i still want Pioli

Mr. Laz · 06-03-2005, 11:38 AM

we've had a good offseason but i still want to seperate the GM and CEO responsibilities.

Conflict of interest IMO

PATS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR "PIOLI RULE"?

Per Tom Curran of The Providence Journal, a league source has denied that the New England Patriots are responsible for a proposal to prevent movement of the No. 2 man in an organization.

The measure, first reported last Friday by ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, is known as the "Pioli rule" -- a reference to New England V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli, who lacks the last word over personnel with the Pats and who therefore could leave the team for a "final say" gig prior to the expiration of his contract.

Curran says that, per his source, the Pats weren't the "prime proponents" of the proposal. Curran then identifies three facts that support this contention: (1) Pioli's contract expires in April 2006, after the draft; (2) Pioli has said that he will honor his contract; and (3) such a rule would limit the Pats' ability to find a replacement, if Pioli leaves in April 2006.

We've got a lot of respect for Tom, but we've got a funny feeling that his "source" is someone who's trying to deflect criticism of New England owner Bob Kraft for unfairly trying to handcuff Pioli. Indeed, Curran's story isn't coming out on the heels of Pasquarelli's report, but a full seven days after the powers-that-be in Patriotland have had a chance to fully gauge the reaction in league and local circles to this revelation.

So here are the problems we perceive with Curran's piece:

First, Pasquarelli reported unequivocally that Kraft has been lobbying for the rule, not that the Pats put pen to paper on the thing. So the team's role in the formal presentation of the proposal is irrelevant -- and only someone trying to kick dirt on the Pats' tracks would point to technicalities such as the contention that the team couldn't be responsible for it because it was introduced by a committee on which the team does not have a seat.

Second, the fact that Pioli's contract expires in April 2006 necessarily takes him out of the mix for any G.M. jobs that become available in January 2006 -- if the rule were to be passed before then. Rarely are General Managers fired or hired after the draft, especially with the months of February, March, and April now so critical to the development of the roster for the coming season. (In fact, the only example that we can recall of this phenomenon since we've been in this here bidness came in 2001, when the Bears parted ways with the late Mark Hatley on a "mutual" basis in May and hired then-Tampa director of player personnel Jerry Angelo the following month following a protracted dog-and-pony show from which guys like Phil Savage and Tom Modrak pulled their names due to protracted delays.)

Third, if Pioli's contract is extended by Kraft, then the rule would hold Pioli in place for the duration of his new deal.

Fourth, Pioli's intention to "honor his contract" doesn't necessarily mean that he'll stay. Under the current rules, he can take a promotion and still be "honoring his contract." Although we believe that Pioli truly had no intention of leaving after the 2004 season, we've also heard through the grapevine that the Browns ultimately were scared away by Kraft from interviewing Pioli for the G.M. job in Cleveland.

Really, if January 2006 rolls around and Pioli's contract hasn't been extended, does it make sense for either side to continue the relationship through the draft and then part ways? At some point, Pioli or the team will emotionally disconnect -- and if/when that happens, it'll be time for Pioli to move on.

Finally, the notion that this rule would make it hard for the Pats to find a replacement for Pioli is a real stretch, since the rule would apply to every team. Does anyone really think that a director of college scouting would pass on the chance to become a V.P. of player personnel simply because he's instead holding out for the chance to jump directly into the G.M. chair with another team?

In our view, this whole thing seems to be the result of one simple reality -- Kraft wants Pioli to forego both the ability to run a team on his own and the money that would go along with it. Instead, Kraft hopes that Pioli will choose to stay in the role of second banana.

And Kraft likewise hopes to have the tools to force Pioli to stick around, if Pioli should choose otherwise.

Amnorix · 06-03-2005, 11:51 AM

I honestly can't imagine why the Kraft family isn't opening their wallets to keep Pioli here long term. The guy is young, and is literally best friends with Bill Belichick. He could wait 5 years and STILL be running his own team at 45 years old.

Goapics1 · 06-03-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I honestly can't imagine why the Kraft family isn't opening their wallets to keep Pioli here long term. The guy is young, and is literally best friends with Bill Belichick. He could wait 5 years and STILL be running his own team at 45 years old.

Maybe Kraft is making sure he is the real deal. Of course, how many SB's do you need to win before he is the real deal?

Makes no sense to me.

**BigRedChief** · 06-03-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I honestly can't imagine why the Kraft family isn't opening their wallets to keep Pioli here long term. The guy is young, and is literally best friends with Bill Belichick. He could wait 5 years and STILL be running his own team at 45 years old.

Hey Pal FU!

You don't get to win the Super Bowl every year. Share some of that hardware with us that are less fortunate to have a real GM.

Hydrae · 06-03-2005, 12:00 PM

This may no the the place to post this but I have noticed a trend lately here on the Planet. Please, include a link to where you got articles that are probably copyrighted. The last thing Phil (and Kyle for that matter) needs is for the site to get into hot water when he is trying to get it built up.

bricks · 06-03-2005, 12:01 PM

Won't happen Laz sorry. UNLESS, UNLESS....few things have to happen. First
off, Pioli says he will honor his contract till after the 2006 season. So we know we wont see him here in 2005, and 2006 that's guaranteed. Plus, Carl got a new contract, and will be here till... I think 2009. Carl has to get fired or re-sign by 2006 in order to open up room for Pioli. then it's a possibilty. that's if the Chiefs would even look at him. However, I don't see it happening. Hunt fire Carl? notta chance. Carl re-sign?

notta chance either. Basically, for us to get Pioli it would take a miracle, and perfect timing. everything has to be right, and I don't see it.

Brock · 06-03-2005, 01:56 PM

People in Hell still want ice water.

BigChiefFan · 06-03-2005, 01:59 PM

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

Amnorix · 06-03-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Hey Pal FU!

You don't get to win the Super Bowl every year. Share some of that hardware with us that are less fortunate to have a real GM.

Well, um, if it's all the same to you NO!!

Goapics1 · 06-03-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

I would take 3 SB's in 4yrs instead 1 yr wonders.

Amnorix · 06-03-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

I agree Newsome is awesome, but you're making it sound like a runaway that Newsome is better. That just isn't the case.

I'd give the edge to Newsome for overall draft record, but I think the Patriots have done much better in free agency.

And, frankly, if Boller doesn't work out, then that needs to be a knock on their record too. Their decision to cut their QB after winning the SB wasn't too brilliant in retrospect, and if they haven't developed anyone who hasn't flat out sucked since then.

Their offense has also remained consistently mediocre (one dimensional in the extreme) for nearly 5 years now.

**BigRedChief** · 06-03-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

Give me a break. JEEEEZZZ NFL GM of the year two years running. 3 Super Bowl Championships in 4 years. Yeah he had nothing to do with that.

BigChiefFan · 06-03-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

I agree Newsome is awesome, but you're making it sound like a runaway that Newsome is better. That just isn't the case.

I'd give the edge to Newsome for overall draft record, but I think the Patriots have done much better in free agency.

And, frankly, if Boller doesn't work out, then that needs to be a knock on their record too. Their decision to cut their QB after winning the SB wasn't too brilliant in retrospect, and if they haven't developed anyone who hasn't flat out sucked since then.

Their offense has also remained consistently mediocre (one dimensional in the extreme) for nearly 5 years now.

You are just reading too much into it. I think alot of that credit goes to the TEAM concept and Brady being deadly accurate. Pioli obviously has been instrumental in talent evaluations, I'm just saying he's isn't the GOD of GMs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Amnorix · 06-03-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week.

One more comment. "Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season".

1. We will see. Only time will tell.

2. The Patriots obviously didn't need as many changes made as the Chiefs. Not to be critical, but the comparison is invalid since the Chiefs needed to bring in 5 new studs on defense. The Pats didn't.

3. We'll see how the drafting pans out in the long run, but the Chiefs draft position was better than the Patriots, and the players will need to be evaluated over the next 2-3 years. The Pats also got 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks in next year's draft by trading away picks this year, which eventual selections would need to be evaluated 2 or 3 years after THEY are picked.

In short -- this is a very premature statement to make.

BigChiefFan · 06-03-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Give me a break. JEEEEZZZ NFL GM of the year two years running. 3 Super Bowl Championships in 4 years. Yeah he had nothing to do with that.

Do you just read what you want to see? I, in no way said he had nothing to do with helping the Patriots go to the Super Bowl. Stop twisting what was ACTUALLY stated.

