Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I believe my initial point was not theoretical, but factual. The two teams that spent the least were Tampa and KC both won 10 games. See that's easy no argument because it is fact. All things aren't equal in your factual example because teams have different front office staff, coaches, etc. In theory those teams would be better if they had spent more money on better players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLEN1QB Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I hope they put in somethings like a minimum pension for retired players and some health care for retired players. Is this you Jimbo???????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 forcing teams to spend an even higher % of just means they'll hand over more money to players who don't deserve it to make the limit.. I fail to see the positive here.. but I guess we don't have enough Kelsay's on the team. I think 75% - 80% is a more suitable number so a team can save some reserves for a run in future years... I never thought Ralph was cheap with players. He just over paid the wrong ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 They would likely just give Kelsay more money in order to meet the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team/ Bills #13 in total salary last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Isn't dead money just counting against the cap money that was indeed previously spent on players but not amortized because the player left the team prior to the end of their contract? I don't see any way losing this accounting helps the Bills. If anything, wouldn't it encourage the rich teams to sign players to unrealistically long contracts then not have to count the "dead money" and be allowed to spend more on the next wave of contracts? Sorry if I'm setting the conversation back. If i've missed the boat again I promise to go back and read before posting more opinions/questions. Just so. But it would be nice to be able to dump guys like Mike Williams and Maybin (unless by some miracle he comes in and impresses) without their signing bonus scorching the cap. I've heard nothing about a rookie cap, but if nothing changes, Dareus' contract might be the biggest in Bills history wrt "guaranteed $." I haven't followed the NHL's business side closely, but is that the deal with those wacky 15-year $100M contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) I believe my initial point was not theoretical, but factual. The two teams that spent the least were Tampa and KC both won 10 games. See that's easy no argument because it is fact. Pointing to two teams proves zero. Brush up on these concepts and get back to me: "All things being equal" "Sample size" "Exceptions vs rules" If you don't understand the above ideas and consider two "examples" to equal "evidence" then we have nothing to talk about, you and I. Edited June 16, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny4sum Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Pointing to two teams proves zero. Brush up on these concepts and get back to me: "All things being equal" "Sample size" "Exceptions vs rules" If you don't understand the above ideas and consider two "examples" to equal "evidence" then we have nothing to talk about, you and I. I do understand what you are saying, but nothing is ever equal and I believe we are talking about 2 different things. My factual observation needs no sample size and may be an exception to the rule, but it is correct. Did I say in my post that all teams that spend less are winners? No, I just was making the point you do not have to spend money to win. If I was not clear with that thought then what I type and think are not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 17, 2011 Author Share Posted June 17, 2011 I do understand what you are saying, but nothing is ever equal and I believe we are talking about 2 different things. My factual observation needs no sample size and may be an exception to the rule, but it is correct. Did I say in my post that all teams that spend less are winners? No, I just was making the point you do not have to spend money to win. If I was not clear with that thought then what I type and think are not the same. I didn't know if what you were stating was an absolute or if you were just making the one point. Like I said before, I don't think this helps the Bills at all but it is a funny irony… they might finally have their feet held to the fire in terms of spending and it might not make one bit of difference. Thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 See here, WEO: You want evidence? You're not gonna get it. This is a theoretical discussion. We can't put NFL teams into a laboratory. Me saying that "all things being equal" the team that spends more will have a greater chance of being successful" is like saying that "all things being equal" the person who drinks more will urinate more. It's like saying "all things being equal," the team with less injuries is more likely to win. It's like saying that "all things being equal," the team with more big game experience will more likely beat the team with less big game experience. You don't have to agree if you don't want to but it's hard to have a reasonable discussion if you're gonna argue a point which the vast majority of people wouldn't even think of arguing. And here's a question to you: Which teams have the same budget? All of those examples are intuitive--we have seen them with our own eyes. Your claim that the team that "spends more" will win more is not something we have seen in the NFL. More often the opposite is true. "All other things being equal" means both teams have the same coaching, GM and scouting abilities. All of these being maximized implies both teams have picked the best players and personnel for their system and needs. If tht is the case, there is no reason to believe the team with a handfull of more expensive players (that's where the increase cost comes from) will win