If the Pat's don't spend the cap money, are they "cheap"?

[GoWesleyan]

I've always bristled at accusations that the Pat's were cheap for not going after marquee players, since they spent on the middle class and depth players, but that ALL CHANGES IF THEY DON'T SPEND TO THE CAP.

There can be no argument that spending to the cap gives you a better chance of winning.

If the GM doesn't spend to the cap, he is not doing his job of putting the best possible team on the field (and compensating them in a way that gives you the best possible chance you have of retaining them.)

Agreed?

 

[dryheat44]

I've always bristled at accusations that the Pat's were cheap for not going after marquee players, since they spent on the middle class and depth players, but that ALL CHANGES IF THEY DON'T SPEND TO THE CAP.

There can be no argument that spending to the cap gives you a better chance of winning.

If the GM doesn't spend to the cap, he is not doing his job of putting the best possible team on the field (and compensating them in a way that gives you the best possible chance you have of retaining them.)

Agreed?

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: It makes no sense to throw the salary structure out of whack just because we have cap space (ie all those morons from other teams and the media who said "pay Branch what he wants.....you have cap room"). I mean, Josh Miller or Gene Mruczkowski can come in and say he wants a new contract with a 10 million dollar SB. We can afford it, does it make sense to do it?

That being said, if we don't use the available cap room to extend some people or do some accounting tricks with future salary, I'll be extremely disappointed in our FO. Now that the Branch situation has been resolved, I expect those conversations to start happening soon.

 

[patchick]

If they don't spend to the cap by design, just wanting to pocket the money, then they're cheap. If they don't spend to the cap because they allotted money to contracts and extensions but players turned them down, then they're not cheap...but they have other problems to contend with. And IF it should happen that they end the year sitting on a pile of cap space, we'll never know which of those scenarios is the right one.

At this point, though, I think the magnitude of the cap space is somewhat illusory. All it takes is picking up Seymour's option (a sure thing) and extending one mid-level player, and suddenly the leftover dollars don't look like much.

 

[GoWesleyan]

"If they don't spend to the cap because they allotted money to contracts and extensions but players turned them down, then they're not cheap...but they have other problems to contend with."


What do you mean by "other problems"? That they can't get anyone to sign for the price that New England wants to pay? That seems like more or less the same problem, especially if that's a pattern that leads to not being able to sign enough quality guys to spend to the cap.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

No.

Spending for spending sake is a foolish and shortsighted business or football strategy. They had plans to spend to the cap but were not able to sign two players - Law and What's His Name. The cost of those two deals would have taken roughly $6M in 2006 cap space. The Seymour extension deal has been structured to take up $6.6M in 2006 cap space so that his future cap hits will remain manageable in the $<8M range. They are absorbing $14M of the $60M cap hit for their franchise QB this season which will allow them to maintain an average hit well below 10% of cap for him through 2010. Players may yet become available via trade until the deadline, but acquiring one who doesn't fit the system just because the cap space exists to would constitute pissing away cap (that could be better used in the future) to no avail.

Regardless of the outcome of the 2006 season, the franchise will go on. If it goes on with a cap credit in 2007 that means rather than having $2-3M less to spend that other clubs, which has been the case over the last few seasons because of their use of NLTBE incentives to stretch and maximize their cap space, we have $114M vs. $109M in 2007 (and two first round draft picks) we will have spent to the cap by banking additional cap for the future.

And FYI if you both spend to the cap and spend cash over cap (bonus paid but amotrized into the future) consistently, after a few years you end up in that place Miguel denies the exstence of called cap hell.

 

[Jimke]

The Pats have three starters who are eligible for free agency in 2007.

If they do not re-sign Daniel Graham or Dan Koppen or Assante Samuel

before March 2007, I think the fans should question the front office's

commitment to put the best possible team on the field. These losses

would compound the losses of Ty Law, Willie McGinest, David Givens,

and Deon Branch. We also lost Ted Johnson prematurely due to

health problems.

 

[upstater1]

What do you mean by "other problems"? That they can't get anyone to sign for the price that New England wants to pay? That seems like more or less the same problem, especially if that's a pattern that leads to not being able to sign enough quality guys to spend to the cap.

