Posted: 10/26/2013 12:09 PM
Posted: 10/26/2013 12:47 PM
soda wrote: In sports, its generally accepted (these days, anyway) that being the Milwaukee Bucks is not a good thing to be. In fact, its probably the worst thing that you can be. Average, with no hope of getting better, and precious little hope of getting worse and gaining the cap space and draft picks that could make you better.
Last edited 10/26/2013 1:31 PM by Minstrel
Posted: 10/26/2013 12:49 PM
Posted: 10/26/2013 7:01 PM
Minstrel wrote: Since I basically agree with the idea that the salary cap "matters" I'll pick on something else you asserted that I disagree with.soda wrote: In sports, its generally accepted (these days, anyway) that being the Milwaukee Bucks is not a good thing to be. In fact, its probably the worst thing that you can be. Average, with no hope of getting better, and precious little hope of getting worse and gaining the cap space and draft picks that could make you better.Actually, in my opinion, you have that reversed. The old belief might have been that average is the worst thing to be. I think more and more these days, teams are understanding that "tanking to get better" is generally a losing proposition. It's pretty popular among min/maxing fans (either be a title contender or be the worst team and rebuild with the #1 pick), but I see very few signs that most general managers believe it.You can start with the 49ers. When Baalke and Harbaugh took control, their plan was not to raze the team to the foundations and "start over." It was to build from what they had and improve. The recent rise of the Indiana Pacers (and, to keep things local, the Warriors, the Giants and the A's) also validate an "average is closer to great than awful is" mentality, IMO. Despite it being a fan favorite strategy, it's actually not that common to find team-builders who choose to burn down what they already have in order to be terrible and open up cap space and collect top-five draft picks. The only recent team I can think of off-hand that has aggressively pursued that strategy is the Houston Astros. It remains to be seen, obviously, if that works--and we'll never know if that set them back in terms of time to build a contender. It's possible the Browns are trying to do that (some have certainly claimed they are) but just trading Trent Richardson doesn't show that they are...there have been plenty of reports that the new leadership didn't like Richardson much as a player and he was minimally effective in his rookie season (and even less effective since the trade).Also, Tony Romo absolutely "counts" as a good quarterback even if he isn't elite, but that's neither here nor there.
Posted: 10/26/2013 7:19 PM
soda wrote: I actually hope that you don't think that I think that. When I said "its generally accepted", I want to be clear that I do not accept it myself.
Posted: 11/02/2013 9:57 AM
Hi again, I just wanted to make an update to this thread. After last weekend's debacle against the Lions, it seems the national media is picking up on stuff I said: the Cowboys are doomed (Yay!) To Minstrel's point, about tanking, and tearing your roster apart, to get the resources to rebuild not being a good idea, something I agree with, point, I'd say that if you've been mediocre forever, you eventually have to do something to shake yourself loose. To which, I present the following mind-numbing stat, courtesy of the our friends at foxsports and Skip Bayless of ESPN, since the 1997 season (fifteen and a half seasons worth of sample size), the Dallas Cowboys are:
132-132Over the last fifteen and a half seasons, the Cowboys aggregate record is exactly .500, they're perfectly mediocre, completely average, they're the best there is at "meh". This run of very long term middle-of-the-road-ness is so hard to fathom, that I do believe it is deserving of its own nickname. From now on, I think the "mediocrity treadmill" should be called "pulling a cowboy". We can argue over the semantics, ie, "pulling" or "averaging" or "dividing into equal halves", or "expressing perfect bilateral symmetry" etc., but you get the idea. Some friends of mine and I were having this discussion: why do you think the cowboys are so average, and what will it take to make them good again (note: the context of the questions was more "how can we avoid this apocalyptic situation of the cowboys being good again? What are the signs from on-high that will allow us to know that this end is near?" Rather than "we want the cowboys to be good again, how can we make that happen?" It left a bad taste in my mouth just typing that last sentence, but hey, in war-time, every good general spends at least some time making sure that the enemy really is dead, and then, even more time hedging against them being dead.) Here's the essential problem. In the salary cap era, the Cowboys' budget is limited, that means that no matter how many seats Jerry-world is selling, and no matter how much merchandise is flying off the shelves, what you can pay for the on-field product, over the long haul, is fixed. The instant you cut the check to someone, the full balance of that check will be counted against your salary cap. There's no way to cut the check and have someone else pick up the tab. You can get rid of unguaranteed future payments by cutting or trading a player, or by restructuring, but once you sign the paycheck and the player deposits it, that's it, that money is coming out of your cap, one way or the other. In a landscape where financial resources are (Jerry Jones would add "artificially" here) limited, wasting your own advantage gives your opposition and advantage. Every dollar you waste, is a dollar of competitive advantage you transfer from yourself, leaving you with less relative competitive advantage. Restructuring is one of the most wasteful forms, because it inevitably creates "dead-money", by inflating the players pro-rated signing bonus. Every time you restructure, you inflate this total, and commit yourself to, eventually, more and more dead money. When that bill comes due, it will result in a huge portion of your cap being wasted, which means you have to restructure others to find the resources