No Wonder the Jags are Losing! (Tampa, Noma: layoffs, buy, salary)

[abvavgjoe]

I looked up NFL team's 2012 salary cap space. Apparently, the Jags have spent the least on salaries in the NFL!


2012 NFL Salaries by Team | Online Sports Marketing Guy

NFL Trade Rumors NFL Cap Space - NFL Trade Rumors


According to one of the sites, the cap is $120,000,000 and the Jaguars only spent $92,000,000! Dead last! Hmmm,...... looks like Khan's priority is making money, not winning.

[fsquid]

it is a business.

[abvavgjoe]

Originally Posted by fsquid

it is a business.

It's a business, but morally doesn't the team ownership owe it to Jaguars fans and all NFL fans to do everything reasonably possible to win? Last in salary out of 32 teams? Come on. What happened to "I'm Shad Khan and I'm ALL IN"?!

[fsquid]

Originally Posted by abvavgjoe

It's a business, but morally doesn't the team ownership owe it to Jaguars fans and all NFL fans to do everything reasonably possible to win? Last in salary out of 32 teams? Come on. What happened to "I'm Shad Khan and I'm ALL IN"?!

They provide an entertainment product that you can either buy or not buy.

[Crane's Rooster]

The LA Clippers during their losing years were actually one of the more profitable franchises in pro sports. Im not saying I agree with this approach but I see why some would take it. Plus whats to say hes not just saving cap space to make a big free agency run.

[GadgetRick]

Originally Posted by abvavgjoe

It's a business, but morally doesn't the team ownership owe it to Jaguars fans and all NFL fans to do everything reasonably possible to win? Last in salary out of 32 teams? Come on. What happened to "I'm Shad Khan and I'm ALL IN"?!

In short no. They owe fans nothing. That is the one thing that's hardest for a fan to understand--the fans care more about winning than the team does.

[Nomad58]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

In short no. They owe fans nothing. That is the one thing that's hardest for a fan to understand--the fans care more about winning than the team does.

I think that's a spectacularly uninformed comment.

Of course, all of the teams care about winning, Jaguars included.

That's why coaches are fired constantly, and quickly, when they don't win. (something the Jags just did)

That's why popular veteran players are routinely cut, once their productivity goes down. (something the Jags do on a regular basis)

That's why every team spends millions on player scouting, and player development, each year.

That's why all teams regularly jockey for position, to be able to draft the top level rookies, even if it means having to pay their larger signing bonus' and salaries.(something the Jags just did, in order to get Justin Blackman)

That's why players scream and yell, and celebrate so loudly, when they do win the Super Bowl.

That's why we routinely see veteran star players sign free agent contracts with teams that they feel will give them a better chance to win.

Yes, the Jags current year salary is low, but that has more to do with the fact that they are in a rebuilding mode, and therefore have released many of the more expensive veteran players, in favor of lower paid unproven rookies, and younger players. In addition, how the larger contracts are structured for the top players, (generally QB's) regarding signing bonuses, and guaranteed money will have a huge impact on overall team salary levels, from year to year.

Check the team salary levels a few years prior, when the Jags still felt that they were in a position to win.
2009-10 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com
Then, you can see that we were middle of the pack in the 2009-10 year.

I think you'd need to take the average salary levels over a 10-12 year span, to really get a feel as to whether some teams were cheap, or not.

Oh wait, I know! Why don't we go out and get Tim Tebow. He'll be able to teach all of our other slackard players how to care, and how to win.

[GadgetRick]

Originally Posted by Nomad58

I think that's a spectacularly uninformed comment.

Of course, all of the teams care about winning, Jaguars included.

That's why coaches are fired constantly, and quickly, when they don't win. (something the Jags just did)

That's why popular veteran players are routinely cut, once their productivity goes down. (something the Jags do on a regular basis)

That's why every team spends millions on player scouting, and player development, each year.

That's why all teams regularly jockey for position, to be able to draft the top level rookies, even if it means having to pay their larger signing bonus' and salaries.(something the Jags just did, in order to get Justin Blackman)

That's why players scream and yell, and celebrate so loudly, when they do win the Super Bowl.

That's why we routinely see veteran star players sign free agent contracts with teams that they feel will give them a better chance to win.

Yes, the Jags current year salary is low, but that has more to do with the fact that they are in a rebuilding mode, and therefore have released many of the more expensive veteran players, in favor of lower paid unproven rookies, and younger players. In addition, how the larger contracts are structured for the top players, (generally QB's) regarding signing bonuses, and guaranteed money will have a huge impact on overall team salary levels, from year to year.

Check the team salary levels a few years prior, when the Jags still felt that they were in a position to win.
2009-10 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com
Then, you can see that we were middle of the pack in the 2009-10 year.

I think you'd need to take the average salary levels over a 10-12 year span, to really get a feel as to whether some teams were cheap, or not.

Oh wait, I know! Why don't we go out and get Tim Tebow. He'll be able to teach all of our other slackard players how to care, and how to win.

:::sigh::: You just have to keep going back to Tebow. Not sure what he ever did to you.

And, again, you're WRONG. If a team makes money, they really don't care whether they win or lose.