I think the argument is that the cap jumped so much this year that you have to give management time to adjust to it. You can't expect them to suddenly start throwing money around because it would create havoc with what the rest of the team is paid. As the cap increases fall back to what they were previously (between 5-10%) then the salary structure becomes more amnageable. Any business that has double digit salary increases will experience turmoil among coworkers until management gets control of the budget.

For instance, Brady is averaging 10 million per under a contract he signed a while ago. If he had more of an ego, he could rightly complain if much lesser players were nabbing 70% or 80% of his contract simply because the cap had risen.

I see this in my field all the time. We have 3-4% salary increases a year, which just keeps track with inflation (essentially locking us into the salary we started with) but because businesses are much more compeittive and they usually offer higher raises to their employees, my employer has to offer a competitive starting salary in order to bring in talented new workers. Inevitably, you have people coming in at the same salary as people who have been there a decade. How does that foster a good atmosphere in the workplace? It doesn't.

 

[RayClay]

I went looking for a used car

I brought $4,000

Found the perfect one for $3,000

Made them take $4,000

Didn't want them to think I was cheap

 

[RayClay]

The Pats have three starters who are eligible for free agency in 2007.

If they do not re-sign Daniel Graham or Dan Koppen or Assante Samuel

before March 2007, I think the fans should question the front office's

commitment to put the best possible team on the field. These losses

would compound the losses of Ty Law, Willie McGinest, David Givens,

and Deon Branch. We also lost Ted Johnson prematurely due to

health problems.

By best possible do you mean in your fantasy league or capable of winning multiple Super Bowls?

 

[patchick]

"If they don't spend to the cap because they allotted money to contracts and extensions but players turned them down, then they're not cheap...but they have other problems to contend with."


What do you mean by "other problems"? That they can't get anyone to sign for the price that New England wants to pay? That seems like more or less the same problem, especially if that's a pattern that leads to not being able to sign enough quality guys to spend to the cap.

I think they're very different problems. As many here have said time after time, "how can the Pats be called 'cheap' when they always spend to the cap and beyond?" They've just maintained a strategy of a strong middle class and small upper class, being willing to let players walk rather than spending more than they're worth. That's completely different from simply wanting to keep the cash in your own pocket.

But players like Samuel and Koppen are exactly the productive middle class that has been the team's lifeblood in the past. If, if the team consistently tries and fails to retain such players, it could suggest that they haven't adjusted their numbers and strategy realistically to the current cap. Or worse, it could suggest that players are no longer enthusiastic enough about working here to make an extension a priority. And regardless of the reason, it means an erosion of continuity and a lot of holes to fill in one year.

But that's all "if." An extension of either Koppen or Samuel would be enough to allay a whole bunch of these hypothetical worries.

 

[Tunescribe]

I think they're very different problems. As many here have said time after time, "how can the Pats be called 'cheap' when they always spend to the cap and beyond?" They've just maintained a strategy of a strong middle class and small upper class, being willing to let players walk rather than spending more than they're worth. That's completely different from simply wanting to keep the cash in your own pocket.

But players like Samuel and Koppen are exactly the productive middle class that has been the team's lifeblood in the past. If, if the team consistently tries and fails to retain such players, it could suggest that they haven't adjusted their numbers and strategy realistically to the current cap. Or worse, it could suggest that players are no longer enthusiastic enough about working here to make an extension a priority. And regardless of the reason, it means an erosion of continuity and a lot of holes to fill in one year.

But that's all "if." An extension of either Koppen or Samuel would be enough to allay a whole bunch of these hypothetical worries.

Besides Koppen, Samuel and Graham, who else are we looking at in this position?

 

[GoWesleyan]

I think the argument of not having enough money to adjust is good - to a point, but if they don't spend the money by year's end... it falls apart. They will have had time to get contracts done... and it's their job to get them done. There is no "We were taken by surprise" excuse.

You only get to spend so much per year...and you need to do that if you are trying your hardest to win. If that means you need to bump some current salaries in order to keep them in line with others, then do a bunch of that. I'm not saying across the board, but where strategically prudent. Isn't there some place for that when the landscape changes and the cap grows? Giving people raises based on performance is sound business.

