madlithuanian Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Looks like there's some merit to the earlier post... http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear05.article Team thrift foils Angelo, Kirwan says BEARS | NFL Radio analyst claims free-agent pursuit curtailed by spending limits Recommend (7) Comments March 5, 2009 BY BRAD BIGGS bbiggs@suntimes.com Free agency is a week old today, and so far the Bears have only versatile offensive lineman Frank Omiyale -- with one career start -- to show for it. They're not the only team that has done more window shopping than buying, a product of a diluted free-agent pool and a weakened economy that has some organizations tightening their belts. Pat Kirwan, a longtime NFL coach and executive who now works for Sirius NFL Radio, suggested Tuesday on the satellite station's ''Movin' the Chains'' show that general manager Jerry Angelo isn't all to blame for what some have perceived as the Bears' inactivity. ''This is not exactly the most generous spending team in the history of football,'' Kirwan said. ''So he's got restrictions and restraints, and he's not going to [say], 'Hey, I'm trying to sign this guy, but my owners won't let me.' So he is a little bit bound to his draft picks, where you've got to exhaust every opportunity to make that guy work before you surrender and try something else. ''He's got too many issues where he can't expose what he wants to do. And I'm not going to cite the one that we had a conversation with him about, but he was absolutely sick to his stomach that something might be going on that he couldn't control because he didn't have the cash to do it.'' Reached Wednesday, Angelo declined to comment on Kirwan's remarks. A team source said financial restrictions from ownership have not prevented the Bears from making any moves this offseason. President Ted Phillips, discussing the club's ticket-price freeze last month, said Angelo's football budget would not be affected. The Omiyale deal is worth $11.5 million and maxes out at $14 million. The Bears, who barely ranked in the top half of the league last season in committed cash, hope to re-sign running back Kevin Jones and offensive lineman John St. Clair. They spent more than any team last year on extensions for their players, but they haven't spread the wealth outside Halas Hall. Angelo discussed economics and the reasoning for passing on free-agent wide receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh on the team's Web site Wednesday. ''Would we have entertained him?'' he said. ''Yes, but we wanted to see what his marketplace was. In this case, we felt like [the $40 million contract with $15 million guaranteed that Houshmandzadeh received from Seattle] was an exorbitant amount of money. Remember, he was a No.2 in Cincinnati. ''He's going to be 32 in '09, and the price that you're paying for that receiver we felt was very high. You have to look at economics when you look at players. Who doesn't want Houshmandzadeh? But you have to look at the economics: What are the implications to the cap going forward, and what does that prevent us from doing in other areas within our team or free agency?'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Sorry, but I have to ask how this offers merit to the previous post. All this article does is essentially cut and paste the comments previously made by Kirwan. Nothing new is added. There are no new sources or different quotes or comments. There is little difference between this article and Mad's post from yesterday. Both simply show what Kirwan said. Simply because the Suntimes ran the story doesn't offer any legitimacy to it. If Briggs had sources that supported the story, that would be one thing, but all Briggs does is offer Kirwan's comments to a larger public. Looks like there's some merit to the earlier post... http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear05.article Team thrift foils Angelo, Kirwan says BEARS | NFL Radio analyst claims free-agent pursuit curtailed by spending limits Recommend (7) Comments March 5, 2009 BY BRAD BIGGS bbiggs@suntimes.com Free agency is a week old today, and so far the Bears have only versatile offensive lineman Frank Omiyale -- with one career start -- to show for it. They're not the only team that has done more window shopping than buying, a product of a diluted free-agent pool and a weakened economy that has some organizations tightening their belts. Pat Kirwan, a longtime NFL coach and executive who now works for Sirius NFL Radio, suggested Tuesday on the satellite station's ''Movin' the Chains'' show that general manager Jerry Angelo isn't all to blame for what some have perceived as the Bears' inactivity. ''This is not exactly the most generous spending team in the history of football,'' Kirwan said. ''So he's got restrictions and restraints, and he's not going to [say], 'Hey, I'm trying to sign this guy, but my owners won't let me.' So he is a little bit bound to his draft picks, where you've got to exhaust every opportunity to make that guy work before you surrender and try something else. ''He's got too many issues where he can't expose what he wants to do. And I'm not going to cite the one that we had a conversation with him about, but he was absolutely sick to his stomach that something might be going on that he couldn't control because he didn't have the cash to do it.'' Reached Wednesday, Angelo declined to comment on Kirwan's remarks. A team source said financial restrictions from ownership have not prevented the Bears from making any moves this offseason. President Ted Phillips, discussing the club's ticket-price freeze last month, said Angelo's football budget would not be affected. The Omiyale deal is worth $11.5 million and maxes out at $14 million. The Bears, who barely ranked in the top half of the league last season in committed cash, hope to re-sign running back Kevin Jones and offensive lineman John St. Clair. They spent more than any team last year on extensions for their players, but they haven't spread the wealth outside Halas Hall. Angelo discussed economics and the reasoning for passing on free-agent wide receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh on the team's Web site Wednesday. ''Would we have entertained him?'' he said. ''Yes, but we wanted to see what his marketplace was. In this case, we felt like [the $40 million contract with $15 million guaranteed that Houshmandzadeh received from Seattle] was an exorbitant amount of money. Remember, he was a No.2 in Cincinnati. ''He's going to be 32 in '09, and the price that you're paying for that receiver we felt was very high. You have to look at economics when you look at players. Who doesn't want Houshmandzadeh? But you have to look at the economics: What are the implications to the cap going forward, and what does that prevent us from doing in other areas within our team or free agency?'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Sorry, but I have to ask how this offers merit to the previous post. All this article does is essentially cut and paste the comments previously made by Kirwan. Nothing new is added. There are no new sources or different quotes or comments. There is little difference between this article and Mad's post from yesterday. Both simply show what Kirwan said. Simply because the Suntimes ran the story doesn't offer any legitimacy to it. If Briggs had sources that supported the story, that would be one thing, but all Briggs does is offer Kirwan's comments to a larger public. Personally, I think this is BS. The Bears have spent up to the cap for years. You can call them cheap when it comes to coaching hirings, but they have spent the money on players. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Simply because the Suntimes ran the story doesn't offer any legitimacy to it. If Briggs had sources that supported the story, that would be one thing, but all Briggs does is offer Kirwan's comments to a larger public. Are you saying you don't think the story is legitimate? Pat Kirwan is in the "inner circle" of people GM's will talk to. What I found odd is that Kirwan said as much as he did. Angelo will probably blacklist him for that. Just like I said in your, "Angelo sabatage post", it must be higher than Angelo. Guess what, this is close to confirmation as you are ever going to see. To Conners post: The Bears are indeed cheep, and they may rightfully have to be. The 10 mil they ratholed last year kept us out of the playoffs. They will rathole more this year as well. And you will probably never hear of them having cap issues(which is a good thing). Untill we see their P&L statement, we not know if they can afford to spend or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 This offers merit becasue it is evidence that what that poster wrote on the Bears blog from the earlier post was indeed true. You're right in terms of new info...nothing new really is added other than better formatting of the story. Apparently it's news for the Sun Times, but not for the Trib. I find that interesting as well... And nothing on PFT. Just interesting... Sorry, but I have to ask how this offers merit to the previous post. All this article does is essentially cut and paste the comments previously made by Kirwan. Nothing new is added. There are no new sources or different quotes or comments. There is little difference between this article and Mad's post from yesterday. Both simply show what Kirwan said. Simply because the Suntimes ran the story doesn't offer any legitimacy to it. If Briggs had sources that supported the story, that would be one thing, but all Briggs does is offer Kirwan's comments to a larger public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Well, soon there may not be a cap! I would say it's never dull with the Bears...but sadly, it is rather dull. To Conners post: The Bears are indeed cheep, and they may rightfully have to be. The 10 mil they ratholed last year kept us out of the playoffs. They will rathole more this year as well. And you will probably never hear of them having cap issues(which is a good thing). Untill we see their P&L statement, we not know if they can afford to spend or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Are you saying you don't think the story is legitimate? Pat Kirwan is in the "inner circle" of people GM's will talk to. What I found odd is that Kirwan said as much as he did. Angelo will probably blacklist him for that. Just like I said in your, "Angelo sabatage post", it must be higher than Angelo. Guess what, this is close to confirmation as you are ever going to see. To Conners post: The Bears are indeed cheep, and they may rightfully have to be. The 10 mil they ratholed last year kept us out of the playoffs. They will rathole more this year as well. And you will probably never hear of them having cap issues(which is a good thing). Untill we see their P&L statement, we not know if they can afford to spend or not. 185 million allocated for contracts last yr is not cheap IMHO. PS - please check the speling on my name going forward. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Are you saying you don't think the story is legitimate? Pat Kirwan is in the "inner circle" of people GM's will talk to. What I found odd is that Kirwan said as much as he did. Angelo will probably blacklist him for that. Just like I said in your, "Angelo sabatage post", it must be higher than Angelo. Guess what, this is close to confirmation as you are ever going to see. Actually, yes I do question the original interview. This is different. My point here is another writer re-writing the story does not substantiate the original one bit. It only gets the message out to a larger group. As to the original, I do not listen to Sirus, and while I do know who Kirwan is, I am not sure he is such an "inner circle" guy that GMs reveal their deepest secrets. If true, this story is simply huge. I just do not think many realize how huge. Yes, it is big because owners are closing the purse to the GM, but that honestly is not such an original story. It happens to many teams, particularly in today's economy. But a GM telling the media that he wants to sign FAs, but his hands are tied because the owners won't approve of such moves, that to me is simply a huge story. Such is often enough rumored in Chicago and other cities, but rarely do you hear of a GM coming out and saying such. To me, this would be near career suicide for a GM. Not only would he find himself in hot water w/ his current employer, but how many other owners want to hire a guy who called out his previous bosses like this? This is how coaches find themselves coaching the college ranks and how GMs find themselves in broadcasting. That is partially why I find the story a tad disbelievable. I don't believe Angelo would tell a media guy something like this, and if he did and it were true, I think we would already be hearing the story all over the place and see Halas circling the wagons. To Conners post: The Bears are indeed cheep, and they may rightfully have to be. The 10 mil they ratholed last year kept us out of the playoffs. They will rathole more this year as well. And you will probably never hear of them having cap issues(which is a good thing). Untill we see their P&L statement, we not know if they can afford to spend or not. Sorry, but just because we didn't want Berrian doesn't mean we are cheap. For all the minor dollar arguments you want to throw out there, I can point to the record dollar amounts our team has in reality been spending. Angelo comes from a philosophy that you build your team through the draft and retain those players. That is what he learned in TB. It is a difference in philosophy rather than simply being cheap. IMHO, all you have to do is look at the coin we have shelled out each year, regardless whether it was to FAs or keeping our own in place. If we let Briggs walk, but then spent big on a FA, would we then be free spenders, because we spent big in FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Give PFT time. They rely on others to feed them info as much as anything else. On Sirus, it was less heard and thus PFT likely never got wind of the story. Now that it is in the Sun times, I would bet you we see something about it on PFT. My point is simply this though, and it happens so dang often. One person says something, which may or may not be true, but it is then repeated by bigger sources and suddenly becomes fact. The info didn't change, just the outlet. This offers merit becasue it is evidence that what that poster wrote on the Bears blog from the earlier post was indeed true. You're right in terms of new info...nothing new really is added other than better formatting of the story. Apparently it's news for the Sun Times, but not for the Trib. I find that interesting as well... And nothing on PFT. Just interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 ''He's got too many issues where he can't expose what he wants to do. And I'm not going to cite the one that we had a conversation with him about, but he was absolutely sick to his stomach that something might be going on that he couldn't control because he didn't have the cash to do it.'' I want to know who the freak they were talking about so I have an idea on the position they were targeting. I got a feeling it was getting into the Jay Cutler talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 PS - please check the speling on my name going forward. Peace Please tell me you are offended because I abbreviated your name when replying to your post,,, It was not my intention. BTW - you misspelled spelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 and while I do know who Kirwan is, I am not sure he is such an "inner circle" guy that GMs reveal their deepest secrets. If true, this story is simply huge. I just do not think many realize how huge. Yes, it is big because owners are closing the purse to the GM, but that honestly is not such an original story. It happens to many teams, particularly in today's economy. But a GM telling the media that he wants to sign FAs, but his hands are tied because the owners won't approve of such moves, that to me is simply a huge story. Such is often enough rumored in Chicago and other cities, but rarely do you hear of a GM coming out and saying such. Kirwan is former cap guy and coach. Definately inner circle, definately reliable. I was actually shocked he was this loose lipped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Please tell me you are offended because I abbreviated your name when replying to your post,,, It was not my intention. BTW - you misspelled spelling. You spelled it with an 'e' instead of an 'o'. Kind of a personal thing - not attacking. That's why I asked nicely. Thanks. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 You spelled it with an 'e' instead of an 'o'. Kind of a personal thing - not attacking. That's why I asked nicely. Thanks. Peace oops. Sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 oops. Sorry No problem - thanks. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hold on. Do you have any idea how many former "cap guy", coaches, GMs and players there are out there? Are we really supposed to take everything any of them say as fact? Hey, I am not saying it isn't possible, but at the same time, I do question it. If he simply said THIS YEAR the owners were cash strapped and were somewhat tying Angelo's hands, I might be a bit more willing to believe it. I expected as much going in. I am not 100% sure if this is still true, but not long ago, the bears were the only team in the NFL who's ownership sole source of income was the team. That means, if the team wasn't doing great, the owners weren't doing great. By all reports, the economy is hitting the teams, and thus I frankly expected us to be a little tighter than normal. However, Kirwan didn't say it was specific to this year, but said this has been the situation over the years, but I would argue the teams actions simply defy his words. The team has shelled out an incredible amount of money re-signing their own. Further, they have given out big bonuses to FAs. And while it didn't happen, we offered Kearse as much as $20m. That simply does not sound like a GM w/ his hands tied behind his back by ownership. Not even close. Kirwan talked about how it is more important for Angelo to hit in his drafts because he isn't allowed to spend money, but that just has not been the reality. Finally, when reading the article, to me it just came off as an Angelo apologist. Angelo is excused for his lack of interest in FA because of ownership. Angelo has "some" misses (understatement alert) in the draft, but they are highlighted because of his inability to spend money. He just seems to be providing excuses for Angelo. Meanwhile, I would point this out. He learned in the TB system, which may get their share of FAs, but relies FAR MORE HEARVILY on (a) the draft and ( retaining their own players. I may not always like it, but Angelo style in Chicago is VERY similar to the style of McKay in TB. Thus, I question placing the blame on ownership when Angelo is going along the same path he learned under and has always said he believes in. Kirwan is former cap guy and coach. Definately inner circle, definately reliable. I was actually shocked he was this loose lipped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 I don't know. Cutler, at least right now, doesn't cost anything great. You are going to have to eventually offer him a new deal, but not today. IMHO, if you believe the story, I would think Warner fits. Some time back, Angelo said, "Its all about the QB". He sure gave everyone the impression he was intending to make a major play at QB. There really want not much out. Warner was known to be an upcoming FA. Warner was a player Angelo showed interest in a few years ago. But to get Warner, we would likely have to offer up something like 2yr/26-28m, as we would have to outbid Az by a fair bit, or we would need to attach a 3rd year to the deal. Point is, IMHO Warner is who (if you believe Kirwan) would best fit the comments against what we know about the team. If that is the case, I am glad ownership held Angelo back. I want to know who the freak they were talking about so I have an idea on the position they were targeting. I got a feeling it was getting into the Jay Cutler talks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 However, Kirwan didn't say it was specific to this year, but said this has been the situation over the years, but I would argue the teams actions simply defy his words. The team has shelled out an incredible amount of money re-signing their own. Further, they have given out big bonuses to FAs. And while it didn't happen, we offered Kearse as much as $20m. That simply does not sound like a GM w/ his hands tied behind his back by ownership. Not even close. Kirwan talked about how it is more important for Angelo to hit in his drafts because he isn't allowed to spend money, but that just has not been the reality. as stated by me numerous times in the past... spending the money allotted by the nfl's salary cap to teams to pay player salary is not an indication that a team is or isn't cheap. the nfl pays for every penny of every salary and even puts a limit on how little they can spend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Frankly, I can't believe it has taken you so long to jump in on this discussion We have talked about this many times in the past, and simply have a disconnect in our conversations. My point has always been about the bonus money. I have no idea what the actual number a team gets each year is, but a team that is aggressive can spend much more by including greater portions in bonus dollars. It is in those bonus dollars you usually see the difference between frugal and free spending teams. For so many years, the Bears refused to dole out the bonus dollars, and the ownership claimed they simply could not afford to hand over so much up front money. At that time, we were a well known cheap team, and it was well deserved. But about 10 years ago, while Phillips took over, we began to spend more and more bonus dollars, and the cheap reputations lessened, though at a small rate. Then we got our new stadium/deal, and the teams income went up. And it was at this point the team really started to enter the picture for the big ticket players who commanded big ticket bonus dollars. You and I have never seen eye-to-eye on this, but it is in these bonus dollars I point to as what differentiates cheap owners from the rest. It is here where an owner like Danny Snyder gets the reputation as a free spender, while others like Az and Cle (until recently) were considered so cheap. For the record, another team that has always been considered cheap in Pitt. They rarely are in the mix for big ticket FAs, and often have allowed their better/best players to walk in FA rather than re-sign them. But they have also been among the best in terms of drafting and devloping players. If there was ever the anti-Washington, it has to be Pitt. They have proven you don't have to spend w/ the bigs in order to win. as stated by me numerous times in the past... spending the money allotted by the nfl's salary cap to teams to pay player salary is not an indication that a team is or isn't cheap. the nfl pays for every penny of every salary and even puts a limit on how little they can spend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Frankly, I can't believe it has taken you so long to jump in on this discussion We have talked about this many times in the past, and simply have a disconnect in our conversations. My point has always been about the bonus money. I have no idea what the actual number a team gets each year is, but a team that is aggressive can spend much more by including greater portions in bonus dollars. It is in those bonus dollars you usually see the difference between frugal and free spending teams. For so many years, the Bears refused to dole out the bonus dollars, and the ownership claimed they simply could not afford to hand over so much up front money. At that time, we were a well known cheap team, and it was well deserved. But about 10 years ago, while Phillips took over, we began to spend more and more bonus dollars, and the cheap reputations lessened, though at a small rate. Then we got our new stadium/deal, and the teams income went up. And it was at this point the team really started to enter the picture for the big ticket players who commanded big ticket bonus dollars. You and I have never seen eye-to-eye on this, but it is in these bonus dollars I point to as what differentiates cheap owners from the rest. It is here where an owner like Danny Snyder gets the reputation as a free spender, while others like Az and Cle (until recently) were considered so cheap. For the record, another team that has always been considered cheap in Pitt. They rarely are in the mix for big ticket FAs, and often have allowed their better/best players to walk in FA rather than re-sign them. But they have also been among the best in terms of drafting and devloping players. If there was ever the anti-Washington, it has to be Pitt. They have proven you don't have to spend w/ the bigs in order to win. Yeah, but this is about people getting all upset that JA isn't spending the bucks in FA. I agree that JA is a draft and keep guy, so it is to be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 The last post was more specific to Lucky, as he and I have a long standing discussion/debate over our team's finances. Yeah, but this is about people getting all upset that JA isn't spending the bucks in FA. I agree that JA is a draft and keep guy, so it is to be expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hold on. Do you have any idea how many former "cap guy", coaches, GMs and players there are out there? Are we really supposed to take everything any of them say as fact? Puullleeeze! Just because I have grown to trust a guy to have "inside knowledge" AND he has creditials, doesn't mean I trust all the blow holes out there. I also love how you threw that generalization out there while excentuating the "cap guy" to devalue my post. Coach and Director of Player Personnel have a stronger ring, don't you think? Do your homework on the man. Maybe you will change your stance a little. It's not like he's Floyd Reese. LOL However, Kirwan didn't say it was specific to this year, but said this has been the situation over the years, but I would argue the teams actions simply defy his words. The team has shelled out an incredible amount of money re-signing their own. Further, they have given out big bonuses to FAs. And while it didn't happen, we offered Kearse as much as $20m. That simply does not sound like a GM w/ his hands tied behind his back by ownership. Not even close. Kirwan talked about how it is more important for Angelo to hit in his drafts because he isn't allowed to spend money, but that just has not been the reality. McFly! All teams have to spend a minumum percent of money. The Bears happen to be a cash cow for the McCaskeys. I'll throw a generalization out to you. I am willing to bet they profit 100% more than they throw out in bonus's. It's not like they are Bidwell or Brown. They sell out, have a huge market, fanbase and merchandizing. They are running the franchise to Harvard business models. Instead of "what do we need to do to win", it's "how we get the best return on our investment". I'm not suggesting we go out and spend like drunken sailors. Too many opportunities have passsed due to Jerry waiting to see how the market plays out. This is going to be another year of us bitching about what could have been. I wonder who'll be on the podium the most... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 Understand something. I am NOT agreeing w/ Angelo's way. But here is where I disagree. Some believe Angelo has his hands tied by a cheap ownership, and that is why we don't sign some players, or why we let Berrian walk. I don't see it that way. I think it is far more simply about Angelo's philosophy, which you can trace back to TB and use as an example. Angelo was w/ TB for many years, right? He learned under McKay. In that model, you do not build your team through FA. You build your team through the draft, and you spend money to retain the players you develop. You use FA to add depth and take some plunges on players that get you over a hump, but you do not build your team through FA. I understand this logic, but believe there is a large area between the way Wash does things and the way we do things. I think we can continue to build through the draft (though better drafts would help) but simply also feel we can do a better job of adding through FA. Also, you talk about Angelo waiting for the market to play out and set prices, but again, that is how Angelo learned to do it, and how he has always done it. I simply disagree it is about being cheap and more a matter of it being his philosophy. He sets a price on a player, and if that player's market goes higher, he passes rather than adjusting his price/value on the player to the current market. I disagree, but simply view it as Angelo's way. Allow me to give an example, all be it not a direct one. Here in Dallas, we have the well known owner Jerry Jones. I do not think many would call him cheap, and yet in numerous areas, he could easily be called such. He is usually the team's GM. If that were the case here, our owners would be said to be too cheap to hire a GM. He usually has a very low paid coaching staff, and has often said he believes it is all about the players and not the coaches. He usually signs college coaches or assistants, as do we, but when we do it, our owners are cheap. Who calls Jerry cheap. Even at a few positions on the team, Jerry has been very cheap. Jerry has never been big on kickers, punters or long snappers, and the team usually has some of the lowest paid in the business at these positions. He simply refuses to spend money at these positions. Again, if that were done in Chicago, he would be called cheap, but in Dallas, that is simply considered jerry's philosophy. That's the thing. I think our fans are quick to always say our owners are being cheap, even though many other teams not considered cheap do the same things. however, due to our history, our owners just can't get away from the rep, regardless how much they do actually pay out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.