Smart NFL teams spend little in free agency

[Sparkey]

Smart NFL teams spend little in free agency


March 18, 2008
The Dallas Morning News


Share this page.

Mar. 18--I love what the Green Bay Packers have done thus far in free agency.

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

The Packers haven't signed any players in free agency nor have they lost any. The Indianapolis Colts also haven't signed any players.

Football is figuring out what baseball discovered in the 1970s -- you can't buy a championship. Which is contrary to public perception.

There's a frenzy in the fan bases of 32 NFL teams each off-season. Spend. Buy free agents. The bigger the contract, the better the signing. If you're not spending, you're not trying to get better as a football team.

Au contraire.

The Cowboys, Cleveland Browns, San Francisco 49ers and Seattle Seahawks each signed a free agent to a contract in excess of $39 million last off-season. In addition, the Washington Redskins gave aging middle linebacker London Fletcher a $10 million signing bonus, and the Jacksonville Jaguars gave journeyman offensive tackle Tony Pashos another for $9 million.

All the while, the New York Giants were sitting out the spending spree. To borrow a Jerry Jones term, the Giants were "keeping their powder dry."

The Giants wound up signing one free agent to fill a specific hole on the depth chart, bottom feeding in late March for linebacker Kawika Mitchell. They gave him a modest one-year, $1 million deal.

Mitchell is now wearing a Super Bowl ring -- and 2007 multi-millionaires Leonard Davis (Cowboys), Eric Steinbach (Browns), Nate Clements (49ers), Patrick Kerney (Seahawks), Fletcher and Pashos are not.

In 2006, the Indianapolis Colts signed only one free agent, and he wasn't even a position player -- kicker Adam Vinatieri. The Colts wound up winning the Super Bowl.

In 2005, the Pittsburgh Steelers also signed only one free agent -- wide receiver Cedrick Wilson -- to a four-year deal worth less than $10 million. He didn't even start for the Steelers. But guess who won the Super Bowl that year?

Free agency never has been and never will be the answer. Teams are realizing the game's best players no longer become free. So the smart teams invest their salary cap dollars in re-signing their own players.

Back in the 1990s, you could sign a difference-maker like Reggie White or Deion Sanders in free agency. But with each passing year, the quality of free agents decreases, yet the quantity of the money increases.

I had breakfast with an NFL head coach last week, and he shook his head at the fiscal craziness, saying that average players are getting superstar money.

There were 112 players signed in free agency through the end of business last week. Only 28 of them were primary starters in 2007.

The annual list of signees has become a litany of older players (safety Sammy Knight and offensive linemen Alan Faneca and Damien Woody), players coming off injury (guard Justin Smiley, defensive tackle Chuck Darby and cornerback Jason Webster), players who have lost starting jobs (running back Chris Brown and defensive backs Drayton Florence and Tank Williams) and underachievers (offensive tackle Kwame Harris and wide receivers Jerry Porter and Keary Colbert).

In short, expendable commodities.

Talented young starters still in their 20s such as running back Michael Turner (Atlanta), linebackers Landon Johnson (Carolina) and Demorrio Williams (Kansas City), and safety Gibril Wilson (Oakland) in this year's class of free agents are few and far between every off-season.

You can count on the fingers of two hands the free agents this decade who have played to the level of the money and duration of the contract.

So the smart teams don't overreact to the market and offer superstar money to non-superstar players. You rarely get what you hope for -- and what you pay for -- in free agency. The smart teams don't sign contracts they will live to regret -- teams like Green Bay and Indianapolis.

-----

To see more of The Dallas Morning News, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.dallasnews.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, The Dallas Morning News

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

[red]

yeah, TT's doing the right thing

its boring, infuriating, and seems nuts at times

but its the right thing

[texaspackerbacker]

Amen to that. In addition to those mentioned, the Patriots have generally steered clear of wasting money on other teams' free agents.

[Scott Campbell]

I thought Ted passed on Free Agency because he was just cheap. Are you guys telling me that this was some sort of stratemagiggy thing?

