A couple of Patriots tidbits from Mike Reiss

[Brarrell]

The best discussion occurred when Felger's dumbass tried to argue with Jonathan Kraft and then we got:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...89-jonathan-kraft-felger-mazz-last-night.html

The patriots spend to the cap, and that is the maximum allowed.

Every team is given 125 mil that's the cap and maybe the Pats spend to the cap or near it but its the BONUS money that they won't spend which either retains your own good players or be a player in FA. When your the 3rd wealthiest team in the league with the 2nd highest ticket prices in the league your fans deserve better. I also so the Curran quote about spending the last five years and I think that's strictly the cap I want to know how much bonus money was spent the last 4 years.

 

[emoney_33]

Every team is given 125 mil that's the cap and maybe the Pats spend to the cap or near it but its the BONUS money that they won't spend which either retains your own good players or be a player in FA. When your the 3rd wealthiest team in the league with the 2nd highest ticket prices in the league your fans deserve better. I also so the Curran quote about spending the last five years and I think that's strictly the cap I want to know how much bonus money was spent the last 4 years.

So what you are saying is that you have no idea how the cap works? Do you think bonus money is free money?

Bonus money counts against the cap, it is simply prorated over the length of the contract. So a $30M bonus on a 5 year contract for example is $30M cash TODAY, but $6M against the cap each year. Whether the Patriots spend that $30M as $6M chunks in different areas each of the 5 years or give it to a single player in the form of a Bonus is a strategical decision.

Example,

Team A: $6M left on the cap, signs a player with a $30M bonus to 5 year contract

Team B: $6M left on the cap, pushes it to future years or spends it on a midlevel player or 2.

Team A in this specific year spent $24M MORE in cash, however over the long term they both spent the same exact $24M more than that year's specific cap.

Spending OVER the cap this year, means you either borrowed it from past years or future years. Spending to the cap every year means that you spend the maximum allowed over the longterm and it is IMPOSSIBLE to spend more.

If the Patriots let extra cap money die, then you might have a point. They don't, they use it or push it forward.

I did provide a link to some very good discussion on the topic, it's a shame you couldn't be bothered to read it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

So what you are saying is that you have no idea how the cap works? Do you think bonus money is free money?

Bonus money counts against the cap, it is simply prorated over the length of the contract. So a $30M bonus on a 5 year contract for example is $30M cash TODAY, but $6M against the cap each year. Whether the Patriots spend that $30M as $6M chunks in different areas each of the 5 years or give it to a single player in the form of a Bonus is a strategical decision.

Example,

Team A: $6M left on the cap, signs a player with a $30M bonus to 5 year contract

Team B: $6M left on the cap, pushes it to future years or spends it on a midlevel player or 2.

Team A in this specific year spent $24M MORE in cash, however over the long term they both spent the same exact $24M more than that year's specific cap.

Spending OVER the cap this year, means you either borrowed it from past years or future years. Spending to the cap every year means that you spend the maximum allowed over the longterm and it is IMPOSSIBLE to spend more.

If the Patriots let extra cap money die, then you might have a point. They don't, they use it or push it forward.

I did provide a link to some very good discussion on the topic, it's a shame you couldn't be bothered to read it.

Glad someone said this.

 

[tricktak]

I have a feeling the pats will spend pretty big this offseason. obviously they're #1 need is a pass rusher. shawne merriman is a free agent and would fit in perfectly with this team. He's a vocal leader on defense, can still be one of the best pass rushers in the league even though he had a down year in 09 and for that reason he could be had for a two or three year deal. I also think they will get a pass rusher in the draft, a guy like brandon graham would make a lot of sense. I'm one of those peopl who think antonio pierce would fit in well with this team. He's an upgrade from guyton on the inside and since he's there with mayo he want be asked to do as much as he had to with the giants. they need a #2 receiver and running back too, I got off the maroney bandwagon a long time ago. Jonathan dwyer is a back I'd love to see them draft. Kevin Walter is a free agent would be a great fit across from Moss.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

I think that this year is the year that will make or break this argument (that the Pats are cheap) for evah.

Assuming that the NFL and the NFLPA does not come to a new labor (or labour for our British cousins) agreement before the March 5th deadline. Then the Pats are looking at an uncapped year, where they can go out and basically buy all the talent they want. Of course you have to think that someday the cap will be back, so you can't go nuts.

