Kraft and the Pats get called cheap a lot, on this board and by the media. It seems to be a reaction to signings that aren't made, and to perceived star players not acquired. Isn't the only measure of "cheapness" the % of the cap that a team spends to? The other metrics are about HOW the money is spent - the distribution of the money across the players and positions. "Cheap" is about HOW MUCH money is spent - the overall player budget. There also seems to be a little disagreement about how much of tomorrow's cap to spend on today's players, through signing bonuses that tend to get more highly rated players today but leave more dead cap room later. But that issue doesn't seem to drive the issue in this debate. I'd love to hear other views on this. It seems very simple to me but that is always a warning sign.