Houston Texans... You Suck!!!

[tukafan21]

3 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

Amazing how the casual fan has gotten sucked into this kind of thinking. 

IMO I have no problem with hold outs or this kind of contracts. 

Look at what the Panthers just did. They just cut Clowney. After THEY gave him a 2 year contract to save money. 

Im not in to billionaires saving money. Im into players making money. 

No, the casual fan gets sucked into THIS^^^ kind of thinking, and it's so woefully incorrect that it's almost sad.

The first is what I've said numerous times, NOTHING about non guaranteed contracts save the billionaire owners a single penny, because they still have to spend their cap floor, and the only reason teams ever don't spend the full limit, is to then roll it over into the next season to be able to spend more that year.

But in the end, owners pay the same amount of money no matter what.

The reverse is also the same, that the players in totality make the same amount of money as well, because in your example of Clowney not getting that money this year, it will go to another player, as the cap needs to be spent.

And you say how we just cut Clowney after we gave him the 2 year contract, but everyone including Clowney's agent and himself, knew when it was signed, that it was more likely to be a 1 year contract than a 2 with how it was structured.  The 2nd year was just to be able to spread out the cap hit and he was always most likely going to end up getting traded or cut.

It's why agents and players don't care about the total money in a contract, it's always and only been about the guaranteed money, as the years and overall value are meaningless, always have been, always will be.

[Stumpy]

28 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

No, the casual fan gets sucked into THIS^^^ kind of thinking, and it's so woefully incorrect that it's almost sad.

The first is what I've said numerous times, NOTHING about non guaranteed contracts save the billionaire owners a single penny, because they still have to spend their cap floor, and the only reason teams ever don't spend the full limit, is to then roll it over into the next season to be able to spend more that year.

But in the end, owners pay the same amount of money no matter what.

The reverse is also the same, that the players in totality make the same amount of money as well, because in your example of Clowney not getting that money this year, it will go to another player, as the cap needs to be spent.

And you say how we just cut Clowney after we gave him the 2 year contract, but everyone including Clowney's agent and himself, knew when it was signed, that it was more likely to be a 1 year contract than a 2 with how it was structured.  The 2nd year was just to be able to spread out the cap hit and he was always most likely going to end up getting traded or cut.

It's why agents and players don't care about the total money in a contract, it's always and only been about the guaranteed money, as the years and overall value are meaningless, always have been, always will be.

You are wrong, but the taste of boot is preventing you from seeing it.

[tukafan21]

24 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

You are wrong, but the taste of boot is preventing you from seeing it.

Please, explain it to me then, because nothing I just said is wrong, if you can't see it, that's a you problem.

This isn't MLB where teams can spend $50 million or $500 million on their roster.  

Not having guaranteed contracts doesn't save owners a single penny, it just changes what players would be getting the money as guaranteed contracts would mean it's being paid to cut players or sub-par bench players instead of new ones, but it's still the same amount of money coming out of the owners pockets.

The fact that any fan thinks cutting a player saves the owner any money is absurd.  

Yes, TECHNICALLY a team could only spend the cap floor every year and save maybe $15-20 million a season, but no team does that in the NFL.  If they aren't spending their cap in a season, they use it in the next season when they get to roll it over, this isn't baseball where you have cheap owners when it comes to assembling the roster itself.

Owners get cheap when it comes to other things, like the coaching or training staff, or amenities provided to the players.  And yes, these things can cause better players to not want to sign with that team.

But in no world does non guaranteed contracts save the owners money, not even in the slightest.  

Edited 8 hours ago by tukafan21

[WUnderhill]

1 hour ago, Stumpy said:

You are wrong, but the taste of boot is preventing you from seeing it.

Such weird thinking honestly. I’m a fan of the team. If it is better for the team that a player can be cut and the money that would have gone to them can make the team better being spent on a different player, that’s what I want. I’m not gonna shed any tears over millionaires losing some money being cut before their contract is up due to performance/injury and I don’t see how that gets you any social brownie points among the proletariat. Aren’t you just licking the millionaire athlete boot? These guys ain’t hurting.

[frankw]

7 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

Such weird thinking honestly. I’m a fan of the team. If it is better for the team that a player can be cut and the money that would have gone to them can make the team better being spent on a different player, that’s what I want. I’m not gonna shed any tears over millionaires losing some money being cut before their contract is up due to performance/injury and I don’t see how that gets you any social brownie points among the proletariat. Aren’t you just licking the millionaire athlete boot? These guys ain’t hurting.

Nobody making millions is truly "hurting". But he's not talking about the highest paid players in the league making upwards of 100-200 million or more. He's talking about rookie second round picks who would be making what 5-10 million at absolute most and have no guarantee of not getting a career ending injury before the end of their rookie contract. I don't think anyone is asking you to shed tears for them because you shouldn't but the perception of siding with Billionaire owners of a league that brought in over $23 billion in revenue last year is going to raise an eyebrow or two just saying.

[WUnderhill]

2 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

No, the casual fan gets sucked into THIS^^^ kind of thinking, and it's so woefully incorrect that it's almost sad.

The first is what I've said numerous times, NOTHING about non guaranteed contracts save the billionaire owners a single penny, because they still have to spend their cap floor, and the only reason teams ever don't spend the full limit, is to then roll it over into the next season to be able to spend more that year.

But in the end, owners pay the same amount of money no matter what.

The reverse is also the same, that the players in totality make the same amount of money as well, because in your example of Clowney not getting that money this year, it will go to another player, as the cap needs to be spent.

And you say how we just cut Clowney after we gave him the 2 year contract, but everyone including Clowney's agent and himself, knew when it was signed, that it was more likely to be a 1 year contract than a 2 with how it was structured.  The 2nd year was just to be able to spread out the cap hit and he was always most likely going to end up getting traded or cut.

It's why agents and players don't care about the total money in a contract, it's always and only been about the guaranteed money, as the years and overall value are meaningless, always have been, always will be.

Something is wrong with the huddle and it won’t let me quote Canadian cat so I’ll just quote this. The way the contracts in the nfl work is actually pretty fair, not to mention that it is a system that has been collectively bargained by the players themselves. Contracts can always be breached in any system/profession. It’s not a matter of whether one side has the ability to and the other doesn’t, it is a matter of what the penalty for breaching is. Teams are penalized for cutting players before their contract is up. It is also the only recourse teams have if a player is not performing up to their contract. Players can also breach their contracts by holding out, sitting out, etc. and choose to accept whatever penalties or forfeiture of pay results. It’s not a unilateral system as some seem to believe. Yes there will always be players that outperform their contracts as well as players that don’t live up to them. Since I’m a fan of the TEAM, I like when the team makes savvy investments and gets performance under market value.

[jfra78]

Don't understand fans caring about Cap.  They gonna do what they gonna do and it really never matters in the end.  Just enjoy and stop stressing over stupid poo like cap

Edited 6 hours ago by jfra78

[PNW_PantherMan]

14 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

Don't understand fans caring about Cap.  They gonna do what they gonna do and it really never matters in the end.  Just enjoy and stop stressing over stupid poo like cap

It's not that hard to understand why fans would care about how the team allocates its limited resources to construct the roster.

[tukafan21]

2 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

It's not that hard to understand why fans would care about how the team allocates its limited resources to construct the roster.

Yea, caring about the cap is different than caring about the owner's money.

I don't give two shits about Tepper's money and how it's spent.

But I do care about our cap space and how we use it because that is directly what affects the team.

Those are two very different things, it's not hard to understand that.

[PNW_PantherMan]

Just now, tukafan21 said:

Yea, caring about the cap is different than caring about the owner's money.

I don't give two shits about Tepper's money and how it's spent.

But I do care about our cap space and how we use it because that is directly what affects the team.

Those are two very different things, it's not hard to understand that.

Its basically the same as caring about how they use draft picks.  Its a limited resource that teams have to build the roster.

[tukafan21]

1 minute ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

Its basically the same as caring about how they use draft picks.  Its a limited resource that teams have to build the roster.

Yep

It's like when fans complain about needing to pay the rest of a coaches contract when you fire them.

That's one I just don't get, if the owner is willing to do it, then who the F cares, as that is his choice and it doesn't affect the team (as long as it's not an owner who will then be a cheapskate on the next coach to save money, which isn't a problem with Tepper).

But caring about how we use the limited resources because doing one thing affects the rest of the roster you can build, that's just being a sports fan 101 type of stuff.

[jfra78]

7 minutes ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

It's not that hard to understand why fans would care about how the team allocates its limited resources to construct the roster.

My point is fans get all worked up about it and it just doesn't matter in the end.  Teams find ways to work around things, they always have and always will.