[red]

no, he's still cheap

he's just lucky thats it happens to be working for him and us at this point

but when it stops working for him, i'll be right here to tell you about how much his cheapness screwed us

[cheesner]

no, he's still cheap

he's just lucky thats it happens to be working for him and us at this point

but when it stops working for him, i'll be right here to tell you about how much his cheapness screwed usTT is also a lousy drafter because of his huge ego.

By drafting great players like Jennings and Jones who people don't expect, he clearly has a huge ego and stinks at drafting players. I would have never realized this except for some of the very football savvy posters on this site have enlightened me.

[Scott Campbell]

no, he's still cheap

he's just lucky thats it happens to be working for him and us at this point

but when it stops working for him, i'll be right here to tell you about how much his cheapness screwed us


Well he just got extended, so he's got what - 5 years left on his contract? The law of averages say that even the great ones will put up a stinker in one of those years. So no matter how well he does, you'll eventually get your opportunity to crow.

[Deputy Nutz]

no, he's still cheap

he's just lucky thats it happens to be working for him and us at this point

but when it stops working for him, i'll be right here to tell you about how much his cheapness screwed us

The last two years I really can't think of one player that I prayed Thompson would have signed in free agency.

Two years ago, Thompson hit it big with signing Woodson and Pickett. Both players had question marks, Woodson his injuries and age, and Picketts lack of productivity up till the 2006 season. Manual was also a signing by Thompson and he was a huge monumental bust, but a cheap one. Thompson hit .666 with free agent signings and in todays market that is phenominal. When Thompson does decide to pay free agents he knows what he is doing, he just doesn't stay away because he doesn't know anything.

So when Thompson opens up his pocket book and signs guys like Jennings to a multi-year deal and the team doesn't have to sweat financially, or ask others to restructure, or have to move money around to sign their draft picks, I won't be complaining.

[Bretsky]

no, he's still cheap

he's just lucky thats it happens to be working for him and us at this point

but when it stops working for him, i'll be right here to tell you about how much his cheapness screwed us

The last two years I really can't think of one player that I prayed Thompson would have signed in free agency.

.


I take it you are sold on our OG's ??

[MJZiggy]

You don't have to be sold on our OGs to not believe that there's an available free agent out there who can definitively solve the problem and do it within the system that we run. Most FA's wind up costing a lot of cash and before you lay that contract out there, you'd best be damn sure that the guy you're bringing in fixes the problem that you're paying him to fix.

[Bretsky]

You don't have to be sold on our OGs to not believe that there's an available free agent out there who can definitively solve the problem and do it within the system that we run. Most FA's wind up costing a lot of cash and before you lay that contract out there, you'd best be damn sure that the guy you're bringing in fixes the problem that you're paying him to fix.


Life is about chances; you should be a politician :lol:

To be honest it may make sense to do little to nothing in free agency next year. We're not going to win it all and we might as well figure out if we have a QB and continue the rebuilding process until we are closer

[Scott Campbell]

I think B is addicted to free agents the way Tyrone is addicted to crack.

[Bretsky]

I think B is addicted to free agents the way Tyrone is addicted to crack.

But I just said we might as well not bother with FA's this year
Has Tyrone given up his addiction too :lol:

[Deputy Nutz]

no, he's still cheap

he's just lucky thats it happens to be working for him and us at this point

but when it stops working for him, i'll be right here to tell you about how much his cheapness screwed us

The last two years I really can't think of one player that I prayed Thompson would have signed in free agency.

.


I take it you are sold on our OG's ??

No I am not completely sold on Colledge, Spitz, yes. I liked Scott from Indy and was disappointed that the Packers didn't press, but I don't think he would have offered such drastic improvement that it would have led to 2 or more wins.

I certainly didn't pray that we would sign him, Colledge may not be great, hell he probably doesn't deserve to start, but the Packers still have all 16 starts in 07 returning in 08.

[Bretsky]

no, he's still cheap

he's just lucky thats it happens to be working for him and us at this point

but when it stops working for him, i'll be right here to tell you about how much his cheapness screwed us

The last two years I really can't think of one player that I prayed Thompson would have signed in free agency.

.


I take it you are sold on our OG's ??