Yes, winning can (and usually does) bring more fans which equals more revenue. However, in some cases, winning does not bring more fans. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They've had a stretch of winning for the last 5+ years. Yet, they still can't sell out a playoff game (unless it's against the Yankees). So winning does not always cure everything.

Now, I don't know the financials of the Rays as MLB teams are privately-owned and they do not make their financials public to my knowledge. I'm also not trying to say they're making money. Just pointing out the fact that winning doesn't always bring more fans.

At the end of the day, my whole point is, a professional sports team is a business. If the business makes money, the owners are happy, if it does not, they are unhappy. This is all regardless of the team's record. Do they want to win? Absolutely. However, their main goal is to make money. If they win, it's a bonus. Winning is not life or death for these owners like it is for so many fans out there.

[Nomad58]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

:::sigh::: You just have to keep going back to Tebow. Not sure what he ever did to you.

And, again, you're WRONG. If a team makes money, they really don't care whether they win or lose.

Yes, winning can (and usually does) bring more fans which equals more revenue. However, in some cases, winning does not bring more fans. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They've had a stretch of winning for the last 5+ years. Yet, they still can't sell out a playoff game (unless it's against the Yankees). So winning does not always cure everything.

Now, I don't know the financials of the Rays as MLB teams are privately-owned and they do not make their financials public to my knowledge. I'm also not trying to say they're making money. Just pointing out the fact that winning doesn't always bring more fans.

At the end of the day, my whole point is, a professional sports team is a business. If the business makes money, the owners are happy, if it does not, they are unhappy. This is all regardless of the team's record. Do they want to win? Absolutely. However, their main goal is to make money. If they win, it's a bonus. Winning is not life or death for these owners like it is for so many fans out there.

Your posts remind of the old 'In living color' skits, where the two guys would use big words while talking to each other, in a feeble attempt to try to sound smarter than they really were.

The main event is winning. Winning = money. More attendance, more licensing fees, bigger TV royalties. If the Rays didn't care about winning, they wouldn't have just signed Evan Longoria to a 100 million dollar extension. But I guess this is just one more example of you knowing more about baseball than the people that have been playing, managing, and evaluating it for their entire lives. Maybe you should give the Rays owner a call, and tell him you're ready to do him the favor of becoming his new GM. I'm sure he's been waiting his entire life to finally find a part time photographer like you, who can show him what every other baseball expert has been doing wrong for their whole career.

Any team in any league could immediately increase their profits short term, by letting all higher priced players go, and by not spending any money on scouting, development, etc. But, that would be obviously foolish to anyone with any business sense, as any short term gains would quickly be wiped out by decreased revenues, in the long term.

As for the Rays 5+ year win stretch not equating to increased attendance, check again.

2000, 18,008
2001, 16,026
2002, 13,158
2003, 13,070
2004, 16,139
2005, 14,052
2006, 16,901
2007, 17,148
2008, 22,259
2009, 23,147
2010, 23,025
2011, 18,879
2012, 19,255

Attendance jumped 30% in 2008, during the first year of their winning stretch, and the past 5 years have been the best 5 years of attendance in their history, other than their first year. Clearly, winning = increased attendance. If you're going to attempt to make an argument, you can't just make sh*t up, and hope that no one knows the actual facts.



Tampa Bay Rays, team revenue



Tampa Bay Rays, estimated team value.


These days, a MLB's team profit has more to do with the TV or cable deal that they have signed, and their stadium agreements, (what's the rent, how revenues like, parking, naming rights, consessions, and advertising are split) then it does with player salaries. Those things (Cable and stadium rights) aren't directly tied to winning, but winning obviously has an indirect impact on them, as TV ratings go up when a team is winning, which increases the amount a team can ask for the cable rights. And obviously, all stadium revenues go up with the increased attendance associated with winning.

Your complete lack of ability to understand something as fundamental as the importance of winning, leads me to believe that you've never actually set foot on an athletic field in your life. Anyone that has, would know better than to make the argument you make. But, that's ok. Nothing wrong with being in the band.

[GadgetRick]

Right but you're the only one trying to use big words here.

As usual, you miss the point of what I'm saying.

Your example of numbers from the Rays just proves my point. They went from barely drawing anyone to hardly drawing anyone--even after winning regularly. It's easy to increase your attendance by 30% when nobody was coming before. And, guess what, those numbers dropped in the end--even though they're still a team which is winning and makes (or almost makes) the playoffs each year.

Oh, yes, they signed Longoria but let's look at all of the high-priced players they've let go over the years. One player doesn't make up for selling off your talent year in and year out. They did just trade away one of the best pitchers the franchise has ever had...because they knew they'd have to pay him. Yes, they got some (potential) talent in return but they won't realize that talent until sometime in the future (if ever).

It's about making money. Wins are a bonus. Teams aren't owned by egotistical rich boys like they used to be. Now most are owned (at least in part) by a larger group or corporation who's only interest in investing in a team is making money off the team. When you're talking about billions of dollars (in some cases) and hundreds of millions of dollars in most cases, it's all about making money.

A by product of winning usually is making money which is why you're mistaken in winning being everything. It is also the reason teams do fire coaches cut players, etc.--because winning usually equates to more money. But make no mistake, if they can make money without spending a bunch of money to win, they will.