Ouch

[Thirdborn]

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/6883286/tmq-says-money-motivates-losing-cheap-paying-wins

[Buffalo Barbarian]

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/6883286/tmq-says-money-motivates-losing-cheap-paying-wins

UGH! now wonder Scrooge McWilson wont get any or keep any high level players. With our cap space we could have out bid the Cowboys and Falcons for the OTs but that wouldnt be profitable. Now we now why Peters was traded along with Evans, Lynch and others. You could say it all started when we were to cheap to keep Wolford and Ballard and we haven't had a good line since

Pegula for Owner!

[Coach Tuesday]

It's true. It's exactly why no one should be buying tickets to the Ralph until the ownership changes.

 

And it also describes a perfectly-executed consumer fraud. As I said elsewhere, these types of practices are grounds for a class action lawsuit.

[Thirdborn]

UGH! now wonder Scrooge McWilson wont get any or keep any high level players. With our cap space we could have out bid the Cowboys and Falcons for the OTs but that wouldnt be profitable. Now we now why Peters was traded along with Evans, Lynch and others. You could say it all started when we were to cheap to keep Wolford and Ballard and we haven't had a good line since

Pegula for Owner!

 

Cat's out of the bag ....... that article took all the wind out of my sails. Until I read it, I was looking forward to the season. I can't see any reason to spend my money at a sports bar this year. Just plain sad.

[eball]

Discussed in depth yesterday in another thread.

[Thirdborn]

Discussed in depth yesterday in another thread.

 

sorry, I did do a search though .....

[Beerball]

UGH! now wonder Scrooge McWilson wont get any or keep any high level players. With our cap space we could have out bid the Cowboys and Falcons for the OTs but that wouldnt be AS profitable. Now we now why Peters was traded along with Evans, Lynch and others. You could say it all started when we were to cheap to keep Wolford and Ballard and we haven't had a good line since

Pegula for Owner!

Just my $.02

[hondo in seattle]

C'mon guys, this article means nothing. The idea that a losing club can make a profit has been around for 50 years or more. There is no news here. There is no inside information on the Bills. Only foolish speculation, like:

 

"For Buffalo, this is a recent pattern. Just before the 2009 season began, the Bills waived their starting left tackle, Langston Walker, and the team's highest-paid offensive player. Two games into the 2010 season, the Bills waived their starting quarterback, Trent Edwards, their second-highest-paid offensive player. Both actions increased profits while setting up an excuse for a losing season."

 

Doesn't anybody actually buy this rubbish? The Bills cut Walker to save money? As I recall, we cut him because he sucked. And the Bills used Walker's departure as an excuse for losing? I don't recall that ever happening. Same with TE. Edwards was failing as a QB and everybody could see that. And I never once heard Nix or Gailey use Edwards departure as an excuse for losing. Likewise, Easerbrook's observations about Gailey ruining Maybin's trade value are just plain stupid. Maybin (a wannabe DE) weighs 228 lbs, produced zero sacks in his career thus far, and was a healthy scratch 5 times last year. Maybin's own performance made Maybin worthless as trade bait, not anyone's comments.

 

Easterbrook's math, btw, is flawed too. You can't simply calculate revenues by home seat sales. It will vary greatly from one club to another. Even Easterbrook says, "The $30 estimate is a simplified number, but suppose it's roughly accurate." Huh? Let's suppose it's roughly accurate? Suppose? Roughly? It's really a terrible premise from which to make an argument.

 

Easterbrook uses a lot of quotes, imagining he can read minds. No one actually made those comments and I doubt if they would. His article is really poor journalism.

[8-8 Forever?]

Cat's out of the bag ....... that article took all the wind out of my sails. Until I read it, I was looking forward to the season. I can't see any reason to spend my money at a sports bar this year. Just plain sad.

It all sets up well, though. Lose out this year with a crap lineup. Draft Luck. Draft well. Again. then in 2012 start ramping the salaries up with Free Agents, etc. in anticipation of the salary floor in 2013. I like the plan. They will suck this year for sure, but we knew that already regardless of what they did.

