Per PFT, 'Skins going after Peppers and Sproles

[May Day 10]

It seems to me that hockey was better without a salary cap. The trade deadlines were exciting and could turn anyone into an instant contender that year. Maybe if football adopted some of the trading policies of the NHL it might turn the no cap situation into a positive.

 

 

No way.

 

Didnt the NHL set the record for moves at the deadline last season and/or the season before? We also just saw some GIGANTIC trades go down last month. Kovalchuk got dealt to New Jersey for crying out loud, what bigger trade to make a team a contender do you want?

 

The cap is the BEST thing to happen to the NHL. Te league was about to go caput. Stars would end up on one of about 5 teams. Now all teams can afford to have stars and teams like the Rangers and Leafs are "stuck" with being held responsible for bad moves and building a team wisely.

 

I cant think of one reason the NHL cap could be considered a bad thing.

[Ramius]

Which players would they all have to cut "left and right"?

 

Anyway.....

 

 

Wow, the Skins are looking to pay fhuge money for a FA motivated by a huge contract?

 

The world IS coming to an end!

 

It was well documented that the skins, cowboys, your patsies* and a handful of other teams would have been way over the 2006 cap of $85 million. The only thing that saved them was a cap increase of $17 million in the new **** CBA. They would have been screwed with a cap increase of the old standard 3-4 million per season.

[Mr. WEO]

It was well documented that the skins, cowboys, your patsies* and a handful of other teams would have been way over the 2006 cap of $85 million. The only thing that saved them was a cap increase of $17 million in the new **** CBA. They would have been screwed with a cap increase of the old standard 3-4 million per season.

So you're saying that 27 other owners voted for the CBA so those three could each hold onto a couple of players?

 

Yeah, that's plausible.

 

Imagine the perplexed delight the majority of owners would experience reading the posts of a few on this site describing how foolish they were to vote, in 2006, for an agreement that allowed them to continue to make vast, even record sums of money from their business---with the option of bailing out when it was financially even better for them to do so.

 

Yeah those players really put one over on those stupid businessmen! By the way---who's getting paid in 2011?

[Ramius]

So you're saying that 27 other owners voted for the CBA so those three could each hold onto a couple of players?

 

Yeah, that's plausible.

 

Imagine the perplexed delight the majority of owners would experience reading the posts of a few on this site describing how foolish they were to vote, in 2006, for an agreement that allowed them to continue to make vast, even record sums of money from their business---with the option of bailing out when it was financially even better for them to do so.

 

Yeah those players really put one over on those stupid businessmen! By the way---who's getting paid in 2011?

 

I forgot, you're the jackass who thinks the 2006 CBA was a great deal. Those owners loved the CBA so much that they voted to get out of the contract within 2 years of signing it. Sure seems like they loved it sooo much.

 

And the cap problems of those teams werent the only reason, but you're extremely naive if you dont think they played a sizeable role in the big guys pushing hard to get the POS CBA signed.

[Mr. WEO]

I forgot, you're the jackass who thinks the 2006 CBA was a great deal. Those owners loved the CBA so much that they voted to get out of the contract within 2 years of signing it. Sure seems like they loved it sooo much.

 

And the cap problems of those teams werent the only reason, but you're extremely naive if you dont think they played a sizeable role in the big guys pushing hard to get the POS CBA signed.

 

 

Actually, Jones was holding out on the CBA in '06, son. He didn't want to expand the shared revenue pool for the less motivated owners. He was dragged kicking and screaming to the signature table.

 

As for opting out, I think it is self evident that they got what they wanted out of the 2006 agreement and now, as many of their circumstances have changed since then, they are ready to offer a new one to the players that is even more to the owners' advantage. Or, perhaps, if the Supreme Court agrees with their claim to be a single entity, they will offer the players no CBA at all.

 

Honestly, I personally have no opinion as to whether the CBA was a "great deal" (for me?, for you?...it really didn't matter)---just that it clearly worked out well for the owners (a great deal for them, I guess)--even Ralph, though he pathetically pretended otherwise. If you can describe how the owners suffered over the 3 year period that the deal was in effect, I'd enjoy hearing you articulate this.

 

I forgot, you must be one of the 2 people here who actually think that the players are getting, or ever got, 60% of total revenues as a result of the CBA.

[Ever Since '86]

Ever since Dan Synder bought the team, he's been trying to buy his way to a Superbowl. While no one can knock Synder for reaching into his pockets and spending money on big name players, but it's not the way to build a winning team.

