$20M under 2007 cap with full roster

[RayClay]

There's no need to discuss the Milloy cut any more. He is long gone. However, I do believe that if bb had it do over he again, he would NOT have fired Milloy the week before the season started. It cost the next game. The team was in public rebellion (led by Bruschi). All settled down quickly, but that day was remembered by all, and from that day the point was made. This is a business, and the team will use whatever leverage it can to further the business interests of the patriots.

They won the next two Super Bowls.

Am I missing something here? Seriously.

 

[RayClay]

The object is to win a super bowl. The teams that win it have a budget and a plan.

Sometimes they have extra money, sometimes not enough, (the Pats have had to cut players and renegotiate contracts in the past).

They don't spend based on how much they have, they spend for value in the present and the future of long term contracts.

If they don't have a player worth tying up in a long term contract, they get by with an affordable free agent.

If they believe some one is asking more than they're worth, they let them go.

Teams like Pittsburgh, Denver, Philadelphia, Indianapolis and the Patriots stick to the plan and are competitive every year.

Teams like Washington spend every cent they can regardless of value.

I don't think the Raiders have done really great with trades and F.A. signings either.

 

[mgteich]

Come on! Everyone has criticized Indy's cap strategy year after year.

You are simply incorrect if you think that we need $15M to take care of injuries.

The patriots have spent every cent in the past.

Teams like Washington mortgage the future. That is another issue entirely.

With your logic, we'll cut Colvin next year, ignoring the fact that we have plenty of cap room.

What I find amusing is that whatever happens, you all think that this was in the team's plans. I have absolutely no question that if the Kraft's knew that we would end up not either signing Law or Branch that they would have gone another way and signed someone else.

I have absolutely ZERO issue with us passing on everyone that signed elsewhere. I think we could have planned better, and used the cap better. I also think that the team has done an extraordinary job getting Gabriel and Seau. But working that way is a crapshoot. In fairness, these two could have easily ended up to be as bad as last year's free agents.

The object is to win a super bowl. The teams that win it
have a budget and a plan.

Sometimes they have extra money, sometimes not enough, (the Pats have had to cut players and renegotiate contracts in the past).

They don't spend based on how much they have, they spend for value in the present and the future of long term contracts.

If they don't have a player worth tying up in a long term contract, they get by with an affordable free agent.

If they believe some one is asking more than they're worth, they let them go.

Teams like Pittsburgh, Denver, Philadelphia, Indianapolis and the Patriots stick to the plan and are competitive every year.

Teams like Washington spend every cent they can regardless of value.

I don't think the Raiders have done really great with trades and F.A. signings either.

 

[RayClay]

Come on! Everyone has criticized Indy's cap strategy year after year.

You are simply incorrect if you think that we need $15M to take care of injuries.

The patriots have spent every cent in the past.

Teams like Washington mortgage the future. That is another issue entirely.

With your logic, we'll cut Colvin next year, ignoring the fact that we have plenty of cap room.

What I find amusing is that whatever happens, you all think that this was in the team's plans. I have absolutely no question that if the Kraft's knew that we would end up not either signing Law or Branch that they would have gone another way and signed someone else.

I have absolutely ZERO issue with us passing on everyone that signed elsewhere. I think we could have planned better, and used the cap better. I also think that the team has done an extraordinary job getting Gabriel and Seau. But working that way is a crapshoot. In fairness, these two could have easily ended up to be as bad as last year's free agents.

Indy's strategy is to build around Peyton. They patch their defense if need be. They have been consistent in their strategy.

Regardless of how much money they have they execute their strategy.

I know of no succesfull team that acquires players, (and long term contracts), based on how much money they have to spend. Except the Redskins.

I have been critical of their depth and future prospects at LB. Whatever their plan is, they have the ammunition in money and picks to do whatever they need to.

Long term contracts don't go away. we'll hit years where we have trouble signing everyone. Unlike some we will have flexibility.

Unless you think players in their prime will settle for one year contracts?

 

[Clonamery]

Come on! Everyone has criticized Indy's cap strategy year after year.


What I find amusing is that whatever happens, you all think that this was in the team's plans. I have absolutely no question that if the Kraft's knew that we would end up not either signing Law or Branch that they would have gone another way and signed someone else.

I have absolutely ZERO issue with us passing on everyone that signed elsewhere. I think we could have planned better, and used the cap better. I also think that the team has done an extraordinary job getting Gabriel and Seau. But working that way is a crapshoot. In fairness, these two could have easily ended up to be as bad as last year's free agents.

Tread lightly where you could use generalities ("you all think..."). Broad-based statements lessen your argument. Frankly, I'm not one to make major assumptions on what the FO thinks or does.....past guesses have generally proven wrong or something slightly less-educated than I want to admit anymore.

Hindsight....who doesn't usually reconsider their choices?

Indy is what it is, after all. They ride the high-priced offense and what strides they've tried to make on defense has lacked any depth to perform consistently.

I agree Seau was a crapshoot but there was more in Gabriel (in fairness).

 

[TeamPats]

I think one thing that has gone unnoticed is the unbelievable quality we have in the bottom 10 players on our team ranked via cap hit. With so many picks in next years draft and the mere fact that it is getting harder and harder for new players to make this team I see a TON of action on draft day with trades either to be accrued the following year or packaged to move up in the draft. Yes we have a lot of cap space but we are running out of roster room.

 

[mgteich]

We greatly value our bottom ten, but please understand that guys like Yates and Spann were available to other teams as late as two weeks ago. No one was interested.

I think one thing that has gone unnoticed is the unbelievable quality we have in the bottom 10 players on our team ranked via cap hit. With so many picks in next years draft and the mere fact that it is getting harder and harder for new players to make this team I see a TON of action on draft day with trades either to be accrued the following year or packaged to move up in the draft. Yes we have a lot of cap space but we are running out of roster room.

 

[RayClay]

We greatly value our bottom ten, but please understand that guys like Yates and Spann were available to other teams as late as two weeks ago. No one was interested.

I'm kind of happy we have Yates now. What if somebody had picked him up, who'd be playing guard tonight?

 

[RayClay]

The problem with you argument is it works much better when we don't field a competitive team.

Of course we will have a competitive team into the foreseeable future because of the way we do business.

Even you would have to admit if the criterion is preparing to win a super bowl, we know how to do it better than anyone in the salary cap era.

What other criterion is more important?

 

[mgteich]

The question is whether we would be better or worse in the next three years if we spent more on players, and less on pushing money to 2009 and 2010.

Apparently, you think we will be better by not spending the money.

The problem with you argument is it works much better when we don't field a competitive team.

Of course we will have a competitive team into the foreseeable future because of the way we do business.

Even you would have to admit if the criterion is preparing to win a super bowl, we know how to do it better than anyone in the salary cap era.

What other criterion is more important?

 

[RayClay]

The question is whether we would be better or worse in the next three years if we spent more on players, and less on pushing money to 2009 and 2010.

Apparently, you think we will be better by not spending the money.

I can't really answer that question. The only answer to that is "what players are available that would definitely improve us now and for the future."

That would be the reason for taking on the type of long term contracts that would eat up 15 million now.

The Patriots have acquired 3 wide receivers with similar potential to Branch/Givens. (Not saying they will play as well, but they could) They'll have to sign the ones they like long term in a year or two.

We have two #1 picks again and those bills will come due in thefuture.
I'd rather be as prepared for that as possible than compete for a fairly poor crop of free agents that are being over bid.