Obviously the money in football is different than in baseball. TT says the Packers do not play Moneyball. I'm not certain he's correct there. The Packers look like the Oakland As. If not for the rules, they would be as poor as the Oakland As, and maybe even poorer.
So which Green Bay players are moneyball, and which are not?
Moneyball:
Aaron Rodgers (too small; got a bargain)
Not moneyball:
James Jones (fits the prototypical mold; paid the right price)
No more than two apiece.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Is there a height requirement?
So which Green Bay players are moneyball, and which are not?
Moneyball:
Aaron Rodgers (too small; got a bargain)
Not moneyball:
James Jones (fits the prototypical mold; paid the right price)
No more than two apiece.
Rodgers is the highest paid player in the league. I don't think the A's ever had the highest paid baseball player in the league.
Jones is a bargain, but what about Finley? He's getting paid this year
can someone explain to me how Rodgers is "too small"?
Good to see that the complete and total misunderstanding of Moneyball extends beyond the baseball forum.
can someone explain to me how Rodgers is "too small"?
TWSS!
"If not for the rules, they would be as poor as the Oakland As, and maybe even poorer."
Not correct and not close to being correct. This whole, the packers are small market stuff is BS. Yes Green bay is a small market but Green Bay isn't the Packers market, the entire state is and a good portion of MI, MN, IA and elsewhere too.
The stadium makes tons of money, the merchandising makes tons of money. I get that the NY teams and NE and Chi will always have an advantage in media dollars but it isn't as great as is made out any longer.
Indy, Buff, Oakland Raiders, Seattle, SD, KC, StL, Jax, NO, Denver, Tennessee, Carolina, Balt, Wash, MN and Pitts don't have much if any advantage over GB in terms of markets.
This notion that GB would be poor is bogus.
Packer finances were on an unsustainable path prior to the new CBA. Probably a lot of other teams as well.
Other teams have owners with deep pockets and the ability to bring in additional capital by selling partial ownership to outside investors. But on the other hand only the Packers are able to bring in capital by selling thousands of fake shares to their fans.
The business acumen is strong in this one.
Not since 1990 with Jose Canseco. The A's were in good financial shape back then, and as crazy as it sounds now, they were more popular than the Giants (who nearly moved to Tampa in '92) in the late 80s and early 90s. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that financial situations of teams can sometimes change radically. Even though they always did well at the gate, the Packers were probably near the bottom of the league in revenue in the 70s and 80s, and now they're one of the league's most profitable teams.
There's a whole lot of dum going on in this thread
The Packers are nothing like the As or moneyball
Different economics in the NFL and this includes our favorite team
If you want to say TT plays small ball with signing and extending guys before they hit the open market and he avoids free agency so be it but this isn't Billy Beane in any sense
And we haven't even started talking about Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Art Howe in the movie yet. A gold medal casting eff up if I've ever seen one. I'm getting pissed off just thinking about it again.
