i just wanted to isolate one other thing in your post.
all the side monetary benefits of not signing Vinatieri and replacing him with draft pick would have been paltry if we had lost a huge playoff game because of a shanked FG attempt.
that is why i have said that the strategy is only as good as the replacement and that is why when it doesn't work like with the receivers, they change course.
and unlike the Pats with Brady, the Cs don't have the same window of opportunity.
This thing you're not seeing is that the Pats make a few decisions like this every year. Each decision seems like a good risk at the time but sooner or later one of the choices is bound to fail. Could have been Vinateri, could have been the receivers, could have been Corey Dillon or Milloy or anyone else. But they still do what they're doing even though at some point it will cost them a title because if they don't they won't be able to contend for any titles.
i'm not condemning the strategy as whole. i pointing out the differences in the situations amongst the Pats, the Sox and the Cs....
i'm also pointing out that the strategy is more dynamic than simply setting a price tag on guy that is independent of external factors and not budging off that price.
and still further pointing out that even a team like the Pats recognizes when it just flat out doesn't work like with the receiving crew in 06-07....
i have never said that we can't win next season without Posey. nor have i said that Posey will be as good 5 years from now as he was last season.....but i put a premium on next season with GPA and if we can't get a solid replacement for Posey, i think that going the extra years to get the best shot at another Title should be a big factor in making that decision.
hopefully there is a middle ground here...
100% wrong once again.
The system worked perfectly.
The Patriots determined a value on receivers Givens, Patten, Brown, and Branch and based on their estimations the dollar value vs production return was not worth the money and over time let those players go.
At the time, areas that the team felt were more valuable had players who had excessive increased potential return on the dollar value of production in play and determined rather than give that money to free agent receivers, who had maxed out their dolar value return on their investment and were now looking for money based in a marketplace where stupid GMs were overpaying for a position of non importance to the Patriots in comparison to the other positions they could shore up, the Pats would renegotiate contracts of more important players at more imporant positions thereby getting them cheaper and increasing the value of the production received.
The Pats gave that money to defensive linemen(Seymour, Warren, and Wilfork) and linebackers(Colvin and Bruschi) and offensive linemen(Light and Koppen). By shoring up these positions at less than market value they suffered for one season and lost that game in Indy. However, the team knew the cap was going to take significant hops in the coming years and eventually disappear(that's still coming). But by heading off the positions of importance that had a higher value to them allowed the Pats to sign Welker to a reasonable, some would say below market value two year deal and trade for and renegotiate Moss to an exceedingly below market value contract. The results you have seen.
But you focus so much on the minutae that you are missing the bigger picture. The Pats didn't suddenly change philosophies and get and pay for good receivers after determining they could win with bad receivers. The view is very skewed. The Pats determined that the receivers they had were less important and had less value to them than other players and allocated the money to those players and then attempted to win with who they thought could do the job.
They knew those receivers sucked. But they were biding their time for a year waiting for more money to be allowed to be spent by the league. They still almost pulled it off. Why? Because they didn't lose the important core of the team and they were able to hold onto more of that core because they stuck to their value system reasoning.
This year, more monies opened up and since the receivers they signed last year proved they still are not diminishing return of value players the monies that became available to spend were spent resigning those players last year that they got at a bargain.
You can say the Pats won like they did last year and are the prohibitive favorite to win it this year because they didn't go away from their value system and sign Givens and Branch and now Samuel to really stupid contracts that would have had them losing about 4-6 players that would otherwise not have been on the team if the did veer from the system.
Open up the lens and take the wider view.
If the Celtics have determined that the most they are going to give Posey is x at y years they should stick to it. You see the value core of this team is the starters not the bench. They have three Hall of Famers on their payroll, can any other team say that? If so they are contenders for it all. Retaining those players and continuing to shore up the other core players around them at below market value, especially if they are potential increased production possible players(Rondo and Perk) is where the importance lies, not with Posey.
2-3 years max if not get some short term guys that may well become high value production individuals. The draft gave us two possibles in Giddens and Walker. If Posey goes elsewhere continue with the tye of contracts that landed Posey and House last year. The Celtics front office believes(I think) that the starters are the players that will win this team another championship. They can get players to augment the starters and still win.
For instance, wouldn't landing Kurt Thomas for 2 years at $4 million, resigning House with the LLE, and getting someone like Barnes for the rest of the MLE still give us a formidable bench that if compared to last years bench at the start of the season would be:
Pollard vs Thomas
Barnes vs Posey
House vs House
Giddens and Walker vs T Allen
Scal vs Scal
Powe vs Powe with another year of experience
Davis vs Davis with another year of experience
Pruitt vs Pruitt with another year of experience
It is arguable that this team, considering the upgrade of Thomas and the increased experience of the young players, is a better team than started the year together last year. And this year's team would have, for the most part, played together now for a year and also have the playoff experience and the further development of two young starters to consider.
And this team would remain fiscally viable to continue to possibly expand their championship window because they are not overpaying for non core diminishing return athletes.
Topic: WEEI: Unnamed team willing to offer Posey 4th year (Read 48294 times)