Jump to content

NFL next- The Superb Owl you hate


DireWolfSpirit
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Who cares what these tax thieves want? We should all be rooting for the players in labor negotiations. 

Looking back, sports labour negotiations and public perceptions thereof should have been my first warning to the kind of political stratification and voluntary selective perception amongst the populace. 
 

Because it used to confuse the fuck out of me: even people who otherwise were very pro-labour would almost invariably side with the owners and mouth the same thoughtless slogans about ‘pampered millionaire athletes’ and ‘paid to play a game’ etc. and somehow completely sidestep the pampered billionaires who weren’t even putting their bodies at risk. Study after study showed that, just as they do in every other business, pro sports owners do NOT use labour costs to set prices, but rather set the price wherever they determine it will yield the highest profits. Yet, still, somehow intelligent fans would blame player greed for ticket prices, not the greed actually setting them. 
 

Finally figured out it was all about fans already being partial, and the fact that players come and go, teams generally stay…and that’s why reason and ideology go out the window when it comes to sports labour conflicts. That’s why there’s a blame hierarchy; role players at the bottom, coaches next*, star players next, then u.m. and only then the team. It’s almost directly inverse to how hard each is to acquire. Modern politics has become more and more like pro sports, and I feel I should have seen it coming. 
 

*in decreasing order the smaller the roster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah this "escrow" excuse is absolute rich people bullshit.  You can't put $300 million in to pay Burrow because you're a "small market?"  Give me a fucking break.  EVERY TEAM gets $255 million a year just from the NFL's TV contract.  NFL owners whining about "escrow" is the equivalent of MLB owners whining about the luxury tax.  Owning any team in a major sport is a lucrative business and they have the fucking money, LOL at people that buy into the owners' horseshit reasons for not spending more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Market size matters the least in the NFL. Teams from all the other sports can lose money in a given year or two, but the increase in the value of the organization offsets it. NFL make a ton of money each year even if they're trash. 

And besides, cost of labor on the field is not an actual issue. The sport is structured so it cannot be. Well, unless you're Mark Davis, then it is. 

Who cares what these tax thieves want? We should all be rooting for the players in labor negotiations. 

I care because it directly impacts the product on the field. Cash isn't infinite, revenue streams aren't infinite for small market teams and increase of value of an organization does not translate into cash which is directly necessary for improving facilities, investing in the team and most importantly, putting into escrow for guaranteed contracts. If, by some chance, everyone gets fully guaranteed contracts, you end up with the MLB where you have 35 year old players taking in 30-50m a year and doing fuck all for their teams because they were shit for the last ~3 years, except in the NFL there is a salary cap and 52 players which would make it even worse. I'm all for the players getting good contracts but at the same time, I'd like to see my team build a winning team and that's hard to do if they have no money or if all their money is tied up in players long term that will never be half the player they were due to injuries. That's my opinion, you don't have to have the same.

Edited by Mexal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Looking back, sports labour negotiations and public perceptions thereof should have been my first warning to the kind of political stratification and voluntary selective perception amongst the populace. 
 

Because it used to confuse the fuck out of me: even people who otherwise were very pro-labour would almost invariably side with the owners and mouth the same thoughtless slogans about ‘pampered millionaire athletes’ and ‘paid to play a game’ etc. and somehow completely sidestep the pampered billionaires who weren’t even putting their bodies at risk. Study after study showed that, just as they do in every other business, pro sports owners do NOT use labour costs to set prices, but rather set the price wherever they determine it will yield the highest profits. Yet, still, somehow intelligent fans would blame player greed for ticket prices, not the greed actually setting them. 
 

Finally figured out it was all about fans already being partial, and the fact that players come and go, teams generally stay…and that’s why reason and ideology go out the window when it comes to sports labour conflicts. That’s why there’s a blame hierarchy; role players at the bottom, coaches next*, star players next, then u.m. and only then the team. It’s almost directly inverse to how hard each is to acquire. Modern politics has become more and more like pro sports, and I feel I should have seen it coming. 
 

