saintswhodi

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]

JKool

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?

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

GumboBC

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...

saintswhodi

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]

JKool

(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.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

saintswhodi

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.

JKool

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.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

saintswhodi

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.

ScottyRo

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.

JKool

Thanks for clearing that up Scotty.