[Ronin]

Cat's out of the bag ....... that article took all the wind out of my sails. Until I read it, I was looking forward to the season. I can't see any reason to spend my money at a sports bar this year. Just plain sad.

 

Why is it that when fans here say something it's dismissed and they're called names and it's suggested that they're not real fans, but when Easterbrook says it all of a sudden it's word?

 

Is there really that little independent thought here? ... never mind, don't answer that.

 

[Not necessarily directed at you either, more of a general statement]

 

C'mon guys, this article means nothing. The idea that a losing club can make a profit has been around for 50 years or more. There is no news here. There is no inside information on the Bills. Only foolish speculation, like:

 

"For Buffalo, this is a recent pattern. Just before the 2009 season began, the Bills waived their starting left tackle, Langston Walker, and the team's highest-paid offensive player. Two games into the 2010 season, the Bills waived their starting quarterback, Trent Edwards, their second-highest-paid offensive player. Both actions increased profits while setting up an excuse for a losing season."

 

Doesn't anybody actually buy this rubbish? The Bills cut Walker to save money? As I recall, we cut him because he sucked. And the Bills used Walker's departure as an excuse for losing? I don't recall that ever happening. Same with TE. Edwards was failing as a QB and everybody could see that. And I never once heard Nix or Gailey use Edwards departure as an excuse for losing. Likewise, Easerbrook's observations about Gailey ruining Maybin's trade value are just plain stupid. Maybin (a wannabe DE) weighs 228 lbs, produced zero sacks in his career thus far, and was a healthy scratch 5 times last year. Maybin's own performance made Maybin worthless as trade bait, not anyone's comments.

 

Easterbrook's math, btw, is flawed too. You can't simply calculate revenues by home seat sales. It will vary greatly from one club to another. Even Easterbrook says, "The $30 estimate is a simplified number, but suppose it's roughly accurate." Huh? Let's suppose it's roughly accurate? Suppose? Roughly? It's really a terrible premise from which to make an argument.

 

Easterbrook uses a lot of quotes, imagining he can read minds. No one actually made those comments and I doubt if they would. His article is really poor journalism.

 

I agree that a simple article means nothing, but you cannot step over the mound of evidence that this team isn't going anywhere any time soon.

 

Langston Walker was an overpaid bust. But who signed him for that? We did, many of the same guys in the front office now. It was idiocy at the time and remains idiocy still. Yet, he was still better than anything we currently have at T. Edwards was a losing QB too, but his point about the contract was valid. And until Fitzpatrick regularly puts up better numbers than Edwards, and significantly better ones, not just 4 more TDs per season, he's not much better.

 

He's definitely right about Evans being one of the Bills most established performers. And if QBing wasn't the problem, or coaching, then why didn't Steve Johnson do a dam thing for two seasons? No WR goes from catching an average of 6 catches for 56 yards, and 2 catches for 10 yeards the season before, to being a 1,000-yard WR because he "developed" in the offseason. That means that there was talent there to begin with but it either wasn't recognized or the team didn't have the QB to make use of it, or a combination of the two.

[Doc]

C'mon guys, this article means nothing. The idea that a losing club can make a profit has been around for 50 years or more. There is no news here. There is no inside information on the Bills. Only foolish speculation, like:

 

"For Buffalo, this is a recent pattern. Just before the 2009 season began, the Bills waived their starting left tackle, Langston Walker, and the team's highest-paid offensive player. Two games into the 2010 season, the Bills waived their starting quarterback, Trent Edwards, their second-highest-paid offensive player. Both actions increased profits while setting up an excuse for a losing season."

 

Doesn't anybody actually buy this rubbish? The Bills cut Walker to save money? As I recall, we cut him because he sucked. And the Bills used Walker's departure as an excuse for losing? I don't recall that ever happening. Same with TE. Edwards was failing as a QB and everybody could see that. And I never once heard Nix or Gailey use Edwards departure as an excuse for losing. Likewise, Easerbrook's observations about Gailey ruining Maybin's trade value are just plain stupid. Maybin (a wannabe DE) weighs 228 lbs, produced zero sacks in his career thus far, and was a healthy scratch 5 times last year. Maybin's own performance made Maybin worthless as trade bait, not anyone's comments.

