All of these potential signees, but where's the $$$$$$???? - Page 2

arrowheadnation · 02-10-2006, 12:20 AM

I'm just as guilty of it as the next guy, but with all these proposed trades/acquisitions, how the hell are we gonna come up with the money to pay all of them. I thought we were already over the cap for the 2006 season. Is that not true? I just don't see how we can feasibly (or financially) take on TO, Aberham, a DT, etc. Somebody show me the light.

58-4ever · 02-10-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldandslow

Exactly...

BTW - my guess is a strike during the next labor neg. Football players are going to want what bb players have.

My guess is they get it. There is too much money to be lost by the owners if a strike comes.

The Royals, imo, lose money because the Walmart model does not work in baseball. You put a quality product on the field and it will pay for itself.

Hell, even the Twins are managed better than the Royals.

Yeah, but the competive balance is so different when one team (probably the Redskins) can/or will spend 100 million more than the other guys to get a ring.

oldandslow · 02-10-2006, 09:12 AM

How many WS have Yanks won in the new millenium?

A certain dollar level keeps one competitive. After that it is up to managers, players, etc.

The Royals are not willing to match the dollar level.

htismaqe · 02-10-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phxchief

Thanks in large part to Dick Vermeil and his loyalty.

Expect Herm to cut ties with the overpaid trash.

Don't count on it.

These guys were here before Vermeil.

Carl Peterson is the reason they're still here.

jspchief · 02-10-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Don't count on it.

These guys were here before Vermeil.

Carl Peterson is the reason they're still here.

This an area where I think Carl (and Vermeil) play it too safe. In a down FA spending year ('04), we decided to pay a bunch of "we know what we have" guys, instead of taking some chances on either our own young guys, or some other lesser FAs. And I do think Vermeil is partially to blame. Sometimes he's got such a hard-on for veterans that it blinds his ability to evaluate talent.

I can understand retaining a few of those players in '04, simply for continuity reasons, but we kept entirely too many of them, and paid them too much in the process.

htismaqe · 02-10-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

This an area where I think Carl (and Vermeil) play it too safe. In a down FA spending year ('04), we decided to pay a bunch of "we know what we have" guys, instead of taking some chances on either our own young guys, or some other lesser FAs. And I do think Vermeil is partially to blame. Sometimes he's got such a hard-on for veterans that it blinds his ability to evaluate talent.

I can understand retaining a few of those players in '04, simply for continuity reasons, but we kept entirely too many of them, and paid them too much in the process.

Yeah, 2004 was the offseason we "stood pat". If we would have spent the money we tied up in Woods, Wesley, and Hicks on 3 free agents, 2004 would have been alot like 2003 and 2005. We paid those guys WAY too much.

jspchief · 02-10-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Yeah, 2004 was the offseason we "stood pat". If we would have spent the money we tied up in Woods, Wesley, and Hicks on 3 free agents, 2004 would have been alot like 2003 and 2005. We paid those guys WAY too much.

Don't forget Browning and Bartee.

The reality is, in our "stand pat" year, we signed a lot of players. They all just happened to be guys that were on the '03 team. In a way, I can understand the organization trying to keep together a 13-3 team. The problem is, in doing it they failed to address our weaknesses. Then they drafted a fucking "project" DT and an H-back instead of players that could actually contribute.

htismaqe · 02-10-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

Don't forget Browning and Bartee.

The reality is, in our "stand pat" year, we signed a lot of players. They all just happened to be guys that were on the '03 team. In a way, I can understand the organization trying to keep together a 13-3 team. The problem is, in doing it they failed to address our weaknesses. Then they drafted a fucking "project" DT and an H-back instead of players that could actually contribute.

Yep.

The big failure was not who the retained or who they drafted, though.

The BIG failure was the thought process that predicated all of those moves.

They actually thought that 13-3 team was CLOSE. They were wrong.

phxchief · 02-10-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Don't count on it.

These guys were here before Vermeil.

Carl Peterson is the reason they're still here.

Not all.

That's why garbage like McCleon will get cut. He wouldn't have under Vermeil.

**Gonzo** · 02-10-2006, 09:40 AM

I am in full support of cutting people whose last name starts with B.
Bartee
Battle
Bell
BMcleon :-)

BigChiefFan · 02-10-2006, 09:41 AM

So far, Herm Edwards has done a damn good job at evaluating the organization from within and improved the coaching staff, IMO. I like who he has chosen to go to battle with, because of that, I believe he will take a realistic approach at the players on the team as well.

58-4ever · 02-10-2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigChiefFan

So far, Herm Edwards has done a damn good job at evaluating the organization from within and improved the coaching staff, IMO. I like who he has chosen to go to battle with, because of that, I believe he will take a realistic approach at the players on the team as well.

I would like some of what's in your coffee.

**Gonzo** · 02-10-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58-4ever

I would like some of what's in your coffee.

I think Edwards has done a great job so far. But....my standards are low. I used to date Minnie Pearl.

**Gonzo** · 02-10-2006, 09:51 AM

phxchief · 02-10-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo8888

I am in full support of cutting people whose last name starts with B.
Bartee
Battle
Bell
BMcleon :-)

Barber.

02-10-2006, 12:20 AM
arrowheadnation MONTANA #19 Join Date: Mar 2005 Casino cash: $6137357	All of these potential signees, but where's the $$$$$$???? I'm just as guilty of it as the next guy, but with all these proposed trades/acquisitions, how the hell are we gonna come up with the money to pay all of them. I thought we were already over the cap for the 2006 season. Is that not true? I just don't see how we can feasibly (or financially) take on TO, Aberham, a DT, etc. Somebody show me the light.
Posts: 4,223

02-10-2006, 09:12 AM	#17
oldandslow Veteran Join Date: Apr 2004 Casino cash: $5413149	How many WS have Yanks won in the new millenium? A certain dollar level keeps one competitive. After that it is up to managers, players, etc. The Royals are not willing to match the dollar level.
Posts: 4,566

02-10-2006, 09:41 AM	#25
BigChiefFan MVP Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: In the Top 10 Casino cash: $9924205	So far, Herm Edwards has done a damn good job at evaluating the organization from within and improved the coaching staff, IMO. I like who he has chosen to go to battle with, because of that, I believe he will take a realistic approach at the players on the team as well. __________________ A 35 year drought can make you thirsty.
Posts: 15,777