WrigleyField 22

They certainly didn't need cap help to get a Roquan extension done. But still, it's a now 63M cap hole over 3 years that just opened. Lots of new ways you could spend that. Quinn trade could free up another 3/40, but as some point you reach a diminishing rerun of FA spend capacity and just hand out dumb deals cuz you have nothing else to do.

Holy horsefeathers. Hope it's a damn haul.

Well there is a cash floor of 90% (over either 3 or 4 year periods). But the ability for a team to overspend is there and if enough teams did overspend over a long enough time then eventually the future year cap growths would be impacted because provisions exist to basically claw back or catch up any year where the revenue split target isn't met. In my non-expert mind this discussion tells me that it’s mostly a mirage that teams might be hampered by cap issues. But I hear that kind of talk a lot. Not too long ago someone here seemed convinced that the Packers wouldn’t be able to keep Rodgers. Yet here we are, and with Adams back too. Oh yea, the cap is a great excuse to not spend money for owners/GMs. But reality is there's almost always a way to figure things out.

You mean the one that derwood came up with and promoted only to get bounced in the first round? (I think it was derwood. Sorry if I’m wrong but if it wasn’t it sounds like a derwood thing) Oh, it was definitely me, and I DEFINITELY lost in the opening round. I think vance won? Sounds right. There was also the hot women tournament that I believe Vance also pushed the limits on as far as board rules. Unclear if winning the latter was a result of the former campaign.

The point of the cap is to make sure the player share of revenue is hit. It's really not about competetive balance or whatever. Some teams are eventually gonna be takers and others not, and they'll reallocate the bucket. Wouldn't that be a salary floor then? Or is it to protect the owners from going over the player share of revenue? Well there is a cash floor of 90% (over either 3 or 4 year periods). But the ability for a team to overspend is there and if enough teams did overspend over a long enough time then eventually the future year cap growths would be impacted because provisions exist to basically claw back or catch up any year where the revenue split target isn't met.

The point of the cap is to make sure the player share of revenue is hit. It's really not about competetive balance or whatever. Some teams are eventually gonna be takers and others not, and they'll reallocate the bucket. The point of the cap is to suppress spending. The ability to maneuver around it is just a mechanism to allow the team that want to win to keep their most popular players and it does not need to be fixed. We don't need added hurdles to owners spending. Yes, broadly speaking the point of having a revenue share is to suppress spending. I think even in the uncapped year, the NFL penalized two teams after the fact for basically treating it like the uncapped year it was.

His deal actually creates cap space for them. I get how that works, but damn doesn't seem right to me. To hell with it, he sucks in the playoffs hopefully that continues. He watched both Brady and Stafford move on and win Super Bowls. But he sticks around in GB. Hope it blows up in his COVID-denying face. I've said this before but the salary cap is an absolute joke and needs to be fixed. If you don't want a salary cap then fine get rid of it. But you have teams like the Saints that are going to defer their contracts until an asteroid hits the earth and destroys all life on the planet. Whats the point if you can just continue to circumvent the cap? The point of the cap is to make sure the player share of revenue is hit. It's really not about competetive balance or whatever. Some teams are eventually gonna be takers and others not, and they'll reallocate the bucket.

He's denying the details are correct. Maybe that is the true deal.

Pretty big get:

The Chicago Audible podcast which I listen to on YouTube pretty faithfully is a part of this group now. IDK if I'll still have free access to it, but I would kinda miss it. But in general, I'm with you. Got rid of cable probably 10 years ago and the last 6-7 years had streaming services. Started with Netflix (who keeps raising their prices), then to Hulu, Disney+, ESPN+/Insider, Discovery+, Paramount, Amazon, Peacock, HBOMax, was doing Sling for live TV and with all the services we had + internet, it was costing us more than cable. So, changed my internet provider and added regular cable and dropped most of the streaming services (even Netflix). Saving us so much money. I'd be more apt to pay $56 and be done w/ it vs. another money nickel and dime that I gotta keep track of. Yeah the constant adding of things behind a paywall sucks. They deserve to get paid so ultimately I'm ok with it, but its forced me to make undesirable choices and cutting out things I don't want to. Like even Desipio...have been reading their website since 2003 but Andy recently launched a paid newsletter for all his writings. For whatever reason I drew the line there, just couldn't afford another niche paid site. I'm happy they are making money but sucks that there's so many paid services that I cant keep track of them all without sifting through my credit card statement. I almost switched back to cable recently but then I realized 95% of the non-sports TV I watch is streaming. Wish all these companies could get on board with a company that bundles everything up in one neat monthly fee (like cable!) but that defeats the purpose of why they launched their standalone streaming services. For journalism I really want someone to launch some sort of per article service where I don't have to make a new monthly subscription just to read one interesting sounding article behind a pay wall. Like Spotify for journalism. Give me like 30 articles a month for a fixed fee from a wide brand of papers and then after that I could spend some de minimis amount per article. Oh that's interesting headline. 4 cents? Sure I'll open that article. Ooh a premium long form article for a dollar. Okay I really love that writer/topic, sure.