Also you have to consider that most, if not all of the teams that the Pats will be chasing next year are serverly limited in their abilities to sign free agents via the "final 8" provisions of the uncapped year in the CBA. It takes the free spending Cowboys, Jets out of any Free Agent's negotiations (Colts, Saints, Chargers, Vikings, Ravens, & Arizona round out the "Final 8". So if your the Pats and the JEts, Chargers, Ravens, and Colts are all hampered by this rule, I would go out and sign a few Free Agents because a) they can and b) the price might be lower than you thinks this off-season with these restrictions.

Now if the Pats do this, and re-signs Vince and extends Brady, then the cheap talk goes out the window. If they sign no one, and make Vince, Mankins, and the Ghost all play at the tender amounts, then the "cheap" label will affix itself permanently to Kraft's forehead.

 

[emoney_33]

I think that this year is the year that will make or break this argument (that the Pats are cheap) for evah.

Assuming that the NFL and the NFLPA does not come to a new labor (or labour for our British cousins) agreement before the March 5th deadline. Then the Pats are looking at an uncapped year, where they can go out and basically buy all the talent they want. Of course you have to think that someday the cap will be back, so you can't go nuts.

Also you have to consider that most, if not all of the teams that the Pats will be chasing next year are serverly limited in their abilities to sign free agents via the "final 8" provisions of the uncapped year in the CBA. It takes the free spending Cowboys, Jets out of any Free Agent's negotiations (Colts, Saints, Chargers, Vikings, Ravens, & Arizona round out the "Final 8". So if your the Pats and the JEts, Chargers, Ravens, and Colts are all hampered by this rule, I would go out and sign a few Free Agents because a) they can and b) the price might be lower than you thinks this off-season with these restrictions.

Now if the Pats do this, and re-signs Vince and extends Brady, then the cheap talk goes out the window. If they sign no one, and make Vince, Mankins, and the Ghost all play at the tender amounts, then the "cheap" label will affix itself permanently to Kraft's forehead.

I disagree that an uncapped year definitely proves whether a team is "cheap" or not. What big-time free agents are going to take 1 year deals or heavily front-loaded deals? Isn't a bonus is still going to be prorated for future capped years in a multi-year deal?

It's still up to players to accept deals, and we are in for at most 1 year without a cap. They can use it to their advantage in and restructure, and front load as many contracts as possible but it's not an open buying season where they can just throw out all value models and overpay for anyone they want.

Also don't forget that if they break their value model for an uncapped year and overpay for some FAs or specific players, that will alienate other players on the roster and/or make them wonder why they shouldn't get a raise etc...

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Glad someone said this.

The 49ers of the mid 90's did this, robbing Peter to pay Paul and ended up in cap hell for several years with dead money (money paid out in bonuses to players no longer on the roster that counted against the cap) limiting what they could spend and stay under the cap.

 

[Ring 6]

I've posted the breakdown about the money spent in the past. I don't think they've been cheap, although the notion that they spend to the cap in actual dollars is not true, but they are a top 5 income generating team and only a top 10 spending team.

That doesn't make them cheap, but it does give at least some ammunition to those who think that they should be spending more.

One explanation for not spending to the cap every season is that it is necessary to leave a cushion, which doesnt always get used.
I don't know what is in their heads, so its only a theory, but I know in the first half of the decade, there was the instance where we had to cut Milloy to get under the cap (or more aptly, leave room for in season additions and ps) and there was another season where we pretty much ran out of room and couldn't bring in any players later in the year, or at least got very close to that.
Since then, they have left some money on the table, but I think that its more a result of being safe with cushion than not wanting to spend it.

 

[Ring 6]

Your response is a great one, because this sort of spending breakdown is something that you have to take in an aggregate to get any real feel for what's going on. Lump sum bonuses and the like make a year-by-year approach a lousy way to evaluate. We were actually just going over this about 2 weeks ago:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...n-patriots-3rd-best-afc-east.html#post1709674

There are other considerations too. There is a choice between using cap money by signing players with large signing bonusses vs players with small or no signing bonus. That will make a large difference in actual dollars spent.
One could argue its a sign of frugality to not sign a bunch of players under the cap with big signing bonusses, but one could also argue that it is a more sound long term strategy to avoid doing that.
Ultimately, the team that paid 150mill more will pay much less at some point because that excess was pushed off into the future. (Assuming there is a cap) It can be a function of long term cap management vs short term cap management as much as of a budget of current year spending.

 

[Ring 6]

There are other considerations too. There is a choice between using cap money by signing players with large signing bonusses vs players with small or no signing bonus. That will make a large difference in actual dollars spent.
One could argue its a sign of frugality to not sign a bunch of players under the cap with big signing bonusses, but one could also argue that it is a more sound long term strategy to avoid doing that.
Ultimately, the team that paid 150mill more will pay much less at some point because that excess was pushed off into the future. (Assuming there is a cap) It can be a function of long term cap management vs short term cap management as much as of a budget of current year spending.

