NFL teams purging key players
Take a look around the SB Nation NFL megaverse and you will see a lot of fans scratching their heads as to why their favorite teams are purging their rosters of key players. Many of these players were big free agent signings one or two years ago, and they re-inforce the tried and true method of Bill Polian, the Rooney family, and Bill Belichick: Draft well, or die. Free agency is a highly over-rated method to build your team. It will give you headlines. It will make the clueless turds at ESPN giddy. It will move you up in BS power rankings.
It will not win you football games, and often it will KILL your team's cap.
Take a look at some of the players cut in the last few days:
- Fred Taylor, Jaguars
- DeWayne Robertson, Broncos
- Jerry Porter, Jaguars
- Drayton Florence, Jaguars
- Jeff Garcia, Bucs
These moves were followed by the odd pre-shake-up in Cincinnati, which saw the Bengals slap the franchise tag... ON THEIR KICKER! This means free agent WR TJ Houshmandzadeh is going to walk, and it likely means Chad Johnson's days in Tigerland are numbered as well. Add to this the news out of Arizona than Aquan Boldin is bolting and the requested trade by DE Julius Peppers in Carolina.
That's a lot of change for several organizations that have been (somewhat) good the last few years.
Then there is the LaDanian Tomlinson situation unfolding in San Diego, who will also likely lose Darren Sproles. The Titans could lose DT Albert Haynesworth and QB Kerry Collins. The Cardinals (in addition to losing Boldin) could lose Kurt Warner to retirement and will definitely lose Edgerrin James, who is their best RB.
To put it simply, there will be a lot of turnover this off-season. Teams are stripping away "dead weight" players or players that might indeed be productive but their cap hit did not match that production. As Colts fans, we should view any cap casualties from our own team with the same perspective. Many good, quality teams are trimming away talent; stripping down their roster in order to save money.
The NFL faces an uncertain future with a potential (and possibly league killing) uncapped year in 2010 in an economy that is hemorrhaging 300,000 jobs a month. So, if we see people like Marv, Jeff, Hunter, and Freddie get slashed from the roster, just know it is not necessarily based on performance.
This is a business, and when things go bad with the economy the first thing businesses do is trim. That said, please feel some security with the fact that Bill Polian is the best front office man in football. Corey Simon is off the books, and the Colts have an impressive system of drafting well and developing from within. They have very few holes, and despite the changes with the Head Coach and some assistants, there is a lot of continuity within the organization. Unlike many other teams, our's does not have to strip down and start over.
0 recs |
39 comments
|
Comments
This is a business, and when things go bad with the economy the first thing businesses do is trim.
That’s epitome of bad business. That statement, whether or not you agree with it doesn’t matter, I’m just saying, truly disturbs me. The only thing trimming the fat does is create even more unemployment, more debt, more everything that is bad to the economy in the first place.
It angered me when I heard that the Colts were cutting jobs left and right “due to the bad economy.” Why the hell couldn’t the guys making millions of dollars a year take a pay cut, instead of just laying people off? At least then, people would still be employed, even if they did need a pay cut as well, which would prevent unemployment and further escalating the the economic downturn. It’s a pretty simple concept. Why should these guys get paid 235923859852 million dollars a year, and instead of them taking a pay cut, they fire Joe Schmoe who makes 30k a year just worsening the issue. Greedy people need to foad tbh.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 17, 2009 12:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Trimming jobs is never something I like. I don’t agree with the practice personally. But, it is what many businesses do.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
by BigBlueShoe on Feb 17, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you can't make money doing something
You shouldn’t be doing it, no matter how many people it employs.
Companies don’t trim jobs because they’re mean or because they’re having fun sabotaging the economy, they trim jobs because they can’t make any money from those jobs. And if they can’t make any money they can’t pay their bills and give returns to investors and if they can’t do that they go insolvent and everybody loses their jobs, not just the people who weren’t making any money.
It’s very sad for the people involved, of course, but it’s a natural part of the economic cycle.
by eltharion_doa on Feb 18, 2009 6:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a bunch of bs. If those jobs didn’t make them money, why have them in the first place?
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 18, 2009 8:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because they used to...