No I am not completely sold on Colledge, Spitz, yes. I liked Scott from Indy and was disappointed that the Packers didn't press, but I don't think he would have offered such drastic improvement that it would have led to 2 or more wins.

I certainly didn't pray that we would sign him, Colledge may not be great, hell he probably doesn't deserve to start, but the Packers still have all 16 starts in 07 returning in 08.

Very sensible reasoning. If I thought GB was going to do better next year I'd be more disappointed we didn't consider Scott or Bell.
But I'm at peace with rolling with whatever we're going to roll with

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't know what you mean about the Packers doing better, I don't think I see 13 wins, but I certainly see 10 maybe 11 wins and that is conservative. Rodgers is going to make mistakes but I think he is going to bring a lot to the table. I still see a hole at running back. I don't think Grant is going to be as productive as he was in 07, but I do think Brandon Jackson will be better, but yet there isn't going to be a back that Rodgers is really going to be able lean on when he is struggling. Favre never really had a back like that as well outside of the three years when Ahman Green was one of the top three backs in the league. Rodgers is going to need a running game more than Favre to make this offense consistently successful.

[RashanGary]

We'll see how Rodgers does. He says he's understanding the "whys" of the offense. To me that is a very important thing. If I know why something is done, I commit to it better and I can do it better becaue I know where to put my focus. Just hearing him say that brings a little confidence.


At the same time, he's completely unproven. We could dominate the North for the next 10 eyars with another really good QB or we could have a dud. We'll find out soon enough.

[Scott Campbell]

I think B is addicted to free agents the way Tyrone is addicted to crack.

But I just said we might as well not bother with FA's this year
Has Tyrone given up his addiction too :lol:


I hear what you're sayin, but like Tyrone, you're one day at a time.

[KYPack]

We'll see how Rodgers does. He says he's understanding the "whys" of the offense. To me that is a very important thing. If I know why something is done, I commit to it better and I can do it better becaue I know where to put my focus. Just hearing him say that brings a little confidence.




I'll be happy if he knows the "hows', as in "how" to do it.

[Guiness]

Back to the original article...

Baseball learned that you can't buy a championship????? :?:

Umm, what rock has he been under while the Yankees and Red Sox have stayed on top the past decade?

[KYPack]

Back to the original article...

Baseball learned that you can't buy a championship????? :?:

Umm, what rock has he been under while the Yankees and Red Sox have stayed on top the past decade?

The Yankees have spent the most, but haven't won a WS since the 2000 subway series. They have blown the most $, but been beaten out by the "smart money" teams.

Football has really shown you can't buy it, look at Washington and some of the other dumb money teams.

[Bretsky]

Back to the original article...

Baseball learned that you can't buy a championship????? :?:

Umm, what rock has he been under while the Yankees and Red Sox have stayed on top the past decade?

The Yankees have spent the most, but haven't won a WS since the 2000 subway series. They have blown the most $, but been beaten out by the "smart money" teams.

Football has really shown you can't buy it, look at Washington and some of the other dumb money teams.

Gosh I'm not sure I'd say you can't buy a title in baseball. I actually think being loaded on the cap gives you by far the best chance and a number of teams have no aspirations or chance for the playoffs at the beginning of each year. That's sad for a sport.

With a few exceptions the teams amongst the highest payrolls in the game win it all.
Exceptions were the Diamondbacks and Marlins.

[Zool]

Still need to draft well to win it all.

[Sparkey]

Back to the original article...

Baseball learned that you can't buy a championship????? :?:

Umm, what rock has he been under while the Yankees and Red Sox have stayed on top the past decade?

The Yankees have spent the most, but haven't won a WS since the 2000 subway series. They have blown the most $, but been beaten out by the "smart money" teams.

Football has really shown you can't buy it, look at Washington and some of the other dumb money teams.

Gosh I'm not sure I'd say you can't buy a title in baseball. I actually think being loaded on the cap gives you by far the best chance and a number of teams have no aspirations or chance for the playoffs at the beginning of each year. That's sad for a sport.

With a few exceptions the teams amongst the highest payrolls in the game win it all.
Exceptions were the Diamondbacks and Marlins.

I'd bet the Yankees and their annual 200+MIL wish they could "buy a title" with their payroll.

