"This team still has glaring weaknesses and nano depth. And as far as I can tell the team will be 20 mil under the cap again."

-- Without a desire to get into a big debate, what are you saying here? The FA market and financial impacts obviously have an off-season angle.

Are you saying the FO had the FA money under their control and didn't use it to help the team? Or are you saying that the FO was held back in helping the team by someone else's financial concerns and orders?

I'm not really smart. I need clarity.

I don't care if U think the FO is handcuffed by Lerner or not, the reality is the Browns will waste yet another 20 + million in cap space making about 100 mil over the last handful of years that could have been used to bolster one of the least talented rosters in all of football over that time. 


That's the reality.  We're the only team in the league that changes coaching staff and is forced to wait until the return of Haley's comet b4 the team dips a tiny toe into FA.    And please all the people that want to chime in with U can't build a team thru FA stuff that BS back in ur piehole.  This isn't about building a team thru FA.  It's about augmenting a woefully untalented roster with something better than Usama bin Safety and Frostee frickin Rucker. 


But we don't, didn't and won't.  And the only person that seems to benefit from this is Randy Lerner and Aston Villa front office personnel who he's fired and still has on the books.  And we're 32-60 while pissing away the 100 mil in cap space since 05.
 
Think about that for a second.  We would have to win our next 28 games just to get back to .500 since 2005.  If we suddenly went 10-6 year after year after year it would take until 2018 to get to .500.  U feel a run of 70-42 coming on?  Considering we haven't had a run like that since the 50s I highly doubt it. 

So personally, I don't give a hoot in hell who's responsible for pissing away one of the opportunities a shi'tty team could use to get better I'm just tired that they do it every single year while the media can't wait til the first minicamp or debilitating injury to a starter that has no backup b4 they slob on the team knob throat deep.

"We had some wide receivers come in and it didn't happen. There are teams in the league that if you get in a bidding contest with certain teams in the league, it's almost impossible to win. And that's kind of what happened. It's not that we didn't try...We'll stick with our philosophy of building through the draft and signing our own free agents." - Mike Holmgren, after the 2012 draft

That's the company line, FWIW. LBSouth doesn't buy it, thinks Randy has ordered management to keep the salaries $20 million under the cap year after year to increase profits. Like a billionaire needs more money.

"And the only person that seems to benefit from this is Randy Lerner and Aston Villa front office personnel who he's fired and still has on the books. And we're 32-60 while pissing away the 100 mil in cap space since 05"

-- Intelligently signing FAs that can actually help the team is a great idea. So a basic understanding of the inner workings of the Browns would be useful if there is a question about unspent FA money.

Is it based on football reasons by a free-thinking FO or is it based on economic considerations by a controller?

Are the Browns free to pursue players to improve or are they constrained to a degree by economic issues? If constrained, why and when?

It's a straight-forward question, it seems, and it goes to how the Browns are handled and what limits there are as they try to get better. We know the CBA has limits. But are there other financial limits the FO has to work with?

Being smart with money isn't bad, but having good moves constrained by financial concerns that don't have to exist can be bad as well.

In some ways, this can be seen as a gray area, I guess. But if non-football concerns are influencing the FO by decree, then that should be known if possible. It may effect the fee-paying fanbases' opinions about the team and the ownership.

"That's the company line, FWIW. LBSouth doesn't buy it, thinks Randy has ordered management to keep the salaries $20 million under the cap year after year to increase profits. Like a billionaire needs more money."

-- And that may go to the question of who really owns the Browns and who really "controls" the money when push comes to shove.

The fee-paying fanbase should know if the Browns are being sold short and why they are sold short.

 If it's for real football reasons, maybe that's okay. If it's so billionaires can keep more money...

Just saying it's nice when valid information follows money spent.

"So personally, I don't give a hoot in hell who's responsible for pissing away one of the opportunities a shi'tty team could use to get better I'm just tired that they do it every single year while the media can't wait til the first minicamp or debilitating injury to a starter that has no backup b4 they slob on the team knob throat deep."

-- I should have "commented" on this right from the start. You know, shared my knowledge and opinion for all to marvel at.

Being "tired" when you "don't give a hoot in hell" sounds like my idea of some people in a trailer park. 

 I think we are all tired of the Browns losing. Ergo, along with other things, we should give a hoot in hell how the money is handled. If the FO is dumb, we should know that. If money that can be spent for football is being constrained by controller decree, we should know that. Why it's constrained would be nice as well.

That money was inherited, of course. After it came from who knows who. But fans still deserve frankness about how the team they financially support is being handled.

Just as "protecting" players can screw fans, so can protecting a team's finances if it's done in the dark and at a football cost. Other people shouldn't be able to unilaterally function above the fee-paying fans when said fans are paying their salaries and buying their tickets and all the other stuff.  (And shame on whatever media is still left for playing along, if they do).

Unless those trailer park fans don't give a hoot in hell.

We don't want the Browns to be like a mis-managed government, do we? Come on, you are better than that.

I could stomach losing if all avenues to start winning were being explored.  We haven't.

I pointed out months ago that if we made just one "Eric Steinbach" free agent type signing a year (ie a big fat 8 mil per year guy) since 05 this team would have 8 yes 8 fewer major roster holes.  AND the team would still have stayed 50 mil under the cap during that time. This isn't about spending into mismanagement.  And let's say that of the 8 signed, 3 completely busted, that's still 5 players.  What would this team look like with the 2nd CB, S, OLB, WR, OG filled with close to but not pro-bowl type players?  That's a playoff roster even if U have to wetnurse Weeden Joe Flacco or Mark Sanchez style.

