My take on "Cap is Crap"

[Joker]

That's a pretty intense twist on everything that has been said. I've boasted about nothing. Merely stated that I've been right and wrong about things in the past. Having discourse on the nature of what our opinions are of the Pats is the very nature of this board. The words you quoted are my standard response to, "why are you questioning the Pats?". I really see no reason not to if I feel I have a good reason to. My questioning has no implication on the Pats at all.

If you're not open to that please feel free to ignore me.

My point is most members here are OPEN TO ALL points of view, have all points of view and USE THE BOARD FOR ALL KINDS OF PURPOSES. Are you DENYING your printed words? You're accusing ME of being narrow minded?

there isn't much purpose to this board other than to go "rahrah the Pats are the bees knees"

...you fail to recognize YOUR irony? OK, I'll use the board ignore function. No sense entertaining a profound narcissist.

 

[McClusky]

My point is most members here are OPEN TO ALL points of view, have all points of view and USE THE BOARD FOR ALL KINDS OF PURPOSES. Are you DENYING your printed words? You're accusing ME of being narrow minded?

there isn't much purpose to this board other than to go "rahrah the Pats are the bees knees"

...you fail to recognize YOUR irony? OK, I'll use the board ignore function. No sense entertaining a profound narcissist.

Look at the words that precede that quote:

"If we're not going to question any of the moves the Pats make, and rely on the assumption that since they're in the position they must know best, when clearly the Pats like any other team have made mistakes"

It was a direct comment to a poster that questioned whether we as fans had the right to question, which I answered in the context of his point with a yes. Period. Not that I believed I had any special ability, it was simply that a robust dialogue about the Pats requires us to challenge established assumptions. An essential part of any thorough dialogue.

If you are really trying to boil down that point into me thinking that the only point of message boards is to validate my own point then I don't know what to tell you. I enjoy anyone who challenges assumptions, or who make a strong argument in favor of convention. It has nothing to do with me at all. I just want a good discussion.

 

[Miguel]

I think in all likelihood the Pats didn't offer him a comparable deal. They probably lowballed him. It's somewhat irrational to prefer a GTD salary as opposed to a bonus as you said.

That's the difference between us. I do think that the Patriots offered him a signing bonus but refuse to fully guarantee the 3rd year salary. You think that the Patriots's offer was the same structure as the Jets (guaranteed salary) but the offer was a lowball offer. None of us know the details of the Patriots offer. It seems more likely to me based on the Patriots track record that the Patriots' offer included a signing bonus and was not a lowball offer.

I used to think that the Patriots had a chance of retaining Revis (hence my many projections of a deal between the Patriots and Revis). I no longer do so.

 

[Miguel]

What we do know is that the Pats weren't close to the Jets offer, which we got confirmation from Revis himself.

There are many numbers in a NFL contract. What we do not know is what numbers Revis is referring to. Guaranteed amount?
Fully guaranteed amount at start of contract?
Length?
Total dollars?
Dollars received in first 3 years of deal?
New money?
Example, Patriots could have offered a 3 year 48m deal. He signed a 5 year 70 million. 48 million is not close to 70 million. The 3 year deal could be considered the better deal by some maybe most observers and yet Revis' statement could still be true.

 

[DarrylS]

We are still arguing about Revis?? He followed the money, not that complicated and went "home".....

 

[McClusky]

There are many numbers in a NFL contract. What we do not know is what numbers Revis is referring to. Guaranteed amount?
Fully guaranteed amount at start of contract?
Length?
Total dollars?
Dollars received in first 3 years of deal?
New money?
Example, Patriots could have offered a 3 year 48m deal. He signed a 5 year 70 million. 48 million is not close to 70 million. The 3 year deal could be considered the better deal by some maybe most observers and yet Revis' statement could still be true.

I guess anything is possible we don't know every clause and are not privy to every detail. Though I think to say Revis drew a line in the sand and said I want guaranteed money, but only in a structure that you can't afford to pay is pretty unlikely for a player who negotiated with the Pats well before FA opened. Especially when any agent or financial advisor would tell the player that there is a time value component to money, and a signing bonus up front is the better deal. I'm sure the Pats offer included a signing bonus, with the Pats cap situation in 2015 it would have had to. However what was the size of that signing bonus, and how much guaranteed salary existed in the first couple of years. My guess is when it was all said and done the Pats were probably hanging around $28-$30 million guaranteed.

I don't want to spend much more time debating this one. I would say the most logical conclusion based on the information we know, and with the Pats history of conservatism (not cheapness) in dealing with contracts, is that the fully gtd. money was not equivalent. Which to me causes some trepidation as to whether or not the right decision was made.

 

[Danger Zone]

My guess is when it was all said and done the Pats were probably hanging around $28-$30 million guaranteed.

Its been reported by many different people that the Pats were at 35 million guaranteed.

 

[McClusky]

Its been reported by many different people that the Pats were at 35 million guaranteed.

Do you have a link, and are those full guarantees?

 

[Ivan]

I think in all likelihood the Pats didn't offer him a comparable deal. They probably lowballed him. It's somewhat irrational to prefer a GTD salary as opposed to a bonus as you said.

Do you have a link?

 

[McClusky]

Do you have a link?

I do not

 

[Ivan]

I do not

Then why do you expect Danger Zone to provide one?

 

[Danger Zone]

If we're not going to question any of the moves the Pats make, and rely on the assumption that since they're in the position they must know best, when clearly the Pats like any other team have made mistakes, there isn't much purpose to this board other than to go "rahrah the Pats are the bees knees".

The salary cap isn't all that complicated of a concept to grasp. Player evaluation is the harder part for me, but even so there has been areas where I have been right in the past on, where BB has made mistakes, and admittedly he's been right a lot of times where I have been wrong. That's what makes this all fun.

99% of Belichick homers/Patriot fans will readily admit Belichick is human.

We just want a little graciousness to how you go criticizing him.

Basically, what this means for me is if all the facts aren't known and we are given a choice between assuming he did the right thing and assuming he effed up, how about going with the "he did the right thing" for a change?

If something seems easy and simple to you (we could have signed Revis if only we dumped players A, B and C) then how about a little logic in assuming there is a good reason Belichick didn't do just that.

So if we can all admit that we don't know all the facts, how about we extending Belichick the benefit of the doubt that those facts don't fall on the Belichick just made another mistake side of the fence.

And yes, when the critics say things like "the cap is crap" they are very much in the Dunning-Kruger Effect territory.

It doesn't mean that we can't have fun playing Internet GM, I love to do this as much as anybody, but it should mean mean that we all recognize the possibility that there might be more to juggling a team's finances than pooh-pahing it as a meaningless accounting tool that can be circumvented at will.

 

[McClusky]

Then why do you expect Danger Zone to provide one?

I didn't demand he did. It was for my own benefit. If there is information out there that I was unaware of it could make me have a more informed opinion. Maybe even change my stance.

 

[Danger Zone]

Then why do you expect Danger Zone to provide one?

http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2015/03/heres_what_darrelle_revis_said_about_whether_he_le.html

http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/...w_it_with_revis_plain_and_simple_-agency.html

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/...-revis-contract-offer-fell-short-of-the-jets/

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...relle-revis/xiyA1e1RQaaaniEUWA0fdJ/story.html

It doesn't mean that these articles are correct about the 35 million when its all said and done, but thats the number they reported as the Patriot's ceiling in the bid for Revis.

 

[BTTA]

I didn't demand he did. It was for my own benefit. If there is information out there that I was unaware of it could make me have a more informed opinion. Maybe even change my stance.

Your questions would seem to indicate that you haven't bothered to read the really good info provided in this forum shortly after Revis signed, and are asking everyone else to repeat conversations already had just because you won't go to the trouble.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ear-impossible-for-the-pats-to-match.1118084/

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/post-revis-myths-and-spin.1118102/

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...pats-had-almost-no-chance-with-revis.1117938/

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-pa...tween-new-england-patriots-and-darrelle-revis

etc etc etc.

 

[Miguel]

I don't want to spend much more time debating this one. I would say the most logical conclusion based on the information we know, and with the Pats history of conservatism (not cheapness) in dealing with contracts, is that the fully gtd. money was not equivalent. Which to me causes some trepidation as to whether or not the right decision was made.

I challenge the notion that the Patriots have a history of conservatism.
They have made numerous players among the highest players at their position
Mayo, Gronk, McCourty, Brady, Wilfork, Mankins, Adam, Gostkowski, Vollmer, Koppen.

 

[McClusky]

I challenge the notion that the Patriots have a history of conservatism.
They have made numerous players among the highest players at their position
Mayo, Gronk, McCourty, Brady, Wilfork, Mankins, Adam, Gostkowski, Vollmer, Koppen.

[/QUOTE]

I made a post on page 2 of this thread that addressed this. It referenced the contracts you mentioned above. It's about who they pay vs. how much they pay that makes them conservative. Being conservative isn't a bad philosophy, it's brought the Pats very good results at times.