I've seen reporting that 12 teams gets MLB an extra 85 million, and 14 teams gets an additional 15 million on top of that. So owners are going through all of this when their big incentive is less than 4 million/team and the players have already agreed to ~3 million of that incremental revenue. On a related note, I think they should rename the regular season as 'The Playoffs.' And call the playoffs 'The Series of World Series.' And call the World Series "the Real World Series from Amazon.com" Unironically, but let's go full Euro basketball where there's the league play and then World Series League of the top 16, but in a 4 game round Robin followed by a 4 team playoff. Expand the league play to include even more teams, maybe with a foreign based league. For the bottom whatever teams they can loan out their veteran players annually to the World Series League and then play a minor league barnstorm schedule with any pre arb player during the WSL (this would be like mid July to Sept?) Throw in a World Baseball Classic semi annually. The World Series will just be a fun little summer classic.

At the end of the day I get that playoffs equal more high value revenue, but at some point you reach a diminished return where that is gonna stop being true right?

This 2020 article implies there are 35-40k MLB stadium workers: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/baseball-stadium-workers-crisis/ The overwhelming majority appear to be gameday staff and likely aren't salaried so if you think of it in the context of lost games(20 games lost = 300 lost stadium gamedays) it's a little better, but even when stacked with a similar amount from MLB it seems unlikely to change anyone's financial situation. So that's $22 per employee for 20 lost games. So a dollar a game? I would think teams still are paying salaries guys. Like head grounds keeper or roles like that. But doubtful that list will be very extensive.

Gotta say I like the length of the episodes. Listened to the 2nd and 3rd and they were both perfect lengths while I took both of my dogs for a quick walk. Sometimes podcasts can draggggg and these haven't. Looking forward to seeing how you develop your spin on the pod.

Will flexing across days cause more of a logistical headache than its worth?

Oh God all the, "the dispresct fueled the 7th best team to upset the 2 seed" takes...

The fun scenario in the "what if the Bears have Fields and a their 1st" is it necessitates an assumption that they retool in 2020 to get a top 10 pick in 2021. No Quinn (and 30M extra dollars and a comp pick) No Foles trade (and 20M extra dollars and a 4th) No Arob tag and extra 18M and comp pick (or maybe a trade). So probably they then spend some of those dollars back in 2021, but say upwards of 50M more free capital and 3-4 extra picks? I'm usually an anti-tank type but especially with hindsight the cost of say 3 wins and a playoff appearance in 2021 cost a pretty penny.

Harbaugh wants to be back in NFL so badly.

_______Demar______MJ 97/98 PPG_____27.6______28.7 FG% ____50.6%_____46.5% 3PA_____2.3________1.5 FTA______7.8________8.8 TS%______59.8%_____53.3% WS/48____ .201______ .238 Updating this one _______Demar______MJ 97/98 PPG_____27.9_______28.7 FG% _____51.5%_____46.5% 3PA______1.8________1.5 FTA______8.1________8.8 TS%______60.0%_____53.3% WS/48___ .190______ .238

Never bad to have ST competition. Brinkley was a mainstay for Tennessee for a while, not sure what happened the past few years except that his Wikipedia says he was on the covid/reserve list in 2020 and then was cut and bounced around some practice squads. But was liked enough to ink a 5 year deal in 2015. Winslow has bounced around a lot in his young career. Interesting if he's real competition or just a body.

Yea well they got that far with a horsefeathers one, so I'll take whatever OLine you give me if I get Ja'Marr Chase too. (and really they just messed up the Round 2 pick. If it's Humphrey are they hoisting the Lombardi trophy?)

I feel like had Burrow not gotten a knee injury, we would have at least had OT. Or if OBJ doesn't get injured, the Rams win by 10 Yea definitely don't feel like Cinci can go down feeling cheating. Each team got some breaks good or bad and had a chance to win.

Rofl

Yeah, that offensive staff is kind of interesting. The OC, QB and TE coaches are each very young and inexperienced. The WR/PGC is very experienced, and the OL coach has a decent amount of experience, but a mixed bag of a resume. I am going to guess they will lean toward an experienced voice as RB coach, but I have no idea if there's been any talks about specific people. The other thing is there hasn't been a lot of title inflation. No assistant head coach, no CoCoordinators. The one example is Tolbert's duel roles. It will also be interesting if they add a name in the summer like when Nagy brought in Tom Herman. He had Childress as a consultant as well from the start, but we haven't really heard of anybody filling that type of role with this staff, yet. So they hired another 50-something with 25 years experience at the RB coach spot. David Walker, 7 years in NFL as RB coach and time at Pitt with Getsy. There's a gap on his resume since 2018, so, what's up with that? Some background about why he stepped away and what he has been up to. https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2020/09/02/former-colts-rbs-coach-david-walker-has-built-new-business/3375556001/

Yea I mean assiststant coaches rarely get rave reviews. Building new staffs is just that nature of the beast with HC turnover. On the D side Eberflus basically picked up his whole D staff. That's way better than Nagy's first O staff. And obviously Nagy was luck to inherit his D staff. And for as much as yea Getsy is a first time play caller, 3 teams are hiring first time play callers as their head coach. So comparatively, not so bad.