Rob's House Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 This is simply a stupid article from a lazy writer. Ralph may well be cheap for all I know but the comparison to the Pirates is ridiculous. There have still been significant free agent acquisitions over the last decade (many haven't panned out, but still) and he's ponied up to keep some veterans like Lee Evans and Terrance McGee. When was the last time the Pirates paid anything dignificant to either keep or acquire a valuable player?
billsfreak Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 You can't say that on this board. I suggested the same thing last year and was called every name in the book for it. You always will get attacked on this board for that, there are a few individuals who defend Ralphy and the Organization no matter what the topic is and how stupid and unknowledgeable they look doing it.
dhg Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 100% wrong. You vote with your checkbooks. Tell me one instance for any professional sport where that has worked.
polish lover Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Blowing big bucks on FA does not make a championship team. Just look at Washington over the past ten years. They spend more on Free Agents than any team in the league and still struggle. The Patriots on the other hand have been frugal. Yes they have brought in some big name guys, but late in their careers when they came cheap and only after they won for a while with a team they mostly built in the draft. Brady was a 6th round accident...
justnzane Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 This is simply a stupid article from a lazy writer. Ralph may well be cheap for all I know but the comparison to the Pirates is ridiculous. There have still been significant free agent acquisitions over the last decade (many haven't panned out, but still) and he's ponied up to keep some veterans like Lee Evans and Terrance McGee. When was the last time the Pirates paid anything dignificant to either keep or acquire a valuable player? Truthful. The Pirates are a MLB farm team. Year after year, they consistently sell off a complete starting roster of MLB players. While the Bills have let go of some players who have went on to succeed elsewhere, I can't say that the Bills have had 10 players in the past decade that fall into this category: Winfield Pat Clements McBadknee Dockery? Maybe? Leonhard (Switch to 3-4 benefitted him) Bannan (Switch to 3-4 benfitted him) Henry? before suspension and fathering 10 more kids? Bledsoe? does one half good season at Dallas count enough? I'm stuck right here, and I stretched for four of the guys (Bannan and the 3 ?'s)
sharper802 Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 100% wrong. You vote with your checkbooks. What would you be voting for? RW we are no longer going to your games - it's ok to take the team elsewhere??? And better yet since ticket revenue makes up only a tiny perecent of the overall revenue even that vote wouldn't matter.
Gabe Northern Posted August 23, 2010 Author Posted August 23, 2010 LOL ok. Yes Free Agent signings make teams awesome. IT works every year right? LOL ok. Oh wait i know the bills need to spend 14 million a year on a corner. If they did this the fans would be happy? Sorry but your conclusions from two articles about two different cities and two different sports are poor. I don't understand how you can draw comparisons between the two. I have to take issue with this reply. The front office can manipulate fans by making this black and white: either the team goes after Albert Haynesworth-types and makes a splash in free agency or it doesn't. In reality, outlays relate to 2 factors: paying market rates to keep your good players and paying market rates to sign reasonable upgrades at key positions. We agree that disregarding team chemistry and salary cap flexibility to sign top players is idiotic. But that's not what this is about. With the Bills, every year brings another Cornell Green, Bennie Andersen, Tutan Reyes, Mel Fowler, or Geoff Hangartner. No one ever believed these guys were anything more than decent backups. Signing them to start is basically an admission that you don't care if the team sucks, especially when there's not a promising rookie being groomed so as to reasonably say it's a one year transition. People like to point to the one whiff on Derrick Dockery, but he was starting caliber, at least, and it's not like he had any trouble finding $5 million per year suitors once we went in a different direction.
FightClub Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Part of the problem is the fans, who for some reason tolerate this behavior (both here and in Pittsburgh). Right on. All of the people actually sniping at the rest of us for hoping Brohm gets a fair chance to play with the first team (as was promised) are point of this group. Are you really going to swallow another year of the Trent experiment? This is signing on for another mediocre, or even bad, team. This is the same attitude our ownership has. Someone, though proven to be a bad performer in games, it is going to magically "get better".
BuffaloWest Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Sounds like people are finally realizing that this team is being setup for a sale and not for a playoff run. The argument that you dont invest much money in something that you fully intend to sell is right on. The real discussion should be about what happens after a sale. I still argue that no business people in their right mind (local or not) will invest over $900 million in WNY at an avg of ~$55 a ticket. The team will be sold and will operate in WNY for about 3-5 years afterwards. In that time prices (on everything) will skyrocket, the team will continue to lose, the fan base will diminish, and the team will move. Pretty much what the Buffalo Braves did, traded away their best players in order to field as bad a product as possible. They wanted the fans to go away. The intention of The Braves was to see their season ticket base drop below a certain number which triggered an escape clause allowing the team to relocate to San Diego. The Braves were actually quite good, and had some excellent young talent but the owner wanted to move the team originally to Florida, then chose California. They were able to get out of Buffalo in about 2 seasons...Have The Bills been trying to do the same thing for about 10 years, but with no luck because we just blindly come back year after year? I think a case could be made and would be an interesting post. So many ill advised decisions seem to point in that direction. However- Wilson could have easily just up and said..."Screw it, we're outta here!".....I personally think the guy does care about his legacy, and prefers the Bills remain The "Buffalo" Bills long after he's gone. I have to think something has been done to protect that legacy in the form of a succession plan that keeps them in WNY...(We all know essentially nothing of this, and probably for good reason)...Now that he's in the HOF, he should be even more inclined to protect his name/family legacy, otherwise the guy's bust in Canton will look like Jim Morrisson's grave in Paris with angry Bills fans coming thru year after year! Edited August 23, 2010 by BuffaloWest
sharper802 Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Really, you'll have to explain yourself. I fail to understand how free market economics does not apply to the Buffalo Bills. The free market would say the team is worth a hell of a lot more in LA or even Oklahoma City. The simple fact that the team is still in Buffalo proves the free market doesn't apply. Hell its an oligopoly by design so by it's very nature the free market doesn't apply. Edited August 23, 2010 by sharper802
Gabe Northern Posted August 23, 2010 Author Posted August 23, 2010 This is simply a stupid article from a lazy writer. Ralph may well be cheap for all I know but the comparison to the Pirates is ridiculous. There have still been significant free agent acquisitions over the last decade (many haven't panned out, but still) and he's ponied up to keep some veterans like Lee Evans and Terrance McGee. When was the last time the Pirates paid anything dignificant to either keep or acquire a valuable player? Just to be clear: reading about the Pirates makes one think about the similarities to the Bills. Often, critics say things like "the owners don't care about fielding a competitive team as long as the franchise meets its profitability targets." Most true fans scoff at the notion, refusing to believe that the ownership could behave in such a cold, calculated way. Well, here's some tangible, straightforward evidence that the Pirates place dividends ahead of competitiveness. Thinking about the Bills' cash management practices (emphasis over cash-to-cap, refusal to pay signing bonuses, avoidance of cash-rich long-term deals, does anyone really doubt that the Bills' finance department manages team expenses with the aim of ensuring members of the Wilson family get their dividends? It's not that they wouldn't love to see the Bills succeed. This isn't sabotage. It's just that success has to come in the context of meeting the operating profit (which, with no debt is basically pre-tax profit) targets.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) The free market would say the team is worth a hell of a lot more in LA or even Oklahoma City. The simple fact that the team is still in Buffalo proves the free market doesn't apply. Hell its an oligopoly by design so by it's very nature the free market doesn't apply. That's not really accurate. The NFL tried, and failed, in Los Angeles, based in large part on lack of fan interest. It's possible that the dynamics of what makes an NFL franchise successful have changed, from ticket sales to merchandise, etc. If that's truly the case, then the Bills aren't long for Buffalo anyhow. But again, as I said elsewhere, I refuse to accept the notion that Buffalonians have to choose between a crappy franchise and no team at all. There is just no evidence of that, at least not until we see Ralph's finances. And, if that is (or becomes) the choice, then I'd rather the team left than perennially underachieved. I can't stand the defeatist atmosphere around here: yes the Bills suck, but we should be lucky we have them. Come on folks, have some pride for chrissakes. I'll also throw out there that it is my belief that winning is its own best investment. Look at the Patriots - they were perennially at the bottom of the AFC East, but through an investment in the product they were able to transform their business into one of the most successful, profitable, regional franchises. I don't see why Buffalo couldn't do the same thing. It's no wonder that Toronto fans don't want to pay for this product - IT'S A HORRIBLE PRODUCT. If there were talent on this roster worth paying for, the Bills would have a better shot at regionalization. Edited August 23, 2010 by Coach Tuesday
Thurman#1 Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Ralph Wilson does not try to field bad teams. He keeps hiring the wrong people to field his teams. He doesn't know how to pick good managers. But we got lucky when he hired Russ Brandon because Ralph trusts Russ enough to let hem make some decisions. Russ hired Buddy and Buddy hired Chan, so I think we are finally on the right track. PTR Exactly right. There's a decent chance we may finally have the right people in here. Of course, a lot of people thought the same when Ralph hired Donahoe (I know I did at the time), so there won't be any way to be sure but to wait. But Ralph has a history of spending when he has a good team and not spending when he has a bad one. Which is a pretty reasonable habit, if you ask me. If we get decent under this group, he'll start spending as much as possible, but expect him to maintain the "cash to cap" philosophy, which again is pretty reasonable.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Exactly right. There's a decent chance we may finally have the right people in here. Of course, a lot of people thought the same when Ralph hired Donahoe (I know I did at the time), so there won't be any way to be sure but to wait. But Ralph has a history of spending when he has a good team and not spending when he has a bad one. Which is a pretty reasonable habit, if you ask me. If we get decent under this group, he'll start spending as much as possible, but expect him to maintain the "cash to cap" philosophy, which again is pretty reasonable. Really? You think that's reasonable? It seems ass-backwards to me.
CodeMonkey Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 But Ralph has a history of spending when he has a good team and not spending when he has a bad one. Which is a pretty reasonable habit, if you ask me. If we get decent under this group, he'll start spending as much as possible, but expect him to maintain the "cash to cap" philosophy, which again is pretty reasonable. Then how does a sucky team get to be a good team? Random drafts and letting your best players walk for more money elsewhere does not seem like much of a plan to me.
BuffaloBill Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Just to be clear: reading about the Pirates makes one think about the similarities to the Bills. Often, critics say things like "the owners don't care about fielding a competitive team as long as the franchise meets its profitability targets." Most true fans scoff at the notion, refusing to believe that the ownership could behave in such a cold, calculated way. Well, here's some tangible, straightforward evidence that the Pirates place dividends ahead of competitiveness. Thinking about the Bills' cash management practices (emphasis over cash-to-cap, refusal to pay signing bonuses, avoidance of cash-rich long-term deals, does anyone really doubt that the Bills' finance department manages team expenses with the aim of ensuring members of the Wilson family get their dividends? It's not that they wouldn't love to see the Bills succeed. This isn't sabotage. It's just that success has to come in the context of meeting the operating profit (which, with no debt is basically pre-tax profit) targets. This debate will not end as long as Ralph is the owner. There is a bit of the "chicken or egg" syndrome here. IMO the issue really originates out of the failure to put together a solid leadership team. I do not believe this is borne of the fact that Ralph is cheap. Rather I simply believe he does not have a clue how to manage in the new era of the NFL. If you look at the situation the Bills are by no means alone. If spending money were the answer Snyder and the Redskins would have a lock on the Lombardi.
1B4IDie Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Ralph Wilson does not try to field bad teams. He keeps hiring the wrong people to field his teams. He doesn't know how to pick good managers. But we got lucky when he hired Russ Brandon because Ralph trusts Russ enough to let hem make some decisions. Russ hired Buddy and Buddy hired Chan, so I think we are finally on the right track. PTR You can make a point that some teams in different sports have a policy of maximizing revenue without trying to maximize wins\championships. The Clippers have made a very profitable business out of this over the years and there are articles about how the owner is making a nice profit without putting any effort into trying to build a contender. The same could be true in the NFL but its doesn't seem to be as prevalent as other sports. Many of the teams that are currently at the bottom of the league right now were at the top of the league in the first 10 years of the century (Bucs, Seagulls, Lambs, Raiders, even the Chiefs were playoff bound with Priest Holmes.) Really just the Deadskins and Bills have been continual losers, and the Desdskins made the playoff even in the '00s. HOWEVER PTR's point weighs very heavily. Top decision making in this organization has been severely flawed for years. They aren't trying to field a loser they just seemed to be incompetent at building a winner. Rob Johnson, McNewKnee trade, "The Character squad" There was a correction made this year and we are in process. Right now you can take a negative or positive view of Nix\Chan. Nix comes from a good pedigree of GMs. Is he an old timer that never got a shot to be a full fledged GM for a reason or is he wise and experienced NFL exec that will make intelligent decisions to lead the Bills back to relevance if not championships? The Bills have alienated many of the coaching family trees by their hiring and firing of coaches (Gggreggg Williams, Mularkey, Fatty Cowgirl.) PLus there was not a lot of faith in the in the Bills' former front office by "NFL People." Basically the orgniazation has to prove that can be a winner before a big name coach or big name free agents will come to Buffalo again. The Bills had to reach out to coaches on the outside of the NFL looking in. In Comes Chan. He seems to have had a decent first run as head coach and build a competitive program in the ACC. So is Nix an NFL cast off for a reason? Either way I think its tough to say the Bills are content, sitting back and being mediocre while reaping a nice profit. They appear to be a franchise that is still in free fall (maybe even a crash landing by now) since the firing of Bill Polian. Maybe Nix and Chan can pick up the pieces and get the organization of the ground again? We will see. Edited August 23, 2010 by Levitre + Wang = Wood
The Senator Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Geez, when I saw the title I thought maybe Ralph hired... Mike Leach Edited August 23, 2010 by The Senator
Skoobydum Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 I think the whole business model is 1960 reincarnated, no other good way to describe it.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) When I read that article on ESPN this morning, the first thing I thought of was the Bills. Obviously, a direct comparison does not hold up. Different leagues, different sports, different economies in those leagues, etc. HOWEVER, what I believe does hold up is the point that the Front Offices are more concerned with their profit than they are winning. The Pirates and the Bills are happy to lose every year as long as the finances are in the black. Now, I'm not going to try to spend Ralph's money for him, but I do believe that either team could be making MORE money by making the initial investment to win and possibly falling into the red for a short time. Sure it's all opinion as nothing is a sure thing. But there is truth in the saying that you have to spend money in order to make money. Right now, both the Bills and Pirates are simply taking the league handouts (see:Cash to Cap), and are not trying to make more than that through winning because that would take an investment of the owner's actual money. They're taking the easy road. And that isn't fair to the fans. Edited August 23, 2010 by DrDankenstein
Recommended Posts