But now they don’t.
by eltharion_doa on Feb 18, 2009 9:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or because the company thought that investing in those jobs
Would increase return for investors
by LovinBlue on Feb 18, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very true...
Because that is the whole purpose & goal of a business… as was stated before, you do not have a company if investors aren’t getting that increased return. As eltharion_doa already said, yes, its sad, but that is capitalism… the result of not keeping the stakeholders happy is the loss of jobs for everyone rather than a few.
by sshepherd31 on Feb 18, 2009 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Its kinda of like that “A-Hole” CEO that ran Citigroup into the ground. As his business went backrupt and he laid of 10,000 people he was spending 20 MILLION dollars on his office.
Unreal.
by MasterRWayne on Feb 17, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unreal indeed.
He (and many others) should be indicted.
Makes my blood boil.
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Feb 17, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
swap indicted to shot, and I agree
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 17, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hm.
You have a point.
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Feb 17, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
obviously there are greedy assholes who should be cutting their luxuries before laying people off
but the mid-high level people taking pay cuts instead only works if the entire industry does it.
If a company cuts pay for their highly paid/highly talented employees another company could hire them away for their normal salary, then have a big advantage and run the company that cut pay out of business or at least into greater financial trouble.
The whole industry would have to agree to do it and none of them cheat for their own gain. The pay cuts would be the way to benefit the economy as a whole, but because other companies would exploit the weakness it opens up they all take the less beneficial strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 17, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Game Theory references
Nice. Could be classified as a “prisoner’s dilemma game.”
by burc on Feb 17, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they were so good...
If these high paid people are so good… then why do they suck?
Maybe its because they are just good criminals instead of good businessmen.
by MasterRWayne on Feb 17, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I said, it would more or less be a company wide thing. But explain to me how that is any worse than firing 10% of your employees? It’s just not.
Besides, if Joe Schmuck wants to quit his job and go some other place because they would be willing to pay him a little more, then let him go. It’s not like companies are run like top secret branches of the government. You can always hire from within to keep the ball rolling. Add on the fact that Joe Douchebag leaving saves the company X amount of dollars, which helps keep the few positions that Joe John and Jane Schmoe all had.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 18, 2009 8:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, back to football, where
The Bengals franchised their KICKER!???!
Who the hell is it? Have I heard of him? This is high comedy—is Matt Millen advising them? That’s a Jags-quaity move.
I can see that in 09 an “all castoff team” could be quite potent. (Who compiles a team like this, FO? TMQ? Somebody….)
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on Feb 17, 2009 3:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Shayne Graham
He’s actually a very accurate kicker. Doesn’t have a load of leg strength. Franchising a kicker actually isn’t all that much, even the top kickers probably make under 2 mil.
Visit FanIQ.com for sports news, bloggings, polls, and more!
by MrNFL on Feb 17, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If it were Millen advising...
they would have franchised a WR, then drafted one in the first round for the next 3 years in a row.
by sshepherd31 on Feb 18, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Does someone have some numbers,
that shows or indicates that the NFL is actually in a downward spiral? Did the NFL make any less money this year than normally, and if they did, does that have any implications on the size of the salary cap?
I see the reasoning, but I feel there is lacking a link between the poor economy and the sacking of these players. Honestly, I don’t feel this year has been so different from years past, where older players have also been let go. A couple of years ago, I think the St. Louis or Seattle kicker, Brown or something, was also granted with the Franchise tag.
by jocre on Feb 17, 2009 3:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Franchising your kicker...
Is not really a cap busting move. They will probably give him a long term deal.
by MasterRWayne on Feb 17, 2009 3:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The NFL needs to put regulations on NFL contracts
They need to make a maximum amount for a player to earn and make contracts no longer than 4 years.
Also, every bank CEO should be thrown into the ocean with cinder blocks on his feet.
by Colts Homer on Feb 17, 2009 5:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
From an outsiders perspective..
It’s strange to see how the country that supposedly invented liberalism is quickly turning towards government restrictions and stuff like that… I don’t hope any take offence, but this is really odd to experience from across the atlantic.
by jocre on Feb 17, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Democracy vs. Capitalism
Two completely different animals that do not always (or some may say often) co-habitate well. Liberalism in the political system (people rule, human rights, equality of opportunity, etc.) can and probably should co-exist with strong governmental regulation of the economic system. As we’ve seen recently, the “free market” can pretty severely undermine the core democratic principles on which our country was founded.
by ctnyc on Feb 17, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The worst part about the crisis is that it’s giving capitalism a bad name.
