Win it all next year vs. economic suicide

[BballTim]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

well i disagree. i think it was pretty clear that not bringing in better receivers was a mistake that year, and there were reports that Brady was upset about it. the system can only get you so far.

there are lots of ways to close "windows" for teams and bad contracts is one of them, but the "window" is much smaller for GPA. so who makes up the team NEXT SEASON is really important.

you keep talking about Posey's spot on this team as "bit" and "non-essential" and i guess that is where our disagreement begins. i think what Posey did for the Cs was vital to their winning the Title. it is replaceable, but it matters who the replacement is...

plus it is not a foregone conclusion that signing Posey for 4 or 5 years would actually be that bad a contract.

  You're just cherry-picking. The Pats let a lot of veterans go and they didn't have the use of a crystal ball. They didn't know for sure that they could replace (for instance) Dillon and Vinateri and not Branch, so they would have had to sign them all to insure a slightly better chance at the title, killing their future flexibility in the process. And I don't know that it's a given that the owners won't try and replace GPA with other max contract players, so it's tough to say exactly how long our window is.

  And I'll bet I never referred to Posey as a "bit" player. Was he essential last year? Yes. Is he less essential going forward? Probably.

well that offseason after losing to the Colts was definitely a departure for the Pats. i don't think it is cherry picking. i think they realized that you need playmakers and that the system is not enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/sports/football/30moss.html

and the "essentialness" of Posey isn't really what i'm arguing here. what i'm arguing is the "essentialness" of what he did for the team. and that IMO doesn't change from last season to next.... whoever is filling the role.

i have agreed that Posey IS replaceable, but that who replaces him matters big time. Wells and Pietrus don't cut it for me, personally. i think we would still have a shot at a Title, but i wouldn't be as confident as i am with Posey.

just like the receiving corps that the Pats fielded in 06-07 IMO hurt their chances of winning a Super Bowl. it was still possible with Belichick, Brady, et al, but it was less....

  One could argue that the Pats came as close to winning the Super Bowl when they lost to the Colts as they did when they lost to the Giants, but that's neither here nor there. The point was that almost every year they let go key contributors to maintain financial flexibility.

  As for Posey (and I'd like to point out that I'm not down on Posey, I'd like to see him back, but just not at any price), our overall lack of a bench added to his "essentialness". After the trade we had like 7 players on the roster. Our backup Big was Scott Pollard. Our backup pg was not really a pg. Our backup sg was coming off a major knee injury. That added a lot to Posey's role. He was our backup sf and played a lot of pf minutes as our pfs backed up Perk for about 22 minutes a game. If we get a decent backup center then Posey won't spend as much time at pf, which wasn't his best spot to begin with.

[BballTim]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

Ainge, who tends to fall in love with scorers (...)

Brrr... I'm already seeing it: Marbury, Maggette and Krstic. My hope rests in the Brain Doctor vetoing this: 

  Aside from the fact that Ainge doesn't really fall in love with scorers, what were the Krstic rumors?

[winsomme]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

again, this all goes back to the "window of opportunity" question.

as we can see, the Patriots don't win Super Bowls every year. and we start with Brady and Belichick and Brady won his first Super Bowl at what 24, 25??

so there was ample opportunity to bring in players that don't work out. they can just  reload the following year and go again. do we all remember WHY we brought in Randy Moss? that receiving corp in 06-07 was like the closer by committee experiment.

i don't think we have the same luxury here. i mean, how often do you get a combo like GPA?

  Even with crappy receivers the Patriots lost a game in the conference finals that they were dominating early on to a team that easily won the Super Bowl. That's as much of a shot at the title as a team can reasonably expect. It's easy to point to the receivers as the reason that they lost, but the receivers weren't the only players that the Pats let leave during their title run (Law and Milloy and Vineteri, for example). They let non-essential players leave instead of overpaying them and still have as good a shot at winning the title as anyone in the league. If they signed all of their players to big contracts because they made key contributions to title teams they'd have spent the last year or two dumping players to get under the cap and would have REDUCED Brady's window significantly.

well i disagree. i think it was pretty clear that not bringing in better receivers was a mistake that year, and there were reports that Brady was upset about it. the system can only get you so far.

there are lots of ways to close "windows" for teams and bad contracts is one of them, but the "window" is much smaller for GPA. so who makes up the team NEXT SEASON is really important.

you keep talking about Posey's spot on this team as "bit" and "non-essential" and i guess that is where our disagreement begins. i think what Posey did for the Cs was vital to their winning the Title. it is replaceable, but it matters who the replacement is...

plus it is not a foregone conclusion that signing Posey for 4 or 5 years would actually be that bad a contract.

  You're just cherry-picking. The Pats let a lot of veterans go and they didn't have the use of a crystal ball. They didn't know for sure that they could replace (for instance) Dillon and Vinateri and not Branch, so they would have had to sign them all to insure a slightly better chance at the title, killing their future flexibility in the process. And I don't know that it's a given that the owners won't try and replace GPA with other max contract players, so it's tough to say exactly how long our window is.