 

 

Exactly, you cant buy yourself a superbowl caped or uncaped

[Conch]

it is for this exact reason why i cant stand the redskins. it happened with haynesworth last year, randle el a couple of years ago, i hope that SOMEONE breaks the cycle and stops the redskins from going crazy.

 

!@#$ DAN SNYDER!

I love Dan Snyder. He urinates away money and his team always suck. What a blowhard. Shanahan may help change some things but in the end they, like the 'boys, spend the money and have the names, but do not have a winner. Unlike the Bills, who neither spend money nor have a winner. When comparing the strategies, Ralph's at least, keeps our ticket prices down.

[Doc]

Which players would they all have to cut "left and right"?

You're really concrete, aren't you? They had some $10M they had to clear under the previous CBA cap.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Exactly, you cant buy yourself a superbowl caped or uncaped

Team DC Comics is f---ed.

[Ramius]

Actually, Jones was holding out on the CBA in '06, son. He didn't want to expand the shared revenue pool for the less motivated owners. He was dragged kicking and screaming to the signature table.

 

As for opting out, I think it is self evident that they got what they wanted out of the 2006 agreement and now, as many of their circumstances have changed since then, they are ready to offer a new one to the players that is even more to the owners' advantage. Or, perhaps, if the Supreme Court agrees with their claim to be a single entity, they will offer the players no CBA at all.

 

Honestly, I personally have no opinion as to whether the CBA was a "great deal" (for me?, for you?...it really didn't matter)---just that it clearly worked out well for the owners (a great deal for them, I guess)--even Ralph, though he pathetically pretended otherwise. If you can describe how the owners suffered over the 3 year period that the deal was in effect, I'd enjoy hearing you articulate this.

 

I forgot, you must be one of the 2 people here who actually think that the players are getting, or ever got, 60% of total revenues as a result of the CBA.

 

 

Lets use some simple logic (which apparently evades you). The owners are so willing to stick it to the NFLPA that they opt out of the deal to better the deal for themselves, or 2, they realize they got a raw deal and got out of the CBA asap. Every national sportswriter and everyone with a brain realizes #2 is what happened. Only in your little patsy*-fan loving bahston world was the old CBA an "awesome deal" for the owners.

[Doc]

 

Lets use some simple logic (which apparently evades you). The owners are so willing to stick it to the NFLPA that they opt out of the deal to better the deal for themselves, or 2, they realize they got a raw deal and got out of the CBA asap. Every national sportswriter and everyone with a brain realizes #2 is what happened. Only in your little patsy*-fan loving bahston world was the old CBA an "awesome deal" for the owners.

The good doc lives in his own fantasy world Ramius. A world in which he's an expert and guys like Marshall Faulk, Deion Sanders, and Steve Mariucci are morons. A world where the owners predicted the recession even though it happened months after they actually opted-out of the CBA, and well over a year before they first started talking about opting-out of it back in 2007.

[lets_go_bills]

Washington has splurged on FAs before and it always blows up in their faces. It's comical. Snyder is way too involved and runs personnel like an idiot. Fans hate him because he's a goof who won't let someone run personnel.

[Wizard]

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....

[MRW]

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

I see the case for pessimism, but I look at teams like the Steelers who don't break the bank (except for keeping a couple of stars) but still remain consistently good. Trends come and go in the NFL, and I think it's the teams who can stay ahead of the curve who will have a competitive advantage. Unfortunately I'm a bit nervous about switching to the 3-4 as it seems like more of a case of following the trend rather than setting it. The Steelers had success because they could pick up players cheap who wouldn't fit in other teams' systems, but I'm thinking the bargains are no longer in good 3-4 players.

 

In any event, though, once you get past the real stars of the game, I think that players become, not interchangeable, but very dependent on the system you run. If the Redskins and Cowboys drive up the price for current stars, it will be critical to find no-name players who can play a solid role on your team. That's how the Steelers did it, that's how the Patriots did it back when they won their first championship.

[Mr. WEO]

The good doc lives in his own fantasy world Ramius. A world in which he's an expert and guys like Marshall Faulk, Deion Sanders, and Steve Mariucci are morons. A world where the owners predicted the recession even though it happened months after they actually opted-out of the CBA, and well over a year before they first started talking about opting-out of it back in 2007.

Neither of you big thinkers can describe any way that the owners were damaged by the "POS CBA"? Come on, boys--this should be easy! How much money did the owners lose? Have Dallas , NE or Wash won a SB since the cap went up? Has any team folded?

