The Bucs Need Cash
April 27th, 2010
While Joe liked what Bucs general manager Mark Dominik did in the draft, let’s be honest, the Bucs were a dismal team last year. It will take another draft, maybe two more good ones, for the Bucs to be a contender.
It could come quicker if Dominik had a bigger budget. That’s the premise floated by Alex Marvez of FoxSports.com. He claims the Bucs biggest post-draft need is money.
Tampa Bay: An infusion of cash. General manager Mark Dominik is drawing praise for a solid draft, but his hands are tied when it comes to free-agent spending because of team ownership’s penny-pinching ways. That will make rebuilding the Bucs an even longer process.
Well, Team Glazer has said so often that money is not an issue, it’s nearly a broken record. If the Bucs have a pretty good season this fall, perhaps Team Glazer will allow Dominik to plug a hole or two with a free agent?
April 27th, 2010 at 10:10 am
When are critics of the Bucs going to realize that this year’s Free Agent class was terrible?? You really think that Kampman or Burleson would have made a difference, in the long run??
April 27th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Tell us something we didn’t already know…old news
April 27th, 2010 at 10:21 am
How do you like them apples Jimbuc?
April 27th, 2010 at 10:24 am
this free agent class has sucked this year but what about the past 7 years of free agents when the bucs have been last in spending every year so there has been no free agents worth siging for 7 years
April 27th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Look, the Glazer’s are Hugh Culverhouse’s long lost sons…When will folks understand that?
April 27th, 2010 at 10:54 am
What about the abundant proven talent which was available through trades?
I refuse to lower the bar for these people and sheepishly go along with this “team was dismal” and we need at least two more drafts to be a contender. Its total BS. They made it dismal.
I wont forget, and will continue to apply the “Gruden standard”.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Joe my comment is in no way directed towards you…You are just reporting on what was said.
But these national media jackasses keep spouting this garbage over and over again with no proof.
ManU is not proof…not signing free agents in a very weak free agent year is not proof…that is all circumstantial.
Its a broken record and it is so freaking irritating.
How about some facts from these assholes to back it up and not just speculation…any one can say anything and at the end of the day people like Radiomushmouth and Patrick jump on it as absolute fact and proof of some sinister conspiracy. When all it is is some jack ass with no inside knowledge throwing shite against the wall to make himself look like he knows what he is talking about.
The Bucs have one of the lowest payrolls in the NFL. That is undeniable.
But of the draft picks in the first 3 rounds of the 01-05 drafts( players that should be taking up the bulk of your payroll if they resigned) only Cadillac, Ruud and Clayton remain. and your top two picks of the 07 draft are also no longer on the team.
The low payroll has more to do with poor drafting for the last ten years than it does with anything else.
April 27th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Here’s how this will play out:
Right now it’s he said, she said. Next year I will assume that there will be a rookie cap, thus saving the owners from big payouts (to unproven talent). Next year that savings will go towards FA’s. So the Glazers will say, “see, we’re not afraid to spend money”, when the reality it hasn’t changed the bottom line much.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:01 am
The only real way we know is if we hit on a high percentage of these draft picks and they demand larger pay days down the road.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:07 am
@d-money, where is the proof to back up what your saying? Why is it that people who say the Glazers are having money problems must have proof. I’d say the “assholes” you are referring to have a hell of a lot more credibility than you.
I’d say having the lowest payroll in the league since 2004 is proof enough. Why haven’t they given Penn a new contract? How about Ruud? They didn’t draft replacements, so they must be satisified with who they have at those positions.
Actions speak louder than words and the Bucs’ actions prove they have not been spending money for a number of years.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Louie,
If those guys have so much credibility why dont they ever give any facts. All they ever say is the Glazers are broke. With zero facts.
The Commissioner himself has said he has no concerns about the Glazer finances….does he have credibility with you?
The fact is that Ruud and Penn have each been offered one year Tenders. Ruud signed his and Penn wants a longer deal. Now you may or may not agree with that but the Glazers are business men and with the CBA situation thats how they chose to handle those players.
I’m not denying that the Drafting and management has been bad the last few years.
I’m just saying that the Glazers are doing everything they said they were going to do in order to fix what they see as the problem…and that is build through the draft and not spend on over priced free agents.
What is so hard to grasp about that? It doesnt mean they are broke. To me it means they are following the plan they laid out before last year.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:25 am
I don’t know if the Glazers are having money problems or not but looking from an objective fan’s perspective, I don’t totally blame them for being a bit more cautious with their money. The Glazers don’t seem to have a win at all costs attitude but rather a lets take a shot a winning when it comes available. When we won the super bowl we had an incredible group of core players that had been drafted. Gruden came in and injected key free agents into the mix and it really worked. The core group aged or Gruden thinned them out until there was no core group. Under Gruden all we had was a mish mash of reclamation projects, veterans, reaches on draft picks etc. Not all Gruden’s fault, I put most of the blame on Allen. Next season I hope we start seeing the start of a core group of guys emerge from the past two classes. Another solid class in 2011 and we will be ok. Also, once a new cba is passed there will be a bunch of players on the market after the cuts that must happen after a non cap year. Lets just hope that happens without a lockout in 2012.
Although, if there is a lockout, the Bucs should come out stronger without a bunch of older guys on the books for 2013 and minimal contracts on coaches.
This won’t be a season of a bunch of wins but I look forward to seeing the development of the young players. My fear is that the coaching staff won’t develop with the players.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:33 am
@d-money, you didn’t answer my question! I’ll ask it a different way: How come people who you disagree with must have proof to their claim (even when the evidence supports their claims), but you don’t provide any proof to your position?
The Commissioner essentially works for the owners, he’s not going to throw the Glazers under the bus.
Not signing Ruud or Penn to long-term deals is risky. The Glazers may be saving themselves money in the short-term, but those players will be free to leave without compenstation to the Bucs after next season. It’s a smart move if those players have bad years, but I’m betting Ruud will have a great year with the improved DLine. So, they will probably pay more after next season IF Ruud isn’t pissed and just walks. With Penn, they could have signed him before last season to a favorable contract, but he’s been playing so well that his price tag went up. So, it’s now going to cost them more. Are these really smart business moves? I think not.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Louie,
What the hell ar eyou talking about dude?
My position is that the low payroll is caused by not drafting well for the last ten years….and if you can read then you can see plain as day the FACTS in my first post that show why this is the case.
And you’re right the eveidence does seem to support some of the claims that people make. But I think you can also agree that it is circumstantial at best and it could very well just be coincidence.
But the evidence also supports that they are doing what they have said for the last year and a half they would be doing…and again that is….build through the draft and not sign over priced freeagents.
It comes down to two ways of thinking. Either you take the Glazers at their word, which i tend to do, or you think they are lying which is apparently where you are.
Either way we will all see over the next year or so.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
@d-money, you’re saying your first post was FACTS??? It looks like a bunch of opinion to me. As you said, circumstantial at best.
I will concede that both sides of the argument don’t have a smoking gun. So, until such evidence is found, neither side is wrong. However, you blast anyone (calling them “assholes”) who disagrees with your position.
Based on what has been happening since 2004 and the abortion of a season 2009 was, I don’t believe the Glazers and I’m convinced they are having money issues. Until you can PROVE your side of the argument, I suggest you be a little more tolerant of the other side.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Thomas — I am flattered by the obsession, but I am not sure what ‘apples” you are referring to?
April 27th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
OK, let’s try as little exercise. FACT — the Bucs have had very low payroll since 2004. Let’s just put the reasons out there adn see which theory has the most support. One theory is it is the Glazer’s fault. They are either broke or cheap or Greedy.
PLEASE IDENTIFY EVERY FACT THAT YOU CAN THAT HELPS PROVE THAT THE GLAZER ARE EITHER BROKE, CHEAP OR GREEDY AND THAT IS WHY PAYROLL HAS BEEN LOW?
Just for fun, I will provde you with the FACTS that seem to be counter to that theory. I am not defending the Glazers, just giving you a shorthand (and incomplete) list to consider:
You say “Glazers are broke”
1. They own the largest sports franchise on the planet and it HAS BEEN PROFITABLE and POSITIVE CASH FLOW for at least a year (longer if you include the Ronaldo sale)
2. The BUCS are very profitable with a great stadium deal leading the way
3. Together the two teams are worth more than 2 billion (maybe more than 3.
4. They have other business interests besises the two two teams.
IS THAT ENOUGH FOR US ALL TO AGREE THAT THEY ARE NOT “BROKE?”
Yoo say the Glazers are “cheap?”
1. THey spend a fortunate to win a SB, so past performance does not support the theory
2. They fired Gruden and Allen when it would have benn cheaper to keep them
3. They agreed to make KW and Faine the highest paid players at their position. (For everyone thta keeps saying pay Ruud and Penn, why would any team do that in advance of when they have to? Are you goin to pay your 30 year mortgage off in 5 years? Wait until next yera to make the Ruud/Penn argument)
4. They did not trade down and will therefore sign one of the LAST huge rookie guaranteed contracts.
You say the Glazers are “greedy.”
Proof that they could never win, saome say “broke” other say “greedy.” LOL.
1. Cost cutting is not a sign of GREED. Cost cutting kills a business it does not grow the business. Cost-Cutting is always short term for any GREEDY business owner — surely someone here is a business owner, right?
So what are the counter FACTS?
By the way, how about other INTERNAL explanations for the low payroll. Can someone explain why the comment above about not having key players to re-sign is wrong? Do we all accept that as FACT because it seems pretty obvious to me.
Or, how about this? Has anyone ever considered the EXTERNAL factors that currently impact the Bucs and all NFL teams? Lockout, CBA, Revenue sharing etc? Was this a big year for FAs?
This should be an interesting exercise.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
“Cost cutting is not a sign of GREED”
Mr. Jimbuc, have you ever heard of Hugh Culverhouse?
April 27th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
You omit the explanation that followed, so I will explain it again, using your straw man:
Hugh Culverhouse did not cut costs, he never spent any money. Period. As a result the team struggled and the value did not appreciate as it should. By comparison, Glazers bought the hapless Culverhouse-era Bucs and immediately spent a fortune remaking the entire brand and the team. Their $192 million investment is now worth $1 Billion. The Glazers are not Hugh Culverhouse, should not even be mentioned in the same sentence.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
@ Louie “@d-money, you’re saying your first post was FACTS??? ”
Let me show you again. Apparently you’re having trouble with this….
I Wrote…
“The Bucs have one of the lowest payrolls in the NFL. That is undeniable.
But of the draft picks in the first 3 rounds of the 01-05 drafts( players that should be taking up the bulk of your payroll if they resigned) only Cadillac, Ruud and Clayton remain. and your top two picks of the 07 draft are also no longer on the team.”
This is what we call a fact…something that can be verified. It is not my opinion that these players are not on the team thus not taking up payroll. It is a fact that they aren’t.
An opinion is what people like you have when you say you “think” they are broke and you “think” that is the reason the team doesn’t go after free agents.
It is not my opinion that the Bucs said openly and up front that they were building through the draft and not signing overpriced free agents…that is a fact. Joel Glazer himself said that.
It IS however my opinion that he is being truthful. It is apparently your opinion that he is not.
What part of this are you not undertanding?
April 27th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
@jimbuc
Culverhouse made a fortune off the bucs. Im not comparing him to the Glazers.
I merely brought him up to refute your assertions about the relationship between cutting costs and profits, which, as a business owner, I found pretty rediculous quite frankly.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I am not sure why anyone would even disagree that part of the reason the Bucs payroll is low is because of the horrendous experience in the draft? How can that even be controversial? Throw in the fact that what good players they did get during the past few years did not have to be re-signed this year due to uncapped year and you have what? Low payroll, right? Again, is this even controversial?
April 27th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
@JimBuc, you are so easy…
You say “Glazers are broke”. Louie: YEP! …or at least cash strapped.
1. They own the largest sports franchise on the planet and it HAS BEEN PROFITABLE and POSITIVE CASH FLOW for at least a year (longer if you include the Ronaldo sale). Louie: ManU debt and balloon payments.
2. The BUCS are very profitable with a great stadium deal leading the way. Louie: ditto #1.
3. Together the two teams are worth more than 2 billion (maybe more than 3. Louie: net worth has very little to do with cash flow. You can have a large net worth, but be cash poor.
4. They have other business interests besises the two two teams. Louie: In this economy those other interests are probably not doing all that well?
IS THAT ENOUGH FOR US ALL TO AGREE THAT THEY ARE NOT “BROKE?” Louie: No, see my comments above.
Yoo say the Glazers are “cheap?” Louie: yes, but not the primary issue.
1. THey spend a fortunate to win a SB, so past performance does not support the theory. Louie: SuperBowl was 2002, they have had lowest payroll starting in 2004 — after the Superbowl.
2. They fired Gruden and Allen when it would have benn cheaper to keep them. Louie: probably your best argument in my book, but I contend Gruden and Allen were going to spend the cap money and the Glazers had to get them out to prevent that.
3. They agreed to make KW and Faine the highest paid players at their position. (For everyone thta keeps saying pay Ruud and Penn, why would any team do that in advance of when they have to? Are you goin to pay your 30 year mortgage off in 5 years? Wait until next yera to make the Ruud/Penn argument). Louie: three words – salary cap floor. Regarding Ruud & Penn, they risk losing them if they don’t resign them before next season. Also, Ruud will likely have a great season if the DLine improves. He will demand even more than he’s asking now. This is just dumb from a business standpoint.
4. They did not trade down and will therefore sign one of the LAST huge rookie guaranteed contracts. Louie: they’ve cut enough high salary players to help afford the draft picks. You pretty much HAVE to sign your draft picks. Otherwise you might as well have a flashing sign saying “WE’RE BROKE!”
You say the Glazers are “greedy.” Louie: Yes, what billionaire isn’t?
1. Cost cutting is not a sign of GREED. Cost cutting kills a business it does not grow the business. Cost-Cutting is always short term for any GREEDY business owner — surely someone here is a business owner, right? Louie: I agree with you on this — when they get the money, they’ll start spending and make even more money.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Eric — you actually left off my explanation and used Culverhouse as a straw man.
If you are a business owner — I have been one for 20 years — then you know that Culverhouse could have made a much larger fortune off the Bucs, right? Real profits do not come from cost cutting because the product suffers. See the Bucs right now as an example or the Bucs during the Culverhouse era. Let me put it in even simpler terms: Which Bucs team would be more profitable and build more value for the Glazers? The 1995-2002 Buccaneers or the 2003-2010 Buccaneers?
Cost cutting increase profits in the short-term BUT destroys value in the long-term. I am confident the Glazers know that (even if you do not –j/k)
April 27th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Louie — do you realize that ManU is PROFITABLE after the debt payments? You get that right? That is a fact:
The figures for the six months up to December show turnover up 19% to £144.7 million from £121.7 million for the equivalent period in 2008.
The club’s debt dropped from £538.1 million to £507.5 million and there were increases recorded in matchday revenues, TV money – particularly from the Champions League – and commercial revenue.
Media revenues have increased 33% from £40.3 million to £53.4 million and commercial revenues up 16% from £33.5 million to £38.7 million.
