Jump to content

Everything Free Agency (Rumors, notes and news)


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, BZski said:

Let me rephrase. They dont have the picks it will require to trade for Darius Slay. Unless they do not want to pick until rd 4 this year? It would take their 2nd and 3rd rd pick to get Slay.

And since we don't need to trade for him this is a perfect scenario for both our teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, candyman93 said:

If my tax money is going towards a stadium, yes I am.

It's been economically proven that cities paying for stadiums via tax dollars just never makes back the investment. As much as I love football, it's not a smart decision for a city to do. It's not really worth it in the long run, but a lot of local fans would be furious if their team left. Owners convincing cities to pay for their stadiums is nothing short of rent-seeking (making cash without adding any real economic value).

Edited by Hukos
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hukos said:

It's been economically proven that cities paying for stadiums via tax dollars just never makes back the investment. As much as I love football, it's not a smart decision for a city to do. It's not really worth it in the long run, but a lot of local fans would be furious if their team left. Owners convincing cities to pay for their stadiums is nothing short of rent-seeking (making cash without adding any real economic value).

It wasn't economically proven. It was theorized. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It wasn't economically proven. It was theorized. 

This forum probably isn't the best place to post econ articles but:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

backs me up on this.

Virtually everything in economics is built upon modeling, so if their model says it's not worth it, I'm inclined to believe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hukos said:

This forum probably isn't the best place to post econ articles but:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

backs me up on this.

Virtually everything in economics is built upon modeling, so if their model says it's not worth it, I'm inclined to believe them.

Might be worth it in a city like Miami or New York, given how big those cities are for tourism and attracting huge events, regularly. As for a taxpayer funded stadium in a city like Minneapolis, it probably won’t be worth it. MN likely doesn’t get another super bowl now that the new stadium feel is gone, and they’ll be hard pressed to get other big events 3-4 months out of the year. Ultimately, it’s a sham for tax payers.

Edited by vikingsrule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hukos said:

This forum probably isn't the best place to post econ articles but:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/

backs me up on this.

Virtually everything in economics is built upon modeling, so if their model says it's not worth it, I'm inclined to believe them.

Building a stadium is good for the local economy only if a stadium is the most productive way to make capital investments and use its workers.

An utterly ridiculous sentence.

Finally, though a new stadium increases attendance, ticket revenues are shared in both baseball and football, so that part of the revenue gain goes to other cities. On balance, these factors are largely offsetting, leaving little or no net local export gain to a community.

This sentence just shows an absurd lack of knowledge regarding how revenue sharing works. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

An utterly ridiculous sentence.

Is it? If you can use tax-payer funded capital for better investments (better public transportation, more efficient housing, public services, etc.) wouldn't that be preferable to a stadium? A city government's responsibility is to provide the basic framework for a higher quality of living for all of it's residents and based on what I've seen, stadiums are antithetical to that notion.
 

3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This sentence just shows an absurd lack of knowledge regarding how revenue sharing works. 

I could be misinformed on this, but I thought revenue sharing was only a thing among teams, and not cities? I've looked up online how the NFL's revenue sharing works and I've found nothing to suggest that cities themselves get a piece of the pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hukos said:

Is it? If you can use tax-payer funded capital for better investments (better public transportation, more efficient housing, public services, etc.) wouldn't that be preferable to a stadium? A city government's responsibility is to provide the basic framework for a higher quality of living for all of it's residents and based on what I've seen, stadiums are antithetical to that notion.
 

I could be misinformed on this, but I thought revenue sharing was only a thing among teams, and not cities? I've looked up online how the NFL's revenue sharing works and I've found nothing to suggest that cities themselves get a piece of the pie.

Which is a big part of the problem. Getting consensus on a 200 million dollar infrastructure project is often extremely difficult. More often that not, it isn't a situation where the city spends it on a stadium or it spends it on something else. Most of the time, just nothing gets built.

 

Revenue sharing is only a thing among teams, but it's still revenue for the team. Revenue that gets taxed. And sports teams are one of the few large corporations that people haven't figured out how to incorporate in Delaware yet. 

 

The value from the city's perspective is that it brings people in to the downtown area and other more heavily taxed districts. Most of the people attending games are suburbanites. Pulling people from the suburbs and even other urban areas is a financial gain for the metropolitan area, especially when it comes to beer/liquor sales. 

The theory that disposable income isn't a net positive because people spend their disposable income anyway, completely ignores the fact that cities and suburbs are in competition for that disposable income. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2020 at 11:39 AM, Danger said:

It's not a 1% salary increase. They get 1% more of the total revenue with or without the 17th game. The 17th game gets them an additional half percent of the revenue share.

If the current revenue adds an extra week to it, you're looking at. (17/16)*(48.5/47) Which is about a 9.6% increase in players' total funds. However the 17/16 may not be 100% accurate due to the playoffs skewing it a bit, so I think realistically you'd be looking at 8% more total for the players. Additionally, they're proposing minimums go up significantly and each year.