[DonHutson]

Amen to that. In addition to those mentioned, the Patriots have generally steered clear of wasting money on other teams' free agents.

The key word there is WASTING. The Pats dropped a boatload of money on Adalius Thomas last year. Just like the Packers paid Woodson the year before.

It's not so much about spending a lot or a little. It's about spending however much you spend wisely

Just like it doesn't matter if you trade up or down in the draft, as long as you make good choices wherever you pick.

It is true that the teams that are confident in the homework they've done can get away with spending more selectively in FA, and they can stockpile lower picks in the draft because the good preparation leads to fewer mistakes.

[sharpe1027]

Back to the original article...

Baseball learned that you can't buy a championship????? :?:

Umm, what rock has he been under while the Yankees and Red Sox have stayed on top the past decade?

There are few sports that have a disparity of baseball between the have and have nots. Small market teams have to be extremely good in their farm systems. Even then they have a very small window of time that they have to win in before losing their players to FA.

Bad analogy.

[HarveyWallbangers]

There are few sports that have a disparity of baseball between the have and have nots. Small market teams have to be extremely good in their farm systems. Even then they have a very small window of time that they have to win in before losing their players to FA.

Bad analogy.

Agreed.

[Gunakor]

Back to the original article...

Baseball learned that you can't buy a championship????? :?:

Umm, what rock has he been under while the Yankees and Red Sox have stayed on top the past decade?


It's been almost an entire decade since the Yankee's were on top. How many WS have they won since adding Alex Rodriguez to thier lineup? NONE. They haven't won a damn thing. All the money they've spent has amounted to incredible regular seasons followed by post season flops.

For comparison, over the last 10 years count up the number of World Series' that the Yankees have won and compare that to the amount of World Series' that the Florida Marlins have won. Suprised?

In baseball you can buy a great regular season, maybe even a division title. But money can't buy October.

It cannot buy January for NFL teams either.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It's been almost an entire decade since the Yankee's were on top. How many WS have they won since adding Alex Rodriguez to thier lineup? NONE. They haven't won a damn thing. All the money they've spent has amounted to incredible regular seasons followed by post season flops.

For comparison, over the last 10 years count up the number of World Series' that the Yankees have won and compare that to the amount of World Series' that the Florida Marlins have won. Suprised?

In baseball you can buy a great regular season, maybe even a division title. But money can't buy October.

It cannot buy January for NFL teams either.

Well, even if you develop a great farm system, that's all you can buy. Baseball is a different game than football. Even the great teams won't win more than about 2/3 of their games, and even the terrible teams win 1/3 of their games. It's pretty much a tossup once two solid teams play each other in the postseason--especially in a short series.

No, money is a HUGE advantage in baseball. Convenient how you are forgetting that the Yanks AND Sox spend the most money. Seems to me the Sox are doing just fine at buying their championships. There are only 8 playoff spots in baseball. When is the last time either the Sox or Yanks didn't make the postseason. It's huge that money almost guarantees that they'll be one of the 8 teams that make the playoffs EVERY year. It allows them to be terrible in developing their systems. Now that both teams have built up their farm systems... on top of the money to buy FAs... these two teams are going to remain dominant for the foreseeable future.

Fortunately, the money discrepancy in football isn't nearly as bad as baseball.

[Gunakor]

It's been almost an entire decade since the Yankee's were on top. How many WS have they won since adding Alex Rodriguez to thier lineup? NONE. They haven't won a damn thing. All the money they've spent has amounted to incredible regular seasons followed by post season flops.

For comparison, over the last 10 years count up the number of World Series' that the Yankees have won and compare that to the amount of World Series' that the Florida Marlins have won. Suprised?

In baseball you can buy a great regular season, maybe even a division title. But money can't buy October.

It cannot buy January for NFL teams either.

Well, even if you develop a great farm system, that's all you can buy. Baseball is a different game than football. Even the great teams won't win more than about 2/3 of their games, and even the terrible teams win 1/3 of their games. It's pretty much a tossup once two solid teams play each other in the postseason--especially in a short series.

