As I've said, I don't often post about sports here, but wanted to throw a couple of things out there.
1. I've been watching Reciever on Netfilx and it's been interesting. Quarterback was very enjoyable and showed all of them in a pretty positive light. The receivers though seem determined to make themselves look like all of the stereotypes are True.
2. As we watch quarterback salaries go crazy, with Dak expected to rake in $60,000,000 plus as a mediocre QB at best. It seems obvious that these salaries for QB's are going to destroy some teams. When you spend 20-25% of the salary cap on one player, especially one who's not among the best, it means that you have to move on from other talented players that would help the QB succeed. San Francisco is facing a situation where they hit on a late round draft pick who's making squat and having great success. Yet the players that surround him are all demanding top dollar. knowing that Purdy is up for a new contract next year.
The potential solution I see is to allow some sort of QB exemption. In the NBA, there are salary cap exemptions for resigning players that a team drafted (or something). Why wouldn't the NFL do something similar? Exempt QB's that the team drafted and developed from the salary cap, or exempt a % of their salary. I'd argue that it's good business for the NFL if Mahomes stays with the Chiefs, Burrow stays with the Bengals, Purdy with the 49ers, etc. Why not reward teams who draft and develop players well? Not only that, but this proposal would help teams like the Giants add talent around a less talented QB which should increase success.
Is this somewhat selfish, sure I'd love to see what KC could out together with Mahomes salary off the cap. But, that'd obviously be the case for any of the other teams I mentioned.
Ultimately, the problem with the system is that players aren't paid based on talent and production. They're paid based on getting more money than the last guy.
6 comments:
For the most part, these guys are indeed paid for their perceived abilities. Even those like Prescott have value in the sense that to lose him might mean they must run with an even less capable guy. Nothing brings in bucks to the team and its owners like winning.
I don't care how the teams suffer when they spend to "buy" a winning team. I've never regarded it as the honorable way to do things, but I understand the expedience of it. How far back must we go to find a time when all the player of a city's team were actually from that city? When did this "we gotta get that guy for our team" thing really start, such that money became so essential.
I don't have any problem with anyone seeking more pay. I don't think anyone is obliged to pay them what they want. How refreshing would it be to see more occasions where the team lets a player walk rather than pay him an amount demanded just so the player can say he's the highest paid third stringer.
I have a streaming service which lets me watch the teams I've always followed for $100 bucks a year (hope it doesn't go up at renewal time). I think the last sports paraphernalia I bought was when the Cubs won the WS. Since then, ownership began their own network and WGN no longer carried the games. One had to pay to watch on TV. I think I can get the games with my IPTV service, but I haven't tried yet, as my baseball jones has waned a bit. (I also followed the White Sox, who really, really suck right now.) Since the WS, I've not spent a dime on any team beyond this IPTV service, which I figure means $25 per Chicago team I follow, or just $50 per team I actually care to watch. It's not the best service and problems arise in getting an uninterrupted viewing, but it'll do.
I say the above because there are so many reasons professional sports needs to lose support, and the money thing is a part of that. Taking a home equity loan to go to a Cubs game is just untenable, no matter how much I enjoy attending. But as I can't completely kick the habit, I spend that $100 so I can get what is now for me, out of market games. It really sucks, but not as badly as living in the People's Republic of Hellinois, where people like Dan have made life unbearable. (Heading there this weekend for the wife's birthday celebration and to check in on her mom.)
That's my rant. Thanks for listening.
Art,
From the team perspective you are probably right to some degree. From the player side, it's all about "I want more than the last guy.", regardless of relative success/talent. Yes, winning does help, but the let's look at Dak. He's clearly a limited QB who needs talent around him to elevate him, instead of someone who elevates that talent around him. His contract clearly limits that ability of the team to surround him with better talent, which will ultimately mean less wins. Further, regular season wins are nice, but what good are they when playoff wins are elusive?
I agree that, in a vacuum, people should seek more pay. But when one players selfishness/greed/self interest causes harm to the team as a whole, that seems to be a problem. It's kind of an accepted fact that it's almost impossible to win a Super Bowl if the QB is taking up more that 12-15% of the cap. Yet we regularly see QB's that want a much bigger chunk of the cap than that. Personally, that seems like a teammate that I wouldn't want. Football is a team game, and if one person's success costs that team, that seems like a failure to me. Cousins in MN is a great example. Dude got a huge, fully guaranteed contract, and because they couldn't sign/keep talent they've been mediocre at best.
