The Patriots aren't "cheap"

[ctpatsfan77]

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing this.

If you want to argue that they're misallocating money, or overpaying/underpaying specific players, that's one thing. But cheap is not a word you can validly use to describe the Patriots (or, for that matter, most NFL teams).

The salary cap basically says that each team gets about $2.5 million per roster spot per year to cover salary (it's probably a bit lower; the exact number doesn't matter). Every player who receives more than that means that at least one, sometimes more, players must earn significantly less than that. Brady's $14.8M cap hit requires about seven rookie contracts just to balance it out. In other words, there's only so many high-value contracts a team can have at one time.

Moreover, Kraft isn't diverting millions of salary dollars to line his own pockets. The Patriots have, for years now, carried over essentially every spare dollar they have into the following year; some teams have, at least in the past, declined to do so, and just pocketed the extra money. Put slightly differently: the Patriots have essentially spent 100% of the amount they've been given to pay for player salaries over the last four years.

 

[Brady6]

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing this.

If you want to argue that they're misallocating money, or overpaying/underpaying specific players, that's one thing. But cheap is not a word you can validly use to describe the Patriots (or, for that matter, most NFL teams).

The salary cap basically says that each team gets about $2.5 million per roster spot per year to cover salary (it's probably a bit lower; the exact number doesn't matter). Every player who receives more than that means that at least one, sometimes more, players must earn significantly less than that. Brady's $14.8M cap hit requires about seven rookie contracts just to balance it out. In other words, there's only so many high-value contracts a team can have at one time.

Moreover, Kraft isn't diverting millions of salary dollars to line his own pockets. The Patriots have, for years now, carried over essentially every spare dollar they have into the following year; some teams have, at least in the past, declined to do so, and just pocketed the extra money. Put slightly differently: the Patriots have essentially spent 100% of the amount they've been given to pay for player salaries over the last four years.

I never bought into the Patriots are cheap talk, $120M is to Kraft what a $120K is to you or I. They spend money, the problem is what they spend it on is questions at times.

 

[Miguel]

Supporting numbers:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/10586646/new-england-patriots-spent-free-agents-not-wisely

Year --- Cap Cash ----- Spending Cash -- Percentage
2011 ... 120,000,000 ... 130,000,000 ... 108.33%
2012 ... 120,600,000 ... 168,000,000 ... 139.30%
2013 ... 123,000,000 ... 129,656,000 .... 105.41%
2014 ... 133,000,000 .... 95,000,000..... 71.43%
Totals .. 496,600,000 .. 522,656,000 ... 105.25%

 

[Miguel]

Please note that as Patriots players reach their NTLBE incentives the Patriots 2014 cash spending will increase from $95 million

 

[primetime]

I never bought into the Patriots are cheap talk, $120M is to Kraft what a $120K is to you or I.

You can't even really make the comparison. Kraft owns capital and sees a return on it, we are workers. We don't really see a return on that $120K that he sees on his $120M other than small investments, and not at remotely the same magnitude.

While I agree with the overall picture and I'm not sure it's cheap, but there is an issue with nickel-and-diming that we saw with Tommy Kelly and other players in the past. I don't think that's on Kraft, though; I suspect it's Belichick's attempts to play moneyball that sometimes end up blowing up in his face.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

there is an issue with nickel-and-diming that we saw with Tommy Kelly and other players in the past.

I'm not going to argue that it doesn't happen, or that the Patriots don't do it any more than any other team (simply because I don't follow other teams' contracts, so I don't know how often it happens). But I think it's fair to say that every team has to do this, at least sometimes, unless they are absolutely perfect in terms of their FA evaluations, and I'm fairly sure no team is.

I think it's perfectly fair to criticize on a case-by-case basis, but the tactic is, unfortunately, a necessary evil in a league with a hard salary cap.

 

[celticboy04]

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing this.

If you want to argue that they're misallocating money, or overpaying/underpaying specific players, that's one thing. But cheap is not a word you can validly use to describe the Patriots (or, for that matter, most NFL teams).

The salary cap basically says that each team gets about $2.5 million per roster spot per year to cover salary (it's probably a bit lower; the exact number doesn't matter). Every player who receives more than that means that at least one, sometimes more, players must earn significantly less than that. Brady's $14.8M cap hit requires about seven rookie contracts just to balance it out. In other words, there's only so many high-value contracts a team can have at one time.

Moreover, Kraft isn't diverting millions of salary dollars to line his own pockets. The Patriots have, for years now, carried over essentially every spare dollar they have into the following year; some teams have, at least in the past, declined to do so, and just pocketed the extra money. Put slightly differently: the Patriots have essentially spent 100% of the amount they've been given to pay for player salaries over the last four years.

Greetings,
The only reason why people repeat the chorus of the Patriots being cheap is because they regurgitate what they hear on ESPN/SI and players who hold disdain for the organization. As alluded to earlier, the Patriots run a moneyball system so they won't overpay players and the hope is the backups/role players on the Patriots are much better than the backups on other teams. The goal is when key players go down, the overall level of play for the team will not plummet.
Shalom,
Celticboy04

 

[Jackson 2]

That lie has been propagated so often by the local radio stations (most notably by Squeaky and the Dbag on 98.5 and most recently by Merloni on WEEI) that it has become a chant...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

That lie has been propagated so often by the local radio stations (most notably by Squeaky and the Dbag on 98.5 and most recently by Merloni on WEEI) that it has become a chant...

They remind me of Pinky and the Brain, well, if you gave the Brain a lobotomy first. . . .

 

[Gronkandez]

The counter argument to these comments is it sure would be nice to have Tom Kelly and Mankins on the team right now.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The counter argument to these comments is it sure would be nice to have Tom Kelly and Mankins on the team right now.

As I said above:

If you want to argue that they're misallocating money, or overpaying/underpaying specific players, that's one thing.

I'm not defending trading Mankins. I'm just arguing against the notion that it somehow proves they're "cheap."

 

[JMC00]

I overheard a few people complaining during the Monday Night game they shouldn't have been cheap and should have kept Mankins and used the $14m and got another WR and a DT. I just laughed just shows how little they know.

There isn't $14m available if Mankins is still with NE.

 

[BelichicksHoodie]

That's a good point. The team isn't cheap, they spend money. The problem I have is that it appears that they low ball too many quality free agents, and end up spending the money elsewhere on 3-4 guys who don't come close to meeting the production of that one player.

 

[TBR]

Most people I see saying this seem to think Kraft is our GM lol

 

[DaBruinz]

You can't even really make the comparison. Kraft owns capital and sees a return on it, we are workers. We don't really see a return on that $120K that he sees on his $120M other than small investments, and not at remotely the same magnitude.

While I agree with the overall picture and I'm not sure it's cheap, but there is an issue with nickel-and-diming that we saw with Tommy Kelly and other players in the past. I don't think that's on Kraft, though; I suspect it's Belichick's attempts to play moneyball that sometimes end up blowing up in his face.

Belichick has never prevented cut a player who re-negotiated a contract during the same year that that renegotiation. Nor has he prevented players from reaching those incentives that were put in as part of a re-negotiation. See Tedy Bruschi.

Unless you have specific examples, your claim about "nickle and diming" is BS and doesn't hold water.

 

[Rob0729]

Supporting numbers:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/10586646/new-england-patriots-spent-free-agents-not-wisely

Year --- Cap Cash ----- Spending Cash -- Percentage
2011 ... 120,000,000 ... 130,000,000 ... 108.33%
2012 ... 120,600,000 ... 168,000,000 ... 139.30%
2013 ... 123,000,000 ... 129,656,000 .... 105.41%
2014 ... 133,000,000 .... 95,000,000..... 71.43%
Totals .. 496,600,000 .. 522,656,000 ... 105.25%

So, the Pats are cheap yet spend a ton of money over the cap in real money on bad talent? It is good to see that the Pats can be killed with a double sided argument.