Per PFT, 'Skins going after Peppers and Sproles

[Doc]

You're the one who says the owners should have forced a lockout back then.

 

The only fact mentioned so far is thet the CBA in 2006 resulted in an increase in the cap of only $7.5 million over what it otherwise would have increased to. Take away the cash to cap teams and the teams that simply decided not to spend to the cap and there was no increase in pay for the vast majority of players and no "hundreds of millions of dollars" extra paid. You realize that players get raises when they sign new contracts, not simply when the cap goes up.........don't you? The increased cap favors only a handfull of players every year.

 

The expiring CBA was just that---it had to be redone or there would have been no CBA. Clearly the owners felt that 2006 was the wrong time to have a work stoppage. Again, the facts reveal that the holdouts to signing the deal were not concerned with the imaginary "60%" that you are now, simply for the sake of argument, pretending to believe was "given" to the players. You are just repeating the same crap over and over and labelling it as "fact" without providing any basis.

 

It's amazing that people would think that a deal that brought a fairly modest increase in the cap was a horrible deal for the owners, yet in an uncapped year (let's call it a "billion dollar cap"!)--no one says a peep about the poor owners. You think that teams who want to dump buckets of money on new players are crying about the "billion dollar cap"? Isn't this a dream come true for the players? Oh, but wait, no cap means no minumum also. Well, all teams who wish to do so cannot simply dump all of their top salaried players can they? Who would they replace them with? There is not an unlimited pool of practice squad players to take their places.

 

If the owners wanted to pay the players less, they should themselves just make less revenue. Problem solved! Too bad they love making so much money! That's the problem with business---in order to make a lot more money, you have to spend more money. Whew---that just sucks! I'm glad I'm not a billionaire business owner!

 

As for your Faulk and Sanders thing---I am really enjoying seeing the classic NKM argument in evolution, or should I say, devolution. When it became, even to you, too ridiculous to continue to suggest that, for example, a guy like Sanders, who famously eschewed watching film (or even paying attention in team meetings) as a player actually "watch(es) all the games every weekend and analyze(s) them"---you then switched to "they have someone do it for them". So these guys are paid to read the summary of someone else's observations on screen as their "expert opinions" (also, enjoying how "fact" has morphed into "opinion").

 

Classique.

The only thing "classique" is watching your patented contorting to justify your misguided beliefs. With you it's a religion; you just believe, nevermind the facts that prove otherwise.

 

Case in point, you entrenched yourself with the wonks who crafted that POS CBA and laughed at Ralph when he sagely voted against it. After the NFL unanimously voted to opt out of it just 2 years later, instead of saying (like any reasonable person would) "hey, Ralph knew what he was talking about," you claimed he voted against it originally because it was a hit to his wallet, but that he benefited from it. You extended that "logic" to the other owners, claiming that they haven't been hurt by the new CBA. Yet when confronted by the question as to why they opted-out of it if they're not getting hurt and have labor peace, you stated "the situation changed." So the "situation changed," yet they're still making money and aren't getting hurt, and they have labor peace. So why again did they opt-out? Oh that's right, because the "situation changed..." at least six months before it actually did. But no one's "getting hurt" despite them opting out...because the "situation changed." Or because a lockout now is better than a lockout in 2008.

 

And I'm sorry. Perhaps you're not familiar with the term, but by "breaking down film," I meant that some lackey takes the 3 hours or so of raw game film, cuts out the extraneous stuff, and presents the 11 minutes or so of actual action to the analysts to, well, analyze it. But yes, I'm sure the NFL doesn't care whether the analysts (or should I say "an analyst") on their flagship station don't watch game film like you claim Sanders still doesn't, because they just want him for his snazzy threads. I'm also sure that the other analysts don't see Sanders' alleged lack of preparation, yet latch-onto his observation that TO "was open" and parrot it as if it were gospel, as your intellectual superior LaDairus would say.

 

You've become a caricature of yourself. And that's a hard thing to accomplish.

[Calgary_JG]

I absolutely agree with your first assertion.

 

Seriously though, doesn't hockey have a spending "floor"?

 

As a Canadian I think I'm qualified enough to comment on the NHL cap. The small market teams in the NHL were getting screwed royally by the large market teams prior to the cap. The Bobby Holik deal to the Rangers back in the day paid a guy who was a decent player at the time $5 mil per year (huge at the time in Hockey) because the Rangers were looking for a checking F who could score 15 G. Martin Lapointe signed a huge contract with Boston in 2001 that to this day is referred to as the deal that created the need for a cap (I think it was $5 mil per year).

 

These guys were not worth the money that GMs were paying for them and agents used these $$ when similar players were negotiating contracts, effectively inflating the value of their clients. In the early 2000's big market teams like NYR, ST.L, DET etc, were able to buy players similar to what the Yankees and Red Sox do now leaving small market teams trying to build through the draft. Nothing wrong with this system if you draft well except that once that rookie contract expires, the good players will be bought through FA by the big markets.

 

The cap in the NHL makes a GM spend wisely, which the NFL cap did as well. To create a level playing field a minimum and a maximum cap was put in place for the NHL. The NFL has a minimum as well.

