|
|
Paintrain 02-23-2009, 03:51 PM oh, i don't know... golston, montgomery, landry, horton, alexander, blades, doughty, moore, rogers...
Golston, Montgomery, Landry, Horton, Rogers were all starters. Doughty wasn't offered a contract as an RFA so he's gone. That leaves Alexander, Blades and Moore. That's about as deep as a puddle in the desert.
BigHairedAristocrat 02-23-2009, 03:55 PM oh, i don't know... golston, montgomery, landry, horton, alexander, blades, doughty, moore, rogers...
Golston, Montgomery, Alexander, and Doughty are FAs, if i'm not mistaken. Horton, Landry, and Rogers are starters so they cant be considered "young depth."
From that list, only Moore and Blades are depth players under contract for 2009. We have a horrible lack of talented young depth on our team. Its been far below the league-average for years and could be even worse in 2009, depending on who stays and who goes.
GTripp0012 02-23-2009, 04:00 PM Is it worth taking the risk, what if the salary does reemerge? Wouldn't we be screwed then if we throw big bucks?Yes, which is why we have to be careful about acting unilaterally this offseason in terms of spending.
Understand that the speculation about the salary cap has little to do with fear of the large market teams buying up all the talent and a lot to do with the small market teams not wanting to be forced to throw their revenue back at the players when the bottom line is so tight. Having a salary cap and revenue sharing necessitates the salary floor, which means no one can be the Marlins and try to play a season on a $20 million payroll.
Which is likely what Buffalo and Cincinnati will try to do in the future.
A football team can still be very competitive on a minuscule payroll, but they have to be able to draft well, or they have no other way of sustaining winning ball.
Schneed10 02-23-2009, 04:08 PM Yes, which is why we have to be careful about acting unilaterally this offseason in terms of spending.
Understand that the speculation about the salary cap has little to do with fear of the large market teams buying up all the talent and a lot to do with the small market teams not wanting to be forced to throw their revenue back at the players when the bottom line is so tight. Having a salary cap and revenue sharing necessitates the salary floor, which means no one can be the Marlins and try to play a season on a $20 million payroll.
Which is likely what Buffalo and Cincinnati will try to do in the future.
A football team can still be very competitive on a minuscule payroll, but they have to be able to draft well, or they have no other way of sustaining winning ball.
If the Rays and Marlins can do it, so can the Bills and Bengals. Payroll is not an excuse.
Ruhskins 02-23-2009, 04:10 PM You mean a small market team who puts together a talented young core good enough to beat out the high revenue Yankees and Red Sox on their way to a World Series appearance?
The notion that baseball doesn't have parity holds no water anymore. Recent World Series participants:
- Tampa Bay 2008
- Colorado 2007
- Detroit 2006
- Florida 2003
Do the A's and Twins not manage to make the playoffs on a semi-regular basis? Do the Florida Marlins not manage to hang with the Phillies and Mets each year?
The only low revenue team you can point to is the KC Royals. They're not bad because they don't spend money, they're bad because their organization sucks balls. They can't scout, they can't coach, and they can't draft.
If football ended up looking like baseball has (minus the roids!) in the last 10 years, the league would be doing real well for itself. Baseball is showing that salary caps (or the lack thereof) don't mean the end of your league as you know it.
Sorry man, I don't know much about baseball and I guess my ignorance is shown by that comment. But being in the DC area with teams like the Orioles, who don't have a fighting chance in hell against the Sox and Yanks gives me this type of mentality.
GTripp0012 02-23-2009, 04:16 PM If the Rays and Marlins can do it, so can the Bills and Bengals. Payroll is not an excuse.Right, I'm not saying they would be excused for losing. I don't think the league would look very different without a salary cap. I'm saying that those teams have incentives to cut payroll and try to win that way than to keep extending contracts in order to meet the salary floor.
Unlike in baseball, I actually think a football team could sustain winning without increasing payroll because the draft in football is far more predictable than the one in baseball.
BigHairedAristocrat 02-23-2009, 04:19 PM Which is likely what Buffalo and Cincinnati will try to do in the future.
A football team can still be very competitive on a minuscule payroll, but they have to be able to draft well, or they have no other way of sustaining winning ball.
I apologize for going off-topic, but i'm going to do it anyway...
personally i have no problem with the bengals and bills and other small market teams having less money to spend on players. Like you mentioned, they still do have a chance to win if they are well managed. More importantly, how many people are fans of the bengals and bills? really? small market teams, by definition, have small fan bases. football is entertainment and the purpose of entertainment is to give the most people as possible enjoyment. teams like new england, new york, philly, washington, dallas, etc all have huge fan bases... why not have a system in place that allows teams with a larger number of fans have the chance to win more often? put another way, a capless leage (in theory) rewards fans of teams like the redskins because they will buy more jerseys and merchandise... so in essence, fans can have more of an impact on whether the team they root for wins or not.
small market teams like cincy, minnesota, and buffalo will be horrible. fans will stop buying merchandice. the teams will stop making money. and what will happen then? the owners will be forced to relocate to a market that has a larger fanbase (LA, Canada, Mexico, etc). That, in turn, would create new NFL fans (good for the sport) and increased revenue for those franchises, allowing them to be competitive again. (Assuming onwership wasnt stubborn) And what about the fans whose teams have moved? well, they can start rooting for another team, one that has a greater chance to win more games (thereby making the fans happier).
short-term, the lack of a salary cap would be bad for the players and fans in small market franchises. but long-term, the benefits would be great for the sport as a whole.
Schneed10 02-23-2009, 04:26 PM Sorry man, I don't know much about baseball and I guess my ignorance is shown by that comment. But being in the DC area with teams like the Orioles, who don't have a fighting chance in hell against the Sox and Yanks gives me this type of mentality.
The Orioles are just a shitty franchise. They don't successfully develop enough home-grown talent, and on the free agents they do acquire they miss big time (Miguel Tejada).
Skinny Tee 02-23-2009, 04:39 PM lordy, i dont want this guy. period. sure he is a monster on the line, but lets not forget he only been like that for what the last two years? plus lets not forget that time when he steped on gurode with his cleat. I think he brings to much baggage, sooo no thank you move on.
Funny...that's one of the reasons why I really want him. He showed his distaste for cowboys which is the way into my heart.
For the rest of it though he is just not worth the huge investment. I do want to shore up both lines though so it's hard to pass up capable lineman just because of the cost.
On a side note, it's pretty bad that I trust other NFL team's GMs and personnel guys when they give their negative assesment of Haynesworth but if the Skins camp mentions Haynesworth in a positive light I feel like they haven't done their due diligence.
Ruhskins 02-23-2009, 04:42 PM So I got curious, and looked at the World Series vs. the Superbowl in the past 20 years. I checked to see how many top-15 payroll teams in MLB have appeared in the WS vs. how many top-15 most valuable franchises in NFL appeared in the SB, for anyone interested here's what I found.
World Series from 1988 through 2008
40 teams appeared in the WS of which 30 were from the top-15 payroll
Superbowl from 1988 through 2008
42 teams played in the SB, of which 22 were from the top-15 most valuable franchises
(If you take out either the 1988 SB or 2008, to have the same number of teams in both comparisons, since there was no WS in 1994, it would be 40 teams played in SB and 20 of them were from the top-15 most valuable franchises)
So think they are pretty comparable between the two sports. I'd be curious to see what those numbers are for playoff appearances, but that's just too much work. LOL.
|