more. Teams with great coaching, GM, scouting (Pitt, NE, NO, GB) don't need to outspend other teams. All teams have the same cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 All of those examples are intuitive--we have seen them with our own eyes. Your claim that the team that "spends more" will win more is not something we have seen in the NFL. More often the opposite is true. "All other things being equal" means both teams have the same coaching, GM and scouting abilities. All of these being maximized implies both teams have picked the best players and personnel for their system and needs. If tht is the case, there is no reason to believe the team with a handfull of more expensive players (that's where the increase cost comes from) will win more. Teams with great coaching, GM, scouting (Pitt, NE, NO, GB) don't need to outspend other teams. All teams have the same cap. Let me make this simpler for you. I " believe" (I never made "a claim" as you put it) that all things being equal, the team which spends more has a better chance of success. As I've already said, we are not in a chemistry lab… you either believe this or you don't believe this. I can't prove it nor can you prove that it's not the case. A theoretical example of this assertion/hypothesis is if Bill Bidwell, after losing the Super Bowl to the Pittsburgh Steelers, had decided to increase his budget by $15 million and convinced Kurt Warner to delay retirement for one more season. Instead of plunging from 10-6 to 5-11 with Derek Anderson as their primary quarterback, the team would likely have still had a winning record had Warner been convinced to stay one more season. Now before you go and try shooting holes in my example, try to understand it. It's an example. There are literally thousands of examples theoretical or not which I could have used. Again, you either see how all things being equal, spending more can make a team better or you don't. As for your comment, "All teams have the same cap," I'm not sure what you mean by that. All teams have to be within the salary cap range… between the floor and the ceiling… but even in 2009 (the last capped year) there was a wide variance in salary spending. In that year, the New York Giants spent $57 million more than the Kansas City Chiefs. http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team So your comment about all teams having the same cap is really meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 If this keeps up, the Bills might be forced out of town. It would likely be the death knell for the franchise in Buffalo. The team currently makes about 30 million and paying on a loan and increased payroll would seal their fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team/ Bills #13 in total salary last year... People refuse to acknowledge or believe that Ralph is in fact Not cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) Let me make this simpler for you. I " believe" (I never made "a claim" as you put it) that all things being equal, the team which spends more has a better chance of success. As I've already said, we are not in a chemistry lab… you either believe this or you don't believe this. I can't prove it nor can you prove that it's not the case. A theoretical example of this assertion/hypothesis is if Bill Bidwell, after losing the Super Bowl to the Pittsburgh Steelers, had decided to increase his budget by $15 million and convinced Kurt Warner to delay retirement for one more season. Instead of plunging from 10-6 to 5-11 with Derek Anderson as their primary quarterback, the team would likely have still had a winning record had Warner been convinced to stay one more season. Now before you go and try shooting holes in my example, try to understand it. It's an example. There are literally thousands of examples theoretical or not which I could have used. Again, you either see how all things being equal, spending more can make a team better or you don't. As for your comment, "All teams have the same cap," I'm not sure what you mean by that. All teams have to be within the salary cap range… between the floor and the ceiling… but even in 2009 (the last capped year) there was a wide variance in salary spending. In that year, the New York Giants spent $57 million more than the Kansas City Chiefs. http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team So your comment about all teams having the same cap is really meaningless. The cap is well, the cap. It's a hard cap. Every player signing bonus or guarantee counts against the cap. If Bidwell payed an extra 15 million on Warner, that would have counted against the cap. No need for a "theoretical example" of your hypothesis. Since teams can never have the same GM and coaching talent (the "other things being equal") we are only left with the "more money" part of your hypothesis. Over and over it has been shown that paying more is inversely correlated to success in this decade. The Giants spent $57 million more than the Chiefs but only the Chiefs made the playoffs. In the NFL, you can win a SB without breaking the bank. If you want to continue to "hypothesize" (pretend) otherwise, go right ahead. Edited June 20, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 The cap is well, the cap. It's a hard cap. ... The NFL salary cap has never been a hard cap. From the amortization of signing bonuses to incentive bonuses likely or not likely to be earned, there are ways teams can structure contracts that enable them to exceed the cap in a given year. In order for there to be a true hard cap teams would have to utilize a cash accounting method that shows actual cash spent in a given year. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) The cap is well, the cap. It's a hard cap. Every player signing bonus or guarantee counts against the cap. If Bidwell payed an extra 15 million on Warner, that would have counted against the cap. No need for a "theoretical example" of your hypothesis. Since teams can never have the same GM and coaching talent (the "other things being equal") we are only left with the "more money" part of your hypothesis. Over and over it has been shown that paying more is inversely correlated to success in this decade. The Giants spent $57 million more than the Chiefs but only the Chiefs made the playoffs. In the NFL, you can win a SB without breaking the bank. If you want to continue to "hypothesize" (pretend) otherwise, go right ahead. And the reigning Champion of Straw-man Arguments, Mr. WEO, with an amazing record of 2500-2500. Since he argues points that he makes up and assigns to someone else. Feel free to retire on top at any time, no one will mind. SJBF never said the team that spends the most money wins the most games or championships. Edited June 20, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 And the reigning Champion of Straw-man Arguments, Mr. WEO, with an amazing record of 2500-2500. Since he argues points that he makes up and assigns to someone else. Feel free to retire on top at any time, no one will mind. SJBF never said the team that spends the most money wins the most games or championships. Not sure where to start with this one. Have someone read the thread to you. Take your time. Anyway, amortized bonuses count in the cap for each year they are amortized. Therefore, that player has two amounts charged against the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 The cap is well, the cap. It's a hard cap. Every player signing bonus or guarantee counts against the cap. If Bidwell payed an extra 15 million on Warner, that would have counted against the cap. No need for a "theoretical example" of your hypothesis. Since teams can never have the same GM and coaching talent (the "other things being equal") we are only left with the "more money" part of your hypothesis. Over and over it has been shown that paying more is inversely correlated to success in this decade. The Giants spent $57 million more than the Chiefs but only the Chiefs made the playoffs. In the NFL, you can win a SB without breaking the bank. If you want to continue to "hypothesize" (pretend) otherwise, go right ahead. Well you've reached new "levels," WEO. How is the hard cap a hard cap? I just showed you documentation that in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. You acknowledged that document and yet ignore the fact that it invalidates your argument about a "hard cap." You ignore all the loopholes that we discuss on this board endlessly and related concepts like "dead money" and amortized signing bonuses… things that you know very well exist. Why? Because you are intellectually dishonest and it's always the case with you that you'd rather pretend to be right even when you're getting your ass kicked. And by the way, I linked you to the 2009 salary cap numbers so your acknowledgement of those numbers accompanied by your bizarre attempt at using those numbers to support your argument are wrong, and wrong. The Chiefs were 4-12 that year. The Giants were 8-8. In this case, the better team spent more money. Then you say "over and over it has been shown that paying more is inversely correlated to success" without any shred of real data that shows this. I'm supposed to take your word for that? I don't think so WEO. You don't debate in good faith, you're a dishonest person. I actually believe that you don't believe half the crap that you write because really, no one could be that ignorant could they? That leaves me with my earlier suggestion to you about your motivation for posting. At least Crayonz' act is funny and intelligent. He's a smart guy acting dumb. You're the opposite. Stylistically, you're like debating with a spoiled 6-year old. No wit, no charm, no depth, nothing redeeming. Just petulant disagreement when confronted with more-informed takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 That's the guy, thanks. I'll see if I can find him. <edit> if it is/was Billszone then he hasn't updated the cap page for quite a while. When I was active on that board he said he no longer has access to figures he used to hence reason why he stopped updating page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Well you've reached new "levels," WEO. How is the hard cap a hard cap? I just showed you documentation that in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. You acknowledged that document and yet ignore the fact that it invalidates your argument about a "hard cap." You ignore all the loopholes that we discuss on this board endlessly and related concepts like "dead money" and amortized signing bonuses… things that you know very well exist. Why? Because you are intellectually dishonest and it's always the case with you that you'd rather pretend to be right even when you're getting your ass kicked. And by the way, I linked you to the 2009 salary cap numbers so your acknowledgement of those numbers accompanied by your bizarre attempt at using those numbers to support your argument are wrong, and wrong. The Chiefs were 4-12 that year. The Giants were 8-8. In this case, the better team spent more money. Then you say "over and over it has been shown that paying more is inversely correlated to success" without any shred of real data that shows this. I'm supposed to take your word for that? I don't think so WEO. You don't debate in good faith, you're a dishonest person. I actually believe that you don't believe half the crap that you write because really, no one could be that ignorant could they? That leaves me with my earlier suggestion to you about your motivation for posting. At least Crayonz' act is funny and intelligent. He's a smart guy acting dumb. You're the opposite. Stylistically, you're like debating with a spoiled 6-year old. No wit, no charm, no depth, nothing redeeming. Just petulant disagreement when confronted with more-informed takes. Winner by KO, SJBF! and that is why SJBF, is "The Man" I'm just going to reply with this quote the next time WEO feels like "petulantly disagreeing" on a thread that sparks my interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts