Kraft is NOT Cheap

[townes]

Never saw it, so I'd appreciate a repost. Rankings really don't tell much of a story, you need the raw data.

You would also need to figure in what other franchises pay coaches and front office. Belichik is the highest paid coach in all of sports and what he and the rest of the front office make is a part of the Kraft's costs in running the business. the Cowboys may spend more on player salaries but Jason Garrett isn't getting 7.5 million a year and they don't spend much on front office.

 

[Oswlek]

You would also need to figure in what other franchises pay coaches and front office. Belichik is the highest paid coach in all of sports and what he and the rest of the front office make is a part of the Kraft's costs in running the business. the Cowboys may spend more on player salaries but Jason Garrett isn't getting 7.5 million a year and they don't spend much on front office.

Additionally, I've heard stories about how Kraft provides more for the players here beyond salaries. Free agents being blown away at the meals and the facilities, things like that.

 

[townes]

Additionally, I've heard stories about how Kraft provides more for the players here beyond salaries. Free agents being blown away at the meals and the facilities, things like that.

I have heard that the Patriots are high end in every regard in terms of facilities, flights, meals....etc........., and I believe it. I don't buy the "Kraft is cheap" argument in any form.

 

[Shelterdog]

I'm not posting the link again, but many of you may recall the 4 year survey where Kraft was #5 in revenue and around #10 in actual salary paid. Now, you can call that cheap, or you can say it's still a reasonable amount, but this isn't an issue where one side is just talking out of its ass. Both sides can make legitimate arguments.

I'm very dubious about this survey. For starters there's been a salary cap every year but one so there shouldn't be huge long term divergences between the top teams in salaries paid. Now maybe some other teams had blips because they gave huge signing bonuses right before the survey was done but, over the long term, it's really hard to outspend other top teams.

The Pats may have let some players go to higher bidders but (1) they've essentially maxed out their cap space every year, (2) they've employed highly paid coaches since Kraft came in, (3) they have the highest paid football player ever on their team, (4) have a new, nice stadium, largely paid for by the organization and (5) they spend, by all reports, as much as is needed on facilities, etc.

There's zero evidence that they're cheap.

Frankly the most rational explanation for why people would claim "Kraft is cheap" is rank anti-semitism.

 

[jmt57]

In my opinion the whole "Kraft is cheap" viewpoint is not about religious beliefs, stadium negotiations, or some of the other incidents already mentioned. It's an offshoot oft repeated "Patriots are cheap" phrase which had its origins and is rehashed each and every time a veteran is cut, traded, holds out or is not re-signed.

To me there are two reasons so many fans and media believe this to be true. First they don't care to understand the salary cap; all they know is some other team signed that player, so why couldn't the Patriots? The simple conclusion they jump to: the Pats are cheap; therefore Kraft is cheap.

The other dynamic is the most well known sports team in the area: the Boston Red Sox. They operate in a league with very little revenue sharing and almost no consequences for spending far more money on players than other teams do. Subconsciously their mind thinks "hey, if the Red Sox can sign anybody they want, then why can't the Pats?" Simple (though incorrect) answer they quickly conclude is that the Pats are cheap ... and therefore Robert Kraft is cheap.

I personally know a former player that played for the Pats for a very brief time back in the early sixties. When the 50th anniversary celebration occurred not only was he invited, Kraft spent a great deal of time speaking with him. He told me that he literally did not have to spend a single dollar the entire time he was in town for the event; Kraft paid for the flight, hotel, transportation, all meals, drinks, etc.

That doesn't sound like "cheap" to me.

 

[Deus Irae]

Never saw it, so I'd appreciate a repost. Rankings really don't tell much of a story, you need the raw data.

Here's the raw spending data:

NFL.com Blogs » Blog Archive Moneyball, NFL style «

As I've said in many threads, I don't think Kraft is cheap. However, no matter how often some people insist that he's not, the reality is going to remain that one can argue that he has been, and do so with legitimate facts.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Is Kraft cheap? NO

Does Kraft spend his money wisely on players/coaches he thinks is important for the team to keep in a win mode? YES

Has Kraft made mistakes in running the team?...sure,we all make mistakes - in his case the biggest was hiring Pete Carroll as HC

 

[Shelterdog]

Here's the raw spending data:

NFL.com Blogs » Blog Archive Moneyball, NFL style «

As I've said in many threads, I don't think Kraft is cheap. However, no matter how often some people insist that he's not, the reality is going to remain that one can argue that he has been, and do so with legitimate facts.

They can argue whatever they want; they're wrong for the reasons I noted above. Being 10th out of 32 teams in player spending over a five year period in a league with a hard salary cap simply isn't enough to show cheapness.