 

The reason is that you can't---because there are no damages. Total salaries have been very stable in 2006 were 3.2 billion. In 2009, 3.3 billion. Meanwhile, profits have risen yearly for the league. Free money increased for the bottom feeders 5-fold under that CBA.

 

Look, if the best you've got is a reference to Faulk and Sanders.....that's pure Doc gold!! Didn't Harrsion (an "expert" like the rest, no?) call TO a "clown"? Don't remember you agreeing with that expert opinion.

 

In fact, for the past 2 springs, the consensus on this very board was that Faulk was not an "actual analyst", but instead "an idiot", "a moron" and "a halfwit who could barely form a sentence".

 

But, when he tosses out a little "TO was open all the time", (while simultaneoulsy being double covered almost all the time, right) you recertify him as "an expert".

 

You're a riot.

[Doc]

Neither of you big thinkers can describe any way that the owners were damaged by the "POS CBA"? Come on, boys--this should be easy! How much money did the owners lose? Have Dallas , NE or Wash won a SB since the cap went up? Has any team folded?

 

The reason is that you can't---because there are no damages. Total salaries have been very stable in 2006 were 3.2 billion. In 2009, 3.3 billion. Meanwhile, profits have risen yearly for the league. Free money increased for the bottom feeders 5-fold under that CBA.

 

Look, if the best you've got is a reference to Faulk and Sanders.....that's pure Doc gold!! Didn't Harrsion (an "expert" like the rest, no?) call TO a "clown"? Don't remember you agreeing with that expert opinion.

 

In fact, for the past 2 springs, the consensus on this very board was that Faulk was not an "actual analyst", but instead "an idiot", "a moron" and "a halfwit who could barely form a sentence".

 

But, when he tosses out a little "TO was open all the time", (while simultaneoulsy being double covered almost all the time, right) you recertify him as "an expert".

 

You're a riot.

Look, even though the owners still might have made money, they lost (collectively) hundreds of millions in would-be profits because they got taken by the players. That's how (they feel) they got "hurt." And just because the "situation changed" doesn't mean that the original deal still wasn't bad, even though again, they opted-out before the situation changed. The old CBA was perfectly fine and would have presented no problem in this "changed situation." They should have forced a lockout back then before the players got a taste of almost 60% in total revenue. You're the only one who can't, or more precisely refuses to, see it.

 

Ah yes, Rodney "Juice Head" Harrison (who I didn't mention, BTW). He called TO a "clown" because, and ONLY because, TO called the Patriots cheaters. What that has to do with proving TO wasn't frequently open is anyone's guess because as far as I know, he didn't say that TO wasn't. But great example there, chief, as usual.

 

As for Faulk and Sanders, I don't ever recall calling them idiots. And if I did, it was probably in response to an opinion, which you see, is different from a fact, like whether someone was open. Funny that while you (may have, I don't know) defended them before, now you're agreeing that they're "idiots," "morons," and "halfwits" because they disproved your claim. And that still doesn't explain Mariucci, who no one has called those names, and who was on the wrong end of TO's wrath more than a few times and would have no reason to make positive stuff up about him. Just concede these points already.

[Mr. WEO]

Look, even though the owners still might have made money, they lost (collectively) hundreds of millions in would-be profits because they got taken by the players. That's how (they feel) they got "hurt." And just because the "situation changed" doesn't mean that the original deal still wasn't bad, even though again, they opted-out before the situation changed. The old CBA was perfectly fine and would have presented no problem in this "changed situation." They should have forced a lockout back then before the players got a taste of almost 60% in total revenue. You're the only one who can't, or more precisely refuses to, see it.

 

Ah yes, Rodney "Juice Head" Harrison (who I didn't mention, BTW). He called TO a "clown" because, and ONLY because, TO called the Patriots cheaters. What that has to do with proving TO wasn't frequently open is anyone's guess because as far as I know, he didn't say that TO wasn't. But great example there, chief, as usual.

 

As for Faulk and Sanders, I don't ever recall calling them idiots. And if I did, it was probably in response to an opinion, which you see, is different from a fact, like whether someone was open. Funny that while you (may have, I don't know) defended them before, now you're agreeing that they're "idiots," "morons," and "halfwits" because they disproved your claim. And that still doesn't explain Mariucci, who no one has called those names, and who was on the wrong end of TO's wrath more than a few times and would have no reason to make positive stuff up about him. Just concede these points already.

 

So the owners would have made "collectively...hundreds of millions of dollars by instead following your recommendation of "forcing a lockout back then"? There you go---more airtight logic.

 

Anyway, yes, the existing CBA was very nice and all, but it was set to expire, so, having just recently negotiated record TV money, the owners renewed the CBA.