What we’ve seen in the US (and Europe) in the past two decades has not, at least in as much as it’s caused problems in the financial sector, capitalism. Capitalism refers to a method of financing entrepreneurial investment, little more. What we have seen in the West is precisely the opposite – consumption financed by a huge debt bubble, caused because the government intervened to stop capitalism. (Largely because debt bubbles temporarily make people happy and happy people don’t vote to change governments. Thanks, democracy!)
But you didn’t come here for a socioeconomic lecture, so I’ll shut up now.
by eltharion_doa on Feb 18, 2009 6:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m almost certain that the current recession we are in is due to the ignorance and greed of top officials in the financial sector.
This line will remain in my signature until the Colts draft Rashad Jennings in 2009.
by KingRichard on Feb 18, 2009 8:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a credit bubble
It is due partially to the ignorance of economics by the government, by the Treasury and by the Fed; partially due to the natural vote chasing corruption inherent in a democratic system; partially due to greed in investment banking circles; and very largely due to the willingness of the US consumer to borrow huge amounts of money against inflated assets to finance unsustainable consumption.
It is, in short, a delicious clusterfuck. There’s plenty of blame to go around when you wreck a $12 trillon economy…
by eltharion_doa on Feb 18, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Precisely. When a bank loans an unqualified borrower money at a Sub-Prime rate, there’s a problem.
When a borrower takes a 30 year, flex loan on a $500,000 property after having only put $20K down, there’s a problem.
When mortgage lenders are falsifying documents (yes, that means you, Countrywide) to get these unqualified borrowers into their homes so the mortgage lenders get their commissions, there’s a problem.
And, finally, when a government buries its head in the sand to all of the facts above, there is a problem.
The problems don’t have anything to do with “democracy” IMO, ineptidude, ingnorance and greed maybe.
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Feb 18, 2009 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a $500k property available in California?!?!
:-)
by LovinBlue on Feb 18, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably in North Long Beach...a studio...
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Feb 18, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is the major problem...
Our biggest problem is the fault of many… banks lending money in situations they knew they shouldn’t, and people taking on loans they should not. I tend to blame the banks more in a lot of these situations, mostly because they should be more responsible with regards to the business they run and should be most knowledgable in, whereas it is understandable how an average Joe, ignorant to the process, could bite off more than they can chew. Some people should know better, but more often than not, I think people are made to believe they can afford something they can’t.
by sshepherd31 on Feb 18, 2009 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And also
the proliferation of non-bank financial institutions that perform the functions of banks, but with their non-bank status are not subject to the same oversight as banks. Democracy needs to step in and expand regulation in this instance to rein in the excesses of capitalism.
by ctnyc on Feb 19, 2009 8:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just want to know
when the slumping economy will result in Whoppers being priced at 99 cents again. That is a good recovery plan.
Oh, and I’ll bring my own slice of cheese.
by coltsfanawalt on Feb 17, 2009 6:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Don't $5 foot-longs satisfy your hunger?
by LovinBlue on Feb 17, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate those commercials...
I’d rather pay extra in protest to those damn commercials… :) That song sticks in your head all day long and makes you want to stab yourself in the eye.
by sshepherd31 on Feb 18, 2009 9:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you were a Mickey D's guy :)
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Feb 17, 2009 6:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's because
they don’t have 99 cent Whoppers anymore =p
Okay, so I admit I am just a cheap skate. Ya happy?
by coltsfanawalt on Feb 18, 2009 12:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wonder if Housh would sign for $30m over five seasons guaranteed, with minimum salary in year one then, and say, $7m per season after that.
That sneaks him in for the cap money we’d save cutting Harrison, roughly…
Just saying.
And I don’t think he’d accept the deal or that we’d sign him or that he’d even necessarily be a good signing given who we stand to lose in free agency if we eat up our cap on a guy like him but I just like to dream, OK?
by eltharion_doa on Feb 18, 2009 6:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 





















