Should BB Go GFIN?
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
I don't get all the criticism of this thread. Seems like a lot of posters are getting bogged down in semantics. Don't we all understand what the thread "means?"
I view this thread as a question of whether the Pats should be a little more short-term focused than usual this year, and my answer is a resounding YES. There's lot of gray area here as to what aggressive means, but even if it means something different for the Pats (as opposed to, say, Den), I think it's clear that BB should be "more" short-term focused than usual. As much as I tried to defend him in the game threads last year, Brady is starting to show his age. The opportunity to get another ring is a 2-year window max.
We've all been so damn spoiled by the sustained excellence of this franchise. I'm fine with them front loading things a bit, even if it means the 2016 and beyond years are less rewarding.
I view this thread as a question of whether the Pats should be a little more short-term focused than usual this year, and my answer is a resounding YES. There's lot of gray area here as to what aggressive means, but even if it means something different for the Pats (as opposed to, say, Den), I think it's clear that BB should be "more" short-term focused than usual. As much as I tried to defend him in the game threads last year, Brady is starting to show his age. The opportunity to get another ring is a 2-year window max.
We've all been so damn spoiled by the sustained excellence of this franchise. I'm fine with them front loading things a bit, even if it means the 2016 and beyond years are less rewarding.
Football flips over very fast. GFIN.
Also, I'll never really get over Duquette not putting a support cast around Pedro in 98, 99. Lesson learned.
Also, I'll never really get over Duquette not putting a support cast around Pedro in 98, 99. Lesson learned.
They didn't mortgage the future at all. It's a 1 year deal, no future draft picks traded. This is decidely not what I would call a GFIN move.
I think it's a nice reminder that "going for it now" doesn't always mean screwing over future years. You can't always have your cake and eat it too, but sometimes you can.MainerInExile said:
Super Nomario said:
It only does that if you think it's a go for it now move. It's a short-term move but because there are no long term ramifications I wouldn't call it a go for it now move.
Is there any one move they could have made that would have improved the chances of winning the 2014 Super Bowl more? Isn't that what GFIN is all about?Shelterdog said:
Super Nomario said:
The now in go for it now implies--at least to me--that you're sacrificing something in the longer term. I think people will view this as a GFIN move because they're getting a big name player but they would have spent the $12 million on something.
I don't agree with your definition, but any rate it's a semantic argument. My point is: you can make big, significant improvements to win in the upcoming year (whether you call that GFIN or not) without necessarily sacrificing the future.Shelterdog said:
Super Nomario said:
I completely agree other than the semantic point. It's also worth noting that you need to have pretty good cap flexibility (and you have to have not gone hog-wild on day one of free agency) in order to capitalize on some of these opportunities when they arise.
Well, yeah, it's a semantic argument, but it's an idiom, so it's necessarily a semantic argument (Kevin Smith has done irreparable damage to our language with his disparagement of semantics in Clerks.). And the origins of it are that you go for it now because you don't know what will happen in the future, which implies a willingness to risk an uncertain future for today.
Reverend said:
Exactly. By definition, GFIN in the NFL usually means sacrificing the future for today: deferring high cap hits to future years in order to maximize chances of winning in the present. A 1 year deal can't by definition qualify for the usual sense of GFIN because nothing is being put off to future years in terms of cap hits.
Giving a 1 year deal to Revis isn't a change in BB's general philosophy at all.
So are the people advocating GFIN (by this definition) pissed that Revis has no cap hit in 2015 and beyond?Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
They are paying the guy $12 million for one year. If this is 2005 or 2010, I'm not at all sure this happens. And while it may not be GFiN, it is definitely stay-in-the-hunt. With a younger Brady, a more recent SB win, and the large passel of high draft picks the team often has earlier this decade, there would have been a huge temptation to stay away from this huge payday ( by Patriots standards) for one player for one year.
The question posed in the thread makes no sense unless GFIN involves sacrificing something down the road. I mean, if the question is, would you like the Patriots to significantly increase their chances of winning the Super Bowl this year without sacrificing any of their ability to continue fielding a competitive team in 2015 and beyond, what Patriot fan would ever answer no to that?
Never in recent experience. But anyone who thinks this is not a response to (I) losing Talib and (II) losing him in particular to the Broncos, who have made themselves substantially better this week (albeit at a significant cost money wise) has blinders on. I think. The draft a kid and back stop him with Bailey probably wasn't going to cut it.Rudy Pemberton said:
By signing Revis you have to believe that he is going for it now. The Pats are not losing anything other than money in this strategy. If Browner signs to play safety that's another big body that can assist Revis and Dennard. I would love to see them extend McCourtry with some of this money but I would rather them field a title team. I also really hope that Wilfork realizes if healthy what he could mean to this team. The Pats need to figure out something with him because I don't see anyone like Big Vince in the draft
Reiss today on exactly what this thread was supposed to be about. LINK: http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4760196/window-shopping-for-brady-patriots
ifmanis5 said:
I'd argue Reiss also has it wrong. Signing Revis is not an "all-in plunge" as he puts it.
He also says "...the all-in approach sounded good for a few hours ... until reports surfaced that defensive captain Vince Wilfork had requested his release as part of an issue related to his contract." By all accounts Wilfork was approached with talks of a restructuring way before Revis situation ever presented itself.
I'm one of those people who think Reiss has lost his fastball for a while, and that's not counting the fact that analysis was never his strong suit to begin with. This article is another one of of his empty pieces that further cements my opinion of him.
Volin notes, contrary to popular opinion, that the Patriots "have been liberal with their use of signing bonuses and are one of the worst offenders of sacrificing future dollars for today," citing their lowest cap-to-cash ratio in the league.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/03/15/nfl-teams-spend-early-part-free-agency-spending/fXF2XMwTNOyMAo8uqLeR2J/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/03/15/nfl-teams-spend-early-part-free-agency-spending/fXF2XMwTNOyMAo8uqLeR2J/story.html
Offenders seems like a weird term to use. Signing bonuses are strategy. If you have conviction about your personnel decisions, you can use the player's preference for guaranteed money to lower the total value of the contract and as a result the aggregate hit against the cap. You're hurt worse for bad decisions but rewarded more fruitfully for good ones. The pay as you go model that TB and Jax are taking this year is good flexibility but they'll get less out of the cap than others if they pay out those contracts at max value. They have to make up for it by utilizing the flexibility to cut under performers. That still leaves you with a lower ceiling if all goes well though.Super Nomario said:
I actually don't think that has anything to do with GFIN or not. The Pats have an organizational philosophy of taking on risk in bonuses, and it's something that self perpetuates because each year as they come in with less space because of the structure of deals with bonuses.
It would be GFIN if they had one irregular year of doing this where they pushed out a bunch of cap hits at once, but they've been consistent about healthy bonus amounts forever.