I don't know which is the better organization at this point. With the capped NFL and the uncapped MLB, it's like comparing apples and oranges.But there is quite a contrast, it appears, with the way Belichick & Co does business vs the Red Sox organization.
With Belichick, if a player is not performing up to snuff, or shows signs of age decline, he is gone. No sentimentality there. To stay around as a veteran, you have to perform.
The Red Sox seem to take a lot softer attitude towards their underproducing or ageing veteran players. They keep 'em, it seems, for as long as possible. but they also hold onto their best minor league prospects, even though there is no room on the major league roster for them. That can't be too pleasant for some of those ambitious minor leaguers who want to get to the Show and make some big bucks.
Now granted, guaranteed contracts make things a whole lot different in MLB--you really can't get rid of a guy like Lackey, for example, whom you are grossly overpaying. Maybe he should have been fingerprinted to make sure it's the same guy that played in LA.
I don't know if it's the difference in the sports or the difference in the managements.I do know the Patriots operate differently from the Red Sox. They are quicker to get rid of players. Does it make a difference? Maybe not. Belichick hasn't been setting the world on fire the last few years, either, trying to run the Patriots by himself.