Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Vince Wilfork asked for his release today
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
NextBigThing


Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 22782
Location: Beat Of My Own Drum
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GoldenboyGB wrote:
I have zero sympathy for Wilfork at all.

>The contract we gave him
>How loyal we have been to him
>How loyal we STILL are being to him
>The fact were trying to extend him (don't know the numbers though)
>Trying to make a market for himself
>32
>Coming off achilles injury
>Has been paid handsomely
>Upset and requesting release purely off of us asking him to not take a pay cut but the cap to get cut.

Don't wanna hear how they are in the wrong for approaching him for a restructure. Draft a rookie and replace him if he doesn't wanna stick.


The only issue I have with this situation is this one:

If Wilfork had taken the approach the Patriots are taking, he would have left town circa 2007 or 2008 (at latest).

We cannot praise Wilfork for his professionalism while saying "it's just business" fr the Patriots management. They cannot both be right.

When players hold out for more money, folks need to stop whining. "Its just business" for them, too, and it's becoming very obvious it is financially irresponsible to take a different approach to the situation from the players perspective.

Chris Johnson for the Titans is another example. Elite play for 3 years, rides out rookie deal instead doing the financially smart thing (holding out for a new contract). Now, after being ridden into the ground and being a shell of his former self, he is likely to be released and see little of the money he expected to see.

The Pats owe Wilfork nothing for acting professional, but the message this sends the younger folks on the team is pretty bad.

Vince Wilfork probably missed out on at least 15 to 20 million dollars by "being professional". I am the opposite of a Liberal and I am saying there is something very wrong with the system which produces the result.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
m haynes


Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 811
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NextBigThing wrote:
GoldenboyGB wrote:
I have zero sympathy for Wilfork at all.

>The contract we gave him
>How loyal we have been to him
>How loyal we STILL are being to him
>The fact were trying to extend him (don't know the numbers though)
>Trying to make a market for himself
>32
>Coming off achilles injury
>Has been paid handsomely
>Upset and requesting release purely off of us asking him to not take a pay cut but the cap to get cut.

Don't wanna hear how they are in the wrong for approaching him for a restructure. Draft a rookie and replace him if he doesn't wanna stick.


The only issue I have with this situation is this one:

If Wilfork had taken the approach the Patriots are taking, he would have left town circa 2007 or 2008 (at latest).

We cannot praise Wilfork for his professionalism while saying "it's just business" fr the Patriots management. They cannot both be right.

When players hold out for more money, folks need to stop whining. "Its just business" for them, too, and it's becoming very obvious it is financially irresponsible to take a different approach to the situation from the players perspective.

Quote:
Chris Johnson for the Titans is another example. Elite play for 3 years, rides out rookie deal instead doing the financially smart thing (holding out for a new contract). Now, after being ridden into the ground and being a shell of his former self, he is likely to be released and see little of the money he expected to see.


I not sure if you mean Johnson. He signed a mega deal

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6916193/chris-johnson-tennessee-titans-agree-deal-source-says-worth-53m

The Pats owe Wilfork nothing for acting professional, but the message this sends the younger folks on the team is pretty bad.

Vince Wilfork probably missed out on at least 15 to 20 million dollars by "being professional". I am the opposite of a Liberal and I am saying there is something very wrong with the system which produces the result.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 24722
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NextBigThing wrote:


We cannot praise Wilfork for his professionalism while saying "it's just business" fr the Patriots management. They cannot both be right.

When players hold out for more money, folks need to stop whining. "Its just business" for them, too
, and it's becoming very obvious it is financially irresponsible to take a different approach to the situation from the players perspective.


Not true. Ownership has the right to terminate any of their employees at any time, that's an accepted part of the contract. Holding out is a violation of the agreed upon terms.

One side (the disposal when the player's cost exceeds his worth) is well within the terms of the contract. The other is not.

Quote:
The Pats owe Wilfork nothing for acting professional, but the message this sends the younger folks on the team is pretty bad.


We've been hearing this for years (not about Wilfork but guys in general).