*in decreasing order the smaller the roster. 

I agree.

I expand your argument further to point out that just as some of us "root for laundry" in terms of our NFL allegiances, many Americans "root for laundry" when it comes to their political parties.

We should be fans of the players who exhibit the best style of play, or the most athletic players, or perhaps the players who exhibit the best sportsmanship, regardless of what team they play for.

Similarly, we should vote for individual politicians based on their positions and their effectiveness in executing their governing responsibilities, etc, rather than their party affiliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i would enjoy pro sports the most if the media was a lot less fixated on everyones salary.

Wishful thinking but i would enjoy it more if those salaries were not public information. Weve spawned an entire generation of sports writers who blather on over little else but the money aspects of the sports when there is soooo much more reporting about the human interest, the sideline and clubhouse stories that barely gets touched on. Its extremely backwards, this fixation on the boringest aspect of the games and ignoring so much of the story of these athletes and the sport overall.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

I care because it directly impacts the product on the field. Cash isn't infinite, revenue streams aren't infinite for small market teams and increase of value of an organization does not translate into cash which is directly necessary for improving facilities, investing in the team and most importantly, putting into escrow for guaranteed contracts. 

Isn't this just a good argument for ownership to sell? I love that my team got the best self-reported grades from the players on how the organization was run and a big part of that is because the owners spend, be it on the best facilities or just providing things like free daycare. Iirc the Bengals were one of the teams that were so cheap they even charged the players for food and supplements.

Quote

If, by some chance, everyone gets fully guaranteed contracts, you end up with the MLB where you have 35 year old players taking in 30-50m a year and doing fuck all for their teams because they were shit for the last ~3 years,

I'll never understand why MLB teams offer these super long deals unless so much of the money is deferred. Griffey is the Reds' third highest paid player and last played for them 15 years ago.

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's to spread out the AAV in order to avoid the luxury tax.  Pretty simple explanation.

I get that aspect of it. I'd just have a hard time doing what Mex said and end up paying a 35 year old a shit ton of money who maybe isn't even a replacement level guy anymore. The upcoming Ohtani deal will be fascinating to see.

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I get that aspect of it. I'd just have a hard time doing what Mex said and end up paying a 35 year old a shit ton of money who maybe isn't even a replacement level guy anymore.

Well, yeah, it's different in baseball.  The NFL is the only major league with a hard cap.  BUT, when it comes to re-signing, say, Burrow, why not give him guaranteed money?  Obviously, it's more convenient to not, but doesn't he deserve it?  And more importantly, aren't you probably gonna pay him for the entirety of the contract anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, yeah, it's different in baseball.  The NFL is the only major league with a hard cap.  BUT, when it comes to re-signing, say, Burrow, why not give him guaranteed money?  Obviously, it's more convenient to not, but doesn't he deserve it?  And more importantly, aren't you probably gonna pay him for the entirety of the contract anyway?

That's been my point. If you have a franchise QB, you're going to treat it like his contract is fully guaranteed anyways, unless there's something I'm missing in how that could impact reworking deals before they expire.

It's why I don't get the Lamar situation. The Ravens have said publicly over and over they want him to be their long term QB and face of the franchise, but they're not negotiating that way. If they're doing this just to save what will amount to probably only a bit of money years from now, they're doing this wrong. And if they don't actually believe in him long term they should have traded him well before now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

teams that were so cheap they even charged the players for food and supplements.

Thats outrageous.

We actually had it put in our contract that management had to return the vending profits to the workers.

I mean the employees are not allowed to leave during the lunch period so they objected to management profiting off the captivity they mandate.

Everything's negotiable I guess.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Thats outrageous.

We actually had it put in our contract that management had to return the vending profits to the workers.

I mean the employees are not allowed to leave during the lunch period so they objected to management profiting off the captivity they mandate.

Everything's negotiable I guess.:lol:

It's kind of wild how cheap some teams are and I think it's fair to use examples like the one I mentioned to show teams don't really care about the product so long as they can maximize the bottom line. 