 

[McClusky]

99% of Belichick homers/Patriot fans will readily admit Belichick is human.

We just want a little graciousness to how you go criticizing him.

Basically, what this means for me is if all the facts aren't known and we are given a choice between assuming he did the right thing and assuming he effed up, how about going with the "he did the right thing" for a change?

If something seems easy and simple to you (we could have signed Revis if only we dumped players A, B and C) then how about a little logic in assuming there is a good reason Belichick didn't do just that.

So if we can all admit that we don't know all the facts, how about we extending Belichick the benefit of the doubt that those facts don't fall on the Belichick just made another mistake side of the fence.

And yes, when the critics say things like "the cap is crap" they are very much in the Dunning-Kruger Effect territory.

It doesn't mean that we can't have fun playing Internet GM, I love to do this as much as anybody, but it should mean mean that we all recognize the possibility that there might be more to juggling a team's finances than pooh-pahing it as a meaningless accounting tool that can be circumvented at will.

Listen, Ive been accused of multiple things in this thread, none of which really are true. I don't think I know more than BB, I've posted that in other threads in other arguments. I've also said that BB has been right more than I have. If you're really taking issue with the fact that I don't preempt my statements with that every time I make a point, I don't know what to tell you. Im just not going to do that because it doesn't really add any value to a conversation. That is implicit with anyone's opinion on here. If it wasn't true we'd be raking in multi-million dollar salaries instead of posting on an internet message board.

I'm glad BB runs the show for us. There is absolutely nobody I'd rather have.

I'm not really in the cap is crap club either. I've outlined how I would have paid for Revis, and it's well grounded in the cap environment. Just because something is contrary to what happened doesn't mean that it was impossible.

In terms of the $35 million guaranteed, you were correct and I was wrong. I don't know if that $35 million was full or for injury, but that is a more relevant data point than what I have. It doesn't fundamentally change the argument, but it is a good piece of information.

Finally in terms of psychological bias, don't you think there are handful that a fan-board such as this one could have as well? I mean opinion here often vastly differs from that of non-Patriot fans. Could that be influencing the popular opinion here as well?

 

[McClusky]

Your questions would seem to indicate that you haven't bothered to read the really good info provided in this forum shortly after Revis signed, and are asking everyone else to repeat conversations already had just because you won't go to the trouble.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ear-impossible-for-the-pats-to-match.1118084/

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/threads/post-revis-myths-and-spin.1118102/

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...pats-had-almost-no-chance-with-revis.1117938/

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-pa...tween-new-england-patriots-and-darrelle-revis

etc etc etc.

This isn't my preferred message board to talk Pats. I did miss out on those threads. I'm not really asking anyone to repeat conversations. What started out as a simple point that yes the Pats could have afforded to match the true guarantees in Revis's contract and remain cap compliant, spiraled a bit into personal attacks, and a much larger discussion. I did miss out on a specific detail, but it doesn't really fundamentally change anything.

 

[Danger Zone]

Listen, Ive been accused of multiple things in this thread, none of which really are true. I don't think I know more than BB, I've posted that in other threads in other arguments. I've also said that BB has been right more than I have. If you're really taking issue with the fact that I don't preempt my statements with that every time I make a point, I don't know what to tell you. Im just not going to do that because it doesn't really add any value to a conversation. That is implicit with anyone's opinion on here. If it wasn't true we'd be raking in multi-million dollar salaries instead of posting on an internet message board.

I'm glad BB runs the show for us. There is absolutely nobody I'd rather have.

I'm not really in the cap is crap club either. I've outlined how I would have paid for Revis, and it's well grounded in the cap environment. Just because something is contrary to what happened doesn't mean that it was impossible.

In terms of the $35 million guaranteed, you were correct and I was wrong. I don't know if that $35 million was full or for injury, but that is a more relevant data point than what I have. It doesn't fundamentally change the argument, but it is a good piece of information.

Finally in terms of psychological bias, don't you think there are handful that a fan-board such as this one could have as well? I mean opinion here often vastly differs from that of non-Patriot fans. Could that be influencing the popular opinion here as well?

I actually find you quite mature and reasonable. Some of our reactions to you (mine included) are not so much the approach you are taking stating your opinion but based on years of us having had this same argument with the Belichick is a terrible GM crowd.

What you are seeing here, is a bit of a homer backlash. We just won the Super Bowl. But 6 weeks later the wannabe-GMs are railing against Belichick because he refused to get into a bidding war with a team that was probably going to pay any price to steal back Revis from us.

I simply disagree with you about some of your conclusions. But I respect the manner in which you've stated them.