Some Fiscal Facts
by axthelm on Dec 19, 2009 5:08 PM CST
36 comments
1. All 32 NFL teams split all TV revenue equally. It doesn’t matter who plays on Prime Time games. It doesn’t matter if you are in NY or Chicago (large TV markets) or in KC, GB, or Pittsburgh (small TV markets).
All TV revenue is split evenly amongst the teams. Supposedly this TV money is enough to cover the salary cap. That means, that before one ticket (or one hotdog, beer, jersey or parking pass) is sold, all NFL teams have already made enough money to cover their largest cost (player salaries).
2. Attendance revenue is split 60-40. That means that (after some home team expenses are deducted) the home team takes 60% of the gate while the visiting team takes 40%.
Not all stadiums are the same size. And most (but not all) games sell out. Still, there are a ton of tickets bought and paid for each Sunday in the NFL. No worries there.
3. Appreciation. Year after year, almost all NFL teams rise (significantly) in value.
Let’s look at an extreme example. Jerry Jones paid 140 million for the Cowboys in 1989.
They are now worth 1.6 BILLION. That’s not a bad investment in twenty years, now is it?
The McCaskey’s inherited the Chicago Bears (meaning they paid NOTHING for the team). The Bears are now worth close to a BILLION.
Yes, I’m sure they have had some inheritance tax issues and other things to deal with , but still……
Are you f’ing kidding me.
We’re talking about a BILLION dollars here!
4. In the world of sports (and in the world of business - your Microsofts and Googles notwithstanding) there may be no better deal than owning an NFL team. Period.
Owning an NFL team means you own a 'recession-proof' cash cow. That's what it means. If anyone tries to spin that differently tell them this: "If it's NOT that way, why not sell the team?" (They'll be lining up around the block to buy YOUR team)!
Virtually the only way to lose money in the NFL as an owner is to literally gamble it away (as ex-Philadelphia Eagle owner Leonard Tose once did).
5. For the Bears to NOT fire Lovie Smith and bring in a replacement at the end of this season can only mean one of two things:
1. These people (the McCaskey’s) are completely delusional. Somehow they have to then think that Lovie Smith has head coaching skills that few others have in NFL circles. Seriously. (No SANE person would even suggest a line of BS like that).
(So excuse me while I laugh my ASS off over that one).
2. They (the McCaskey's) literally are the cheapest owners in sports and what’s more, are making an ASS out of Bear fans world wide.
It can only be #1 or #2 here (and yes, the ‘scatological’ reference here is fully intended by yours truly)!
No single, sane person can make even ONE compelling argument for which to keep Lovie Smith and his Merry Band of Misfits into 2010 and beyond.
Not ONE!
(Hell, I'd have more respect for Lovie if he went all 'Charlie Weis' at this point. Weeks before ND canned him, Weis said that "If they were going to fire him, he really couldn't disagree, based on crazy things like records and such)!
This is pathetic. It truly is.
5 recs |
36 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Awesome!
Can you please CC the McCaskeys for me?
by BigAppleBearsFan on Dec 19, 2009 6:41 PM CST reply actions
My BIGGEST complaint with the McCaskey's
is this:
In 1985, the Chicago Bears dominated the NFL like no team before or since. So says guys like John Madden (and a million other people).
That team was built of and by FOOTBALL people (guys like George Halas, Jim Finks, Jerry Vanisi, Mike Ditka, Buddy Ryan, etc . . . ).
After the death of Papa Bear in 1982, a YALE (as in Ivy School) snot-nosed kid by the name of Michael McCaskey took over . . .
and then proceeded to show the entire universe that he (Mike McCaskey) was SMARTER than those old-fogey football guys (like George Halas, Jim Finks, Jerry Vanisi, Mike Ditka, Buddy Ryan, etc . . )
Old Mikey was gonna do it HIS way (LOL) and the results (sadly) speak for themselves (over 15 seasons of mediocre football, with a few seasons of BAD football and a couple of Good football).
Sorry. That’s not nearly good enough. Maybe in Tampa Bay or in Cincinnati, but not in Chicago.
Helpful Hint: If you are part of the most DOMINANT team in NFL history, the best course of action (going forward) is to try and REPEAT that success.
Not (as in the case of Mikey and his family) to run AWAY from it.
Exhibit A: Why is one of the greatest Bears of ALL time, and a MAJOR part of that 1985 team (Mike Singletary), the head coach of the HATED 49ers?
Exhibit B: Why are the three head coaches hired after Mike Ditka NOTHING like Iron Mike?
What a joke the McCaskey’s are.
Unfortunately (Bear fans), in life a few things are true:
You can pick/choose your friends. Your lovers. Your employers.
But you CANNOT pick/choose your family or who owns YOUR professional sports teams.
And we are stuck with the almost the almost total incompetance of the McCaskey’s.
Sorry.
by axthelm on Dec 19, 2009 7:09 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
good stuff
i totally agree. the bears are cheap. looking at the 2008 payroll, take out the phony $10MM bonus to marcus hamilton and the bears are about 22nd in payroll… in line with the bengals.
the other day i sat behind michael mccaskey on the plane….in coach! right then i knew there was no way in hell we were getting a new coach.
Flying coach
That’s funny.
Mike McCaskey was the single biggest mistake in recent Bear history.
To me, the head coach and QB are (usually) the two most important members of an NFL team.
After winning the Super Bowl in 1985, Jim McMahon wrote a book whereby he blasted Mike McCaskey, saying (correctly) that Mikey “doesn’t have any qualifications to operate the Bears except for his last name.”
(McMahon also wrote that McCaskey walked around like he won the Super Bowl, not the players and coaches. Also, that the Bears were too cheap to have an indoor practice facility for winter practices. The University of Illinois could afford to have one, but the Bears can’t?, McMahon wrote).
Ditka does the same now, saying that he was “fired by a man (McCaskey) who had no business being in the position he was in.”
And that’s essentially it. The head coach and QB of the greatest Bears team ever are/were in total agreement about Mikey.
Much like Matt Millen had no business being a GM in Detroit (even though he was an excellent player and broadcaster) so too with Mike McCaskey, who had no business running the Bears except for his family connection.
Family connections
When a team is owned by a family, the family connection qualification is the only one that counts …. you think his mother is going to ‘fire’ her son ?
by Irish Bears Fan on Dec 21, 2009 10:22 PM CST up reply actions
A couple questions.
1 > what was your source, and where did you get your numbers?
2 > what was the appreciation of team in more recent years? I.E. 2006 – 2009. 2006 to 2008, and 2006 to 2007 are the ones i would like.
As far as purchase price and net worth
Jones paid 70 million for the Cowboys and another 70 million for Texas stadium.
As far as the current worth of both teams those numbers (1.6 Billion/almost a Billion) this link to Forbes has the Cowboys at 1.5 Billion and the Bears at 984 Million.
http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/13/nfl-team-valuations-biz-07nfl_cz_kb_mo_cs_0913nfl_land.html
Dan Snyder paid a then record 800 million when he bought the Redskins a decade ago His team is now worth almost twice as much at 1.5 billion.
Not a bad investment for old Danny boy there.
I wouldn’t know about recent appreciation.
This is an almost overlooked factor in sports. When owners cry ‘poor mouth’ as it relates to not wanting to pay players more, they usually only talk about current revenue, forgetting about the yearly million dollar + spike in the appreciation of their teams.
The players then have to remind them of this fact.
I take no sides here. To me, they are all overpaid and make too much money.
Why are you using 2007 figures?
The Bears are not worth 984 million; they are worth 1.1 billion.
Here’s 2009 Bears Financial info
Here’s a slide show ranking NFL team values
"Why does Jay Cutler look so bad running these awful plays behind an incompetent offensive line?" - VeryFakeAlDavis
Whatever.
The business/money side of football bores me to death.
The fact of the matter is that unlike a guy like Dan Snyder (who ponied up 800 large) the McCaskeys essentially paid nothing for their team.
984 million. 1.1 Billion. There’s no person on the face of the earth who’s ever gonna convince me that the Bears can’t swallow some contratcs (like Lovie’s and his staff) if they really wanted to win.
And that’s the problem. They don’t really want to win.
I’m not saying they want to lose. They don’t. Nobody does. But they are unable or unwilling to pay the price it takes to win.
As I said in my post no sane person would conclude that Lovie Smith is the best person to guide this team going forward.
And the tax payer picks up the bill for the new stadium ...
…. for a private business. That’s corruption.
by Irish Bears Fan on Dec 21, 2009 10:23 PM CST up reply actions
i love this post
it is the most truthfull post i have read .it nails the blame to the perputrater ie mccaskey to all the failings of the bears since 1985.why cant virginia his mother see this and take this toy off him and put it in the hands of someone who will take this franchise back to where it belongs.
There's no question that owning the Bears is a cash cow
But that doesn’t change the fact that firing Lovie Smith would cost the McCaskeys $5.5 millon. And people can say things like “oh, they’re so rich, what’s another $5.5 million to them?” Well the simple answer to that it’s still $5.5 million. It’s still their money, and I don’t think it’s fair to call them cheap for not wanting to spend that money to help improve a team that has no chance of contending next year.
Would any of you like to spend $5.5 million if it meant we’d get a new coach? Because if that’s the case, please, by all means, knock on Virginia McCaskey’s door and tell her that you’d give her $5.5 million if she fired Lovie. I’m sure she’d accept offer. But unless you’re willing to do that, calling McCaskey cheap for being unwilling to do that is simply unfair.
a good business cuts their losses and moves on
idiots worry about salaries.
Yeah good businesses ignore salaries... right.
Actually good businesses way the benefit of a move against the cost of a move and decide if it’s worth it.
The benefit of hiring new coaches would be being 7-9 instead of 5-11 next year. And that’s the best case scenario. The cost would be the salaries of the new coaches. If it was me, I don’t think that’s worth it.
i'm on a loan approval team for one of the major banks...
if a board of directors kept a lousy management team to save on salaries i would nix the deal outright. no further discussion necessary. in fact, the sales guys wouldn’t even bother to submit the deal.
Apples and Oranges my friend
And if you’re saying you don’t consider the old management team’s salaries at all in a decision to fire them, I think you’re doing a pretty shitty job.
Oh wait, you work for one of the major banks, which means you are doing a pretty shitty job. Thanks for the recession, jackass.
by Poloplaya14 on Dec 20, 2009 11:25 PM CST up reply actions
It's not apples and oranges.
It’s the same no matter what business you are in. It’s about whether you are willing to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gain. You consider the current management team’s salaries, but you weigh that over the long term.
Putting a quality product on the football field consistently will earn you much more money in the long-term. If the Bears are a winning, playoff football team, they earn the McCaskeys way more than the amount they pay eating Lovie’s and JA’s contract. Period.
But doing so restricts your current cash-flow. No matter what the Bears are worth, the McCaskeys get their money from whatever cash is coming in. They won’t see a dime of that 1.1B unless they sell the team. Which means that in order to put the money down to invest in a better product, they have to let go of their spending money. I’d love to see the bear’s balance or CF statement. We’d know if they have been putting money away wisely into some liquid investments that they can use toward a new coach, or if they are milking the organization dry.
Rich people have bills, too. Maybe Mike values putting 22Million (estimated amount of installing a new staff) somewhere else more than putting it into his business. I’m not feeling sorry for them, though.
Another thing the McCaskeys are probably thinking about that we haven’t been, is the risk of hiring a new coaching staff. Say they eat Lovie’s salary, fire everyone and start over again. They put down a huge chunk of change to do so. Then, they find out that the new guy they hired sucks also. Whoops! Now they have an awful team, a new staff on the payroll for 3 years, and they are 22million poorer.
This is true, to a degree.
However, you have to look at sunk costs. If you’ve already spent the money, you’ve already spent the money. No amount of handwringing about it is going to bring the money back.
And that’s the classic problem with teams—GM’s in particular—they won’t look at it this way. Baseball is a great example of this. It’s why an overpaid left fielder who got a monster deal keeps being trotted out, though his defensive skills are average at best and he’s batting .190 for two or three weeks. I mean, you spent the money on him, so he has to play, right? And you gave him that money cuz he might get the home run, right?
Realistically, yes, they’re going to consider the money they’re committed to paying when they make their choice—but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
I want and/or need followers. http://www.twitter.com/kdoggers
We're not talking about sunk costs, here.
Yes, Lovie Smith is already paid for, but the cost of hiring a new coach is not eating his contract, it’s the salary of the new coach. So basically, we’re paying Lovie $5.5 million next year regardless. We can either keep Lovie for free or hire a new coach for $x million. Since we’re not gonna contend next year anyways, why should the McCaskeys throw money down the drain?
Swallowing coaching contracts is almost the RULE in the NFL
and not the exception.
Ralph Wilson just did it (fire Dick Jauron with years left on his contract) with the Buffalo Bills.
Randy Lerner of the Browns is now paying three people (Romeo Crennel, Phil Savage and George Kokinis) and is trying to lure Mike Holmgren with a monster contract to run the team (which almost certainly require him to then eat Eric Mangini’s contract).
That’s life in the NFL and all sports as far as coaching/management contracts.
Simply put, unlike the players, who have a series of one year contracts, the head coaches are always given at least a three year contract with the team. This gives the coach some much needed security to uproot his family and start over with a new team, a team that is usually struggling and will usually take a few years to turn around.
And sometimes that’s exactly what happens (as in the case of a Mike Ditka). Oftentimes, however, it doesn’t take the owners three or four years to figure out that the new coach just doesn’t have it (the skills necessary to turn the team around).
Do you wait until his contract is up, even though he kind of sucks at the job?
Or do you can his ass, pay him off, and go get yourself a better coach?
If you have any interest in WINNING you do the latter.
If all you care about is the money you do the former.
And the fans aren’t stupid. They know wich is which.
NFL teams pay off contracts all the time. All the time.
Few owners in the NFL have a reputation for cheapness like the Bidwill’s in Phoenix.
They have, however, swallowed some remaining years out of most of their head coaches since they got to the desert.
Buddy Ryan, Vince Tobin, Dave McGinnins and Dennis Green were all fired in Arizona with years remaining on their contracts
It happens ALL the time in the NFL.
That's true.
However the Bears situation is unique because we don’t have a 1st or 2nd round draft pick next year. That minimizes the effect a new coaching staff would have on next years season. As it stands, the Bears aren’t going to be a better team next year because we simply aren’t in a position to be able to solve our problems, meaning we aren’t in a position to be able to compete next year.
Also, it is much more common to fire coaches with one year remaining on the deal, rather than with more than that. Plus, Lovie Smith happens to be one of the highest paid coaches in the NFL. $5.5 million is a tougher pill to swallow than $2.5 million which is the average.
by Poloplaya14 on Dec 20, 2009 11:21 PM CST up reply actions
You place way too much emphasis on those two draft picks
Historically few 1st or even 2nd rounders come in and make an immediate impact their rookie seasons.
There are, of course, exceptions to the rule (like 2nd rounder Devin Hester is 2006).
There are 53 players on a team. Saying that a new head coach won’t have a big effect on the other 51 players because there won’t be a 1st or 2nd rounder is meaningless, to me.
Also, the following year (2011) they will have their full compliment of draft picks.
This is the same argument used against trading for Jay Cutler.
Would I trade two #1’s for a QB who will probably only play for a few more seasons (like a Brett Favre)?
Probably not. For a 26 year old potential frnchise QB like Cutler? Yes.
Same with a new head coach. To me the fact that the Bears are missing their #1 & #2 in 2010 (only 2010) doesn’t mean anything to me in the LONG RUN.
If they were missing those two picks for the next three or four seasons, then yes.
But one season?
Not a deal breaker.
As far as Lovie being the highest paid and two years instead of one, so what?
Pat Bowlen last season fired Mike Shanahan with two years and 14 million left on his contract. And this is a guy with back-to-back Super Bowl victories on his resume’.
Whether you think that Shanahan should still be there or that McDaniels is the answer, simply put, Pat Bowlen made the change because he thought it was in the best interests of the Broncos as far as winning is concerned.
And that’s exactly what the McCaskey’s should do,.
If they honestly think that Lovie is the best coach possible for the Bears, they should keep him. If not they should fire him.
It’s that simple. How many years and how much money he is owed shouldn’t be the criteria here.
They paid a guy who just LOST a Super Bowl (Lovie Smith) MORE than a guy who had just recently WON three SB’s (Bill Belichick).
That makes no sense. Keeping Lovie when he clearly isn’t doing the job just cause he has two years and 11 left on his contract makes no sense either.
Firing head coaches and their staffs with years (or a year) remaining on their deals is par for the course in the NFL.
Like I said, it happens all the time.
Firing Lovie is $5.5 M
Try $25/$30 million. $11 million contract, then he has to be replaced …
by Irish Bears Fan on Dec 21, 2009 10:24 PM CST up reply actions
That makes no sense
Let’s say you hire another coach for the exact same wage (5.5 million).
That means that in the next two seasons you’d have spent 22 million (11 to Lovie, 11 to the new guy).
If you just kept Lovie, then you’d have only spent the 11 to Lovie.
Net difference is 11 Million, not 25/30 million.
I'm not questioning the new coach's ability to make some impact.
What I am saying is that the impact will be minimal at best, and certainly not enough to get the Bears to contend for a Super Bowl next year.
And as for Pat Bowlen firing Shanahan, you’re talking about the guy who traded away Jay Cutler. I don’t think that’s who we should be emulating.
And yes, giving Smith such a large contract was a mistake. However, not many fans questioned the decision when it was made. I guess hindsight makes everybody a genius.
All I can say is that if the Bears fire Smith this offseason and bring in Shanahan/Cowher/whoever, they’re wasting money and setting the new guy up to fail by giving him a roster lacking in talent in many areas and little opportunity to go out and improve it.
I'm not saying they will contend next year for the Super Bowl.
They almost certainly won’t do that with a new coach or with Lovie.
That said, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a new coach to start the rebuilding or retooling process (in the hopes that he could soon get them to the playoffs) rather than another year of Lovie?
That’s all I’m saying.
As far as Bowlen and ‘hindsight’ you again miss the point.
“What point is that Axe?
“This point:”
“It’s the way business is done in the NFL.”
Bowlen (like the owner in Baltimore, Steve Buchetti) had seen enough and wanted some fresh blood in as their head coaches. They got tired of the recent ‘same old, same old’ and wanted to go in a new direction. And they were willing to fire coaches that had won them a Super Bowl and to eat those contracts to make it happen.
As far as Lovie goes, he was just coming off a Super Bowl appearance and had a lot of leverage. The Bears almost had to resign him.
And now it’s time to let him go and bring in a fresh face.
The point I am making (that you keep missing) is that this is Standard Operating Procedure in the NFL. You act like it doesn’t happen very often or shouldn’t happen very often.
It happens all the time. It’s just part of the business.
There’s an old saying: “Coaches are hired to get fired.” Most do. And, more often than not, the timing of their ‘firing’ does NOT coincide with the end of their contract.
Therefore, you see them getting fired all the time with years left on their contract.
Need Proof?
Watch ‘Black Monday’ (January 4th, 2010). That’s the day the regular season ends and the day coaches (like Jim Zorn) start to get fired.
Keep track. Virtually all of them will get fired with years left on their contracts. It’s part of the business.
And that's your flaw, Polo..
You are thinking only of next year. But personnel decisions for next year will affect the years after that as well.
Hey, I’m not claiming to be a genius. The Bears were riding high after their near SB year. I was, too. The McCaskey’s thought they had the type of front office and staff that they felt comfortable paying.
And here’s also where you are wrong. The Bears have a lot of key players that are surrounded by a lot of junk. They have a franchise QB. They have a perennial pair of pro-bowl LBs, one of them in his prime. They have a more than adequate RB. And they have some speedy recievers that look like they could develop nicely. Sounds like some good building blocks to me. Certainly better than Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.
Bottom line: We will have to rebuild sometime in the next year or two. Why not bite the bullet and start now? We won’t win next year either way. Don’t you want to win in 2011?
Well said ChiLobo#23
I glad you agree.
With the right (new) coaching the Bears are closer to the playoffs than to contending for the #1 pick each season.
Well done
It is truly pathetic what has happened to this team. During the past free agency period I sat at a table next to super agent Drew Rosenhaus and a client ( i think it was Bart Scott but I’m not sure) at a Miami Beach eatery. Direct quote from him “The Chicago Bears aren’t going to pay anybody”. That pretty much says it all and tempered my enthusiasm even through the Jay Cutler deal….
Aside from the Cutler trade, which at this point is an epic mistake that has made us the laughing stock of the NFL, this team’s biggest free agent acquisition was Rod Frickin Marinelli
It is seriously depressing that an organization worth over $1 BILLION is unwilling to pay a little more for significantly better players, I’m talking Omiyale v. Faneca and the like. Truth is they overachieved getting to the Super Bowl v. the Colts and then systematically tightened the purse strings instead of reinvesting in guys like Ayanbadejo.
This team is still under the cap for this year. Instead of adding a player who may actually help this team, they are just going to pocket the extra cash. This team has been historically unwilling to pay the couple hundred thousand more dollars for a legitimate experienced NFL Offensive Coordinator, hence Ron Turner.
I have yet to hear a good argument for either JA or Lovie remaining. Better question is why are they still here and the answer is the incompetence of the owners who know they have a loyal fan base. Lovie was right that this team was not playing for anything yesterday, it seems fitting that they players level of dedication finally mirrors that of ownership.
Failure to comprehend.
Why should Virginaia McCaskey spend a single dime ? What has she got to gain ? She can sit on her ass, not do anything about the situation, and still pick up the cash next year …
Now if you’re Virginia McCaskey and the fans look to you to save the team the way they want it saved, you look at the following :
- Buyout Smith’s contract = $11 million
- Replace Smith with likely high profile coach Cowher/Shanahan on a four year contract = $ 25 M
- Buyout Angelo’s contract = next 4 years @ what’s his salary ? Say $5 M minimum = $ 20 M
- Replace Angelo with new GM + 4 year contract = $20 M (conservative minimum)
The cost of replacing Angelo + Smith ? I don’t know what JA makes (it’s theft anyway) but $76 million to get rid of the two as a conservative estimate ….
Seventy six million. Or … just do nothing and still make the same amount of money next year ?
by Irish Bears Fan on Dec 21, 2009 10:20 PM CST reply actions
Not Really
If Lovie is not fired this year, he’ll be fired next year with 1 year left on contract. That is just the way things go.
Raw Numbers
• Buyout Lovie’s contract =$11M (really 5.5 assuming he would be fired as a lame duck)
• Replace Lovie with a respected coaching prospect who is not Cowher(asking for 10mil/year)/Shanny (he’s probably going to the ’skins) on a 4 year contract = 10+M
• GMs do not make $5m a year. If you believe WikiAnswers then on average, GMs make $77,000 to $100,000. Local MSM seems to think its around 1mil/year, so lets say his contract =$4M
• So to get a new GM probably = $4M
• You forgot to include the rest of the staff (assistants, position coaches). However, Lovie routinely replaces members of his staff and OC contract is up this year, so this is probably relatively nominal (relative to the tens of millions of dollars already discussed.) But lets put that at $10M, so $20M to swap everyone.
So lets see your estimate is $76M and mine is around $49 – and that’s if they replace absolutely everyone and choose not to retain special teams coaches or anyone else. If Lovie and JA stay, we still have to buy out Lovie and his staff in 2010, so that will probably be 5+M.
My Estimates Based on Raw Data (and opinion :P)
• True cost of firing Lovie (again assuming that he would be fired next year) = $10.5M
• The True cost of firing Lovie & Angelo (same assumption for Lovie and JA 2012) = $13.5M
• The actual cost of hiring new people is around $50M, so = $12.5M/year.
Cutler had the best selling jersey before the season started. I guarantee you it’s not selling now. The Bears sell out, but fans aren’t showing up to games (by the thousands). So we’re talking about less concession sales, less merchandise sales, and declining revenues in other streams (ads, sponsorships, etc…) by virtue of people not giving a crap about a lousy team with no hope of improvement.
I can’t estimate what those things would cost next year, but I would guess that it’s not too far from $10-14M and Lovie Smith could certainly financially burden the franchise in 2011 as well as 2010 if things continue to go south. It’s not a huge financial reach for them to fire Lovie. Then again, I guess it is the McCheapskates we’re talking about.
"Why does Jay Cutler look so bad running these awful plays behind an incompetent offensive line?" - VeryFakeAlDavis
oops
If Lovie and JA stay, we still have to buy out Lovie and his staff in 2010, so that will probably be 5+M.
$5+M is for the staff only, not HC.
"Why does Jay Cutler look so bad running these awful plays behind an incompetent offensive line?" - VeryFakeAlDavis
The lack of draft picks
imo makes it easier to can Lovie/Jerry and eat their contracts.
The lack for 1st/2nd round picks this year and next more than makes up for eating those salaries, from a financial standpoint.
The salaries and signing bonuses for 2 1st round picks and 2 2nd round picks, I’m guessing, isn’t less (or much less) than the approximately $15 mil left on Lovie/Jerry’s contracts.
DEJESUS!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
