rooting for Goliath

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Eagles fans are very frustrated because they know their team is not what it once was, and yet the team isn't willing to pay for upgrades despite ample cap room. I'd be very frustrated with that too. It shows arrogance on the part of Eagles' management, they seem to be convinced that what they have on hand is good enough, and that they don't have to spend the extra money to compete. It's like they think a guard (Hutchinson) isn't worth $49 million a year. My response to that is WHO CARES WHAT IT COSTS WHEN YOU HAVE $25 MILLION IN CAP ROOM. And a lot of Eagles fans feel the same way.

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

On the other hand, a policy of being continually under the cap doesn't cut it either.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

But if you don't pay, like the eagles, you can have a very high roster value, and a not so talented roster. Which is what the eagles lack of talent thread was all about.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But if you don't pay, like the eagles, you can have a very high roster value, and a not so talented roster. Which is what the eagles lack of talent thread was all about.

I added a line to the post you quoted before I saw yours. Naturally, to maximize the team's roster value, the money has to be spent up to the limit.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

On the other hand, a policy of being continually under the cap doesn't cut it either.

It's this last sentence that is the key here. The 1.1x and 0.9x makes the assumption that x = the salary cap limit. You're applying a salary constraint to a team that always has capacity, the Eagles don't ever take it up to that limit.

When ample salary capacity exists in your structure, there is no reason why you shouldn't go get the best player possible. Cost should not be an issue for you, you're not up against the cap constraint. So for the Eagles, whether Hutchinson is a bargain or not should not be an issue.

If we're talking about a team up against the salary cap, then player value relative to price has to enter the equation. But money should not be an object in this situation, yet the Eagles refuse to spend it, and it's easy to see why that would be frustrating.

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

It's this last sentence that is the key here. The 1.1x and 0.9x makes the assumption that x = the salary cap limit. You're applying a salary constraint to a team that always has capacity, the Eagles don't ever take it up to that limit.

When ample salary capacity exists in your structure, there is no reason why you shouldn't go get the best player possible. Cost should not be an issue for you, you're not up against the cap constraint. So for the Eagles, whether Hutchinson is a bargain or not should not be an issue.

If we're talking about a team up against the salary cap, then player value relative to price has to enter the equation. But money should not be an object in this situation, yet the Eagles refuse to spend it, and it's easy to see why that would be frustrating.

I can understand the fans' frustration.

The best strategy for a team is to spend the payroll limit, but to spend it wisely...on players who might be worth more than their market value.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Huddle

Your take on the Eagles sounds like its right on the money to me with the exception of your final point about Hutchinson.

Let's say that X represents the team's payroll limit determined by the salary cap. If you overpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of .9X.

If instead, you bargain-hunt for personnel and underpay your roster by ten per-cent overall, you end up with a roster with a value of 1.1X.

I think bargain hunting is the key to building the best roster in this salary cap era. Hutchinson isn't a bargain.

On the other hand, a policy of being continually under the cap doesn't cut it either.

you don't mention that only 11 players are on the field at a time, so maxing those 11 (or 22) is more important than value at RB #4, and leaving 25mill unspent means you start at 0.75 instead of 1.00.

[Huddle]

That Guy

you don't mention that only 11 players are on the field at a time, so maxing those 11 (or 22) is more important than value at RB #4,

I explained a basic strategy in a couple of sentences. There were lots of lesser points omitted

...and leaving 25mill unspent means you start at 0.75 instead of 1.00.

I said this: "The best strategy for a team is to spend the payroll limit, but to spend it wisely...on players who might be worth more than their market value."

I think that covers your point but in a different way.

Incidentally, I think this "bargain strategy" applies to the draft as well. One study I saw concluded that the best values in the draft happen between picks 25 to 75. I didn't look at their data but I can understand logically why their conclusion might be valid.