in case you missed it
 

some kinda common ground might be found going beyond the phrase \"does he want to win?\" more is, how badly does he want to win? indulge me while i draw a baseball example where there is no real cap. there is tremendous disparity in team salaries in mlb. everyone knows how steinbrenner opens the checkbook in efforts to win. what isn\'t as widely know that there are many owners with far more net worth than he. one of the richest, pohland of the twins, has been among the stingiest tightwads. the nfl has a cap but coaches salaries are going through the roof. huizenga demonstrated he was willing to pay whatever necessary to attain what he considered his best chance at winning (saban). daniel snyder spent somewhat not so wisely for players but there was no doubt that he wanted that. washington, miami, new england, and detroit own their stadiums. this is a growing trend- unbelieveable tax write off, rake in all of the profits of everything else that goes on there, acquire an asset which enhances the value of the franchise, etc. the jets are currently offering 600mil toward a new manhattan stadium and sd owner spanos is offering 400mil to a new facility. why? it is sound business to invest in yourself if you are committed. vikings owner mccomb is a billionaire but has refused to do that. why? he is ready to sell soon. not a bad deal either, buying the vikes for 250mil in 1998 and doubling your money in 7 years. i only see signs of the used car dealer approach in nawlins. 11mil last year that could have been spent towards the missing linebacker or db that was left on the table. no upper tier free agents signed (after leaving mueller said signing bonuses could not exceed 10mil). squeezing such football fanatic fans in a state that is legitimately economically strapped. if not haslett then how can a venturi remain, no matter what contract payoff? chow may be a flop but the 800-900k shows commitment to winning.

benson wants to win but he shown only inconsistency at best in choosing who and how the show is run. with an current regime of unsatisfactory results not being overhauled or replaced i question whether he has the passion for it anymore (remember he started at zero in \'85). it looks more like posturing for the endgame of his life to me.

in case you missed it
 

I think it\'s plainly evident Benson values the almighty dollar more than winning. Not that he doesn\'t want to win - he just doesn\'t want to pay for the extras that might be required to win.

But, I also don\'t know that he has learned how to win. As far as I know he didn\'t give a hoot about football until he bought the Saints. He was smart enought then to bring in a reputable football guy to run things (Finks). Just look at what happened.

Flash forward and you see a guy who had been in the league for several years and, ala Jerry Jones, decides he doesn\'t need reputable football guys so he promotes Kuhurich to take over for Finks. We have had one (maybe two if my memory has slipped) playoff trip since then!

Benson THINKS he knows about football and running a football organization. The problem is that it is obvious he doesn\'t.

R.I.P. Finks. We miss you badly.

in case you missed it
 

Nice points Kelley and Scotty. Nice points.

in case you missed it
 

:cheers:

[Edited on 11/2/2005 by JKool]

in case you missed it
 

Did we have one of the highest payrolls two years ago?

I see the points, but I\'m still inclined to say that it isn\'t obvioius from the data. LK, I like your idea, but don\'t see that it gets past the problems I raised for the earlier view - just substitute \"doesn\'t REALLY want to win too much\" for \"doesn\'t want to win\" in my theories. The weaker conclusion that you offer may be easier to evidence, but I can\'t decide just yet.

Scotty, what did you think of my earlier argument? Your first statement seems to go against it, but everything else you say seems to support it.

in case you missed it
 

JK, if I understand your point, simply stated, you believe Benson cares about winning. I can agree to that tempered by his love for money which is what I was trying to say in the section where I quoted myself.

In trying to win, Benson would rather find the next Joe Horn rather than bring in R. Moss, for example. For the past couple of years it seemed that we always had plenty of cap room and did nothing with it or very little. It is my opinion that Benson is making the team operate on a lower cap so he can pocket the difference.

The reason I can say that Benson wants to win is because to say otherwise wouldn\'t make sense. Certainly, his committement to winning 12 games a year is questionable. If he can get 10 wins out of a certain amount of money, that\'d be better for him than getting 12 wins while spending 10% more where the additional 10% meant that he didn\'t pocket any cash.

