HitStickTaylor21 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 With the season over and the soon-to-be rumors of every FA in the league coming here, it made me think. What is worse for any given franchise? My first thought is of course, overpaying has to be worse, but every year the Skins seem to have no problem moving money around and freeing up space. We always bring in high paid FAs and always seem to avoid the "cap hell" many talk about. I know disasters like Archuleta and Lloyd are fresh in the minds of Skins fans, but so are Antonio Pierce, Derrick Dockery and Fred Smoot (although he is now back in the fold). I could go on for awhile on individuals who have left their respective teams and also players who haven't been worth what they received, so I'll leave it up to you all. Drafting correctly is a great way to let players go and play at a higher, cheaper level, but it doesn't always work out that way. So what is really worse, staying cheap and allowing quality players to leave or opening up the check book and breaking the bank on talent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Forking out the dough may not always be smart but it shows your commitment to building a winner. Cheaping out makes people think you care more about making a buck than producing a winning team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvisit1 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 So what is really worse, staying cheap and allowing quality players to leave or opening up the check book and breaking the bank on talent? Cheaping out quality players is far worse than breaking the bank on talent. And by talent I mean TALENT. It's breaking the bank on duds that we want to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Good teams underpay from time to time. It's the nature of the winning side of the business. There is no excuse though for overpaying for someone else's trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Forking out the dough may not always be smart but it shows your commitment to building a winner. Cheaping out makes people think you care more about making a buck than producing a winning team. Ditto. Fact is, the bill eventually comes due on bargains, because everyone eventually wants to get paid. The art comes in knowing when to pay a player, and when to let them go and get someone younger and cheaper. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I don't mind overpaying here and there for guys who are among the best at what they do. On the other hand I also don't mind being cheap with players who are overrated and easily replacable. What you don't want to do is overpay for scrubs and lowball quality players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If you are not spending enormous amounts on your players (aka overpaying), you are therefore building your team through the draft. If a player gets greedy and wants more than a team wants to give them after their rookie or 2nd contract is up, happy trials amigo. Saying that, I am all for spending 100% of the cap each year and restructuring players. A smart FO pays the right players (aka lineman, WR, QB and RB) knowing that the draft is where everyone else can be had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 If you want to see what cheaping out does, look at the Orioles. Angelos cheaped out on talent, and now not only has the team not had a winning season in a decade, but he gets 45 million less JUST in ticket receipts every year. Its really hard to overpay for talent in this day and age. I cant think of any teams that have failed because they payed too much and had too much talent. You fail when you pay too much for someone who has no talent. Regardless, every succesfull team wants to be in the middle. Not overpaying, but not being cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitStickTaylor21 Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 If you want to see what cheaping out does, look at the Orioles. Angelos cheaped out on talent, and now not only has the team not had a winning season in a decade, but he gets 45 million less JUST in ticket receipts every year. Baseball doesn't have a salary cap, it's kind of hard to compare the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 no brainer. Cheaping out. You only know if you overpay when they don't produce i.e. Lloyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling Thunder Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 This is one of those questions along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife"? The correct answer is to pay what they are worth. That takes a disciplined front office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieskin Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 six of one half a dozen of the other, they both produce their own problems that are equally hard to answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Let's say that the cap is $100 million, but the Skins via some clever manipulation of the system extend that number to $105 million. That $105 million is still a BUDGET. Now let's suppose you have a budget of $1,500 to buy clothes. It's obvious that if you shop for bargains, you will end up with a better wardrobe than if you spend freely on your purchases. The same simple idea applies to roster building. If the Skins try to find undervalued players with every transaction, they will end up with a deeper roster. The draft and UDFA are the primary sources of undervalued players. It's much more difficult to find them in trades; and it's rare to find them in free agency. The Patriots are in a unique situation, veteran players will take less money to play for them because of their reputation for winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.