 

[Deus Irae]

They can argue whatever they want; they're wrong for the reasons I noted above. Being 10th out of 32 teams in player spending over a five year period in a league with a hard salary cap simply isn't enough to show cheapness.

But your argument was certainly not dispositive. Just as an example of why, one of your arguments, that spending to the cap is somehow proof that one is not cheap, is clearly inaccurate/misleading. As I've pointed out, Miguel's pointed out, and the owners have now conceded during their negotiations, the salary cap is nothing more than an accounting tool with plenty of ways to maneuver it. That $50+ million dollar difference between the Cowboys and Patriots should have made that abundantly clear to you. If the Patriots were truly spending all they could, they'd have been #1 on the list or, at least, within a hair's breath of the top. Instead, the team's spending was more than $12 million per year less, on average.

Now, some of that may have been the result of timing on signing bonuses and the like, but a 4 year window is a fairly good snapshot, and it's not very likely that there was a $50 million payout missed by LaConfora from just the year before.

 

[jmt57]

Here's the raw spending data:

NFL.com Blogs » Blog Archive Moneyball, NFL style «

As I've said in many threads, I don't think Kraft is cheap. However, no matter how often some people insist that he's not, the reality is going to remain that one can argue that he has been, and do so with legitimate facts.

Thanks, the info in that link was interesting.

What stood out to me was not the specific rankings, but that there were a handful of teams at the top, a handful at the bottom, and everybody else fairly close together. The difference in the amount of spending between the first and fourth ranked teams was about the same as the 5th and 23rd ranked teams. The difference between the 28th and 32nd ranked teams was about the same as the difference between the 28th and 11th ranked teams.

Spending $2 million more or less per year - not an exorbitant amount, relatively speaking - makes a sizable difference for most teams in these rankings. In the case of the Pats, spending $2m more per year moves them up from 10th to 6th; spending $2m less per year drops them to 16th overall.

Essentially there are three teams spending a lot, four teams spending relatively little, and everybody else is fairly close (difference of $5m per year) together.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

The original poster focused on the coaches and staff of the Patriots.

To add to Deus'es point, the Patriots have had the leanest coaching staff and assistants in the league for many years now. They simply can't cut any more people even if they wanted to, because they've been operating at bare minimum for awhile already. They can uniquely get away with it because Belichick can manage so many things at once, even managing low-wage assistants.

I agree with the title of the thread, but the point raised about the staff is not the strongest argument for it.

 

[Jackson 2]

I'm very dubious about this survey. For starters there's been a salary cap every year but one so there shouldn't be huge long term divergences between the top teams in salaries paid. Now maybe some other teams had blips because they gave huge signing bonuses right before the survey was done but, over the long term, it's really hard to outspend other top teams.

The Pats may have let some players go to higher bidders but (1) they've essentially maxed out their cap space every year, (2) they've employed highly paid coaches since Kraft came in, (3) they have the highest paid football player ever on their team, (4) have a new, nice stadium, largely paid for by the organization and (5) they spend, by all reports, as much as is needed on facilities, etc.

There's zero evidence that they're cheap.

Frankly the most rational explanation for why people would claim "Kraft is cheap" is rank anti-semitism.

Bingo!! You got Bingo!!!

 

[Deus Irae]

Thanks, the info in that link was interesting.

What stood out to me was not the specific rankings, but that there were a handful of teams at the top, a handful at the bottom, and everybody else fairly close together. The difference in the amount of spending between the first and fourth ranked teams was about the same as the 5th and 23rd ranked teams. The difference between the 28th and 32nd ranked teams was about the same as the difference between the 28th and 11th ranked teams.

Spending $2 million more or less per year - not an exorbitant amount, relatively speaking - makes a sizable difference for most teams in these rankings. In the case of the Pats, spending $2m more per year moves them up from 10th to 6th; spending $2m less per year drops them to 16th overall.

Essentially there are three teams spending a lot, four teams spending relatively little, and everybody else is fairly close (difference of $5m per year) together.

I get what you're saying, but I'd probably state it as there being a more gradual step down. There's still a sizeable gap ($67.5 million) between the highest of the middle (#4) and the lowest of the middle (#29). It's a larger gap than the difference between #1 and #10, at an average of $16.875 million per year.

In the end, there was over $100 million more spent by #1 than #32. That's more than $25 million per season.

