mcnabb7542
Resident Fake Asian!
It could be worse, Jerry could have hired Chip.
Oh that would have been spectacular!
It could be worse, Jerry could have hired Chip.
call it whatever sport.
my first sentence to your reply..."absolutely no problem with the percentage"
let me slow it down for ya.
I give a rats ass if the cap explodes and 25 guys makes 10 plus mil. I think the product is lacking in depth through training and advocated for expanded rosters and more game day participates.
yep...you said a whole lot about nothing. Perhaps you'll have more input to the point next time. Chin Up.
Yes, but Luckily Jerry is smarter than LurieOh that would have been spectacular!
Yes, but Luckily Jerry is smarter than Lurie
The good news is that Snyder is dumber than both of themWe both know that would be the stupidest fight on the SportsHoopla for both of us to engage so let's just drink...
The good news is that Snyder is dumber than both of them
Yeah the 9ers and Cowboys from the pre-salary cap era had trouble winning.
Yes, but Luckily stephen is smarter than Lurie
You still need the right combination of players.
And there are no guarantees.
I never understood why some people think the cap is so awful. Everyone has an even playing field, that's a lot better than baseball where some teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can spend over $200 million, and other teams spend a quarter of that or less.Where did I say that a non salary cap Seahawks would win the Lombardi every year?
The Yankees don't win the championship every year, but I think it's fair to say that the playing field is less even in a non salary cap world.
You dream about it, because you think the Cowboys would benefit from it. All I'm saying is that there's some other players out there.
The other reason that a cap is good, is that it makes teams like GB much more viable.
If nothing else, it's better for fans.I never understood why some people think the cap is so awful. Everyone has an even playing field, that's a lot better than baseball where some teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can spend over $200 million, and other teams spend a quarter of that or less.
I never understood why some people think the cap is so awful. Everyone has an even playing field, that's a lot better than baseball where some teams like the Yankees and Dodgers can spend over $200 million, and other teams spend a quarter of that or less.
So show me a real world example of how that would work. Because i've seen real world examples of where teams have overpaid for ONE or TWO stars, and put themselves in a temporary bind... (see, Haynesworth, Albert), but I've never seen anything remotely like you posit above.
The salary cap saves teams from their own stupidity. That's its function. Some simple math, some projection against the cap rising, and someone who can walk and chew gum at the same time can make sure the team has enough money to pay rookies and special teamers. Instead, most teams have guys who they identify as their 'capologist,' who knows the structure inside and out.
If teams are going to expand rosters, or hell even change the rules on how guys can be kept on the practice squad, then the league will COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN how that will work. That's how it works.
To again, use a real world example, when the CFL dropped 2 pre-season games, and expanded their season to 18 regular season games, then the player's association demanded that there be additional monies (and roster spots) be made available. The two sides hammered that out, and viola - 18 games.
So here's a challenge for ya. Drop the passive aggressive, YUR SO STUPIDZ nonsense, and explain to me why the cap going up is going to hamstring teams from figuring out how to pay the back end of their rosters. Or why extra money floating around would be a detriment to collective bargaining, or why the Player's Association wouldn't want a piece of it by agreeing to add extra bodies.
So far all I've seen from you is vague assertions that the sky is falling. What I'm asking you chicken little, is why we should believe you?
Where did someone say you did???Where did I say that a non salary cap Seahawks would win the Lombardi every year?
The Yankees don't win the championship every year, but I think it's fair to say that the playing field is less even in a non salary cap world.
You dream about it, because you think the Cowboys would benefit from it. All I'm saying is that there's some other players out there.
The other reason that a cap is good, is that it makes teams like GB much more viable.
LOL....read it slowly, sport (your word)
"Who are you to tell them how to do it?"
and you spin to me being the passive aggressive one here? funny
lol....shit talker pointing a finger.
not a word about percentages this time?
Collective bargaining between the players association and the owners should kinda be understood if talking about roster expansion.
Where did someone say you did???
Hank said:And there are no guarantees.
jarntt said:I do think the Cowboys would definitely be one of the teams benefiting from it because I think Jerry would be like a kid in a candy store. But, I like the cap in general even if I disagree with aspects of it
Where did I say that a non salary cap Seahawks would win the Lombardi every year?
The Yankees don't win the championship every year, but I think it's fair to say that the playing field is less even in a non salary cap world.
You dream about it, because you think the Cowboys would benefit from it. All I'm saying is that there's some other players out there.
The other reason that a cap is good, is that it makes teams like GB much more viable.