 

Last year at the trading deadline the NHL had a record number of trades. The reason you don't see trades in the NFL as much is because of the bonus structure and its effect on the cap. A guy's salary may be $2 mil but his cap hit may be $6 mil because of his prorated bonus.

 

If the cap goes away in the NFL, so do the Bills. They can't survive in a world where the best talent goes to the highest bidder in an uncontrolled marketplace.

[Big Turk]

I like how PFT mentions how they try this every offseason, and every subsequent season they fail.

 

Don't be shocked that Washington is going after the big names, this is routine for them.

 

You don't win thru buying free agents in the NFL consistently. You win thru drafting smart and keeping your good players you have drafted previously. Yes, some teams make good FA decisions, but the majority of the teams gain little to nothing by bringing in big name free agents.

[manbeast]

I guess it shouldn't be surprising given the inevitability of an uncapped year (which likely means a permanent end to the salary cap). But it's a sad event nonetheless. As anyone who has followed baseball for the last couple of decades knows, that sport has been completely ruined by a lack of competitive balance. There are 2-3 teams in serious contention every year; everyone else is just a farm team for those hungry sharks. While baseball's overall revenue continued to climb for awhile under this system, it's clearly hemorrhaging fans and is no longer America's favorite sport.

 

Now Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are going to model their franchises around the Yankees and Red Sox, and lots and lots of teams (the Bills included) will be left in the dust. And in my view, unlike baseball, where a small market team can use "Moneyball" tactics to become competitive every once in awhile, in football there is no chance of that happening. In fact, if a few wealthy owners stockpile all of the talent, the result will quickly become unwatchable. Think of college football when premier programs play the soft teams on the schedule early in the year. The NFL won't last long if there are frequent 70-0 games. Yet that's just around the corner. In my view the players and owners are stupid and shortsighted here - they should realize that all they're bargaining for is an increasingly bigger piece of an increasingly shrinking pie. In the long term, it's just unsustainable.

 

Someone tell me the sky isn't falling here, but I find this depressing.

We sucked pretty bad during the early 90s before the current cap existed. How many quality FAs are there this year.

[manbeast]

As a Canadian I think I'm qualified enough to comment on the NHL cap. The small market teams in the NHL were getting screwed royally by the large market teams prior to the cap. The Bobby Holik deal to the Rangers back in the day paid a guy who was a decent player at the time $5 mil per year (huge at the time in Hockey) because the Rangers were looking for a checking F who could score 15 G. Martin Lapointe signed a huge contract with Boston in 2001 that to this day is referred to as the deal that created the need for a cap (I think it was $5 mil per year).

 

These guys were not worth the money that GMs were paying for them and agents used these $$ when similar players were negotiating contracts, effectively inflating the value of their clients. In the early 2000's big market teams like NYR, ST.L, DET etc, were able to buy players similar to what the Yankees and Red Sox do now leaving small market teams trying to build through the draft. Nothing wrong with this system if you draft well except that once that rookie contract expires, the good players will be bought through FA by the big markets.

 

The cap in the NHL makes a GM spend wisely, which the NFL cap did as well. To create a level playing field a minimum and a maximum cap was put in place for the NHL. The NFL has a minimum as well.

 

Last year at the trading deadline the NHL had a record number of trades. The reason you don't see trades in the NFL as much is because of the bonus structure and its effect on the cap. A guy's salary may be $2 mil but his cap hit may be $6 mil because of his prorated bonus.

 

If the cap goes away in the NFL, so do the Bills. They can't survive in a world where the best talent goes to the highest bidder in an uncontrolled marketplace.

The cap benifited the players not the owners.

[manbeast]

Now Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are going to model their franchises around the Yankees and Red Sox, and lots and lots of teams (the Bills included) will be left in the dust.

 

The Bills would be left in the dust regardless of payroll rules. Good teams get good players at competitive but reasonable rates. Crappy teams overpay for less quality free agents (Lee Evans $9 million per year, Dockery $7 million per year). Crappy teams who don't mind or can afford overspending

for players make hardly a difference (Albert Haynesworth monster contract).

 

The truth is...the Yankees and Red Sox have a lot of money, but they also are great places to play. The fan base is strong. The media base is strong. There is rich history. The club invests in scouting and player development. These clubs are smart and do what it takes to win. The Yankees and Red Sox will always be "winners" and leave other teams in the dust if this remains their modes of operation.

 

Don't hate the Colts, Steelers, and Patriots for being smarter than the competition. Regardless of the what the salary cap rules may be this year or next year, these teams will continue to be successful because of their organization's foundations.

 

In all honesty, the Bills could double their payroll right now and it wouldn't make a huge difference (maybe 2 games). The only way Buffalo will compete if it has a winning philosophy and mentality. This hasn't been with this club since the early 1990's. Yes, the fans are passionate, but the owners, leaders, coaches, and players, and scouting hasn't been.

 

Until a championship caliber team is built to be a playoff contender year-in and year-out or until new ownership comes in, it doesn't matter what the Bills spend. Good teams remain good teams and crappy teams remain crappy teams.

 

It's just the way it is....