No, money is a HUGE advantage in baseball. Convenient how you are forgetting that the Yanks AND Sox spend the most money. Seems to me the Sox are doing just fine at buying their championships. There are only 8 playoff spots in baseball. When is the last time either the Sox or Yanks didn't make the postseason. It's huge that money almost guarantees that they'll be one of the 8 teams that make the playoffs EVERY year. It allows them to be terrible in developing their systems. Now that both teams have built up their farm systems... on top of the money to buy FAs... these two teams are going to remain dominant for the foreseeable future.

Fortunately, the money discrepancy in football isn't nearly as bad as baseball.


Yeah they are doing just fine making the postseason. The Colts have done a fantastic job making the postseason year after year but only have 1 ring to show for it. Is this about making the playoffs or winning championships? There's no grey area here - if your 200 million dollar payroll loses in the playoffs or WS then is your payroll really worth 200 million dollars?

I realize about the Red Sox too. They have won 2 championships in the last century, both in the last couple years. I remember they lost to the Cardinals a couple years ago too - highly inflated payroll and all.

The Sox and Yanks have combined for 3 championships in the last 10 years. That means 7 other teams have also won, most with drastically reduced payrolls. The Marlins have won as many as the Red Sox and MORE than the Yankees, and thier payroll isn't even in the same ballpark as Boston and New York. No, money doesn't buy you anything. Nothing at all. Championships are earned by working hard and practicing diligently, not by spending everything you have.

[Green Bud Packer]

Amen to that. In addition to those mentioned, the Patriots have generally steered clear of wasting money on other teams' free agents.

The key word there is WASTING. The Pats dropped a boatload of money on Adalius Thomas last year. Just like the Packers paid Woodson the year before.

It's not so much about spending a lot or a little. It's about spending however much you spend wisely

Just like it doesn't matter if you trade up or down in the draft, as long as you make good choices wherever you pick.

It is true that the teams that are confident in the homework they've done can get away with spending more selectively in FA, and they can stockpile lower picks in the draft because the good preparation leads to fewer mistakes.

You guys are dead on.

In free agency it's not how much you spend it's who you spend it on.

In the draft it's not where you pick em it's who you pick.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Here's a good point by Bedard on JSO.


The Packers are one of the few teams that is very cognizant of the money jealousy that goes on. Every contract they give to an outside player and every restructure they do to one of their own is done knowing there will be ripples.

Despite what most teams practice, the squads that sail the smoothest often go the furthest. The Packers are like the Patriots in that regard. Except for a few big stars, most everyone makes a fair wage and each player knows if they work hard and do their part, they'll be rewarded at some point...

What the Packers will do with some of their remaining cap money is to extend the contracts of players who are nearing the end of their deals. They will also give some it to players this season as part of an effort to push some of the money onto next year's cap. The Packers got an additional $9 million for 2008 by doing that.

So if the Packers finish with $20 million in unused cap space, don't think that it will vanish into thin air.

[sharpe1027]

The Sox and Yanks have combined for 3 championships in the last 10 years. That means 7 other teams have also won, most with drastically reduced payrolls. The Marlins have won as many as the Red Sox and MORE than the Yankees, and thier payroll isn't even in the same ballpark as Boston and New York. No, money doesn't buy you anything. Nothing at all. Championships are earned by working hard and practicing diligently, not by spending everything you have.

It doesn't guarantee you will win, but it is skewed towards those who pay:

2007 Red Sox 96-66 $143,026,214
2006 Cardinals 83-78 $88,891,371
2005 White Sox 99-63 $75,178,000
2004 Red Sox 98-64 $127,298,500
2003 Marlins 91-71 $48,750,000
2002 Angels 99-63 $61,721,667
2001 Diamondbacks 92-70 $85,247,999
2000 Yankees 87-74 $92,938,260
1999 Yankees 98-64 $88,130,709
1998 Yankees 114-48 $63,159,898

The only teams in the past 10 years to win multiple times are the teams with the highest pay rolls. Coincidence? I think not. Also notice how the Marlins and the Angels are the only teams under $75 million since 2000. Spending the most money does not GUARANTEE a championship, but it sure seems to help, and not being able to spend near the same amount of money is an almost certain guarantee that you will not win.