1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

The impact of the Chargers winning a Super Bowl in 2010?

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by matilack, Feb 13, 2010.

  1. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4898578



    In a bassackwards way, winning the Super Bowl in an uncapped year could hurt the Chargers in the long run. Or at least drive the stake in the heart of anyone who supports a salary cap and salary floor.
     
  2. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    I'm not following.

    If the Chargers winning it proves the players aren't underpaid isn't that an argument in favor of keeping the salary cap? After all, if they're not underpaid there is no argument that we should have a system where they can get paid more, is there not?

    I'm also not really following how a low budget team winning proves that.

    It's all irrelevant, anyways. One year does not create a trend. Especially not in a sport with a one-game elimination playoff system where anything can happen.
     
  3. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    The writer is trying to say that it would be like a low budget team like Tampa Bay Rays winning the World Series. Its a counter argument to the opinion that teams like the Yankees are able to buy championships because they have no limit on how much money they can spend.

    If the Chargers (a team that will most likely cut their spending) win a Super Bowl in an uncapped year, its going to give the owners more leverage to say...."you see, having a salary floor means nothing as long as you make smart personell decisons." It basically ensures that the cap will never come back, and in the long run your going to see the Chargers turn into the Padres where they are never competitive.


    The irony is laughable considering the Chargers did build this team in the salary cap era, probably expecting the CBA to get worked out.
     
  4. Workplay

    Workplay scompl

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    932
    Ratings:
    +66
    No salary cap + No salary floor + 2011 lockout = Low-quality football.

    Just like the MLB has low-quality baseball. Gee, I wonder who will win the World Series this year? Let me guess... A team with one of the three highest payrolls? :yes:

    :tdown:
     
  5. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    Ah, yes. The constant "see, the Marlins won the World Series" argument against a baseball salary cap. I figured it was as much but the wording threw me off.

    People see a team like the Rays come up or the Twins make the playoffs every now and then or the Marlins winning the World Series, and the Yankees go a decade without a ring and start arguing that the baseball financial system is fine.

    What they fail to take into consideration is that these teams will be good for a few years and then have to right back into rebuilding mode. Some teams, such as the A's and Twins, are better at the constant rebuilding game than others but that doesn't negate the fact that they still have to constantly rebuild while teams like the Red Sox and Yankees are not as burdened by that need because they can just buy the best players on the free agency market.

    Meanwhile, teams like the Yankees and Red Sox may not win the ultimate championship every year but they are in the playoffs, or at the very least playoff contention EVERY SINGLE YEAR. They have the chance to win it all every single year because they can buy the best free agents and because they can afford to keep their best players, unlike the small market teams who have to keep letting their best players go and hope their next draft picks are just as good.

    Getting back on the subject of the NFL, it would be no different. A team like the Chargers could possibly win it all if they played their cards right. But they would have to watch the players that helped them win it walk in free agency and hope they can draft players equally as good while teams like the Cowboys and Giants remain in playoff contention every single year because they're the ones buying these players.

    Sure, you'll still have teams like the Mets who find ways to lose even with spending all the money, but that doesn't make the competitive balance any less uneven.

    Finally, with all the crazy restrictions in this year's free agency and the fact that teams still have rosters that were put together in capped years 2010's results won't really be indicative of what could happen in an uncapped NFL anyways, even if you didn't take into consideration that one year is not a trend.
     
  6. wrbanwal

    wrbanwal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    9,707
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    Excellent point, this year is a fluke. We won't see the effects of uncapped spending for years if they go the way of MLB baseball.

    I'm having a hella hard time with these rich players & owners complaining about money

    :tdown:
     
  7. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    Damn greedy fools are gonna shoot the golden goose.:icon_evil:
     
  8. SDDon

    SDDon BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +7
    This is a few writers who are trying to get noticed here, that is all. Football will never get to a baseball level because too much of there income overall is generated through contracts that are from the league itself. The gate revenue at the games is not the biggest source of income.

    The only way that this current NFL system will change is if the teams can negotiate there own TV deals and sharing of both TV and Merchandise money stops. If that stays the same then maybe there will be some adjustments but that will be it.

    I would like to see some tweeks. Rosters go from say 45 active to 48 rosters go from 53 to 56 and there be some form of controlling say a portion of your practice squad from other teams as a development pool for low round draftees or UDFA type players.

    The owners main focus is a lowering of the guarentee of 60% of the revenue to the salery cap and a better new and improved Rookie wage scale.

    Some high round drafted kids might have to pay the price for the creation of 98 more NFL players jobs, but the NFL product will get better because injuries won't be such a factor and in the end we will get a higher level of play across the board.

    Football is different than baseball. Lamar Hunt could of abandon his fellow owners in the AFL and get an HFL franchise but the AFL owners stuck together. There have been numerous decisions over the years of this type of moves, it will not change, they are very smart business people.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Aggieman

    Aggieman I bleed blue and gold

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,363
    Ratings:
    +194
    Talk about a lose-lose situation. Interestingly enough, a Chargers win would indeed hurt the argument that money drives championships but it also hurts the argument that regulations hurt the NFL. The more parity, the better, and if parity ensues from regulations than tossing out regulations would be disastrous. Damn you San Diego front office! If you weren't so smart with your money, we'd be the Raiders and none of this would matter.
     
  10. NORV4LIFE

    NORV4LIFE NO MORE NORV!!!!!

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,453
    Ratings:
    +58
    Thats better
     
  11. BoltzRule

    BoltzRule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +155
    I'll take the SB win.


    And as long as the revenue sharing stays the same it won't be like baseball, with or without the cap/floor. Although I'd prefer to have both.
     
  12. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    Baseball has revenue sharing as well. It doesn't seem to be doing them any good.

    The Yankees just buy everyone anyways and pay the fine.
     
  13. NORV4LIFE

    NORV4LIFE NO MORE NORV!!!!!

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,453
    Ratings:
    +58
    Seriously! ++++ the yankees!
     
  14. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    No matter what there are going to be a handfull of owners who will lower their payroll down to 80-90 million, and just pocket the 30-40 million a year they were previously forced to put into players salaries.


    This is exactly what the Padres do, when a player like Jake Peavy is coming up on a payday they trade him for younger and cheaper prospects. The same thing is about to happen to Adrian Gonzalez too. THEY ARE A GODDAMN FARM TEAM for the teams who care about winning.

    Can you imagine if we traded Philip Rivers for "a younger/cheaper QB prospect"?
     
  15. BoltzRule

    BoltzRule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +155
    Not even close to the same. The majority of NFL revenue is from TV contracts, if they share that it won't change. Where it will change is if they allow teams to negotiate their own TV deals, like baseball does. The Yes Network is a lot bigger and brings in more revenue than Channel 4.

    Sure some teams will spend more than others, and yes there will be teams who won't spend, but it wouldn't be MLB like, you wouldn't have a team so far ahead in payroll that it almost doubles the 2nd highest payroll. At worse it'd be the difference between say the Dodgers (100 mil) and Padres (when they were spending around 70 mil), but that would be from 1st tier to 2nd tier, not from highest payroll to 2nd highest payroll.

    But like I've already said I prefer the cap and floor system.
     
  16. BoltzRule

    BoltzRule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +155
    Spanos is nothing like Moores. Whether you like them or not they've spent money to try and win (Beathard was a top GM, Butler was a top GM, Schott was a high priced coach etc.) So it's not like they're the Bengals who skim on costs or the Bucs.

    And they've been doing it since they've been here so it's not like they just started for a new stadium.

    Also the Padres did give Peavy his payday so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
     
  17. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    To be fair, the Padres paid Jake Peavy when his payday came up to the tune of the richest contract extension the Padres have ever given out in franchise history.

    It wasn't until John Moores (who's no longer the owner, by the way) got into divorce proceedings a couple years later that he started becoming a real cheap bastard (As opposed to an owner of a team that's forced to play to their market) and really started cutting payroll, which included trading Jake.

    There's new ownership in town. They're shopping Adrian mainly because they're still in rebuilding mode (thanks in large part to John Moores' divorce fire sale) and getting a kings ransom of prospects for your best players is something rebuilding teams always look into. Plus, having Kyle Blanks who has the potential to be just as good as Adrian and plays the same position helps make him expendable as well.

    What I don't foresee them doing, however, now that there's new ownership and a new GM is trading Adrian just to trade him and rid themselves of the contract.
     
  18. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    How does Spanos compare to Moorad?
     
  19. BoltzRule

    BoltzRule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +155
    Too soon for that, I'd like to see how he does when he has majority ownership, which will take a few years.
     
  20. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    Agreed.

    I was really just being rhetorical in an effort to point out that Moores isn't in (at least not full) control anymore.
     
  21. Retired Catholic

    Retired Catholic BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,894
    Ratings:
    +347
    Regardless of what the salary structure is, owners who skim money to keep salaries low will have trouble signing their draft choices, trouble winning games and eventually trouble putting people in the seats. They'll have trouble attracting eye balls to the TV and ears to the radio. I'm not sure but I think the revenue sharing in baseball is not on a par with the league arrangement in the NFL. I have the feeling that even if the cap is eliminated, the financial realities will likely bring it back eventually-the owners should be careful what they wish for. The problems that created the salary cap in the first place will reemerge.
     
  22. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    We won't know for sure until they start going into uncapped seasons. Don't give Spanos the benefit of the doubt until you see him start spending the money out of his pocket to keep key players.
     
  23. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    See, this is where I differ from other people.

    I wouldn't expect Spanos to spend money out of his pocket to keep the players if it causes his business to operate at a loss.

    I never expected that of John Moores and I wouldn't expect it out of Alex Spanos.

    It wasn't until John Moores got into divorce proceedings and lowered the payroll to a ridiculous ~30-40 million that I got pissed. They were doing a reasonable job considering the uneven financial playing field in my opinion up until that point with the 70-90 million dollar payrolls they had.

    Let's be real here, you can't expect someone to operate at a loss. That's just now how business is done.

    That's why the financial playing field needs to be even (with a cap) so we don't have to have unrealistic expectations of owners spending money out of their own pocket and operating at a loss just to appease the local fanbase with a show of caring more about the sports team than they do about their bank account.
     
  24. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    Thats the problem though isn't it? The Chargers are in one of the bottom 8 markets in the league, we're one of the teams that benefit in a huge way from the NFL shared revenue. If that revenue gets cut, and there is no cap-floor, Spanos could be forced to operate just like Moorad does.


    This is a worst case scenario assuming the new CBA won't have a cap floor or shared revenue, but a very very possible one.
     
  25. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    By Moorad I assume you mean Moores?

    We won't really know how Moorad will truly operate until he has full ownership.

    That being said, considering the financial landscape of baseball and the fact that the Padres are a small market team i wouldn't hold my breath expecting Moorad to be a big spender.

    That being said, hopefully he can maintain a ~70-85 million payroll like they had in 04-07 before Moores' divorce and hopefully Hoyer can use that payroll good enough to field a winner.
     
  26. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    Moorad...Moores...blah blah blah:lol: All y'all look alike to me.
     
  27. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    What is it about the Padres that attracts owners with last names that start with "Moor"?
     
  28. HollywoodLeo

    HollywoodLeo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    15,202
    Ratings:
    +2,413
    I just found out Troy Aikman is part owner of the Padres. :lol:
     
  29. BoltzRule

    BoltzRule Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +155
    Which is why I looked at coaches and GMs they've hired. Obviously they're not going to spend like Jerry Jones (who has more money to work with), but he'll still spend to win.

    Unlike in baseball there is more revenue shared in the NFL, which means more of a level playing field, but individual teams make their money is the box/club seats. Which is why the Spanos want a new stadium, new stadium equals more money for them.

    That's why Jerry Jones build that monstrosity, so he can maximize profits.

    If you want to know the teams that will be cheap just look at the ones that are cheap already, Bills, Bengals, Jaguars, Bucs, Rams.

    Unlike the NL west, the AFC West doesn't have teams in really big markets (LA, SF), the biggest markets are probably SD and Den.
     
  30. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,104
    Ratings:
    +3,554
    All that said, we're still going to be a middle of the road spender, while teams like Dallas, Washington, and New England go the Yankee route and have 200 million dollar payrolls. Probably more than that, considering there are more players on an NFL roster.

    In 2 or 3 years you'll see guys like Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, MJD, Calvin Johnson etc... all wooed away by big market teams offering them 15-20 mil a year. They won't be able to say no to the huge contracats, and their former teams won't be able to match, and just like in baseball your going to see a lot of preemptive trades.
     

Share This Page