to compete today. Eventually, this process makes you sit out Free Agency all together, and, unless you hit it big in the draft, you're a perpetual mediocre team, at best. After the Detroit game, I heard some Cowboys fans saying two things, one, this is not Romo's fault (for once, I agree) and two, how did the Cowboy's secondary get so awful? All-time single season NFL record for 400 yard passing games allowed (and its barely mid-season). How did we get to that point? You got to that point because your secondary is inconsistent, at best, is capable of winning some battles against sub-par opponents (like the Washington Native American Indigenous Ethnic Organization) but against teams with real receivers, you can't cover. How did it get that way? You don't have a pass rush, you're high draft pick has been a bust, your big salary free agent acquisition is overpaid (Carr is an above average player, whose being paid elite dollars, that's the price for failing in the draft) and because you've devoted so much to the high pick and the big FA salary, the rest of your secondary is "meh". You're stuck, in a trap of your own making, with no easy way out that doesn't involve demolishing everything, starting again, and it taking four or five years. Look at SF, a team with a much better pass defense and group of CBs, and see how the niners built their team. At CB, Cox and NA were cheap FA signings, Rogers was a cheap FA signing who the niners kept for big dollars (the has had mixed results), and Culliver, Brown and Brock were home grown players, acquired by the niners straight out of college, Morris, who looks to have a future with the team after the CB exodus this coming offseason, looks like a keeper. He, like Brock, was an UDFA. At Safety, Whitner was an economical FA pickup, Reid was drafted, and behind them is a mix of cheap FA pickups. There is no one way to do it, but when you put your eggs in one basket, you expose yourself to the volatility of that basket.
Last edited 11/02/2013 10:10 AM by soda
Posted: 11/02/2013 2:52 PM
Posted: 11/02/2013 3:11 PM
dea49 wrote: In my opinion, I believe the salary cap has been a failure!Every season, there are still very good, dominant teams and teams that suck. The same as before the salary cap. There are still dynasties and perennial losers. The same as before the salary cap.There may be a little extra shuffling around of teams but for me, not enough to warrant the cap.I also believe that the cap, when instituted, adversely affected the Niners more than any other team at the time and even may have cost them a couple of championships as well as benefited other teams using players cut from the Niners due to salary cap restrictions. We finally had players and backups of star quality with an owner willing to keep it together and if not for the cap, may have done so!
Posted: 11/03/2013 9:03 AM
That is certainly true. To cite but one example, without the salary cap, Eddie D would have paid whatever it took, and God would have told Reggie White to come to SF instead of GB. That could have shifted the balance of power in the NFC, right there. Without the cap, Eddie D would have paid what it took to keep Ricky Waters and Deion Sanders in 49ers uniform, after the 94 SB team (which would have won with White anchoring the defensive line).
Similarly, no salary cap would allow Jerry Jones and Dan Synder to spend the combined net worth or multiple Latin American Countries on player salary every year. Those two can easily afford payrolls in excess of 225 million dollars a year. Jerry world and the Synder new stadium make those kinds of financial outlays possible. The niners would move into a similar situation next year. Paul Allen, who has so much money he bought the seahawks to try to get rid of some of it, would surely join the 225+ million dollar payroll club, after all, with the stadium the hawks play in, they can afford it.
Personally, I don't see the allure of such a scenario. Just doesn't hold much appeal for me. Also doesn't hold much appeal if, like baseball, your a fan of the San Diego Padres, or the Milwaukee Brewers, or KC Royals, or the Minnesota Twins, or the Oakland A's. Also doesn't hold much appeal if your a fan of the Tampa Bay Rays, a team that built a contender on shrewd drafting and solid player acquisition strategy, and might see its postseason trump card, David Price, get traded someplace else because they can no longer afford to pay what it would take to keep him. The biggest problem with baseball is not that the world series is not up from grabs by different teams, its that every year, there's a permanent set of teams that have no ability to compete for the crown before a single ball is pitched in spring training. Anytime these clubs build a competitive product (like KC and Oakland have right now) your team gets ripped apart soon enough by market forces (Billy Beane's A's developed Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Giambi and Tejada, and couldn't hold onto any of them).
Competitive balance, in a sports league, is a good thing, and is essential for the long term health of the game. You have to be able to put butts in seats, and the NFL is the one league where that's not a problem, heck, even the Raider's attendence is way up, now that they have a competitive product. Niner's fans like to see their team win, but so do fans of other teams, and if only niner's fans ever see their team win, well, that's great for SF, its fans, and the stick/levi stadium, but the rest of the league suffers, and eventually, the niners will too. Besides, I absolutely believe in the notion that a sports team should win, or lose, based on how well its players play, and that player acquisition strategy should be based on who makes the wisest choices and invests limited resources the most effectively, not who can cut the biggest check.
Posted: 11/03/2013 9:46 AM
soda wrote: Besides, I absolutely believe in the notion that a sports team should win, or lose, based on how well its players play, and that player acquisition strategy should be based on who makes the wisest choices and invests limited resources the most effectively, not who can cut the biggest check.