Otherwise, someone said something along the lines of wishing for a D. Snyder type to buy the team making a reference to a more passionate owner. I don\'t see Snyder as being passionate about football at all. He simply wants to buy the prom queen so he can brag to his buddies. Not only is that distasteful to me, but it hasn\'t worked for him either.

in case you missed it
 

I am not particularly against the Dan Snyder \"type\" just that they have a more tempered method than spending willy nilly for any player with some sort of name. I want an owner willing to spend, which we all agree is not Benson. It\'s interestign about the highest payroll thing. Could that be due to some contracts going up? I kow last year we paid Joe like $600,000, but the year before it was like 4 or 5 mil. Are there more contracts like that on the team? That would explain the high payroll cause the money WAS NOT spent on any big time free agents.

in case you missed it
 

I know it was said at one point that the Saints had the highest staffing payroll(coaches, managers and such), but I don\'t recall them having near the highest player payroll. Near the end of the Ditka years and maybe a couple thereafter, I recall us being about 3 mil over the cap at this point in the year, but that wasn\'t the highest of any team by far.

in case you missed it
 

I don\'t know where that stat came from, but I KNOW it wasn\'t because of spending. If you have a couple of guys under contract and their salaries spike in the same year, that will drive up any team\'s payroll.

in case you missed it
 

Having guys who get paid a lot of money (say Horn for example) does represent spending. What else could it represent? We spent money on Horn; that is why his contract was so high.

I also recall having one of the highest payrolls a few years back. I think it was Danno who pointed it out. Perhaps he could confirm this for us.

I thought I was saying that there is no way to tell if he cares about winning or not. If I didn\'t say that, that is what I meant.

I see your point on Benson\'s mental state Scotty. I thought people were making a stronger claim - like, \"he doesn\'t want to win\". If I\'ve taken you correctly, you are suggesting that such a view is silly, since, of course, he wants to win SOME. He has lots of other desires, and sometimes those conflict with his wanting to win, but at no time does he simply NOT want to win. I think that is a both interesting and good point.

in case you missed it
 

A high payroll doesn\'t represent spending when you leave 11 mil of cap room on the table Kool. A high payroll means you signed some guys to some contracts PRIOR to that year and the value of that contract increased IN THE SAME YEAR. That has nothing to do with actual spending. Sure you spend when you first got them, or when you extended them, but at some point you are no longer spending for new players, just paying the same ones. Because of the way contracts can fluctuate, we could sign 3 free agents this year and have a smaller payroll than previous years this year, but two years down the road, we may have the highest in the league. Doesn\'t mean we spent on new players 2 years from now, means we spent this year and the biggest payouts were 2 years from now, for players we already have.

So basically if we left another 11 mil on the table this year, but we had the second highest payroll cause of previous contracts spiking, this would represent spending to you? I guess it is a difference on how spending is designed then.

I also don\'t think Ro ever said this view was silly. So if someone interprets something different it\'s silly now? I thought I knew you better than that. Guess we better tell those NASA scientists who are looking for life in the universe outside this planet they are silly as well since their research is based on OPINIONS there is. Funny things those opinions.

[Edited on 11/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

in case you missed it
 

Whodi,

Spending can occur on guys you have. I don\'t understand your idea that spending only occurs when you acquire new guys? However, I\'m willing to admit this may just be a disagreement about what \"spending\" means. I just think that paying a guy like Horn the 5 mil (or whatever it is) he\'ll get this year constitutes \"spending\" to win - even though he is NOT new and his contract fluctuates.

Second, perhaps \"silly\" was the wrong word; \"false\" would have been better. Even if Scotty didn\'t say it, his view entails that it is \"false\" that Benson doesn\'t want to win.

Third, we already talked about opinions. If it is just an opinion, fine. If you want to claim it is true, you are no longer simply stating an opinion - you are claiming that something is a fact then. Furthermore, we already distinguished between evidence, facts, observations and opinions - why go back to the old view that there is nothing but opinion?

There is no one at NASA investigating life on other planets. As I understand it, NASA has all but been dismantled since the start of the Bush era. Not that it matters, I guess. Even if they were/are, it would be \"silly\" if they presented no reason at all (no observations, no confirmed theories, no evidence, no facts, etc) and only an opinion to spend money on such an endeavor, wouldn\'t it?

The year we had the highest payroll, we did NOT leave 11 mil in cap room \"on the table\". That was the year I was talking about. Furthermore, doesn\'t \"payroll\" mean the amount you are paying your players? Isn\'t that how the cap is calculated? There are teams with negative cap room right now, so I infer that if we had the highest payroll, we\'d also be in a similarly bad cap position? Is that wrong?

in case you missed it
 

I think Benson has been a real idiot when it comes to hiring someone to make \"football\" decisions. Mike Ditka, Mickey Loomis, Chet Franklin, etc., ect...

As far as spending money ... well ...

He\'s spent enough money to win. And that\'s the bottom line!!

Just bad decisions. And that\'s the bottom line!

But, I\'m of the opinion that Benson and company are not doomed to repeat their past. Let\'s hope so anyway... ;)

in case you missed it
 

Kool, like I said, for me there is a difference between \"paying\" and \"spending.\" Say you have a car, you pay for gas and such mandatory maintenance, but you may not spend for new rims or a stereo or such. Say you own a fortune 500 company, you PAY salaries to your employees, but you may not SPEND on advertising and a day care center and such. Paying something mandatory DOES NOT represent spending to me. Again maybe this is where we disagree.

And if we already went over the opinion thing, why would someone\'s opinion be sill yor false, when we have already determined it is an OPINION because we have NO FACTS of the situation? Is it any more silly or false than someone feeling an NFL owner doesn\'t know about football after 20 years of owning a team? It\'s an OPINION.

The NASA example was just that, an example. They were searching for life outside our planet based on supposition and probability, maybe that is why they are cut down? There are NO FACTS there is life outside this planet, but they still searched cause they were under the OPINION there is. So like I said, maybe they are or were silly or false too?

Teams who are over the cap are there for the same reason we had the highest payroll. They just exceeded what was allowed with the salaries they had. When the free agency period starts, I am under the understanding players who were a part of the cap but are restricted free agents are no longer a part of that cap. Green Bay is an example. They are over the cap by 3 mil, but once free agency starts Wahle, who is unrestricted, will no longer count against it and thus they will no longer be over the cap. Same with TEN. They will begin cutting as wew get closer to the free agency period to get under. Paying salaries still doesn\'t equal spending money to me. But we differ.

[Edited on 11/2/2005 by saintswhodi]

in case you missed it
 

(1)
Ok.

It seems to me that on that view, it is impossible to spend on players in any real sense. Let us say that the Patriots keep the entire team together. They would have spent nothing, and merely paid. If that is the case, it is unclear to my why saying \"x didn\'t spend anything\" is a criticism of x.

I agree with you though on this: if you combine spending and paying and you are not winning, then you are either not spending or not paying enough.

(2)
There are more than just facts and opinions. There is also evidence. Evidence comes in a lot of forms (observation, deduction from good theory, unification, and so on).

(3)
I wasn\'t intending to call anyone\'s opinion silly or false. I was pointing out that Scotty\'s view ENTAILS that the idea that Benson doesn\'t want to win is false. That is seen by merely looking at what Scotty says:
It follows from that that saying Benson doesn\'t want to win doesn\'t make sense (is false).

Scotty\'s view is that Benson\'s psychology is more complicated than people are making it out to be. That is, he wants a variety of things (including for his team to win), but sometimes those things come into conflict - thus, any action is a complex combination of \"wants\". It follows from that that either (1) there is no evidence at all of what he \"wants\" (which agrees with my view), or (2) he does want to win, but only at a certain price (Bensons desires are in some complex interplay) - and it follows fromt that that saying he doesn\'t want to win doesn\'t make sense.