By the way, did I misread that? It looks like $50 mill difference not $150 mill. Half of that is probably attributable to the Roy Williams debacle itself.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The 49ers of the mid 90's did this, robbing Peter to pay Paul and ended up in cap hell for several years with dead money (money paid out in bonuses to players no longer on the roster that counted against the cap) limiting what they could spend and stay under the cap.

Lots of teams have skirted cap hell recently only because the cap expanded dramatically after the 2006 TV deals were signed coupled with the changes in revenue calculation the owners agreed to to avoid a work stoppage in 2006. It's rumored that after opting out of that deal early there will not only be a return to a cap in any new CBA but it may not be nearly as expansive going forward. If the 2009 cap had come in around $110M instead of the $128M it has balooned to, backend cap hits like Manning's $21M might have crippled the Colts. And Dan Snyder would have had to cut more than Jason Taylor to sign Albert Haynesworth.

And FWIW gross revenue is meaningless in assessing what a team can afford to pay. The Krafts have the burden of paying for their own stadium not to mention contributing a large chunk of change to the slush fund that keeps the have nots afloat. Net revenue is essentially what you have available for cash over cap without robbing Peter (or your wife and kids by dipping into non football assets) to pay Paul. As each new taxpayer assisted stadium comes on line with larger capacity than Gillette and the use of PSL's which Kraft eschewed, the NEP will lose ground in stadium revenue and the burden to keep up with the Jones's will fall on the season ticket holders unless the FO is smart enough to continue to value shop with an eye toward the long term goal of remaining consistently competitive.

Irsay had to liquidate personal assets to fund part of Mannings last signing bonus because his team didn't generate sufficient net revenue even squeezing it out of the middle of his roster. He got a sweetheart stadium deal as a result, which over and above winning a Lombardi was his #1 goal, so the taxpayers of Indiana are essentially going to fund whatever he gives Manning this time, along with the 26 chumps on the half of the Colts roster who don't top $1M... Snyder nets a lot more than Kraft, more than anyone in the league consistently, because his taxpayer funded stadium with a 90K capacity operates like a currency press no matter what he does...which to date has been nothing but waste money while driving up overall player costs for his 31 partners and making laughingstocks out of his once proud fans.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Revenue is irrelevant when discussing this topic because there is a (salary) cap. So those who bring up revenue are avoiding the issue.

IMO, the best way to determine how "cheap" a team is would be to go back a number of years (at least 5, perhaps 10 is better) and add up the difference between what the teams cap was and how much of that cap they spent. For teams that spend up to the cap, it will be less than $1 million a year each year. Then rank the teams from lowest to highest dollars. This removes all the irrelevant discussion about how many dollars actually flowed out in any given year.

I've never seen this done, but I expect someone, somewhere has done it. It's pretty obvious that this gives a true, unbiased picture of what teams will actually spend money vs. those who don't. Admittedly, there are many that prefer the biased picture because it fits their agenda...

Of course, the Patriots look good under this type of ranking (as well as most NFL teams) since they spend to the cap every year.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Revenue is irrelevant when discussing this topic because there is a (salary) cap. So those who bring up revenue are avoiding the issue.

IMO, the best way to determine how "cheap" a team is would be to go back a number of years (at least 5, perhaps 10 is better) and add up the difference between what the teams cap was and how much of that cap they spent. For teams that spend up to the cap, it will be less than $1 million a year each year. Then rank the teams from lowest to highest dollars. This removes all the irrelevant discussion about how many dollars actually flowed out in any given year.

I've never seen this done, but I expect someone, somewhere has done it. It's pretty obvious that this gives a true, unbiased picture of what teams will actually spend money vs. those who don't. Admittedly, there are many that prefer the biased picture because it fits their agenda...

Of course, the Patriots look good under this type of ranking (as well as most NFL teams) since they spend to the cap every year.

NFL.com Blogs Blog Archive Moneyball, NFL style

It won't tell you cash spent vs cap or % of cap but it tells you who spends and who doesn't. As you can expect, teams will good revenue streams, public stadiums and excellent profits tend to spend the most.

There was a huge thread on this that I started a few months ago. Jonathan Kraft and Felger argued the point of how much the Pats spend to the cap incessantly.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

From his blog:

Kinda shoots this recent theory that the Pats are cheap argument out of the water.

Quick-hit thoughts around NFL & Pats - Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

The jackals in the press such as Felger will not want to hear this