The total debt of the Red Football Ltd, the Glazers’ holding company for Manchester United, was registered at £716.5 million at the start of the year
Here’s the link:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=749635&cc=3888
So much for that theory . . .
April 27th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
@d-money, the only fact is the Bucs have had the lowest payroll since 2004. That’s documented and provable. The REASON for that can’t be proved. You say its because of poor draft picks. I say its a variety of reasons, including: Malcom’s illness, ManU and the economy.
The ONLY proof you have is what the Glazers say. Wow, that’s credible! They also said last year wasn’t a rebuilding year.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Me too Eric – I also am a business owner and have to slash payroll in the past both to increase my salary personally and to keep the business from losing money. (So it is absolutely not a fact that lowering salaries does not have a relationship to putting more money in the pockets of the owners).
Further, just because the Glazers spent $ on players and coaches in 2002 doesnt mean that they are not being cheap today (another erroneous statement you suggest is fact) – owners change business plans – early you may put money back into the business for inflating value and later you may pull out cash for various reasons (BTW the old man Glazer is very sick so the policies are being provided by the sons who may be siphoning cash or using it for other purposes)
I will agree with you that the book value of the franchises is multi-billion but I do not know (and either do you) what there debt service is for all Glazer related companies (so if there assets are worth three billion and their debts/liabilites are 3 billion or more then they may be broke – although I doubt it).
I believe that firing Gruden and Allen was warranted but they also took a calculated short-term risk (that they wouldnt take other nfl jobs) and by releasing all the vets (Brooks, Hilliard, Dunn, June etc) they were able to offset the cost until Gruden and Allen came off the books (and Allen has).
Not trading down does not prove anything but it is interesting that two other tackles were cut before eirther rookie has suited up and the value of the vets will cover much of the rookies.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Louie, Louie, Louie. Not a single fact — just “explanations” for the facts. What should that tell us?
You did not cite a single fact in response to the “Broke” issue, you suggested that they have a lit of assets bu are cash strapped. Louie — both the Bucs and ManU are cash flow positive to the millions. Players salaries are matched to TV revenues.
On the Cheap issue, I gues you just concede that their past performance is inconsistent because you just say look at current performance. Louie, the point is to try to explain the current performance? Cheap is inconsitent with the SB run-up and win. You remember we were is nsalry cap hell after the SB right? Don’t get there by being “cheap”
I love the conspirayc theory you pull out — Gru/Allen fired because they were going to spend the money. That is hillarious and crushes your credibility. Gru/Allen were fired for performance PERIOD. They are why we are where we are now.
You don’t refute that they did not trade down. Denver traded down twice, right? Is Denver cheap?
Louie, Louie, Louie. Not a single fact — just “explanations” for the facts. What should that tell us?
April 27th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
@JimBuc, here’s a link supporting my position. I feel it’s more objective as it’s not soley based on information released by the team.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/really-in-the-red-man-u-debt-tops–12-billion-20100121-mniz.html
April 27th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Louie — you are right on the low payroll:
“I say its a variety of reasons, including: Malcom’s illness, ManU and the economy.”
Just keep adding to the list — awful drafting, CBA/Lockout, revenue sharing.
I guess we actually agree – as I pointed out ManU is very profitable and positive cash flow now — so we can throw out “broke” even if you define it as cash strapped. So, take ManU out of your list and add a little to it and you have what? A reasonable explanation.
Good job Louie!!
April 27th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Louie –the article you cite is talking about the PIK loans, which were refinanced as part of the bond offering, right?
April 27th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Louie — the ESPN article I cited was not based soley on information released by the team. The team made a big bond offering that required a registered prospectus and ongoing reporting under GAAP.
(Not trying to be argumentative, just explaining)
April 27th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
louie,
It is a fact that 1st-3rd round draft picks, if successful, are usually a teams biggest payroll expense.
It is a fact that the Bucs have very few of those picks over the period of time I stated still on the team.
