Well, for one, you're combining judgement for Kraft the owner for the product on the field (excellent) with how he's handled what's happened to his star quarterback and coach off the field (awful).
I treat "how he's handled what's happened to his star QB and coach off the field" as awful from my point of view but likely unimportant. He says now (to fans) that he wished he did not trust the League* when he did. He says now (to fans) that the Pats have been treated unfairly.
He did not, however, take any action to oppose the League*.
I do not know what the odds of success were in Kraft's mind in framegate or in cameragate if he pursued action rather than words. (see below for my guess at
his weighing of the two events, which is what counts, when we are guessing at his motivations).
There is one set of possibilities in which what we like about him about an owner and what is making everybody very angry or disappointed would be unified. That set of possibilities is that all actions are he ones that he believed presented the highest likelihood for his personal success. This would square with how self-interest drives most people's motivations.
His personal success is simple up to 2007, consisting of those actions (and inactions) most likely to produce victories... including his own input, whatever it has been, into what came to be called "the Patriot way." His interests were almost perfectly aligned with ours, leaving aside any gripes about the cost of concessions and the like.
Even early in the Kraft tenure, you have to realize he took actions that
we would not allow him to take, were such decisions made by referendum. For example, he didn't say a word about the hijinks on the so-called "competition committee," including ignoring the Colts' piped-in fan noise, "emphasizing" rules to change the way the game was played at the time in such a way as to disadvantage his team specifically, etc. But we either don't count these antecedent (in)actions as heavily, or time has dulled any edge.
But let's say these instances don't "rise to the level," and since 2007 his personal success has relied not only on his team's performance on the field, but also on his response to off-the-field issues, in a way that did not apply before.
Fan support is not inelastic, but my guess is that it responds much more to winning than to apparent loyalty/disloyalty displayed by the owner. That's thing one.
Thing two is that he believes that the Patriots' success - now we're talking about financial success - is dependent on the League*'s success. No league, no cash. His own position in the League* is lampooned here, but as I understand it, he has heavy influence regarding broadcast contracts. Believe me, not having lived in the area since childhood, I have noticed how often the Pats are televised in a given season. Growing up it used to be twice a year, because in the Washington area we also got Baltimore games and they played the Colts. Now the Pats are on
national television several times per regular season. It's about as likely as not that the Pats game will be available to me via normal cable (not DirectTV Sunday Ticket).
Success on the field does that I guess. I don't know whether the Pats get a sweet deal, all else being equal, based on his position within the league as regards broadcast contracts.
If so, this would be another example of outcomes that would be in Kraft's interests via our interests as fans (well, not yours, but mine, since I am not local). But this example would only be possible via his position within the League*. I went through all of this trouble to establish that Kraft might
get something for all of this bending over. That something might be beneficial to the franchise, even if it doesn't matter to you personally.
So that's a complicating factor too. The unifying factor is that I
do think Kraft does what is "good for the team," but this is calculated by what he thinks is most likely to result in the financial health of the team, because he owns it.
This allows the possibility that he would be okay with a team with the Russian Bad Guy WWE personality, if it still results in coverage, fans, merchandise sales, etc. He doesn't care that fans like you and me have to have arguments with people calling us the "Cheatriots." Again, that could even be fuel for financial success. The Russian Bad Guy Wrestler gets paid too.
For another, you're failing to weigh each individual situation on it's own merits. Both are illogical.
Cameragate: I think he believed we were in the wrong - and that overwhelmed any concern about the excessiveness of the punishment. We were caught with our hand in the cookie jar in his eyes. But let me know if you feel otherwise.
"Framegate": I think he believes we were in the right. He has consistently
said this. But he takes no actions backing up what he says, other than putting up a website that says it some more, putting out statements, etc. In other words, he has not acted in a way contrary to his league* interests. (For example, suing the league*).
Let me ask you: what are your thoughts on Roger Goodell as a commissioner?
I think he's been an utterly inconsistent clown. I also think that under Goodell's tenure the League* has succeeded financially. Remember that WWE has had periods of success (though I don't know whether that product has grown or declined in popularity.)
I think that under Goodell, we have moved to a model of direct League* interference with individual franchises' chances in a given year. This has been to the detriment of the Pats more than anybody, but also to the detriment of the Saints.
What's interesting is that Parity by
process is easily as influential and is a form of disadvantaging successful teams. That's the pre-Goodell model. But it's not aimed specifically at any team so it's generally accepted.
Goodell is simply trying to fix games with a thin veneer of "justice" overlaid on his agenda. That's my opinion after going through two of these national-news witch-hunts.
The question is, what Kraft thinks of Goodell.
The answer to that question, if Kraft is a rational actor who treats his team as a business, is whether he is making more or less money.
Unfortunately, this motivation
might be consistent with the Patriots being cast in any role.
To clarify: I
don't think he wants this role. I take him at his word that he feels the Pats have been treated unfairly. I
do think he has a personal, emotional fan side to his personality. It might also be rational to speculate that the team itself cannot be assumed to treat such injustice as fuel for on-field performance in every instance.
But the bottom line is that I know what I don't know, namely, how he weighs each event from a business point of view.
I also assume that his interest is different from mine. I feel foolish for ever thinking otherwise.
I will re-assess my present thoughts on Kraft's motivations if he takes actions which jeopardize business relationships but satisfy notions of justice, honor, etc. (e.g., suing the league*).