 

[Shelterdog]

But your argument was certainly not dispositive. Just as an example of why, one of your arguments, that spending to the cap is somehow proof that one is not cheap, is clearly inaccurate/misleading. As I've pointed out, Miguel's pointed out, and the owners have now conceded during their negotiations, the salary cap is nothing more than an accounting tool with plenty of ways to maneuver it. That $50+ million dollar difference between the Cowboys and Patriots should have made that abundantly clear to you. If the Patriots were truly spending all they could, they'd have been #1 on the list or, at least, within a hair's breath of the top. Instead, the team's spending was more than $12 million per year less, on average.

Now, some of that may have been the result of timing on signing bonuses and the like, but a 4 year window is a fairly good snapshot, and it's not very likely that there was a $50 million payout missed by LaConfora from just the year before.

The Cowboys are about 50 million ahead of the Pats and the Cowboys gave about 47 million in signing bonuses in 2008 to Hamlin, Marion Barber, Newman and F. Adams.

The Cowboys went crazy that one off-season and I suspect that the huge signing bonuses they paid out that off-season are the bulk of the reason they're ahead of the rest of the NFL.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

The Pats may have let some players go to higher bidders but (1) they've essentially maxed out their cap space every year, (2) they've employed highly paid coaches since Kraft came in, (3) they have the highest paid football player ever on their team, (4) have a new, nice stadium, largely paid for by the organization and (5) they spend, by all reports, as much as is needed on facilities, etc.

I agree with your overall point, but you're going too far in making some points. The Pats have not spent to the max cap every year. They also pay Belichick highly, yes, but have paid peanuts to coordinators since 2004. They also have the league's fewest assistants and smallest coaching staff for many years.

Jonathan Kraft has also been running a lot of the team over the past several years, so that's another reason why this entire discussion about Robert Kraft being cheap or not is silly.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Cowboys are about 50 million ahead of the Pats and the Cowboys gave about 47 million in signing bonuses in 2008 to Hamlin, Marion Barber, Newman and F. Adams.

The Cowboys went crazy that one off-season and I suspect that the huge signing bonuses they paid out that off-season are the bulk of the reason they're ahead of the rest of the NFL.

You have to pay your players over time. That's why a longer time period is needed, rather than just a one year window. So, show me the $50 million in unusual bonuses that the Patriots paid in 2003, and that was taken off the board when it would have otherwise put them right at the top. After all, the 2004-2008 period includes Brady's contract following the 2005 season, and Seymour's extension after the 2006 season, just to point to a couple of the team's largest payouts.

 

[JoeSixPat]

what can i say? i think the Owners LOW-BALLED the Players big time, led by Kraft. and now the season is in jeopardy.

i think an opening bid to the players didnt have to be "we take an extra billion off the top, and then give you a lower percentage thereafter. oh, also we want 18 games".

but thats just me. if you were a player, you would have said what? "hey where do i sign mr kraft?"

We're now at the point where both sides deserve blame for the current situation - but if I were a player I'd be asking the NFLPA* why the owners have now made TWO offers without a single counter offer having yet been made by the players.

 

[Patjew]

For the life of me, I don't know how anyone could accuse Bobby of being cheap.

I wish I could read one of these everyday!

 

[patfanken]

...the reality is going to remain that one can argue that he has been, and do so with legitimate facts.

This is a ridiculous statement. What legitimate facts. Just because a team doesn't resign EVERY player isn't a "legitimate" reason to call them "cheap" or even make the case. Just because a team doesn't didn't misspend $50MM over a 4 year period on player salaries, doesn't mean they didn't underspend.

2004-2008 - you want to look at the difference in performance on the field between the Cowboys and the Pats. I think a more revealing figure would be the cost/victory in those four years.

Finally spending on players ISN'T the only way a team can spend money. Coaches. facilities, etc are other ways that haven't been quantified that a team can spend or underspend. As other have stated, the Pats don't stint on how they treat their players and their work environment

Some have mentioned in this thread how the Pats have one of the smallest coaching staffs in the league. Do you really think if BB wanted another coach, Kraft would veto it????? BB's staff is exactly the number that HE wants.... NOT what he is forced to deal with.

Now DI, give me some of those supposed "legitimate facts" that show the Pats are hoarding their money.

 

[Oswlek]

I agree with your overall point, but you're going too far in making some points. The Pats have not spent to the max cap every year. They also pay Belichick highly, yes, but have paid peanuts to coordinators since 2004. They also have the league's fewest assistants and smallest coaching staff for many years.

Jonathan Kraft has also been running a lot of the team over the past several years, so that's another reason why this entire discussion about Robert Kraft being cheap or not is silly.

A small staff is BB's desire. He doesn't want too many cooks in the kitchen.

On top of that, NE had the most coaches on the staff in 2010 since 2001. If they wanted to, they could trim a few off and still be within their normal parameters.