It is a fact that the previous Coach/GM ( who I liked BTW) had a different way of doing things and signed older players who do not fit with this regimes future plans and were cut subsequently lowering the payroll.
It is a fact that everything that I have just stated will lead to a lower payroll.
It is a fact that Joel and Dominick have said from the begining that they wouldn’t be spending on free agents and would be building through the draft.
My OPINION is that all this is right in line with their plan and I take them at their word when the say they will spend when the time comes.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
“then you know that Culverhouse could have made a much larger fortune off the Bucs, right? Real profits do not come from cost cutting because the product suffers”
Culverhouse “milked” the franchise for years by cost cuting and was successful because of the guaranteed television money. Famously, he let Doug Williams go over 100K! The NFL is a bit different than most businesses because of that guaranteed $. Only the salary floor put an end to that cost cutting practice.
Then, his estate sold it for 192 million! At the time, everybody thought the Glazers over paid.
Ole Hugh sucked as an owner, but he was a cost- cutting profit making machine my friend.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Thomas — do you replace the payroll when the business turns around? What would happen if you did not? Cost cutting is short-term only.
The value of the businesses comes from Forbes, which is a NET WORTH figure (accounts for debt)
Funniest comment is the one about firing the vets as a way to offset paying two coaches as two GMs. Thomas — I guess the rest of the league conspired with them to pull that one off because not one of those players ever played again on any meaningful level. That is one good conspiracy!
Now cutting other vets is cost-cutting too. Redskins just added a bunch of DTs including one of our developmentla guys, but did not take Hovan? Hmm. The conspiracy widens.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Eric — I don’t dispute that Culverhouse made a lot of money, just saying he could have made a lot more by not “milking.”
Notice the inherent contradiction in your comments. “Most thought the Glazers overpaid” Who did not think they overpaid, Eric? ANSWER — the Glazers. How much is the franchise worth now Eric?
That’s the point, right? The Glazers understand that “milking” does not bring them huge wealth and profits. The payroll is very low NOW. Lots of explanations. Oly dispute is over whether it is permanent (i.e the Glazers turned into Culverhouse) or temporary.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Solid, logical argument d-money.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
@JimBuc
They probably are going to spend more because the salary floor will likely be reinstituted at some point.
They may very well spend more in the future because the financial climate improves overall, or their situation does, or the CBA situation resolves, or because they want to win. I am predicting they will get a big name coach like Cowher if things dont go well this year.
I was only refuting your blanket statement that greedy owners don’t cut cost long term, because Hugh and other owners did. Maybe it was to their detriment, but they still did it, which refutes your theory. You said “greedy owners don’t do that” which is rediculous. It is simply knowably wrong.
April 27th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Eric — Good point. I probably should have said that SMART greedy owners don’t cut costs long-term. Culverhouse did not cut costs, he maintained low costs. The Glazer are cutting costs (i.e. taking a very valuable product and cutting expenses to the point of diminishing the value of the product.) That only happens over the short-term, particularly with people as savy and successful as the Glazers.
April 27th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
@jimbuc
The Glazers are the Michael Jordons of the financial world, you won’t get any argument from me there. That Manu takeover was pure genius, as was the bucs purchase. They took that risk when others wouldn’t.
Whatever they do will be extremely profitable.
I just would like to see the 2002 Glazers back ASAP.
April 27th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
I guess short term for this franchise is 5 years and counting.
April 27th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
I am with you on that Eric
April 27th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
@eric I think that you would like to see the Real Glazer back that did spend the money to make the money. Daddy Glazer. His 3 scrooge sons have bled the team down to what it is. And No spin can take that away!
April 28th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Tampa2 — I thought you believed that the Glazer boys lost all the money with Madoff?
April 28th, 2010 at 10:24 am
@Jimbuc
Whether they lost it with Madoff, or they play high stakes poker, the bottom line is that ol’ Dad spent the money to build the Bucs. While the Sons have bled the team dry.