PDA

View Full Version : one man doesnt like the deal for stafford


tweyerich
05-05-2009, 03:18 PM
http://missouricolumns.wordpress.com/

HawkeyeFan
05-05-2009, 03:26 PM
And... you think he's the onlye one that doesn't like the deal for Stafford?

If you like it, your standing alone.

FlyingElvis
05-05-2009, 03:47 PM
Yup, the rookie deals are completely fubar and are in need of a change. Make that 3 men who don't like it, and counting.

Gay Ork Wang
05-05-2009, 03:49 PM
kinda weird how u posted that article in 3 different forums

Calvin & Kevin
05-05-2009, 03:49 PM
Yeah the Lions would have been way better off playing hardball and refusing to pay the going rate and having Stafford hold out. Sure would have been the best thing for their franchise.

HawkeyeFan
05-05-2009, 03:57 PM
kinda weird how u posted that article in 3 different forums
Deja-frickin-vu

Bengalsrocket
05-05-2009, 04:03 PM
If rookies didn't get these deals, no one would. Why do you think for one second that owners would take the money they save on Rookies and redistribute it to veterans?

Owners are hardly effected by how much they're paying top 5 picks (they wouldn't be owners for very long if paying their players was breaking their bank), and I for one am just glad someone is able to make a little portion of the vast amounts of cash these owners make.

Addict
05-05-2009, 04:16 PM
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/successful_troll.jpg

mqtirishfan
05-05-2009, 04:24 PM
That article is very poorly written.

tjsunstein
05-05-2009, 04:26 PM
kinda weird how u posted that article in 3 different forums

Weird how he only has 3 posts. Something tells me this guy wrote the article.

whatadai
05-05-2009, 05:21 PM
Weird how he only has 3 posts. Something tells me this guy wrote the article.

I was going to say that.

PACKmanN
05-05-2009, 05:39 PM
so now we got 2 guys promoting their blogs...

Addict
05-05-2009, 05:52 PM
so now we got 2 guys promoting their blogs...

spammers, real spammers. That means the boards are in the big leagues now!

tweyerich
05-05-2009, 06:26 PM
kinda weird how u posted that article in 3 different forums


not sure who checks what forum and i was interested on what everyones reaction would be

tweyerich
05-05-2009, 06:29 PM
Weird how he only has 3 posts. Something tells me this guy wrote the article.


i used to post often on the rams board under Tom_23 but decided to go with the name change. i did not write the article a kid in my journalism class did, i posted it because i figured it would stir up some interest

the decider13
05-05-2009, 06:29 PM
not sure who checks what forum and i was interested on what everyones reaction would be

I'm one man that doesn't like the deal...I thought the thread was about me.

Brent
05-05-2009, 07:10 PM
So he's spamming for a student? Seems equally as lame.

Philliez01
05-05-2009, 07:14 PM
So he's spamming for a student? Seems equally as lame.

Sponsored spam?

mqtirishfan
05-05-2009, 07:26 PM
i used to post often on the rams board under Tom_23 but decided to go with the name change. i did not write the article a kid in my journalism class did, i posted it because i figured it would stir up some interest

Hopefully a kid early in the journalism program at your school.

tweyerich
05-05-2009, 07:37 PM
Hopefully a kid early in the journalism program at your school.

freshmen level class so id guess so


also not spamming figured it would generate conversation

gdamac
05-05-2009, 08:44 PM
If rookies didn't get these deals, no one would. Why do you think for one second that owners would take the money they save on Rookies and redistribute it to veterans?

Owners are hardly effected by how much they're paying top 5 picks (they wouldn't be owners for very long if paying their players was breaking their bank), and I for one am just glad someone is able to make a little portion of the vast amounts of cash these owners make.

Interesting points, owners certainly aren't going to lower ticket and jersey prices if they institute a rookie cap. And no one is giving back the ad revenue, or running fewer ads to make it more enjoyable for fans. So if I gotta pay the same price for tickets and jerseys, and I gotta sit through the same lane ads (actually more and more every year), the players might as well get the money.

And that's what it comes down to, butts in seats. We can talk about proving yourself all we want, but at the end of the day Stafford is going to draw fans, sell jerseys and sell Direct TV subscriptions before he proves himself and that's what the business is about. So why shouldn't Stafford get his share of that cake?

rfugiel
05-06-2009, 01:38 AM
If rookies didn't get these deals, no one would. Why do you think for one second that owners would take the money they save on Rookies and redistribute it to veterans?

Owners are hardly effected by how much they're paying top 5 picks (they wouldn't be owners for very long if paying their players was breaking their bank), and I for one am just glad someone is able to make a little portion of the vast amounts of cash these owners make.

Do you really believe that owners wouldn't spend that additional money? IIRC, owners have been trying to move out of the top five spots because of the money associated with the picks since a bust at those spots can set teams back years because they are unable to put that money elsewhere. Come on now, logically thinking, putting more money in a unproven commodity than you would in a prove one, is not a smart move.

Remember, teams have to spend a certain amount of the cap, so that money has to go some where, owners can't pocket it. On top of that, teams will still be throwing money at players fighting for their service. Haynesworth would still have got his money even if there was a scale. The money saved, would go toward the vets in the league, mainly because that's the only other place it can go. Anyone who believes that Stafford should be paid more then Tom Brady should be sent to the loony bin.

If a scale is implemented, rookies RIDICULOUS salary is finally being deflated. More money will go to the vets who have been in the league and rightfully so. I seriously doubt that if a rookie scale was implemented that it would be some sort of tiny scale anyways, rookies in the top 10 will still be making some good money and the rest would probably be making what they are already getting.

wicket
05-06-2009, 09:00 AM
seriously just bump in a higher salary minimum for all players and put in a rookie salary cap as well. Players get something and owners get something, everybody happy. (would take care of the great players being overpaid whilst so many players are paid WAY less).

bitonti
05-06-2009, 09:06 AM
if you are the 1st player selected out of a field of hundreds, you should get paid... simple capitalism.

it's like hiring a lawyer who is #1 from his class at Harvard Law or the guy who has mediocre grades from University of Wherever... there's only 1 #1 that dude should get money and lots of it.

We are crying about millionaires but never forget the owners are billionaires - and don't really give a damn about you the fan.

Welcome to America.

the decider13
05-06-2009, 09:21 AM
My only problem with Stafford's deal is that he makes more than EVERYONE

FlyingElvis
05-06-2009, 09:49 AM
if you are the 1st player selected out of a field of hundreds, you should get paid... simple capitalism.

it's like hiring a lawyer who is #1 from his class at Harvard Law or the guy who has mediocre grades from University of Wherever... there's only 1 #1 that dude should get money and lots of it.

We are crying about millionaires but never forget the owners are billionaires - and don't really give a damn about you the fan.

Welcome to America.

Nowhere else in America can an uproven kid be paid more than an accomplished professional.

Maybe I missed it, but I have never seen anyone crying about the billionaire owners.

The #1 pick will still get paid well. But 40something million guaranteed - more than any proven, top QB - is absurd.

Rayray52
05-06-2009, 01:03 PM
So poorly written....