just as hard as I do. Economically, I'm the on-the-field presence of a billion-dollar organization. I 'deserve' every cent of my salary, and I work damn hard for it. I am an incredibly valuable asset to my team--which is why I deserve the money that I'm asking for--and I owe it to the fans who watch the games, buy tickets, and spend their money on the sport." I thought that Vince hit on some of those points, though not nearly as well as he should have, and that was where his explanation was strongest. But the rest of the time, he was doing dumb crap like saying that his situation is analogous different to a school teacher's.

Football players are greedy

School teachers are over paid

Text book writters are under paid.

 

[fair catch fryar]

Football players are greedy

School teachers are over paid

Text book writters are under paid.

Oh boy.....

 

[Schmo]

IMO anyone who feels insulted by Wilfork's comments about being disappointed about making 7M needs to get over themselves. Seriously, the guy is a gifted athlete that struggled when he was at the U of Miami and even married his pregnant girlfriend who supported him while he played in college. He comes to NE, plays out and honors his 6-year rookie contract, is now considered one of the best NT in the game whose shelf life is very short and this is his time to do what every red-blooded person would do in his shoes and get what he should be getting. I'm a teacher and I am in no way insulted by it. The Patriots played within the rules and tagged him and he wants a long-term deal because this is the time he needs to act for his family. He plays in the friggin' NFL and he should be paid whether it's with NE or someone else.

I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD. How much do you think the top 5 professors at the most prestigious universities in the world make? The average salary for professors at universities like Harvard make close to 200k. Sound comparable to the average NFL player?

When you look at minor league or equivalant players in every sport (minor league baseball, CFL etc.), salaries begin to look like as much a travesty as K-12 school teachers. The range for these players is around 10-30k. The big difference I see between these minor league players and grade school teachers is that very few teachers have committed their life to their profession from a young age. Don't take this the wrong way, but most of my friends that became school teachers were specialists in their fields who "fell back" into their jobs. You can debate how valuable teachers and athletes are to this country and economy, but I think that is a more complicated issue.

Sorry if I got off topic a little.... this is good news. We will need Wilfork.

 

[emoney_33]

2005-2009

Colts: 65-15, 1 Super Bowl win, 6-4 in playoffs
Patriots: 59-21, 0 Super Bowl wins, 5-4 in playoffs
Steeler: 50-30, 2 Super Bowl wins, 7-1 in playoffs

As I noted..... somewhat misleading. It's not that Kraft is outright lying, but he's deliberately choosing his time window to make his argument seem stronger than it currently is. In doing so, he's using the first half of the '10 years' to cover the second. It's not as if the team went from the outhouse to the penthouse but, in the context of his interview, it's managerial spin in action.

You picking out a starting point of 2005 is what is misleading and arbitrary. Kraft picking out the time period that is the beginning of a decade as well as the year when they hired employees capable of effectively carrying out their business strategy is not misleading.

The time period Kraft chose includes STARTING with a 28-23 record in the first 3 years. Had he arbitrarily chosen 2003 to start, that would have been misleading.

The fact of the matter is that as long as they have had a guy who is capable of effectively evaluating and valuating NFL players the results support the strategy/philosophy.

 

[emoney_33]

Actually, the NFL and how monies are distributed is pretty close to socialism.

The (relatively high) amount of money athletes make is based on capitalism. Pretty basic supply and demand.

 

[fair catch fryar]

I agree. He is one of the top 5(?) at what he does in the WORLD. How much do you think the top 5 professors at the most prestigious universities in the world make? The average salary for professors at universities like Harvard make close to 200k. Sound comparable to the average NFL player?

When you look at minor league or equivalant players in every sport (minor league baseball, CFL etc.), salaries begin to look like as much a travesty as K-12 school teachers. The range for these players is around 10-30k. The big difference I see between these minor league players and grade school teachers is that very few teachers have committed their life to their profession from a young age. Don't take this the wrong way, but most of my friends that became school teachers were specialists in their fields who "fell back" into their jobs. You can debate how valuable teachers and athletes are to this country and economy, but I think that is a more complicated issue.

Sorry if I got off topic a little.... this is good news. We will need Wilfork.

No offense taken. I went into teaching as a second career and am glad I did. While the argument of whether teachers are over-paid or under-paid is an argument meant for another forum, but I really hope they resign Wilfork so they can go into FA and the draft without any major distractions.

 

[RobertWeathers]

The amount of money athletes make is based on capitalism. Pretty basic supply and demand.

My slant is on ownership and revenue sharing.

 

[upstater1]

precisely because we live in a capitalist society: because every argument about how players don't deserve their money hinges around a civic definition of the word and not an economic one. The best statement a player could make, IMO, would be to get out in front of that and outright grant that that is the case. No football player 'deserves' more than a teacher, in a civic sense, but it's the capitalist notion of worth that defines how much we make, and in accordance to that athletes are worth a ton due to the sheer amount of money that is tied up in the sport.

In short: "I don't make 200 times what you make because what you do is essentially worthless; I make 200 times more because fans like you guys care so much about the sport that you've turned it into a multi-billion dollar industry, and I have a huge impact on my employer's stake in that industry. He's getting his cut either way, and I want to get mine too." A smart athlete would move the conversation as far away from any moral or civic notion of worth as humanly possible, and as quickly as possible; Brady, for example, has done exactly that to a certain extent. Wilfork, by insisting that what he's doing is analogous to the situations of everyday folk, is implicitly doing the opposite.

As for why the analogy doesn't hold up, you missed my point entirely. My point was that it's disingenuous to compare people who want to make more money because they barely make a living wage at the onset of their careers to people who have to suffer the indignities of $7M contracts. Any analogy that pretends that this stuff scales directly, and that athletes are in any way in-touch with the labor struggles of normal people, will inevitably blow up in their faces. It's unnecessary and it's a stupid PR blunder: they can make their case just fine without diminishing the struggles of others.

I definitely agree with you on this. It is precisely because this is a capital society and there is no intrinsic value determining worth. It's all relevant to the market.

But what is the market? It's not some objective entity. It's a human creation and it's subject to all sorts of human behavior.

Without Daniel Snyder, Vince Wilfork is thinking quite differently right now.

Look at the NBA. They have overpaid their players and they are in bad shape. Look at Tedy Bruschi: he would have been cut and playing for veteran minimum ages before he retired had he not brokered the smart deal he did. Look at John Calipari in Kentucky: a product of boosters because he is NOT worth the amount they paid him. The market determines how much these players are worth, but that doesn't mean players or agents have a grasp of all the values and parameters involved. So, Vince's statement that $7 million is a slap in the face is really too much.

And there are teacher's and such who bring a lot more value to an enterprise but they don't break the bank precisely because they work for a non-profit enterprise in the business of educating, and they know that every extra dime they take drains money from the school's central mission. There are some smart research guys out there pulling many million dollar projects into universities. They could easily set up shop elsewhere, but that would disrupt their schools, their projects, etc. Market-wise, in any specialized discipline, you'll find a lot fewer experts working on, say, photosynthesizing solar cells than you will div. 1 coaches and prospective coaches making $1 million, but that doesn't mean the market or research behind this field is much smaller than the market for college basketball (it's not). The market would dictate those researchers get paid more: if they only demand it.