06-03-2005, 11:38 AM
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	i still want Pioli we've had a good offseason but i still want to seperate the GM and CEO responsibilities. Conflict of interest IMO PATS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR "PIOLI RULE"? Per Tom Curran of The Providence Journal, a league source has denied that the New England Patriots are responsible for a proposal to prevent movement of the No. 2 man in an organization. The measure, first reported last Friday by ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, is known as the "Pioli rule" -- a reference to New England V.P. of player personnel Scott Pioli, who lacks the last word over personnel with the Pats and who therefore could leave the team for a "final say" gig prior to the expiration of his contract. Curran says that, per his source, the Pats weren't the "prime proponents" of the proposal. Curran then identifies three facts that support this contention: (1) Pioli's contract expires in April 2006, after the draft; (2) Pioli has said that he will honor his contract; and (3) such a rule would limit the Pats' ability to find a replacement, if Pioli leaves in April 2006. We've got a lot of respect for Tom, but we've got a funny feeling that his "source" is someone who's trying to deflect criticism of New England owner Bob Kraft for unfairly trying to handcuff Pioli. Indeed, Curran's story isn't coming out on the heels of Pasquarelli's report, but a full seven days after the powers-that-be in Patriotland have had a chance to fully gauge the reaction in league and local circles to this revelation. So here are the problems we perceive with Curran's piece: First, Pasquarelli reported unequivocally that Kraft has been lobbying for the rule, not that the Pats put pen to paper on the thing. So the team's role in the formal presentation of the proposal is irrelevant -- and only someone trying to kick dirt on the Pats' tracks would point to technicalities such as the contention that the team couldn't be responsible for it because it was introduced by a committee on which the team does not have a seat. Second, the fact that Pioli's contract expires in April 2006 necessarily takes him out of the mix for any G.M. jobs that become available in January 2006 -- if the rule were to be passed before then. Rarely are General Managers fired or hired after the draft, especially with the months of February, March, and April now so critical to the development of the roster for the coming season. (In fact, the only example that we can recall of this phenomenon since we've been in this here bidness came in 2001, when the Bears parted ways with the late Mark Hatley on a "mutual" basis in May and hired then-Tampa director of player personnel Jerry Angelo the following month following a protracted dog-and-pony show from which guys like Phil Savage and Tom Modrak pulled their names due to protracted delays.) Third, if Pioli's contract is extended by Kraft, then the rule would hold Pioli in place for the duration of his new deal. Fourth, Pioli's intention to "honor his contract" doesn't necessarily mean that he'll stay. Under the current rules, he can take a promotion and still be "honoring his contract." Although we believe that Pioli truly had no intention of leaving after the 2004 season, we've also heard through the grapevine that the Browns ultimately were scared away by Kraft from interviewing Pioli for the G.M. job in Cleveland. Really, if January 2006 rolls around and Pioli's contract hasn't been extended, does it make sense for either side to continue the relationship through the draft and then part ways? At some point, Pioli or the team will emotionally disconnect -- and if/when that happens, it'll be time for Pioli to move on. Finally, the notion that this rule would make it hard for the Pats to find a replacement for Pioli is a real stretch, since the rule would apply to every team. Does anyone really think that a director of college scouting would pass on the chance to become a V.P. of player personnel simply because he's instead holding out for the chance to jump directly into the G.M. chair with another team? In our view, this whole thing seems to be the result of one simple reality -- Kraft wants Pioli to forego both the ability to run a team on his own and the money that would go along with it. Instead, Kraft hopes that Pioli will choose to stay in the role of second banana. And Kraft likewise hopes to have the tools to force Pioli to stick around, if Pioli should choose otherwise.
Posts: 95,626

06-03-2005, 11:51 AM	#2
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	I honestly can't imagine why the Kraft family isn't opening their wallets to keep Pioli here long term. The guy is young, and is literally best friends with Bill Belichick. He could wait 5 years and STILL be running his own team at 45 years old. __________________ "I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 43,125

06-03-2005, 12:00 PM	#5
Hydrae Sandbox: Leander Lasercats Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Austin, Tx Casino cash: $2007000	This may no the the place to post this but I have noticed a trend lately here on the Planet. Please, include a link to where you got articles that are probably copyrighted. The last thing Phil (and Kyle for that matter) needs is for the site to get into hot water when he is trying to get it built up.
Posts: 14,698

06-03-2005, 12:01 PM	#6
bricks Hey Teacher! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: land of maple syrup Casino cash: $9902559	Won't happen Laz sorry. UNLESS, UNLESS....few things have to happen. First off, Pioli says he will honor his contract till after the 2006 season. So we know we wont see him here in 2005, and 2006 that's guaranteed. Plus, Carl got a new contract, and will be here till... I think 2009. Carl has to get fired or re-sign by 2006 in order to open up room for Pioli. then it's a possibilty. that's if the Chiefs would even look at him. However, I don't see it happening. Hunt fire Carl? notta chance. Carl re-sign? notta chance either. Basically, for us to get Pioli it would take a miracle, and perfect timing. everything has to be right, and I don't see it. __________________ Adopt a chief: Pat Mahomes baby!
Posts: 5,513

06-03-2005, 01:56 PM	#7
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	People in Hell still want ice water.
Posts: 47,314

06-03-2005, 01:59 PM	#8
BigChiefFan MVP Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: In the Top 10 Casino cash: $9924205	I'm in no way a Carl backer, but Pioli didn't do any better than Carl did this past off-season. Pioli is damn good talent evaluator, but let's not go making him the best that ever was. I'd take Ozzie Newsome over Pioli anyday of the week. __________________ A 35 year drought can make you thirsty.
Posts: 15,777