RayClay:
How about this? You are sent to the supermarket to buy food to feed 5 people for a month. You can buy whatever you want, but only have $100.

How can you justify spending only $75? What sort of strategy would that be?

 

[richpats]

I think not spending to the cap can help avoid cutting valuable players in an attempt to free up $$$ for FA's next year. We'll keep a good portion of this year's squad for next year, and naturally their collective cap hit will be greater than 2006. Toss in some more money for signing FA's and our own FA's, then we creep closer to the cap limit.

 

[patchick]

How about this? You are sent to the supermarket to buy food to feed 5 people for a month. You can buy whatever you want, but only have $100.

How can you justify spending only $75? What sort of strategy would that be?

Hold on...there's a big assumption built into that. At a supermarket, spending $100 rather than $75 means you get more food. But what you just advocated--handing out "raises"--means spending more for the exact same groceries.

I'm all for new contracts, but only if they give the team more in the form of extra years from productive players.

 

[RayClay]

I think the argument of not having enough money to adjust is good - to a point, but if they don't spend the money by year's end... it falls apart. They will have had time to get contracts done... and it's their job to get them done. There is no "We were taken by surprise" excuse.

You only get to spend so much per year...and you need to do that if you are trying your hardest to win. If that means you need to bump some current salaries in order to keep them in line with others, then do a bunch of that. I'm not saying across the board, but where strategically prudent. Isn't there some place for that when the landscape changes and the cap grows? Giving people raises based on performance is sound business.

RayClay:
How about this? You are sent to the supermarket to buy food to feed 5 people for a month. You can buy whatever you want, but only have $100.

How can you justify spending only $75? What sort of strategy would that be?

Sounds like a smart strategy to me. There are coupons. And of course stores have "specials" 2 for 1, things like that.

Now, of course looking at the major supermarket chains in the area, there might not be great sales this week.

A week later, there's a fantastic sale.

I've still got $25 bucks. What do you have?

I do believe we can "spend ahead" on contracts for Brady and Seymour, (our 2 biggest) as well as sign Koppen, Samuel etc.

Personally I look at it as a stock holder.

If my company has performed as well as the Patriot, relatively, I'm not going to question their business plan.

As long as this management team is in place I'm just looking to buy more stock, (if the price is right , of course.

 

[BradyManny]

Can't they just absorb more of Brady and Seymour's future cap hits/bonus $? Just spend it that way, it'll put us in great shape for the future.

 

[patchick]

Sounds like a smart strategy to me. There are coupons. And of course stores have "specials" 2 for 1, things like that.

Now, of course looking at the major supermarket chains in the area, there might not be great sales this week.

A week later, there's a fantastic sale.

Yep, I'm glad we waited for the big Labor Day sale on Doug Gabriel!

 

[Pattie]

The question rather should be "should the Pat's spend up to the top of the cap if there's no one out there that fits their needs/scheme?" After our experience with Monty Biesel I think we can see that spending money "wisely" takes priority over just sticking a body in there.

 

[Oswlek]

Here is my post from another thread:

This villianous cap space is nothing more than anti-NE fans and media to create controversy. From everything I have read, NE is about $11mm under now with the trade of Branch. Now, consider the following:

1) Seymour is owed a $6.6mm bonus that is payable over the next 6 months. NE could pay it now, or wait intil the end of the year. Now that both Branch and Law have not been signed, it is likely to be paid this year.

2) There needs to be some space open in case of players going on IR. People forget this, but IR guys still count on the cap. You need to have some space available to sing replacement players. Othewise, you need to waive an additional, higher paid, player to free up enough space for two minimum contracts.

3) Unless the new CBA prohibits this practice, NE can just rework some contracts by adding in Likely-To-Be-Earned (LTBE) incentives that really aren't likely. They count as a hit this year, but if not reached are credited to the following year.

4) As everyone has noted, extensions can be reached with current players using this year's space.

Yes, they were expecting to use the cap on at least one of Law and Branch and it didn't work out. But this whole "NE is cheap because they haven't spent to the cap" garbage needs to stop.

 

[BradyManny]

I think the team the Pats have assembled is good enough to win a championship this season, so I'd rather they do some of the above and work toward staying good long term. That's what this team is all about.