 

Easterbrook's math, btw, is flawed too. You can't simply calculate revenues by home seat sales. It will vary greatly from one club to another. Even Easterbrook says, "The $30 estimate is a simplified number, but suppose it's roughly accurate." Huh? Let's suppose it's roughly accurate? Suppose? Roughly? It's really a terrible premise from which to make an argument.

 

Easterbrook uses a lot of quotes, imagining he can read minds. No one actually made those comments and I doubt if they would. His article is really poor journalism.

Yeah, the article was worthless. Gotta fill space, I guess.

[nucci]

I know I keep repeating myself but how is this news to anyone? The Bills have been run this way for years. Ahmad Rashad, our best receiver in the mid '70s, left only because of money. The '75 team was gutted because Wilson wouldn't keep the best players. It's also why Saban quit in '76. Why are you guys shocked and surprised by any of this?

[GOBILLS78]

It should be noted that Easterbrook is from Buffalo. He knows pain.

[buffalopdc]

I know I keep repeating myself but how is this news to anyone? The Bills have been run this way for years. Ahmad Rashad, our best receiver in the mid '70s, left only because of money. The '75 team was gutted because Wilson wouldn't keep the best players. It's also why Saban quit in '76. Why are you guys shocked and surprised by any of this?

 

It appears that 13 teams are run the same way. Football is business and the objective of any good business is to maximize profits. As a fan it ticks me off, but as a business owner I understand completely.

[nucci]

It appears that 13 teams are run the same way. Football is business and the objective of any good business is to maximize profits. As a fan it ticks me off, but as a business owner I understand completely.

I understand but the way the NFL is run, it is virtually impossible to lose money. Football is also a game and form of entertainment and there is more than one way to maximize profits. If the Bills were obtaining the best players and winning, that helps profits. This means playoff games at home and merchandise sales would increase due to winning and their popularity going up. I guess it just depends how much profit the Bills want to make. You can win and still maximize profits.

Edited August 24, 2011 by nucci

[zow2]

I don't mind when they jettison overpaid players who underperform. Walker and Trent Edwards? my gosh, that was addition by subtraction. Lee Evans is now looked at as an awful move but let's face it, he was not performing up to his #1 WR status for a couple years now. Maybe with the Ravens he can get back his mojo for a year or so but he's on the back 9 of his career. Not a horrible move imo for a re-building team like Buffalo.

[Coach Tuesday]

I understand but the way the NFL is run, it is virtually impossible to lose money. Football is also a game and form of entertainment and there is more than one way to maximize profits. If the Bills were obtaining the best players and winning, that helps profits. This means playoff games at home and merchandise sales would increase due to winning and their popularity going up. I guess it just depends how much profit the Bills want to make. You can win and still maximize profits.

 

True but that would involve taking on risk. The path they've chosen is virtually risk-free: cut costs, count dollars.

 

I don't mind when they jettison overpaid players who underperform. Walker and Trent Edwards? my gosh, that was addition by subtraction. Lee Evans is now looked at as an awful move but let's face it, he was not performing up to his #1 WR status for a couple years now. Maybe with the Ravens he can get back his mojo for a year or so but he's on the back 9 of his career. Not a horrible move imo for a re-building team like Buffalo.

 

No. It's fine to DEMOTE players who underperform. There is no reason to release them outright. Why do folks fail to grasp the difference? Langston Walker was demoted because he wasn't playing well. He was released because he was being paid like a starter - a pure accounting decision. And his release was painful, both in the locker room and in terms of a significant loss of much-needed depth.

[1billsfan]

Lee Evans averaged 4.5 TD catches the last four years as a Bill. He was and always will be a one trick pony which undoubtably made life much easier for defensive coordinators knowing where Evans would be on each and every play.

 

The reason why the Bills have sucked for so long is bad FO, coaching, drafting and QBing for over a decade. Sorry, but I'm still waiting for this list of great, high priced players that the Bills have traded away.

