Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15
Mea culpa, I read your post differently than you apparently meant it.
*I'd love to have him back.
But that doesn't seem to stand with your "also prepare for life after Kelce" approach. Because he doesn't do anything along those lines, does he?*
*Deal with the now.*
I took that as one or the other.
Fundamentally, we're 95% aligned.
I just don't believe in paying $13-15M for Hollywood when we've proven we can get 80+% of that production for 25 cents on the dollar.
|
The yield curve ain't a straight line. Never has been.
You always pay more at the top of that curve than you do in the middle. Each marginal 'win' over a representative JAG comes at a greater cost.
Now the question is really - is this a Fant vs. Irv Smith situation? Where Fant may be 20% better than Smith, but he's still not a needle-mover so who cares? Or is this a situation where you're going from Hardman - a gadget guy and speed threat to Brown, a legitimate Z?
Because if it's the latter, those are ALWAYS going to cost a hell of a lot more. Even if, in a vacuum, they're not that far apart.
Look at it this way. They say that once you make it past like $50K in combined household income, you have to effectively double your income to have a noticeable impact on your standard of living every step beyond that.
NFL players are similar. To use that example, going from Jag to Jag+ should be going from $50K to $100K. And from JAG+ to solid bench contributor is $100K to $200K. And from bench contributor to fringe starter, $200K to 400K. And from Fringe starter to regular starter, 400K to 800K. And so on and so forth until you're making MASSIVE jumps to get from 'very good player' to 'all pro'.
If Brown is, say, 30% better than Hardman - he's not going to only cost 30% more. Because the lines are so tight between these guys that that 30% is probably 3 to 4 'tiers' over. So you're doubling 3, maybe 4 times.
It's just how those marginal returns work when you have something of a bell-shaped player market.