Teams like the Rams who spend like crazy to win a SB then accept a rebuilding period don't bother me. Teams who suck at managing the cap also don't bother me. It's when a good QB ruins a good team by sucking up too large a piece of the cap that annoys me. Players like Brady and Mahomes who understand that they need to leave a little on the table are rare. Burrow could have taken enough less that Cincinnati wouldn't be as worried about signing Chase and Higgins. Is Burrow as successful with less talented wide receivers? Who knows, but it's likely. Even knowing how good Mahomes is, nobody thought KC would win the SB with that motley crew of a WR room.
That's why I think exempting all or part of QB salaries makes some sense. It allows the teams to do what they have to do to keep a QB, without harming the rest of the team too badly. Especially in the cases where the QB was drafted and developed. I get that Dak's mediocrity is a safer bet that drafting a QB that fails, but we all know that the Cowboys aren't likely to see an NFC championship game, let alone a SB.
The Bears, on the other hand, have filled their roster with very talented players and have brought the "best" QB in the draft to a situation where he should have success. They've set themselves up with a 4-6 year window where their QB salary will be manageable and allow them to keep and sign talent to fill holes.
Ultimately the problem is the "me first" approach of NFL players and of them overvaluing their value, combined with teams who'll do stupid things.
I have no doubt that if Dallas passes on Dak, that someone will pay him a stupidly large amount of money and doom their team to mediocrity in doing so.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Baseball is an entirely different animal. As someone explained it the NFL and it's teams think of them selves as one entity with 32 franchises. But they prioritize the health of the NFL. MLB thinks of themselves as 32 individual businesses who reluctantly have to affiliate. The MLB problem is that the big market teams really don't care what happens to the small market teams, other than as a source of free agents. The Yankees (for example) seem to be oblivious to the fact that without enough other teams to fill their schedule, that their value might decline. I'm convinced that the MLB model is the worst in pro sports. Hell, right now, in both MPLS and KC fans literally can't watch their teams play on TV because Bally Sports sucks.
In my world, and elsewhere, the notion of scarcity mindset is a big thing. I think that MLB teams operate out of a scarcity mindset. The notion that their local media rights are where they make the most money, even if that limits the growth of MLB as a brand, seems like a shitty model. Especially when you compare big/small market disparities.
Right now in the NFL you see big market teams that suck and have done so for years, and you see small market teams having significant success. This'll never happen in MLB. Sure you'll catch lightning in a bottle like 2014-2015, but then the sell off happens and decades of bad baseball follow. Add that to the fact that there's no penalty to an MLB owner who decides to overpay to buy players, even if the players end up not being good.
I grew up watching and playing baseball, but they've mostly lost me as a fan unless KC has a rare good year. I might go to a game, and I'll buy a new hat every five years, but as far as anything beyond casual, not so much. In contrast, I've driven to KC for games and the first SB parade, and likely will again. I'm not ready to shell out big $$$ for Sunday Ticket to watch the few games we can't see out of market. Especially when we've got a group that'll meet up to watch at BDubs, or a local KC bar.
MLB has made a couple of tweaks that have helped a little, but without reconsidering their business model, I see continued loss pf popularity.
I prefer explaining it as all pro-sports do the same thing in different ways. Rules don't change that, except to make it more difficult, provided rules are even followed. Money's all that matters, and changing rules of the games more often than not is to keep it flowing.
The baseball rule changes over the last cople of years were all about the pace and length of the games. They wanted games shorter and faster paced, because they were losing viewers. Losing viewers/fans usually means losing money-at least down the road.
Football rules changes have mostly been around safety.
Yeah...safety...I always found it ironic the concern for safety in a contact sport, where hard hits are essential for disrupting the other team's motivation to win. No one wants to see anyone hurt, particularly via the cheap shot. But their rule changes go way beyond the cheap shot, but they know viewership will drop off the planet if they go the Touch or Flag Football route in the interest of safety.
What's more, serious injury costs money in terms of medical care as well as the loss of a player of quality, which harms profit potential. Imagine Mahomes suffering a Johnny Knox-type injury. That would cost the Chiefs big time in so many ways unrelated to his actual injury. I would argue that people watch the Chiefs primarily because of Mahomes, not because of the Chiefs in general. I get that. Even though I'm an avid Bulls fan, I watched back in the day mostly because of Michael Jordan...as did so many. Losing the best guy on the team through injury results in a loss of viewership to a degree no team wants to risk. Hence the patty-cake prohibitions on contact with the QB and receivers.
Post a Comment