Overall assuming those numbers, we'd see the Salary cap jump from ~201M to ~220M

Also, it feels pertinent to remind folks (as I harped on the last time it was CBA renegotiating time), the swing votes within the NFLPA don't lie with the big name/money players.  The average Joe Union player is well aware that he has a ~4 year window to earn in the league before the the level to which he's expendable/replaceable exceeds his value relative to the league minimum for his years of service that he's pulling down as a depth/ST player.  There are more of them making up the NFLPA membership than there are JJ Watt's and Tom Brady's.  And principally what's the by-far most important thing to them in the bargaining process is that % of total revenue because it nets them more earnings for their limited window of return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Also, it feels pertinent to remind folks (as I harped on the last time it was CBA renegotiating time), the swing votes within the NFLPA don't lie with the big name/money players.  The average Joe Union player is well aware that he has a ~4 year window to earn in the league before the the level to which he's expendable/replaceable exceeds his value relative to the league minimum for his years of service that he's pulling down as a depth/ST player.  There are more of them making up the NFLPA membership than there are JJ Watt's and Tom Brady's.  And principally what's the by-far most important thing to them in the bargaining process is that % of total revenue because it nets them more earnings for their limited window of return.

If they're smart, the points of interest will be vested years to receive medical coverage and union benefits once they're out of the league. Getting into those programs for guys is worth more than they see from a revenue increase. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If they're smart, the points of interest will be vested years to receive medical coverage and union benefits once they're out of the league. Getting into those programs for guys is worth more than they see from a revenue increase. 

You realize that they'd have to concede more than just a revenue-percentage increase in order to get that right?  In most every collective bargaining endeavor, management isn't going to concede anything it that isn't evened out in the ledger from the current books - expected or projected future revenue even over the lifetime of the contract doesn't typically factor in unless labor has leverage on management to force that issue.  And, at least in this case, the players/labor more than likely don't; again, it comes down to whether enough of the Average Joe Unionmembers have been ferreting aside a percentage of his earnings enough to afford living in the manner in which they've become accustom to.  Stuff within these professional sports unions - not just union against management but within the hierarchical tiers of the have's and have-not's in the union membership - is cutthroat and everyone looking out for #1.  That's why stuff that would retroactively benefit retired veterans only ever comes along as a PR throw-in, and usually for the PR benefit of management - not enough of the layman union membership are willing to concede from their portion of the pie when what's reciprocated doesn't impact or benefit them directly.

This is why the owners tend to know that they're operating with a deck stacked against the players, because too many of the damn players loaded the deck against themselves by making less-than-wise outside-of-football decisions with their money, and when you're not the sort that has a huge guarantee on his contract or has a stipulation that sees a new bonus on the horizon every new season, that increase in revenue percentage is something they become dependent on almost as a COLA (cost of living adjustment).  That's a discussion for another thread though; no reason to bog down the general free agency thread with it.  It's just a case of the Golden Rule in the NFL: The ol' "he who has the gold makes the rules."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2020 at 8:03 PM, BZski said:

Lions wouldnt take that. The Rams do not even have any picks so dont see this happening unless maybe its a Copper Kupp for Slay swap or maybe Taylor Rapp and a future 2nd rd pick. I just dont see the Rams having the assets to get Slay really.

Yeah your examples are far too much for a 30year old CB. We probably do not have the draft pick assets, but I mentioned previously the option to ability to tag and trade Fowler.

If Frank Clark yielded a 1st and 2nd, Fowler would have a similar return and would be more than enough for Slay. Havenstein at RT would be a younger, cheaper upgrade to Wagner if he returned to 2018 form. And Lions had interest in Malcolm Brown last year.

It really comes down to if they are taking Tua at #3 and rebuilding or if they push all in on Stafford for another year with the additional playoff spot. If they choose the latter, they would like favor proven players over future picks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BStanRamFan said:

Yeah your examples are far too much for a 30year old CB. We probably do not have the draft pick assets, but I mentioned previously the option to ability to tag and trade Fowler.

If Frank Clark yielded a 1st and 2nd, Fowler would have a similar return and would be more than enough for Slay. Havenstein at RT would be a younger, cheaper upgrade to Wagner if he returned to 2018 form. And Lions had interest in Malcolm Brown last year.

It really comes down to if they are taking Tua at #3 and rebuilding or if they push all in on Stafford for another year with the additional playoff spot. If they choose the latter, they would like favor proven players over future picks. 

Lions wouldnt take a guy like Fowler who has character issues and Malcolm Brown is "Just a Guy". Bo Scarbrough played well enough last year that there probably isnt room for him on the roster. 

I can see maybe your 2020 2nd rd pick and a 2021 3rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...