I realize that's not realistic, but the point is if we had made just a tiny effort once per offseason the team would be vastly improved and Lerner still pockets enough money to sink a ship. 

But we would have had the 2 rookie G's from last year competing for one spot and supplying depth for both.  We would have the 2 LBs draftees and either Fujita or Gocong fighting for depth.  Usama Bin Safety is depth with Sheldon Brown the swingman between corner and safety and nickel.  Mo Mass is in 3 wides and depth, see also Josh Cribbs.  Massively increase the talent on the roster and decrease the chances that a Fujita suspension or Taylor injury deplets a unit entirely.


If I were a season ticket holder I would be mad as hell.  I haven't and won't buy a ticket to a Browns game under any circumstances until I know the money I'm spending is going to the team and not to some boat Randy has in the Mediterranean.  I haven't bought a single Browns related item in several years for the same reason.  I didn't get the NFL package for the first time since they invented the thing because I would rather give my money to my local sportsbar that's paying for that service anyway than to donate to the Browns pissing it away fund.  I seriously wonder why the hell 70K people pay for the right to watch that bullshi't 10 times a year.

Jacksonville signed a receiver that would have upgraded our roster.  Tampa signed 1 excellent player.  Washington signed several that would start in Cleveland.   Indy signed 1.   NE signed 15 that would start in Cleveland.

Tampa's the only one that would have got into a bidding war.



I got into a bidding war at a Mercedes dealership recently.  For a nice E class I offered $6 cash, 47 S&H green stamp books (full), 3 boxes of 64 slightly used crayolas (with the sharpener in the back) and a brand new unopened bag of Bacon dog treats.  It's not that I didn't try, I just didn't win.  I'm sticking with my philosophy of playing the lotto and driving my 2003 Chevy Malibu with 132K miles and an oil leak.

So instead of winning a bidding war, Lerner keeps $24 million dollars.  Of all the rotten luck.  Holmgren's not getting a bonus out of that and neither is Heckert.  Shurmur might get his ass fired if he has another 4 win campaign and I highly doubt we're going to redo Joe Thomas's contract again with it.  I'll bet U dollars to donuts that season ticket prices are going to drop 8 or 9 mil and I bet U beer prices at the stadium fall from $7.75. 

Follow the money.  Name me anybody that benefits other than Randy for the team being 100 mil under the cap lately?

"If I were a season ticket holder I would be mad as hell. I haven't and won't buy a ticket to a Browns game under any circumstances until I know the money I'm spending is going to the team and not to some boat Randy has in the Mediterranean. I haven't bought a single Browns related item in several years for the same reason. I didn't get the NFL package for the first time since they invented the thing because I would rather give my money to my local sportsbar that's paying for that service anyway than to donate to the Browns pissing it away fund. I seriously wonder why the hell 70K people pay for the right to watch that bullshi't 10 times a year."

-- This is pretty well said. The fans- who are ultimately paying for things- would be wise to use what power they have. Which is easier said than done. They at least are owed frank and honest information about how their money is being used. Which again is easier said than done.

If only we had an informed and honest media to furrow out things that matter and aren't  influenced by the almighty dollar. We don't. Ah well. At least we're more aware of it now.

Add to all this the injury issue and players/agents/union starting to get in to the mix. "Safe" players with long careers may not be very good football players. And the football they end up playing may not ve very watchable. And if it isn't, then the fee-paying fans may spend less. Lots less. Maybe all players will be like punters eventually!

There is a balance between "protection" on one hand and salaries that players and agents and unions like on the other hand. That is the reality and the pressue that events face.

Billionaire owners and millionaire players want to be taken care of by the fans. If the sport they produce isn't worthy, they may be surprised. Whatever the courts and regulations say.

---------------------------------------------
--- keokuk wrote:

"This team still has glaring weaknesses and nano depth. And as far as I can tell the team will be 20 mil under the cap again."

-- Without a desire to get into a big debate, what are you saying here? The FA market and financial impacts obviously have an off-season angle.

Are you saying the FO had the FA money under their control and didn't use it to help the team? Or are you saying that the FO was held back in helping the team by someone else's financial concerns and orders?

I'm not really smart. I need clarity.

---------------------------------------------
That money will be used during the season to extend players already under contract, as they did last season. Alex Mack for instance. Heckert places a priority on re-signing our own. That is the only way you build through the draft, you must keep the ones you drafted 3-4 years earlier.

Isn't this the LAST YEAR that unspent money rolls over to next year? If so, we should be loaded for bear next offseason.

Isn't this the LAST YEAR that unspent money rolls over to next year? If so, we should be loaded for bear next offseason.

I think it is...or at least I remember reading something close to that.

The plan to re-sign your better players is important to a team's structure and core.  It's the internal decisions made by the staff and FO that are critical to a team's success...iow, who stays and who goes.

The earlier critical decisions made primarily by Heckert during the draft and grabbing FO's...are even more important because hopefully you have HARD choices to make instead of easy ones when it comes time to determining who stays and who goes.

Good drafts develop solid cores.

In regards to determining who goes in Cleveland, it's been relatively easy with this team lately.  

Look at the good teams in the league.  Every year they have to make a tuff choice of cutting loose a good player or two.  New England, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Green Bay and New Orleans are prime examples.

The NFL has a new process in regards to cap that many of us, me included, don't care to take the time to fully understand.  However, it will have an impact going forward.