Re: All these signings..................


"stananger" < stananger@********.***> wrote in message news:HTKUf.15550$bu.13526@xxxxxxxxxxx
AllYou! wrote:


"stananger" < stananger@********.***> wrote in message
news:rKzUf.5042$hC.738@xxxxxxxxxxx
AllYou! wrote:


"stananger" < stananger@********.***> wrote in message
news:tPeUf.8618$vy.7312@xxxxxxxxxxx
AllYou! wrote:


"stananger" < stananger@********.***> wrote in message
news:xt3Uf.7768$TK2.6018@xxxxxxxxxxx
make me wonder whats going on with the Patriot brain trust.

Either they know something we all dont know or they're getting
awfully
damn
cheap.

Especially since I saw Krafty's name on a "billionaire's" list.
Yup, Krafty is a "BILLIONAIRE"!!!

If he ends up spending up to the cap this season, which he will,
then
what you just said will look awfully stupid.



hardly, I would expect a team to spend to the cap.
its what they spend it on thats important!

No ***. But what does that have to do with what you first posted?
You
said that Kraft was cheap wrt to what he spends on player salaries,
and
my reply is that if he spends as much as the NFL allows, which he's
always done in the past, then your claim that he's cheap will look
awfully stupid.

He very well may spend it badly, but if he spnds up to the cap, then
you'll be wrong.

look this up, the Redskins spend well beyond the cap almost every
year.
why dont the Pats do the same thing?

No team spends more then the cap. I explained that. Because the cap
hit of bonuses get spread out over the length of a contract, a team can
lay out more cash in a given year than the cap allows, but then in those
future years, they'll be under the cap because of those bonuses. It all
evens out eventually. What you need to know is that it's a fact that
all money spent on players hits the cap, and no money ever hits the cap
that's not spent on players. That's just a matter of fact that cannot
be refuted.

sorry, but I dont agree with your assessment.

You can disagree on matters of opinion, but matters of fact are either right or wrong, and so this is not an assesment, but a fact.


I do remember the skins being penalized a few yrs ago for spending way over
the cap.

Take the time to look it up.

:-) Think about what you're saying. At best, your claim that Kraft is cheap is based upon the fact that he won't violate league rules to spend more than the cap like another team might have done years ago. Now that's just silly. But what's more, you want me to look up the basis of YOUR claim when I've showed you what the league rules are if a team fails to get under the cap by the required date.

So not only is your claim that Kraft is cheap silly, but you have no evidence for tha basis of your silly *assesment* in the first place. Must I say the words?


But thats not really why I say he is cheap, they have a very good
situation
money wise and I am sure they have the business smarts to be creative
and
should be able to keep some of these players they are losing.


Then why do you say he's cheap? He spends as much on players as the NFL
allows, he financed the stadium himself, and he was the one who lead the
way arguing that teams like the Pats should share revenue with other
teams. How is that cheap?

Actually, lets go back to my original statement,

make me wonder whats going on with the Patriot brain trust.

Either they know something we all dont know or they're getting
awfully damn cheap.

I really didnt say he WAS cheap, I just implied something is going on and
maybe they are going the cheap route.

agree?

What you said was "not willing to pay a little more than what they say the talent is worth could be defined as "cheap"!". Well, because the Pats always spend as much money on players as the league allows, then it's quite clear that they are not cheap. To be cheap is to try to save money in order to keep it. At worst, the Pats try to save money on one player do that they can spend it on others. How can that be cheap if they spend all the money on players?

Here's what the Pats have done.........

They spend lots of time and energy doing the best they can to place a monetary value on every player. In other words, they do the best they can to equate money to talent. Now keep in mind that because money equals talent (as best they can determine), and because there's a salary cap, they can only put so much money (talent) on the roster.

So the way the Pats work is that instead of having lots of talent (money) at the top of the roster, which means that there won't be much talent (money) for the bottom of the roster, they'd rather spread that talent (money) as best they can throughout the roster. That way, they minimize the holes they'll have at any one position, and they'll have good backups in case the starters get injured.

And because that's the way they work, they can't afford to give made hardly any players, if any at all, among the top paid players at their positions. If they did, they have less to spend at other positions, and so less talent at those positions.

So spreading the money around means that they have to let some of their very best players go sometimes. But if their doing it to have more money to spend on other players (and by spending up to the cap, we know that's exactly what they're doing), then no one can validly blame them for being cheap.


Then again I have read on many occasions that the Pats put a value ($)
figure on each player and wont spend more than what they think he is
worth.


Exactly. And they do that so that they can spend that money on players
across the whole roster. They want value all up and down the roster.

good depth costs money, stiffs, well, you know what they can get off the
street for them.

And with a salary cap, the only way to have enough money for good depth is to save money at the top of the roster. It's just the way it works.


.

Loading