Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Huddle
Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.
Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.
If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.
I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.
On the other hand, a policy of being continually under the cap doesn't cut it either.
|
It's this last sentence that is the key here. The 1.1x and 0.9x makes the assumption that x = the salary cap limit. You're applying a salary constraint to a team that always has capacity, the Eagles don't ever take it up to that limit.
When ample salary capacity exists in your structure, there is no reason why you shouldn't go get the best player possible. Cost should not be an issue for you, you're not up against the cap constraint. So for the Eagles, whether Hutchinson is a bargain or not should not be an issue.
If we're talking about a team up against the salary cap, then player value relative to price has to enter the equation. But money should not be an object in this situation, yet the Eagles refuse to spend it, and it's easy to see why that would be frustrating.