 

And again with the "players are getting 60% of revenue" nonsense. Never happened---you know this. What was the ACTUAL immediate impact? The cap went up a whopping........$7.5 million dollars!! WoW!! These guys are bringing in hundreds of millions a year in revenue. You think they would pass on the opportunity to continue to make record amounts of profits over a measly $7.5 million increase (totally voluntary, at that) in labor costs? Really---that's now going to be your position? They didn't even care about the "60%"---the deal was held up because of the revenue sharing portion of the agreement. How can you not know this by now?

 

Anyway, Sanders and Faulk are what they are---ex jocks getting paid to say things on TV. I didn't defend or support them, just pointing out what most others had concluded a long time ago.

 

If you want to believe that these two guys sat down and watched all film on the Bills this season before they told you TO was open all the time---well, go ahead---you really have to believe such a thing to be comfortable referencing guys like that. Hey, Mariucci may have watched every offensive snap the Bills took. Who knows!

 

Disproving my claim? That he wasn't double covered and open the majority of passing plays? More than one poster here has pointed out that ol' TO took his share of plays off and shorted routes and occasionally failed the leave the ground on a pass higher than the 8 and the 1 on his jersey. Are they all so blind also?

[Doc]

So the owners would have made "collectively...hundreds of millions of dollars by instead following your recommendation of "forcing a lockout back then"? There you go---more airtight logic.

 

Anyway, yes, the existing CBA was very nice and all, but it was set to expire, so, having just recently negotiated record TV money, the owners renewed the CBA.

 

And again with the "players are getting 60% of revenue" nonsense. Never happened---you know this. What was the ACTUAL immediate impact? The cap went up a whopping........$7.5 million dollars!! WoW!! These guys are bringing in hundreds of millions a year in revenue. You think they would pass on the opportunity to continue to make record amounts of profits over a measly $7.5 million increase (totally voluntary, at that) in labor costs? Really---that's now going to be your position? They didn't even care about the "60%"---the deal was held up because of the revenue sharing portion of the agreement. How can you not know this by now?

 

Anyway, Sanders and Faulk are what they are---ex jocks getting paid to say things on TV. I didn't defend or support them, just pointing out what most others had concluded a long time ago.

 

If you want to believe that these two guys sat down and watched all film on the Bills this season before they told you TO was open all the time---well, go ahead---you really have to believe such a thing to be comfortable referencing guys like that. Hey, Mariucci may have watched every offensive snap the Bills took. Who knows!

 

Disproving my claim? That he wasn't double covered and open the majority of passing plays? More than one poster here has pointed out that ol' TO took his share of plays off and shorted routes and occasionally failed the leave the ground on a pass higher than the 8 and the 1 on his jersey. Are they all so blind also?

You're so certain the players won't be dumb enough to bring a lockout upon themselves now. What makes you think they would have done it back in 2008, when they didn't have time to build-up a "war chest" of their own? The answer is, if you think they won't do it now, they definitely wouldn't have done it then. And as I showed you, the owners have spent hundreds of millions more since signing the new CBA. Again, fact, not your "expert opinion."

 

Perhaps you don't get the NFL Network, and I can only asume you don't, but Faulk, Sanders, Mariucci, and others "get paid" to watch all the games every weekend and analyze them, along with offering their opinions. Not make stuff up. I'm sure they have people breaking down film for them and condensing them into the 11 minutes of action a recent report said that NFL games contain. So when they make observations on what happened in games, you see, I'm more likely to believe them than say, you or "more than one poster here" talking about what you believe and/or the occasional play he dogs. So too would the majority of sane people.

[Jim in Anchorage]

look who spends the most

Results?

[Mr. WEO]

You're so certain the players won't be dumb enough to bring a lockout upon themselves now. What makes you think they would have done it back in 2008, when they didn't have time to build-up a "war chest" of their own? The answer is, if you think they won't do it now, they definitely wouldn't have done it then. And as I showed you, the owners have spent hundreds of millions more since signing the new CBA. Again, fact, not your "expert opinion."

 

Perhaps you don't get the NFL Network, and I can only asume you don't, but Faulk, Sanders, Mariucci, and others "get paid" to watch all the games every weekend and analyze them, along with offering their opinions. Not make stuff up. I'm sure they have people breaking down film for them and condensing them into the 11 minutes of action a recent report said that NFL games contain. So when they make observations on what happened in games, you see, I'm more likely to believe them than say, you or "more than one poster here" talking about what you believe and/or the occasional play he dogs. So too would the majority of sane people.

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.