The Nfl has to have revenue sharing or the gov. will come after them. The CBA has always benefited the players they didn't make what they make now with the cap. Teams are limited as to what they can do based on their success and when you draft a good player you are just about garaunteed to have him for 6 years. The introduction of the cap screwed Buffalo. Remember we had a dynasty.

[manbeast]

If it were not for the salary cap...

 

Winfield, Jennings, and Greer could not have left Buffalo without compensation.

We would not have cut Smith and Reed.

 

I am sure there are more examples of this as well.

[Mr. WEO]

The only thing "classique" is watching your patented contorting to justify your misguided beliefs. With you it's a religion; you just believe, nevermind the facts that prove otherwise.

 

Case in point, you entrenched yourself with the wonks who crafted that POS CBA and laughed at Ralph when he sagely voted against it. After the NFL unanimously voted to opt out of it just 2 years later, instead of saying (like any reasonable person would) "hey, Ralph knew what he was talking about," you claimed he voted against it originally because it was a hit to his wallet, but that he benefited from it. You extended that "logic" to the other owners, claiming that they haven't been hurt by the new CBA. Yet when confronted by the question as to why they opted-out of it if they're not getting hurt and have labor peace, you stated "the situation changed." So the "situation changed," yet they're still making money and aren't getting hurt, and they have labor peace. So why again did they opt-out? Oh that's right, because the "situation changed..." at least six months before it actually did. But no one's "getting hurt" despite them opting out...because the "situation changed." Or because a lockout now is better than a lockout in 2008.

 

And I'm sorry. Perhaps you're not familiar with the term, but by "breaking down film," I meant that some lackey takes the 3 hours or so of raw game film, cuts out the extraneous stuff, and presents the 11 minutes of actual action to the analysts to, well, analyze it. But yes, I'm sure the NFL doesn't care whether the analysts (or should I say "an analyst") on their flagship station don't watch game film like you claim Sanders still doesn't, because they just want him for his snazzy threads. I'm also sure that the other analysts don't see Sanders' alleged lack of preparation, yet latch-onto his observation that TO "was open" and parrot it, as your intellectual superior LaDairus would say.

 

You've become a caricature of yourself. And that's a hard thing to accomplish.

As an example, in 2006, Jones's Cowboys Cathedral was not yet built. Now it's open and he has grossed over a billion dollars in revenue since 2006 to put a dent in his mortgage. So, yeah, he probably thought that 2008 was not a good time for a work stoppage. Unlike Ralph, Jones gets more revenue from tickets and merchandise sales than from TV. Tough to spend a million a day in constructing a new stadium when the money isn't coming in like it used to.

 

 

Also, the guys who negotiate the TV contracts (Ralph isn't invited to those meetings), having just recently inked record deals with three networks and a satellite company, were no doubt thinking about the value of the next contract when they pushed for the CBA.

 

Your argument against the CBA, essentially, is the "fact" that the owners opted (exercising their contractual right) to end the agreement 2 years early. That's the beginning and end of your understanding of this topic. You won't acknowledge the fact that players, on the average, saw no extra money. Or that the cap increase amounted to only 3% of average revenue--if an owner actually chose to spend to the cap. Or that the CBA is about the owners, not the players--and how they want (or don't want) to share revenue with eachother.

 

You say I am concrete, yet in your world, things are very simple---the CBA is bad because they opted out. As I have pointed out, things are more nuanced than that. But if you want to go on believing that this group of wealthy business men don't know (nearly unanimously) when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em---and that you are in a far better position to judge the intelligence of their finacial decisions, I'll just let that stand. It speaks for itself.

 

Also speaking volumes to your "I'll say anything at this point" mode of debate is your bizarre and somewhat sad persistence at propping up guys like Faulk and, particularly ridiculous, Deion Sanders as some sort of thoughtful sage. Is that what you thought of him when he was at CBS doing the same job? That guy IS a clown. That's exactly why NFL hired him. You really think ANYONE at NFL Network (not only their "flagship", but their only network) really cares whether "Neon Deion" watches any film before he goes into his patented act? Of course he didn't watch even 11 minutes of every game the Bills played keying of TO only on each snap. No way you really believe that! He never claimed to do so (link?). He is just giving his opinion in his own......unique way. He's an entertainer, not a statistician.

[Amstel]

I hope Washington gets Peppers. I just want to keep him away from New England....

[rstencel]

You don't win thru buying free agents in the NFL consistently. You win thru drafting smart and keeping your good players you have drafted previously. Yes, some teams make good FA decisions, but the majority of the teams gain little to nothing by bringing in big name free agents.

 

I do not agree with that statement.

 

It is true you don't win by building your team through free agency, but you do need to be able to fill holes and finish you team off with good free agent signings. Most of the good teams have several significant contributors that came through free agency, and most of the Superbowl winners in the last few years put themselves over the top with a free agent signing that contributed greatly to their success.

 

The Patriots laid a good part of the foundation of their almost dynasty through free-agency, and did it through after thought free agent signings for depth of roll player positions, that allowed them to make trades of current year draft choices for future draft higher round picks. They had half their defense and their starting backfield filled with free agent signings.