Smart NFL teams spend little in free agency

[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.