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah.  As I've said, while I don't think Jackson makes sense for the Niners, he does make sense for plenty of teams that are strangely not interested.

It's more just a fun idea. Idk how many high end players they'd actually need to move to make it happen.

At this point my guess is nothing happens until after the draft, but the OBJ signing should signal that WRs don't have an issue with Lamar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the ratio is of the actual paid non guaranteed salary over cumulative nonguaranteed nfl contracts over the last decade?

Seems like if we knew that we could at least make a rough estimate of who is out of line where salary request wise and get back to talking about important things like  who's the best candidate for King of Westeros and why it's Stannis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I wonder what the ratio is of the actual paid non guaranteed salary over cumulative nonguaranteed nfl contracts over the last decade?

Seems like if we knew that we could at least make a rough estimate of who is out of line where salary request wise and get back to talking about important things like  who's the best candidate for King of Westeros and why it's Stannis.

I think you need to separate QB from all other positions.  QBs are far more likely to survive their contract than any other position.  Realistically, most other positions get two to three year deals that have reasonable outs for the team after that, even if most big contracts are technically five years.

But as others have stated, there is zero way that Joe Burrow isn't getting every dollar of the next contract he signs unless he suffers some sort of career ending injury.  So why not just fully guarantee it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, briantw said:

But as others have stated, there is zero way that Joe Burrow isn't getting every dollar of the next contract he signs unless he suffers some sort of career ending injury.  So why not just fully guarantee it?

The Bengals:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, briantw said:

Realistically, most other positions get two to three year deals that have reasonable outs for the team after that, even if most big contracts are technically five years.

Yep.  Take CMC's contract, in which he should be being payed a ton of money.  But since it's not guaranteed, the Niners (and the Panthers last season) can convert his cap hit into part of his signing bonus which delays how much the team incur. 

I expected the Niners to do this this offseason to create cap space, and they still probably will, but they actually restructured Fred Warner and Charvarius Ward's contracts first in order to gain the cap space needed to sign Javon Hargrave. 

They still have the option to do this with many of their highest paid players -- you can go to "manage roster" on spotrac and simply click on the general restructures that teams do to see how much money they can save. 

Further, teams can add "void" years for players wherein they take a smaller cap hit after the players' contracts expire, but spread out the cost.  While the NFL is the only major sport that has a hard cap, it very much is a shell game in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's kind of wild how cheap some teams are and I think it's fair to use examples like the one I mentioned to show teams don't really care about the product so long as they can maximize the bottom line. 

It's more just a fun idea. Idk how many high end players they'd actually need to move to make it happen.

At this point my guess is nothing happens until after the draft, but the OBJ signing should signal that WRs don't have an issue with Lamar.

Yeah no.  He wasn't getting offers any where near this from any other team, at least none that were reported or leaked. Remember how he said he was offered 5 mill for a year from another team? Baltimore is desperate to get the Jackson thing done and overpaid for OBJ. He got 15 fully guaranteed and possibly 3 mill more in incentives so using him for this validation is weak.  It can however help us to see how Jackson handles a true star receiver. Hopefully they draft the best WR in this class and figure their future out because they are an AFC team I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

Yeah no.  He wasn't getting offers any where near this from any other team, at least none that were reported or leaked. Remember how he said he was offered 5 mill for a year from another team? Baltimore is desperate to get the Jackson thing done and overpaid for OBJ. He got 15 fully guaranteed and possibly 3 mill more in incentives so using him for this validation is weak.  It can however help us to see how Jackson handles a true star receiver. Hopefully they draft the best WR in this class and figure their future out because they are an AFC team I like.

Supposedly he called the Jets and asked if they’d match it and they laughed.  Well, I assume they laughed.  I would have if 2023 OBJ asked my team for eighteen million.  I would have sent him the Robin Williams “what year is it” meme. 

So yes, the Ravens were definitely desperate and overpaid by a lot. 

Edited by briantw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...