• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The 2023 Offseason Thread

Davesta said:
Steve Bisciotti need to stop being cheap. Escrow that shit homie! Or start seeing empty seats
Click to expand...
I disagree, but at the same time I’m curious why my instinct is to defend Bisciotti… He is a billionaire and has tons of money, why would I defend a billionaire? But also Bisciotti represents the Ravens as a whole and Lamar is just one part of that big picture.

Idk random thoughts as I become indifferent to the situation
 
BoredMarine13 said:
I disagree, but at the same time I’m curious why my instinct is to defend Bisciotti… He is a billionaire and has tons of money, why would I defend a billionaire? But also Bisciotti represents the Ravens as a whole and Lamar is just one part of that big picture.

Idk random thoughts as I become indifferent to the situation
Click to expand...
defend DeCosta lol
 
BoredMarine13 said:
I disagree, but at the same time I’m curious why my instinct is to defend Bisciotti… He is a billionaire and has tons of money, why would I defend a billionaire? But also Bisciotti represents the Ravens as a whole and Lamar is just one part of that big picture.

Idk random thoughts as I become indifferent to the situation
Click to expand...
Its simple. The less an individual player gets paid, the more $ there is to theoretically spend on other players to make the team better.
Ain't a single one of these guys living in poverty unless they choose to. I'm not favoring Billionaires over Millionaires because they both ridiculously rich.
I'm favoring what outcome leads to the team I cheer for having the best shot to win in the long term.
I, like many, don't really know what that outcome is, nor can I predict it. But I know for certain that if I were a business owner, giving an employee every penny of what they ask for is probably never going to be what's in the best interest of the company long term.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Its simple. The less an individual player gets paid, the more $ there is to theoretically spend on other players to make the team better.
Ain't a single one of these guys living in poverty unless they choose to. I'm not favoring Billionaires over Millionaires because they both ridiculously rich.
I'm favoring what outcome leads to the team I cheer for having the best shot to win in the long term.
I, like many, don't really know what that outcome is, nor can I predict it. But I know for certain that if I were a business owner, giving an employee every penny of what they ask for is probably never going to be what's in the best interest of the company long term.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why this basic thought is lost on so many. Limiting any player's salary has zero to do with anyone being cheap, and everything to do with following a business plan to make the team the best it can be.
 
Tank said:
I'm not sure why this basic thought is lost on so many. Limiting any player's salary has zero to do with anyone being cheap, and everything to do with following a business plan to make the team the best it can be.
Click to expand...
Yeah, cheap is when your stadium sucks or something like that, not paying players. There's a salary cap in the NFL
 
Tank said:
I'm not sure why this basic thought is lost on so many. Limiting any player's salary has zero to do with anyone being cheap, and everything to do with following a business plan to make the team the best it can be.
Click to expand...
Right. Would point out though that the "business plan" for an NFL team includes making lots and lots and lots of profits. As well it should, since they're for-profit businesses.
So if business leadership decides that maybe bringing in that extra player for $4M a year who's not really that good but can help the team a little isn't the best thing for the business, so be it. Maybe they spend that $4M elsewhere, or maybe they don't spend it at all and the Owner makes more profits. That's up to him, since he's the Owner.

#1 goal for NFL owners isn't to win Lombardi's. It's to make a shit ton of $. Second priority is winning Lombardi's.
Owners are taking the exact same "greedy" position that the players take. There's no difference. Fans think there's a differences, because they think its OK for a millionaire to be greedy, but not OK for a billionaire to be greedy. It doesn't matter.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Right. Would point out though that the "business plan" for an NFL team includes making lots and lots and lots of profits. As well it should, since they're for-profit businesses.
So if business leadership decides that maybe bringing in that extra player for $4M a year who's not really that good but can help the team a little isn't the best thing for the business, so be it. Maybe they spend that $4M elsewhere, or maybe they don't spend it at all and the Owner makes more profits. That's up to him, since he's the Owner.

#1 goal for NFL owners isn't to win Lombardi's. It's to make a shit ton of $. Second priority is winning Lombardi's.
Owners are taking the exact same "greedy" position that the players take. There's no difference. Fans think there's a differences, because they think its OK for a millionaire to be greedy, but not OK for a billionaire to be greedy. It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
it depends on the owner.
 
Thezone27 said:
it depends on the owner.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Some just want to win more than others, but 100% of them care about profits first.

Do you know any Owners who are willing to take losses in any given season? There's plenty of ways teams could spend more Cash on players in any given year to win more. In fact some teams do it more than others. They're just never willing to spend more than what they make, despite the fact they can afford it.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
No it doesn't. Some just want to win more than others, but 100% of them care about profits first.

Do you know any Owners who are willing to take losses in any given season? There's plenty of ways teams could spend more Cash on players in any given year to win more. In fact some teams do it more than others. They're just never willing to spend more than what they make, despite the fact they can afford it.
Click to expand...
You're right that they want money, but they also know that winning gives them money. If it didn't, they would never try to win!
 
rmcjacket23 said:
No it doesn't. Some just want to win more than others, but 100% of them care about profits first.

Do you know any Owners who are willing to take losses in any given season? There's plenty of ways teams could spend more Cash on players in any given year to win more. In fact some teams do it more than others. They're just never willing to spend more than what they make, despite the fact they can afford it.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day though theres a cap limit. What has been proven is that lamar wins us games which leads to revenue being made that potentially increases profits for biscotti. Us not paying lamar and spending money elsewhere doesnt at all guarantee our team being better..i mean its suppose to but it doesnt always work out like that. Every situation is different though but i feel like we are in a good spot to pay lamar with all the young guys we have whose contract wont up till next 3+yrs along with the guys we already thats currently under contract.i dnt really care about greed.
 
Deebo813 said:
At the end of the day though theres a cap limit. What has been proven is that lamar wins us games which leads to revenue being made that potentially increases profits for biscotti. Us not paying lamar and spending money elsewhere doesnt at all guarantee our team being better..i mean its suppose to but it doesnt always work out like that. Every situation is different though but i feel like we are in a good spot to pay lamar with all the young guys we have whose contract wont up till next 3+yrs along with the guys we already thats currently under contract.i dnt really care about greed.
Click to expand...
Right, but the cap is fictitious. It has literally nothing to do with the profitability of the business, nor is it a legal like benchmark for anything. The IRS doesn't give a fuck about the salary cap, nor would any investor in the business.

Nothing is guaranteed. Us paying Lamar guarantees us nothing. Us not paying Lamar guarantees us nothing. It's all going to come down whether management thinks they'll get a quality ROI on investing in a player like Lamar. Fans can think they will, but fans have no basis for that thinking, because they don't know the operations of the business, how much $ they make in revenue, how much cost they have, etc. Fans are completely ignorant when it comes to the financial side of a football team. All they see is a fictitious salary cap system that is easily manipulated.

I'm also not entirely sold that winning more games by an individual team leads to more revenue. It may lead to more league-wide revenue, which is then shared by other teams, but as long as a team is selling out their stadium every week, its capped at the amount of $ it can make on ticket sales. Merch sales will increase, but they also plateau quickly as new players join the league.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Right. Would point out though that the "business plan" for an NFL team includes making lots and lots and lots of profits. As well it should, since they're for-profit businesses.
So if business leadership decides that maybe bringing in that extra player for $4M a year who's not really that good but can help the team a little isn't the best thing for the business, so be it. Maybe they spend that $4M elsewhere, or maybe they don't spend it at all and the Owner makes more profits. That's up to him, since he's the Owner.

#1 goal for NFL owners isn't to win Lombardi's. It's to make a shit ton of $. Second priority is winning Lombardi's.
Owners are taking the exact same "greedy" position that the players take. There's no difference. Fans think there's a differences, because they think its OK for a millionaire to be greedy, but not OK for a billionaire to be greedy. It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Right. Making the team the best it can be = maximum profits
 
Deebo813 said:
At the end of the day though theres a cap limit. What has been proven is that lamar wins us games which leads to revenue being made that potentially increases profits for biscotti. Us not paying lamar and spending money elsewhere doesnt at all guarantee our team being better..i mean its suppose to but it doesnt always work out like that. Every situation is different though but i feel like we are in a good spot to pay lamar with all the young guys we have whose contract wont up till next 3+yrs along with the guys we already thats currently under contract.i dnt really care about greed.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is that the guys making the decisions on where and how to distribute the cap are way smarter about football than you or me. Gotta trust that they know what they are doing. And if you don't, just bitch about it on a forum, or go find another team to root for. lol
 
Deebo813 said:
At the end of the day though theres a cap limit. What has been proven is that lamar wins us games which leads to revenue being made that potentially increases profits for biscotti. Us not paying lamar and spending money elsewhere doesnt at all guarantee our team being better..i mean its suppose to but it doesnt always work out like that. Every situation is different though but i feel like we are in a good spot to pay lamar with all the young guys we have whose contract wont up till next 3+yrs along with the guys we already thats currently under contract.i dnt really care about greed.
Click to expand...
I also think a potential sticking point is that while Lamar has proven he can win games, he hasn't proven he can consistently perform well in tournament games. And add in he's missed the last quarter of the past 2 seasons, there may be some uncertainty there.
 
rmcjacket23 said:
Right, but the cap is fictitious. It has literally nothing to do with the profitability of the business, nor is it a legal like benchmark for anything. The IRS doesn't give a fuck about the salary cap, nor would any investor in the business.

Nothing is guaranteed. Us paying Lamar guarantees us nothing. Us not paying Lamar guarantees us nothing. It's all going to come down whether management thinks they'll get a quality ROI on investing in a player like Lamar. Fans can think they will, but fans have no basis for that thinking, because they don't know the operations of the business, how much $ they make in revenue, how much cost they have, etc. Fans are completely ignorant when it comes to the financial side of a football team. All they see is a fictitious salary cap system that is easily manipulated.

I'm also not entirely sold that winning more games by an individual team leads to more revenue. It may lead to more league-wide revenue, which is then shared by other teams, but as long as a team is selling out their stadium every week, its capped at the amount of $ it can make on ticket sales. Merch sales will increase, but they also plateau quickly as new players join the league.
Click to expand...
Us paying lamar will 100% keep us competitive and thats pretty much guaranteed.. i mean cmon rmc even a blind man can see that. People that hate the ravens can even tell you that. Ofcourse we will get a quality ROI with lamar lol look at our primetime games these last few yrs, look at lamar jersey sells, look how much he is talked about, idk how nfl businesses work cause the shit is rigged but we should be able to look at how much ravens do in revenue on a yearly basis and its likely been in an upward trend since weve gotten lamar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top