Re: Patriots Dead Money
posted at 2/12/2014 11:04 AM EST
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to ATJ's comment:
My thoughts on all of this:
I'm in the people business; I employ 25, 3 of whom, apart from myself, are in a management/professional capacity. Like most people with a workforce, I perform due diligence on their backgrounds, check references and assess my own sense of the individual as a consequence of personal interview. I suspect that personnel evaluation in the NFL is all of that and significantly more.
When I make the decision to hire, I do so recognizing all of the consequences, positive and negative, of engaging in the single riskiest act that any employer encounters. I'd like to think my track record is pretty fair, although I must say that I've made some decisions that turned out poorly. Does that mean that my hiring decision was incorrect? It does not. It means that knowing the possible consequences I hired the individual and it didn't work out. Expensive? In one case, quite so. This particular individual while on the job 5 years ago slipped on a patch of ice, did not fall, or strike any body part on anything but simply wrenched his back. He's been out on workers comp since then. My w/c carrier has had him investigated including personal surveillance multiple times. He has nothing more than a soft tissue injury but is 'unable to work'. My rates are off the charts but that's the way it goes. Will we eventually rid ourselves of this burden? One certainly hopes so.
Was hiring him a mistake? In retrospect, with the full benefit of 20/20 hindsight, yes. At the time I made the hiring decision, it was not. Mistake? No. Consequences? Yes.
It is not a mistake when an experienced executive with a track record of success makes an informed decision of consequence after weighing all of the relevant factors. And such is the case, in my opinion, when it comes to Hernandez and BB's decision to draft him and then extend him. Mistake? No. Consequences? Yes.
Lloyd produced but BB chose to go in a different direction. Executives do that all the time and there are consequences for doing so. Mistake? No. Consequences? Yes.
Fanene is a case where I have nowhere near all of the facts necessary to offer an intelligent observation so I will not make one.
Personnel management is NOT an exact science and the environment in which it is practiced is rarely black and white. You do the best you can with what info you have and recognize that no matter which side of the equation your decision falls there will be consequences.
That's the way I see it.
Of course you never know what the future holds. But you and other teams do have information about the candidates, and that information affects the market price of the player. If two players have performed similarly on the field, but one has a history of problems (injury, character, attitude, etc.), the price (in dollars or draft picks) for the player with the problems will be lower than the price for the player with a clean history. There is a market for players, and just as in the securities market, there's a trade off between cost and risk. You pay more for lower risk players and can get higher risk players at a discount. The economic value of either choice may be the same, so it's not a mistake to choose either. But if your strategy is to accept more risk in the hope of reducing cost, you have to be ready for the higher probability of a loss. The loss isn't merely bad luck. It's something that had a higher probability of occuring precisely because of your stategic choice to save money by taking on more risk.
But what if the evidence suggests that your business actually suffers at a greater expense when you go after"top rated, safer, expensive" recruits who didn't fit your unique company motto of putting the team before the employee?
What if your company became the leader in the industry and hit a higher profit margin then all competitors by living the philosphy of building around a core of employess that was developed from the top and then adding "value" employees all around them? Can that company's business model possibly be condemned?
And what is "high risk" exactly. I think each of our own opinion on high risk is causing this debate to carry on. The very point of signing "value players" is to minimize the risk/impact on the organization. You are committing a small portion of your budget to a few guys in order to find the best addition.
Going all out on unproven "big shots/top rated FA's" is way more of a high risk. Consider that 19 muliti year deals were given out in 2011 and 10 of them were released before this off season, and a few more will come soon. We see that over half of these big deals don't work, and in our case the only "high priced contracts" given out is to the players developed in our own system....Brady, VW, Seymour, Light, Mankins, Mayo, Nink, Ty Warren, Bruschi, etc.... and as I showed earier when we give out the big contracts to players from other teams we have seen the most problems...Adalius the prized FA given 35 million and washed out.Dillion(3 year big extension after his epic 2004 season and he got fat off the cash, literaly) Moss? One great year and then another guy we didn't commit hurt us, Stalworth, the prized FA given a 6 year deal and cut, Colvin, the prized FA hurt his 2nd game and was never the same player.
The risk is signing guys who were never coached by a very difficult man to be coached by, and risking that they will conform to the Patriot way. BB has shown low risk value players built around a high priced core he develops is the way to dominance yet still you guys attack?
I guess this argument comes down to you guys thinking BB should pay guys who are a risk to perform in his unique and difficult coaching system, as opposed to BB paying only the guys he drafts and develops and is absolutely certain they are great long term players. Pretty clear who is right and who is wrong in my eyes.