You know what else sends a bad message? Overpaying guys based on sentimentality and letting it inhibit your chances to win. It's not a secret how Belichick operates. He's been cut-throat since he started in Foxboro. Anyone who enters negotiations knows that the Pats are hard liners with value. They also should know that the Pats have no problem shelling out big bucks for players when appropriate. The "bad message" seems to have not affected any number of young guys from re-signing in New England. Light, Vollmer, Mayo, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Warren, Seymour (2006) and Wilfork himself back in 2010.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NextBigThing


Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 22782
Location: Beat Of My Own Drum
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
Not true. Ownership has the right to terminate any of their employees at any time, that's an accepted part of the contract. Holding out is a violation of the agreed upon terms.

One side (the disposal when the player's cost exceeds his worth) is well within the terms of the contract. The other is not.


The employed may quit the contract at any point. They may owe money &.or not be allowed to play for another team, but that's it. That's the players leverage.

Quote:
The Pats owe Wilfork nothing for acting professional, but the message this sends the younger folks on the team is pretty bad.


We've been hearing this for years (not about Wilfork but guys in general).

Quote:
You know what else sends a bad message? Overpaying guys based on sentimentality and letting it inhibit your chances to win.


I agree. But this is like saying one gets rich by spending liberally. If it was not Bill Belichick taking this approach, I cannot imagine it working well.

Quote:
It's not a secret how Belichick operates. He's been cut-throat since he started in Foxboro. Anyone who enters negotiations knows that the Pats are hard liners with value. They also should know that the Pats have no problem shelling out big bucks for players when appropriate. The "bad message" seems to have not affected any number of young guys from re-signing in New England. Light, Vollmer, Mayo, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Warren, Seymour (2006) and Wilfork himself back in 2010.


I have no real issue with what the Patriots are doing. Belichick's responsibility is to put the best possible team on the field & a key factor in that is fiscal responsibility in the salary cap era. What is bad for Vincent Wilfork this off season is good for every other returning player next season. That's the way it works and the Pats have been and should continue to be unapologetic about it.

I am simply pointing out that when a player takes the same hard stance on themselves - and demands fair market value - because their focus is to earn money (whereas managements is to win games by putting the best possible team on the field), nobody should call them greedy. They're acting in their own personal interests as management are.

It annoys me to see folks labeling Wilfork "greedy" for demanding his release when he (at least thinks, probably incorrectly) is doing the exact same thing the Patriots are doing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 24722
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NextBigThing wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
Not true. Ownership has the right to terminate any of their employees at any time, that's an accepted part of the contract. Holding out is a violation of the agreed upon terms.

One side (the disposal when the player's cost exceeds his worth) is well within the terms of the contract. The other is not.


The employed may quit the contract at any point. They may owe money &.or not be allowed to play for another team, but that's it. That's the players leverage.



A player can't "quit" his contract. He can refuse to show up, which is a violation of the terms of the agreement. Or he can retire. A team cutting a player is not a breach of contract. It's written into every contract

Quote:

Quote:
The Pats owe Wilfork nothing for acting professional, but the message this sends the younger folks on the team is pretty bad.


We've been hearing this for years (not about Wilfork but guys in general).

Quote:
You know what else sends a bad message? Overpaying guys based on sentimentality and letting it inhibit your chances to win.


I agree. But this is like saying one gets rich by spending liberally.


What? It's nothing like that.

Quote:
If it was not Bill Belichick taking this approach, I cannot imagine it working well.


Irrelevant.

Quote:


Quote:
It's not a secret how Belichick operates. He's been cut-throat since he started in Foxboro. Anyone who enters negotiations knows that the Pats are hard liners with value. They also should know that the Pats have no problem shelling out big bucks for players when appropriate. The "bad message" seems to have not affected any number of young guys from re-signing in New England. Light, Vollmer, Mayo, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Warren, Seymour (2006) and Wilfork himself back in 2010.


I have no real issue with what the Patriots are doing. Belichick's responsibility is to put the best possible team on the field & a key factor in that is fiscal responsibility in the salary cap era. What is bad for Vincent Wilfork this off season is good for every other returning player next season. That's the way it works and the Pats have been and should continue to be unapologetic about it.

I am simply pointing out that when a player takes the same hard stance on themselves - and demands fair market value - because their focus is to earn money (whereas managements is to win games by putting the best possible team on the field), nobody should call them greedy. They're acting in their own personal interests as management are.


Their "own personal interests" are greedy. Whether or not they should be faulted for that is irrelevant. But at the heart of it is a desire to not fulfill a contract they agreed to and a desire for more money.

Owners/GMs are under no obligation contractually to raise a player's wages. Players are under an obligation to show up to camp/games etc. I'm not sure why you're failing to grasp that.


Quote:
It annoys me to see folks labeling Wilfork "greedy" for demanding his release when he (at least thinks, probably incorrectly) is doing the exact same thing the Patriots are doing.


He's not doing the exact same thing as the Pats at all. I certainly don't think he's greedy, but drawing a parallel between his motivations and the team's motivations is just totally false.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NextBigThing


Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 22782
Location: Beat Of My Own Drum
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
A player can't "quit" his contract. He can refuse to show up, which is a violation of the terms of the agreement.


What are the Pats going to do to him if Vince says his leg hurts and he can't play? Physically force him onto the field?

They can wave his contract in his face all he wants. If he decides he won't play, there is little the team can do.

Quote:
What? It's nothing like that.


Yes it is. Is an individual more likely to accumulate wealth by being liberal with his money or being conservative with it? The Patriots undermine theirs efforts to put the best possible team on the field by developing a reputation of being cheap. It's one thing to be known as smart spenders & another to be known as folks who won't take care of their own & there is a fine line between them which the Pats haven't walked overly well.

Quote:
Irrelevant.


Completely relevant. Should a newb head coach try the same approach, he will be laughed at. He;d have better inherited a good team and/or draft very well, otherwise players with financial sense will not go to them (or stay there).

Quote:
Their "own personal interests" are greedy. Whether or not they should be faulted for that is irrelevant. But at the heart of it is a desire to not fulfill a contract they agreed to and a desire for more money.


Agreed. The issue here is this means players need to be more focused on their finances. 5 years from now - who is better off - Asante Samuel or Vince Wilfork? Who came closer to earning the maximum potential?

Quote:
Owners/GMs are under no obligation contractually to raise a player's wages. Players are under an obligation to show up to camp/games etc. I'm not sure why you're failing to grasp that.


I am not failing to grasp anything. My point is issues such as this should theoretically, over time, make New England unattractive destination for the more financially concerned free agent (which is likely most of them).
And you can list examples of guys whose decisions go against that rule, but that doesn't mean anything. Last I checked, none of the blind folks Iowa let purchase guns have shot anybody to death either. Does that mean it's a good practice to continue because nothing bad has happened yet (even though it logically seems likely)?

I am not saying the Patriots approach is wrong (usually). I am saying it is risky, though, and not an approach I think a new head coach would be successful under. BB basically uses his credibility and says "how important is winning to you? Because we do a lot of it here" and gambles that the individual values winning at something probably like 25% of his market value.

BB bet right with both Welker and Talib last year, but I think that is more BB's intelligence masking the approach's flaws than anything else.\

Quote:
He's not doing the exact same thing as the Pats at all. I certainly don't think he's greedy, but drawing a parallel between his motivations and the team's motivations is just totally false.


It is not false at all. Wilfork's duty is to make money, as much of it as he can. People need to do what they need to do just as companies need to do it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patsfan06


Joined: 19 Nov 2010
Posts: 3103
Location: Chestnut Hill
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not going to get into the debate over who is right and who is wrong here.

Both sides have perfectly valid reasons for doing what they are doing. Pats have reasons to want to renegotiate as his cap hit is way to high this year. Wilfork has reasons to not want to renegotiate.

I hope they can work it out and bring Big Vince back at a lower hit, but they can't they can't. Thank you for your service here, you were a great one for the longest time. Too bad football players have to get older. It sucks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nextsuperstar


Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Posts: 1708
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
nextsuperstar wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
nextsuperstar wrote:
NT really is not that important a position in the current NFL.


It is in Bill Belichick's defense. I think last year proved that it's not really a position you can just fill with crap players and hope for the best.


There are few positions in the NFL that you can trying to fill with un-drafted free agents without seeing a major drop off in team production. That does not mean you need to be paying 12 million dollars a year for one player at that position.


I never said 12M for Wilfork was a good idea. In fact, I've said otherwise. My response to you was referring to your notion that NT is 'not that important'

It's a valuable position and if Wilfork goes, it has to prioritized.


I said not as important as CB or pass rusher, not that the position had no value.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cochise


Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 702
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although not optimal to play out his rookie contract lets not pretend he was a 5th round draft pick. He was making pretty good money as a 1st round pick. Then he signed a big deal with $25 million guaranteed. Lets not cry for Vince Wilfork.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 24722
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NextBigThing wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
A player can't "quit" his contract. He can refuse to show up, which is a violation of the terms of the agreement.


What are the Pats going to do to him if Vince says his leg hurts and he can't play? Physically force him onto the field?

They can wave his contract in his face all he wants. If he decides he won't play, there is little the team can do.


Again, I don't think you understand. If Vince refuses to play because of injury, he's required to disclose his injury to a doctor who will evaluate it.

They can't force him onto the field, but they own his rights and can withhold his wages.


Quote:
Quote:
What? It's nothing like that.


Yes it is. Is an individual more likely to accumulate wealth by being liberal with his money or being conservative with it?The Patriots undermine theirs efforts to put the best possible team on the field by developing a reputation of being cheap. It's one thing to be known as smart spenders & another to be known as folks who won't take care of their own & there is a fine line between them which the Pats haven't walked overly well.


I'm not sure why you're using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" with regards to spending here. The Pats' reputation for being cheap is obviously a bunch of nonsense and I can't see that it has hurt them one iota in terms of acquiring and retaining talent. Saying they haven't "walked the line well" is just ridiculous. They've kept their key assets and I can't really think of too many (if any) guys who left who lived up to their contracts with their new teams. They've made superb business decisions with regards to the values of their employees. And being "cheap" as you term it with their high end guys has allowed them to pay their middle tier of guys (Jarvis Green, Kevin Faulk, Kyle Arrington) quite well. It's not "cheap" when the same amount of money is going out the door.



Quote:

Quote:
Irrelevant.


Completely relevant. Should a newb head coach try the same approach, he will be laughed at. He;d have better inherited a good team and/or draft very well, otherwise players with financial sense will not go to them (or stay there).


It's not relevant though because many GM's are value oriented and play hardball with their employees. It's not something unique to Belichick. Ted Thompson has been doing it for quite awhile in Green Bay, for example.


Quote:

Quote:
Owners/GMs are under no obligation contractually to raise a player's wages. Players are under an obligation to show up to camp/games etc. I'm not sure why you're failing to grasp that.


I am not failing to grasp anything. My point is issues such as this should theoretically, over time, make New England unattractive destination for the more financially concerned free agent (which is likely most of them).


It hasn't. Because the "system" works. Build a deep, talented roster with a few key players at the top and a deep crop of secondary talent and you can sustain success for a long time. People have been saying "The Patriot Way" will scare away players since 2003. It hasn't happened yet. Did the Pats perceived cheapness with Ty Law or Lawyer Milloy affect their ability to sign Randy Moss in 2008? Did it affect their ability to sign Adalius Thomas to a huge deal? To retain Leigh Bodden at near top dollar?

At the end of the day, players and agents are motivated to get whatever mix of money and championship hopes that they can. No agent worth anything is going to say "let's not even bother with New England because they're cheap." So your suggestion that it will one day affect free agents (either external or internal) is just outright false. If a free agent is truly motivated by money as you claim "most" are, he will check in with New England and if the offer isn't to his liking he will move on. That's true of any team in the league.

Quote:

And you can list examples of guys whose decisions go against that rule, but that doesn't mean anything. Last I checked, none of the blind folks Iowa let purchase guns have shot anybody to death either. Does that mean it's a good practice to continue because nothing bad has happened yet (even though it logically seems likely)?


Laughing Laughing

Quote:

I am not saying the Patriots approach is wrong (usually). I am saying it is risky, though, and not an approach I think a new head coach would be successful under. BB basically uses his credibility and says "how important is winning to you? Because we do a lot of it here" and gambles that the individual values winning at something probably like 25% of his market value.

BB bet right with both Welker and Talib last year, but I think that is more BB's intelligence masking the approach's flaws than anything else.


I really don't see the risk in it. The Pats front office is motivated to field the best 53 man roster they can, and they will spend almost all the way to the cap. Spending that money in the way that maximizes value is always the right - and least risky - way to go. Maximizing EV is at the heart of any risk analysis. The real risky strategy is top loading your roster with a few bloated contracts and going cheap on the depth. Because the value in football is the depth of the roster, not the 3-4 elite talents (exception being QB). This has been proven time and time again. \

Quote:

Quote:
He's not doing the exact same thing as the Pats at all. I certainly don't think he's greedy, but drawing a parallel between his motivations and the team's motivations is just totally false.


It is not false at all. Wilfork's duty is to make money, as much of it as he can. People need to do what they need to do just as companies need to do it.


Unless you're in Wilfork's inner circle, you have no idea what his "duty" is.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 24722
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nextsuperstar wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
nextsuperstar wrote:
mcmurtry86 wrote:
nextsuperstar wrote:
NT really is not that important a position in the current NFL.


It is in Bill Belichick's defense. I think last year proved that it's not really a position you can just fill with crap players and hope for the best.


There are few positions in the NFL that you can trying to fill with un-drafted free agents without seeing a major drop off in team production. That does not mean you need to be paying 12 million dollars a year for one player at that position.


I never said 12M for Wilfork was a good idea. In fact, I've said otherwise. My response to you was referring to your notion that NT is 'not that important'

It's a valuable position and if Wilfork goes, it has to prioritized.


I said not as important as CB or pass rusher, not that the position had no value.


And I never said you made that claim. If you read what I wrote and the quote of yours I had, I said the position had a lot of value in Bill Belichick's defense.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NextBigThing


Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 22782
Location: Beat Of My Own Drum
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmurtry86 wrote:
They can't force him onto the field, but they own his rights and can withhold his wages.


Will they retain his rights as long as he refuses to play? What will they do?

What do most teams do in that situation? What did they do with Deion Branch?

Quote:
I'm not sure why you're using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" with regards to spending here. The Pats' reputation for being cheap is obviously a bunch of nonsense and I can't see that it has hurt them one iota in terms of acquiring and retaining talent. Saying they haven't "walked the line well" is just ridiculous. They've kept their key assets and I can't really think of too many (if any) guys who left who lived up to their contracts with their new teams. They've made superb business decisions with regards to the values of their employees. And being "cheap" as you term it with their high end guys has allowed them to pay their middle tier of guys (Jarvis Green, Kevin Faulk, Kyle Arrington) quite well. It's not "cheap" when the same amount of money is going out the door.


I didn't call the Patriots cheap and have repeatedly said they do what they need to do to succeed given their unique individual situation.

Walking the contract line well is a different story. The 2010 or 2011 Patriots win the Super Bowl at least one of those years if Randy Moss is still on that team. They screwed that up. They're - obviously - more competitive if they retain Deion Branch prior to the 2006 season. The secondary was putrid after letting Asante Samuel walk in free agency and the nagging issue for several seasons.

Belichick places a higher premium on the group of individuals collectively and that can mean the "stars" getting a smaller share here than they might elsewhere and that is fine. That is the winning approach at this time.

But it's not like opting to not offer Randy Moss a contract extension prior to 2010 was a good idea, because it wasn't. His presence likely would have been the difference between a sb loss and a sb win. He didn't handle that well at all, but the blame for the creation of the situation simply lies with the front office for not getting the deal sooner. It was a very avoidable situation they opted not to chase. Us fans got to watch elite talents like Deion Branch, Brandon Tate, Chad Johnson, et al fail miserably to separate against elite competition for several years in a row. The loss of Moss's impact against great teams was profoundly obvious.

It's not like the Deion Branch situation was any different. How many did drops the Patriots have in the 2006 AFCCG? Sure, the blame with that individual team lies with the defense for blowing such an enormous lead, but adding Branch to that team likely outweighs whatever his presence would have cost the team. If they retain Deion Branch, I would bet that teams win the super bowl vs. the Chicago bears.

I really believe that, too. Of course, had they retained Branch, they very well may have never acquired Randy Moss. But between ridding themselves of the two due to very poorly handled contract negotiations, I do honestly believe they cost themselves at least one super bowl ring.

I would say that warrants a poor "line walking" grade.

And I am not insinuating I wanted them to sign Asante that off season. They need to retain Moss. But that could have been handled much better too, obviously. They should have signed him to a nicer deal the offseason before but opted to give that money to Adalius Thomas instead (didnt work out).

Quote:
It's not relevant though because many GM's are value oriented and play hardball with their employees. It's not something unique to Belichick. Ted Thompson has been doing it for quite awhile in Green Bay, for example.


They've drafted extremely well, which I stated was one of my criteria for success. I am not saying the Patriots approach is wrong. I am just saying I think it will eventually bite them in the butt, though as stated above, it already has. For example, does anybody ever think...what if Brady did not want to take a home town discount? Would he still be here? Where would the team be?

I think saying the Patriots are cheap and saying the Patriots are big spenders are both ridiculous. They're too smart to ever offer stupid contracts ala the Revis one from last season (or Talib one from this off season) but sometimes they get in their own way ala as mentioned above.

Quote:
It hasn't. Because the "system" works. Build a deep, talented roster with a few key players at the top and a deep crop of secondary talent and you can sustain success for a long time. People have been saying "The Patriot Way" will scare away players since 2003. It hasn't happened yet. Did the Pats perceived cheapness with Ty Law or Lawyer Milloy affect their ability to sign Randy Moss in 2008? Did it affect their ability to sign Adalius Thomas to a huge deal? To retain Leigh Bodden at near top dollar?


I agree with the bolded philosophy. It did not affect their ability to sign Randy Moss in 2008, but it did affect their ability to keep past 2010, and afterwards, they quite obviously did not properly allocate the resources needed to replace his impact.

Quote:
At the end of the day, players and agents are motivated to get whatever mix of money and championship hopes that they can. No agent worth anything is going to say "let's not even bother with New England because they're cheap." So your suggestion that it will one day affect free agents (either external or internal) is just outright false. If a free agent is truly motivated by money as you claim "most" are, he will check in with New England and if the offer isn't to his liking he will move on. That's true of any team in the league


I did not say an agent would dismiss them. I would guess, though, that any sensible agent would say "hey, this might be the deal, but this is what they have done in the latter years of a few guys contracts, so take it with a larger than usual grain of salt".

Quote:
I really don't see the risk in it. The Pats front office is motivated to field the best 53 man roster they can, and they will spend almost all the way to the cap. Spending that money in the way that maximizes value is always the right - and least risky - way to go. Maximizing EV is at the heart of any risk analysis. The real risky strategy is top loading your roster with a few bloated contracts and going cheap on the depth. Because the value in football is the depth of the roster, not the 3-4 elite talents (exception being QB). This has been proven time and time again.


I am not advocating to add on a bunch of loaded contracts.

Quote:
Unless you're in Wilfork's inner circle, you have no idea what his "duty" is.


I have as much an idea of what his inner duty is as you have about Bill Belichick's duty, something you have spent several long posting speaking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmurtry86


Joined: 02 Mar 2010
Posts: 24722
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NextBigThing wrote:

I have as much an idea of what his inner duty is as you have about Bill Belichick's duty, something you have spent several long posting speaking about.


Bill Belichick's duty is to assemble the best team possible and win championships. That's what his job is. And that's what I "speak about". His job as the head coach of the New England Patriots. I have never once spoken about his "duty" outside of his professional capacity which is clearly defined by his job description.

It's quite easy to speak for that, because it's quite obvious.

Nobody can speak to another person's "duty" in terms of their personal mission or desires.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dalton


Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 2758
Location: Illinois
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What's the latest with Vince? Are the Pats planning to release him or not?
_________________
2014 Adopt-a-Patriot - Aaron Dobson
Receptions: 1 | Yards: 13 | TDs: 0 | YPR: 13
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patsfan25


Joined: 07 Dec 2008
Posts: 5477
Location: CenCal
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dalton wrote:
What's the latest with Vince? Are the Pats planning to release him or not?


Wouldn't surprise me if they're shopping him around. C'mon Bill O'Brien or Andy Reid. Twisted Evil
_________________

Logan Ryan
Tackles:13 Forced Fumbles:1
PDs:3 INTs:1 Pick 6s:


Deadpulse Ink.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> New England Patriots All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group