Alan Ball was offered more money by Chicago

[Nick_81]

He had a chance to make almost as much with us, but he took the guaranteed money with Chicago.

Oh well. Better talent will be available in the draft.

Yep, can't blame him.  Money talks, especially the guaranteed kind.

[0DegreesKelvin]

2 mill salary and bonus with $500k that he could or could not actually see, or 3 mill that does not include incentives he has to reach.

That is at least $500k more, but likely $1,000,000 more. I would leave my current job in a heartbeat for %33 percent more money, and I like my job.

Oh I would too. Because I'm broke.

It's like should I take a raise to work at the shitty store that will be out of business in 5 years, or should I work for a little less at a store that gives me better future opportunities? See Mike Mitchell.

Panthers > Bears

[LUUUUUKE]

It's like Charles Johnson said. "Our front 7 gets DBs paid, ask Mike Mitchell, and Cap"

Ball took more money up front, instead of playing for us for a year and getting that Mike Mitchell type pay day. Can't fault the guy either way, because nothing is promised tomorrow.

He made a decision, and at the end of the day he chose Chi-Town. Oh well, life goes on.

[top dawg]

I am sure there were people saying that, just like there are others who constantly say that someone is being overpaid just because Gettleman couldn't or wouldn't pay for someone.

I don't think that either position is a smart take.

This is the pros. These are men. Most of them earn their keep. Don't hate on the players for trying to maximize their earnings potential.

[WUnderhill]

Not surprised at all.

[WUnderhill]

It's like Charles Johnson said. "Our front 7 gets DBs paid, ask Mike Mitchell, and Cap"

Ball took more money up front, instead of playing for us for a year and getting that Mike Mitchell type pay day. Can't fault the guy either way, because nothing is promised tomorrow.

He made a decision, and at the end of the day he chose Chi-Town. Oh well, life goes on.

 

It didn't get Antoine Cason payed. Or Drayton Florence. Or (insert name here).

[Mr. Scot]

I am sure there were people saying that, just like there are others who constantly say that someone is being overpaid just because Gettleman couldn't or wouldn't pay for someone.

I don't think that either position is a smart take.

This is the pros. These are men. Most of them earn their keep. Don't hate on the players for trying to maximize their earnings potential.

Guys that took free agent gigs for more than Gettleman was willing to pay have wound up cut, being asked to restructure / take a reduced role, etc.

That strikes me as evidence that he knows a thing or two about setting value.

[rhyslloyd]

Hope you like losing, douche.

[top dawg]

Guys that took free agent gigs for more than Gettleman was willing to pay have wound up cut, being asked to restructure / take a reduced role, etc.

That strikes me as evidence that he knows a thing or two about setting value.

Gettleman himself basically admitted that he has been dealing at the dollar store. It's not like we're dealing with top FAs here. Some of these guys were washed up, old or whatever. I am not going to automatically assume that Ball is a scrub just because he is coming off of injury. We're only talking a million more. With Ball's quality of play in the past, it is pretty easy to argue that he was worth more than Carolina's offer.

As for Ginn and Mitchell, Ginn was paid to be a return

man and WR3 who rightfully lost his job to younger talent with more upside, and Mitchell was never starting material in the first place. I know that I was crying a river for either both of them, and thought they were grossly overpaid, relative to their true value. Mike Mitchell's contract was ludicrous.

Now one guy as it turns out who did not get overpaid was Brandon Lafell. The champion receiver proved worth every penny that he earned, that we weren't willing to pay him. I mean, is this an example of Gettleman screwing up? Probably not.

I predict that we are going to offer a couple of people that we have signed this year to a little better deal next year, just like we did with Dickson. That's just smart management when you look at our entire situation. But I wouldn't have even extended Dickson at the value Gman put on him. But, again it's not like we are dealing with big ticket items here, so no one is ultimately going to care one way or another.

So looking at his whole body of work, I am not going to put a feather in Gman's cap nor slap his knuckles with a ruler. It's easier to "get things right" when dealing at the bottom of the barrel and don't have a lot of money. Things get a little tougher when you step up in class.

[top dawg]

Hell, Stevie Wonder could see that Mike Mitchell got overpaid.

[top dawg]

One more thing.  

 

I think that it's a little easier to determine a player's worth---if nothing else, his value to you---when that player has played within your system.

 

Ultimately some players may be worth more or less, the same, or never should have been offered a contract in the first place.

[panthers55]

Gettleman himself basically admitted that he has been dealing at the dollar store. It's not like we're dealing with top FAs here. Some of these guys were washed up, old or whatever. I am not going to automatically assume that Ball is a scrub just because he is coming off of injury. We're only talking a million more. With Ball's quality of play in the past, it is pretty easy to argue that he was worth more than Carolina's offer.

As for Ginn and Mitchell, Ginn was paid to be a return

man and WR3 who rightfully lost his job to younger talent with more upside, and Mitchell was never starting material in the first place. I know that I was crying a river for either both of them, and thought they were grossly overpaid, relative to their true value. Mike Mitchell's contract was ludicrous.

Now one guy as it turns out who did not get overpaid was Brandon Lafell. The champion receiver proved worth every penny that he earned, that we weren't willing to pay him. I mean, is this an example of Gettleman screwing up? Probably not.

I predict that we are going to offer a couple of people that we have signed this year to a little better deal next year, just like we did with Dickson. That's just smart management when you look at our entire situation. But I wouldn't have even extended Dickson at the value Gman put on him. But, again it's not like we are dealing with big ticket items here, so no one is ultimately going to care one way or another.

So looking at his whole body of work, I am not going to put a feather in Gman's cap nor slap his knuckles with a ruler. It's easier to "get things right" when dealing at the bottom of the barrel and don't have a lot of money. Things get a little tougher when you step up in class.

I would disagree that getting things right is easier at the bottom.  In fact I think it is just the opposite.  If you have plenty of money to throw around it is easier because anyone you pick will likely be talented since they are in demand due to their performance. Plus you have plenty of money so if you miss on a pick or two you bring in someone else.  On the other hand if you have only a little money to spend and realize that anyone you pick will likely have some issues, you have to do more due diligence and separate the wheat from the chaff. You have to hit on your picks because you don't likely have as much good depth and don't have more money to throw at the problem.   

[top dawg]

I would disagree that getting things right is easier at the bottom.  In fact I think it is just the opposite.  If you have plenty of money to throw around it is easier because anyone you pick will likely be talented since they are in demand due to their performance. Plus you have plenty of money so if you miss on a pick or two you bring in someone else.  On the other hand if you have only a little money to spend and realize that anyone you pick will likely have some issues, you have to do more due diligence and separate the wheat from the chaff. You have to hit on your picks because you don't likely have as much good depth and don't have more money to throw at the problem.   

 

We're talking about the economics here, P55. 

 

People who are signed to cheap, one year deals, on contracts that should be structured in a way that mitigates losses if you have to send them packing are not players that usually get "paid".  So, ultimately, no one is going to rake you over the coals for them.

[CITILIMITS]

,