  And I'll bet I never referred to Posey as a "bit" player. Was he essential last year? Yes. Is he less essential going forward? Probably.

well that offseason after losing to the Colts was definitely a departure for the Pats. i don't think it is cherry picking. i think they realized that you need playmakers and that the system is not enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/sports/football/30moss.html

and the "essentialness" of Posey isn't really what i'm arguing here. what i'm arguing is the "essentialness" of what he did for the team. and that IMO doesn't change from last season to next.... whoever is filling the role.

i have agreed that Posey IS replaceable, but that who replaces him matters big time. Wells and Pietrus don't cut it for me, personally. i think we would still have a shot at a Title, but i wouldn't be as confident as i am with Posey.

just like the receiving corps that the Pats fielded in 06-07 IMO hurt their chances of winning a Super Bowl. it was still possible with Belichick, Brady, et al, but it was less....

  One could argue that the Pats came as close to winning the Super Bowl when they lost to the Colts as they did when they lost to the Giants, but that's neither here nor there. The point was that almost every year they let go key contributors to maintain financial flexibility.

  As for Posey (and I'd like to point out that I'm not down on Posey, I'd like to see him back, but just not at any price), our overall lack of a bench added to his "essentialness". After the trade we had like 7 players on the roster. Our backup Big was Scott Pollard. Our backup pg was not really a pg. Our backup sg was coming off a major knee injury. That added a lot to Posey's role. He was our backup sf and played a lot of pf minutes as our pfs backed up Perk for about 22 minutes a game. If we get a decent backup center then Posey won't spend as much time at pf, which wasn't his best spot to begin with.

well they also came close to being out in San Diego that year. if that Charger DB had just fallen to the ground like the the Colt DB did a week later, the Pats would have been out the round before.

i mean, we can go all day on this, but i think the consensus was that that receiving corps was a mistake. especially when you have maybe the best QB of all time running the show. you have to do better from a personnel standpoint than that.

and on Posey, his role may have been expanded during the season because of the reasons you mentioned, but his role in the playoffs was due more to what he was capable of than who we didn't have....we actually had pretty good depth for a bench at that point with the additions of PJ and Cassell.

[BballTim]

i mean, we can go all day on this, but i think the consensus was that that receiving corps was a mistake. especially when you have maybe the best QB of all time running the show. you have to do better from a personnel standpoint than that.

and on Posey, his role may have been expanded during the season because of the reasons you mentioned, but his role in the playoffs was due more to what he was capable of than who we didn't have....we actually had pretty good depth for a bench at that point with the additions of PJ and Cassell.

  Nobody's denying that not having better receivers was a mistake. But the point is the Patriots, on a yearly basis, get rid of players who were key contributors the year before instead of overpaying them. In general it's worked out well for them. You're using one of the few times it didn't work as an example of why you shouldn't follow their system. While it's true that not keeping their high-priced players might have cost them a title, it's also true that they probably wouldn't be contending for titles at all right now if they hadn't consistently made the decision to let all of those players go.

 

[cordobes]

New article on the Herald related to this topic:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view/2008_07_06_C_s_deal_with_Green_stuff:_Might_have_to_take_Pats__cold__hard_salary-cap_line/srvc=celt&position=1

Ainge, who tends to fall in love with scorers (...)

Brrr... I'm already seeing it: Marbury, Maggette and Krstic. My hope rests in the Brain Doctor vetoing this: 

  Aside from the fact that Ainge doesn't really fall in love with scorers, what were the Krstic rumors?

There were no Krstic rumors, as far as I know; although his name was mentioned in this board a couple of times. There isn't exactly a Marbury rumor as well. It was only a lighhearted joke. (though I really believe that the Brain Doctor would indeed veto a Starbury signing).

[timepiece33]

I'm kind of curious how some view comparisons to baseball and football as relevant when they have completely different cap rules and mechanisms to acquire players.

[winsomme]

i mean, we can go all day on this, but i think the consensus was that that receiving corps was a mistake. especially when you have maybe the best QB of all time running the show. you have to do better from a personnel standpoint than that.

and on Posey, his role may have been expanded during the season because of the reasons you mentioned, but his role in the playoffs was due more to what he was capable of than who we didn't have....we actually had pretty good depth for a bench at that point with the additions of PJ and Cassell.

  Nobody's denying that not having better receivers was a mistake. But the point is the Patriots, on a yearly basis, get rid of players who were key contributors the year before instead of overpaying them. In general it's worked out well for them. You're using one of the few times it didn't work as an example of why you shouldn't follow their system. While it's true that not keeping their high-priced players might have cost them a title, it's also true that they probably wouldn't be contending for titles at all right now if they hadn't consistently made the decision to let all of those players go.

 

but you are extrapolating the availability of the good replacements that Belichick brought in to the Pats over to the Cs. the reason Belichick's strategy has worked is not simply letting go of players, but more importantly who they then brought in...

and what i'm saying is that the philosophy only works if there are players capable of filling the roles and you are able to capture those players.

and for the Cs, actually looking at what is available to replace Posey on the market, i am not confident that we can get a player that will adequately fill Posey's role.

i mean, in the abstract sense, the theory is enticing, but when we start actually talking about the specific players, it seems more risky to me.

i don't bring up the 06-07 receivers to simply prove that the Pats strategy doesn't work, but rather to suggest that the Bonzi Wells' and Pietrus' are that level of drop off from Posey.

i keep coming back to the same point. it matters who the replacement is. it mattered for the Pats and it matters for the Cs.

for me, the strategy is as good as the replacements available.

[Casperian]

Bump...

I know it´s an old thread, but my last serious post before I´ve lost my Internet is in it, and after reading it now, I thought it would be fun to bump it.