I don\'t see why we\'re disagreeing on this one? It seems to me to be Scotty\'s view that that \"Benson doesn\'t want to win\" is false. My view is that there is no evidence one way or the other.

in case you missed it
 

Something that doesn\'t make sense does not mean it\'s false. PI doesn\'t make sense to me any more but it is true and used in math, so since it doesn\'t make sense TO ME, does that then follow this it is false by your reasoning? What about the pythagorean theorem? Since I am out of school it no longer makes sense to me, does that then by your reasoning make it false? I think we would agree neither is false. SO that is why we are disagreeing cause NOONE can be proved right or wrong on this issue, yet you are attempting to assign a level of falsehood to an attempt to explain someone else\'s psyche with NO real evidence besides supposition.

in case you missed it
 

Whodi,

I acknowedge your excellent attack on the method; just because it doesn\'t make sense, doesn\'t make it false. I agree.

My point was this: if you read Scotty\'s post, where I quoted him anyway, he seems to be saying that the reason one can know that Benson wants to win because the converse of that doesn\'t make sense.

Perhaps I\'m overstating his case, but it seems to me the only way you could know x from not x, is if x is false.

I don\'t care either way. My view is that you can\'t know. I was merely trying to understand Scotty\'s view. Apologies again for saying that such and such a belief was silly.

However, this method is a good method: if not not x, then x. (That follows by double negation) That is what I thought he was saying. If it is not the case that Benson doesn\'t want to win, then he wants to win. Scotty\'s claim that \"it doesn\'t make sense\" lead me to believe that the thought \"it is not the case that Benson doesn\'t want to win.\"

I just don\'t see how else you could go from \"it doesn\'t make sense that x\" to \"x\" otherwise? So, either Scotty is employing a bad method (which I didn\'t assume) or he think that \"Benson doesn\'t want to win\" is false.

in case you missed it
 

I guess you have to ask Scotty, but here\'s what he said. He felt Benson is all about money, and if some winning happens along the way, fine. That to me does not sound like he believes Benson is all about winning. IF as an NFL owner winning is not his first priority, then I can\'t see him as having a desire to win. IMO, that should be the first priority in any owner\'s mind. IF money is your FIRST priority, as Scotty said, whether it somes with winning or losing is irrelevant, as long as money comes in , correct? So if you agree with Scotty\'s point Benson is money first, which I agree with as well, then you agree all he cares about is money whether we WIN OR LOSE, correct? And if that\'s all he cares about, he has no prob leaving 11 mil on the table in free agency right? He has no problem putting up zero dollars for a stadium he hasn\'t paid for or getting a new one? Zero dollars for the new facilities he wants? All he cares about is in the end they will make him money. To me, that denotes someone who doesn\'t care about winning, as long as the money is coming in.

in case you missed it
 

OK, I\'ll weigh in now and clear all this up for you two. ;)

Like I said, I see Benson as putting money before winning. That is true, but it doesn\'t necessarily follow that he doesn\'t value winning to some degree.

He wants to win with the smallest investment possible. (The payroll deal really hurts this argument). I think the best resolution of that is that sometimes - especially in years where you sign FAs and resign your players, your payout is going to be higher. Thus, in order to operate some years he may spend more than he would like beause that is the end result of guaranteed money in the form of signing bonuses.

Basically, before we can answer whether Benson wants to win or not, we have to define winning. Is it just one game or is it a winning season record? Benson obviously wants to win on a one-game level. So, does he have acommittment to winning season long?

When I said something to the effect of the reason one can know that Benson wants to win because the converse of that doesn\'t make sense, I was more referring to an individual game sense. As far as his commitment to season long winning, it\'s hard to say especially with what I learned tday about payroll in \'03.

I still maintain that Benson refuses to bring in more FAs than we do is because he wants to skim from the top of the cap. By this I mean, if the cap us $80 mil, then he spends $75 mil in cap space and keeps $5 mil for himself. (Remember, this is money paid to him from the NFL because of revenue sharing.) If that is the case, then he might be causing them team not to win as many games.

Is that clear as mud? Thought so.

in case you missed it
 

Thanks for clearing that up Scotty. ;)

in case you missed it
 

Scotty, we were having a perfectly fine debate as to what you meant WITHOUT you. So please delete that post and we can continue. ;)

in case you missed it
 

:xxrotflmao: :fanclub:
:yourock:
Yeah, I really should learn to keep my nose out of my own business!

:thumbsup:

in case you missed it
 

Exactly. :rollinglaugh:

in case you missed it
 

:bananajoy: