More digs at the Skins from Fatty P

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by That Guy

look, at the time that article was written it was 100% true. people keep using it as some form of proof of bias... the problem is that statement was absollutely correct at the time it was written (no restructures had been done and the cba looked like it might really be dead).

No, it wasn't true. If the CBA had not gone through, we would have been tough up against it but clearly Pasta's "there's no way they can get under the cap" statement was wrong. Yes - w/o restructures, we couldn't have done it. But - and here's where sloppy analysis and bias do come into play - rather than look at how the cap could be managed and discussed the possibility of restructuring, Pasta simply went with the "no way" argument. Was he unaware of the possibility of restructures? I doubt it.

Did he even attempt to see how it might be done? Again, I doubt it. Any actual research into ways to resolve the issue OTHER than simply cutting players? An interview with Skins staff? If the statement had been - w/o restructures, they can't get under the cap, and, even with them, they will likely have to cut some players they would rather not - that would have reflected a more accurate analysis. That, however, was not the conclusion drawn.

As for his latest conclusory statement, again - any mention of how the roster is being "blown up", how is he defining that term?

As I said, my problem with these jokers criticism of the Skins is that it is intellectually either sloppy or dishonest. I can forgive the local San Diego (or whereever) media for getting it wrong - they're simply relying the Peter King's and Pasta's to get it right.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No, it wasn't true.

except that it was. at the time no one had restructured, so it was a valid point. it WAS sloppy journalism not to mention that restructures could get them closer, but how many teams have ever gotten 12+ guys to all redo contracts (and have 2-3 give back money) in a single year to help with the cap?

it would have been a long shot to predict that, and without gibbs, it probably wouldn't have happened. Meaning that at least some players that the skins would want to keep would logically have to be cut.

[GoSkins!]

I was wrong.... It wasn't wrong... at this point it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the skins said that they had a plan (restructures automatically built into contracts that these reporters did not know about) and that they would be forced to use the draft to shore up the team. Well, in my opinion, the skins had it under control all the time. The reporters got it wrong and they just hate that maybe they were hoodwinked.

Since Gibbs took over, he has done exactley what he has always done. He looks at the guys in place and sees what they are good at. Then he puts them into a position to excel and gets the most out of them. Yes, he has also one this with Snyder. He took a guy who likes to spend money on proven players instead of college players and got him to improve his free agent selections. He still gets to spend wildly, but now he has to do it on younger players that fit the offense and defense.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

it would have been a long shot to predict that, and without gibbs, it probably wouldn't have happened.

I don't agree. The players don't care whether they're getting their money in the form of a roster bonus, base salary, or restructured signing bonus. They'd be happy to restructure any day of the week for anybody as long as they're getting their money.

You have to give credit to Snyder for planning this all along. He backloads contracts on purpose with the intent of restructuring the big payments at a later date. He's been doing it for a couple years now, and now that those big contracts are getting into the backloaded portions, he's just following through with his plan.

Credit goes to Gibbs for picking which players to sign in the first place. But credit goes to Snyder for planning the salary cap.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't agree. The players don't care whether they're getting their money in the form of a roster bonus, base salary, or restructured signing bonus. They'd be happy to restructure any day of the week for anybody as long as they're getting their money.

You have to give credit to Snyder for planning this all along. He backloads contracts on purpose with the intent of restructuring the big payments at a later date. He's been doing it for a couple years now, and now that those big contracts are getting into the backloaded portions, he's just following through with his plan.

Credit goes to Gibbs for picking which players to sign in the first place. But credit goes to Snyder for planning the salary cap.

some players DID have to give back money cause of the 30% rule if the new cba didn't happen; that's really hard to predict someone agreeing to.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

some players DID have to give back money cause of the 30% rule if the new cba didn't happen; that's really hard to predict someone agreeing to.

This post makes no sense. The CBA did get extended. Given that fact, everyone and their brother should have seen the standard restructures coming.

The restructures you're talking about would have gone into effect only if the CBA deal never got done. They were special circumstances, but they were void as soon as the deal was signed. Once that happened, it was back to business as usual, which included the standard restructures.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This post makes no sense. The CBA did get extended. Given that fact, everyone and their brother should have seen the standard restructures coming.

The restructures you're talking about would have gone into effect only if the CBA deal never got done. They were special circumstances, but they were void as soon as the deal was signed. Once that happened, it was back to business as usual, which included the standard restructures.

In That Guy's defense, he was responding to my earlier post where we were discussing Pasta's assertion (prior to the CBA being approved) that the Skins would be playing 20-30 rookies if the CBA didn't go through.

I stand by my original post That Guy, it was an example of shoddy analytical journalism simply because their was no attempt to verify it from the source or even to seek the Skins' FO point of view. Rather, he went to OTHER gm's and asked them about the Skins salary issues. Does this method demonstrate a bias? IMHO - yes. Again, it is not an isolated instance, as in his latest comments, it represents a consistent lack of seeking any facts that would support the actions Skins FO actions but then reaching conclusions that would seem to require an analysis of all sides of an issue rather than just one point of view.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This post makes no sense. The CBA did get extended. Given that fact, everyone and their brother should have seen the standard restructures coming.

The restructures you're talking about would have gone into effect only if the CBA deal never got done. They were special circumstances, but they were void as soon as the deal was signed. Once that happened, it was back to business as usual, which included the standard restructures.

i understand all that, I think you missed the part where i was responding to JR's post about one of pasta's claims (just one of the hundreds) that was somewhat true at the time.