[mrags]

C'mon guys, this article means nothing. The idea that a losing club can make a profit has been around for 50 years or more. There is no news here. There is no inside information on the Bills. Only foolish speculation, like:

 

"For Buffalo, this is a recent pattern. Just before the 2009 season began, the Bills waived their starting left tackle, Langston Walker, and the team's highest-paid offensive player. Two games into the 2010 season, the Bills waived their starting quarterback, Trent Edwards, their second-highest-paid offensive player. Both actions increased profits while setting up an excuse for a losing season."

 

Doesn't anybody actually buy this rubbish? The Bills cut Walker to save money? As I recall, we cut him because he sucked. And the Bills used Walker's departure as an excuse for losing? I don't recall that ever happening. Same with TE. Edwards was failing as a QB and everybody could see that. And I never once heard Nix or Gailey use Edwards departure as an excuse for losing. Likewise, Easerbrook's observations about Gailey ruining Maybin's trade value are just plain stupid. Maybin (a wannabe DE) weighs 228 lbs, produced zero sacks in his career thus far, and was a healthy scratch 5 times last year. Maybin's own performance made Maybin worthless as trade bait, not anyone's comments.

 

Easterbrook's math, btw, is flawed too. You can't simply calculate revenues by home seat sales. It will vary greatly from one club to another. Even Easterbrook says, "The $30 estimate is a simplified number, but suppose it's roughly accurate." Huh? Let's suppose it's roughly accurate? Suppose? Roughly? It's really a terrible premise from which to make an argument.

 

Easterbrook uses a lot of quotes, imagining he can read minds. No one actually made those comments and I doubt if they would. His article is really poor journalism.

Very good points. Just as many people will bilieve were doomed there are just as many that will come out and show evidence and numbers and facts that it's not all true. The thing is, you have the Jerry Jones, Robert Crafts, and Dan Snyders in the NFL. There's about 5-10 of them. The rest of the teams are owned by grumpy old men that want to make money. After all, the NFL is a business and a very popular one. Where else can you spend 800-1billion dollars and know for a fact that you will male a huge profit in it during the duration of ownership and then most likely recieve an additional 25-50% more than what you paid for when you sell.

 

People need to get a grip about articles like this. There were other teams mentioned not just the Bills. Which makes me believe other teams are just as frugal as we are. Many points about saving money and cutting players is a false. $3million is a drop in the bucket for Wilson at this point. And to prove that it's an obsurd claim is the fact that we signed TO for $6million for 1 year a few seasons ago. If $3million was such a big deal in trading Evans then why would we spend twice as much on another WR if we weren't trying to win? We've done so over the years in great length. Bledsoe, Milloy, Spikes, TO, Walker, Dockery, Merriman, Barnett, There are many more. We signed all these guys, usually to considerable amounts more than other teams were offering just to compete with those offers. Why did we do that? To compete!

 

I know, I'll just get the responses that I'm completely stupid and I buy all the Bills and Ralphs BS on a daily basis and I'll always be the sucker forking over my cash in wheelbarrows to Ralphie personally. I can say the same about all of you that believe these idiot reporters journalists that try and claim thier fame while writing such crap.

 

The truth is, it's a business and if your not in it to male money you should be getting out and quick. There are only a few key owners of this glorified fraternity that don't care about that and are in it to win at all costs.

[Rob T from OP]

I know I keep repeating myself but how is this news to anyone? The Bills have been run this way for years. Ahmad Rashad, our best receiver in the mid '70s, left only because of money. The '75 team was gutted because Wilson wouldn't keep the best players. It's also why Saban quit in '76. Why are you guys shocked and surprised by any of this?

 

I have agree with you. This team keeps shipping players out of here because of money reasons. There are examples of of that player leavingy ever year for $$$$$$. It's all about profitality !!! And if the fans start not going to games then they tell us that it's the area's economy. Then the rumors start flying about moving... This act is getting old.

You can't tell me a small market team can't win. Just look at Pittsburgh and Green Bay. They prove it all in how the franchise is ran!!!... Sorry but I'm a fan and I'm sick of seeing the team being a Bottom feeder for over a decade.I'm also sick of seeing this team's better players playing on other teams.... When's the last time a Pro Bowl player played to the end of his contract and retired???????

What a JOKE!!!!!!