Well market value" really isn't the proper use for what happens in the NFL, or any pro sports, free agency period when you have to deal w/hard caps. Teams can very much overpay for players; just b/c they are willing to do so doesn't make it correct for them, let alone for any other team.
So if another team is willing to pay above market value, he should then pay over the overpay? From a business man I would think you would know better.
I never said that either. What I said is that is the market value. Every potential buyer needs to determine the return on investment ROI at that particular purchase price. There is a lot of guesswork even in the best of cases where you are buying a piece of machinery with a known capacity. You still have lots of variables even though you know you can produce X with that machine. Can your vendors feed you the amount of raw material at that quantity? How long do you have guaranteed pricing for? What might the price move to? Can your people be trained enough to produce at those numbers? What would be your ramp up time? Those factors (and many more) need to be considered.
Now you are talking about an individuals performance, and no one knows what top level performance of that individual will be, and even if they did, what that performance will mean in terms of wins and losses, so no matter how good businessmen they ear, they do much by instinct and more than they want to admit, how much they hope will happen (potential). So every persons number is going to differ by how much they need that position, how much they think that person will perform, and where that team is in relation to a SB both with and without that performance. In other words, that person is going to be valued differently for almost everyone. Whatever the highest bid is, that is the market value. No where does it say you have to pay more than that. But if you want that person AT THAT SAME POINT IN TIME that a team is willing to pay X, then YES, you will have to pay X plus to get that commodity, and then THAT is the market value. Because it was the value to you (what assets you gave up) to willingly pay that. That is the market value at that time.
It's just the way things work. Not saying you should or should not pay more than the current highest bid. It depends on the perceived value of that asset to you.
Pace determined that those assets were not worth it to him at those numbers. Fine. But those numbers were still the market value.
So is it safe to say that market value isn't the same for each company even for the same possible resource? If so then like my previous post, market value has no real place in determining if one team should have paid what another team did.
So you expect all employees of the organization where you work to never make mistakes? If you were a GM, what you have done differently? How would you create a scouting department that never missed talent, regardless? Fire them immediately if they missed someone? Good luck hiring their replacements.
No, i never said that, and I honestly do not believe you thought I said that.
What I said was that I hold others to the same standards that I hold myself. That I would have taken it as a personal failure that I missed it and that I wanted to understand why so I could get better. What you are referring to is what I would have done as a manager to ANOTHER person. No, I would not have blamed the employee. Everyone else missed it also. But I would have asked them after the fact if he had seen anything that looking back with 20/20 vision might have shown that he was a good player. In other words, stimulate the desire in the employee to find out shy (if he already was not on it).
I would not have done anything differently because it obviously was not something was easily seen. A multitude of people on many staffs missed it. What I would do AFTER THE FACT, would be to do as I mentioned. To make sure that MY STAFF tried to get something out of it so that next time hopefully we would see something that others missed.
Create a department, that never makes errors?..... Please...... that's not what I said or what I do. It IS what I STRIVE to do, and if you don;t have that as a goal, well, then all I can say is that some of your competitors WILL have that as a goal and good luck with that...
You don;t know me from Adam. Publicly, I take responsibility for all my staffs failures, not only because I feel that whatever happens under me is something I own, but because it is the right way to treat people and I always have people from other areas wanting to work for me. You get the best people. Privately, yeah, there is probably going to be a conversation that the employee might not enjoy. But not in this case. No one got it right. But what I want is people who's professional pride was hurt that they were not the one to get it.
And, no... I have no problems whatsoever hiring people.
Personally I suspect that the scouting organization for the teams and their scouting combines (like BLESTO) have barely enough people to cover their areas of responsibilities. Check out some of the stories and videos on being a NFL scout. It is a tough job. And there can be a pretty good turnover rate.
NFL Network had a 4 part show called Finding Giants that was well reviewed among scouts for accuracy. It focused on scouts in the Giants organization. If you haven't seen it I hope it is available somewhere n the internet as I thought it a really interesting show.
I am sure that Pace as well as other GMs conduct post draft reviews on their scouting effectiveness. And I am also sure that they review their approach and constantly try to improve.
But the point I am trying to make is that even smart people, working very hard can miss things. And they do miss things. And even after reviews and improvements they will miss things next year.
During the college football season (and pre-season), these scouts are constantly on the road. They have to see games, practices, etc. They talk to coaches, local journalists, etc. They have to prioritize their efforts to get to the greatest number of impact players as they possibly can. This IMO is where players get missed. There just isn't enough time to see every player that every coach on your circuit wants you to see. I assume that the scouts work closely with their management to develop this prioritization.
IMO the only way to reduce the miss rate would be to increase the number of college scouts in an organization by something like 20% or 30%. And I expect the return on this investment would not be enough to justify the expenditure. So sometimes a guy like Dak Prescott (or Tom Brady or Kurt Warner) gets missed.
I never said that either. What I said is that is the market value. Every potential buyer needs to determine the return on investment ROI at that particular purchase price. There is a lot of guesswork even in the best of cases where you are buying a piece of machinery with a known capacity. You still have lots of variables even though you know you can produce X with that machine. Can your vendors feed you the amount of raw material at that quantity? How long do you have guaranteed pricing for? What might the price move to? Can your people be trained enough to produce at those numbers? What would be your ramp up time? Those factors (and many more) need to be considered.
Now you are talking about an individuals performance, and no one knows what top level performance of that individual will be, and even if they did, what that performance will mean in terms of wins and losses, so no matter how good businessmen they ear, they do much by instinct and more than they want to admit, how much they hope will happen (potential). So every persons number is going to differ by how much they need that position, how much they think that person will perform, and where that team is in relation to a SB both with and without that performance. In other words, that person is going to be valued differently for almost everyone. Whatever the highest bid is, that is the market value. No where does it say you have to pay more than that. But if you want that person AT THAT SAME POINT IN TIME that a team is willing to pay X, then YES, you will have to pay X plus to get that commodity, and then THAT is the market value. Because it was the value to you (what assets you gave up) to willingly pay that. That is the market value at that time.
It's just the way things work. Not saying you should or should not pay more than the current highest bid. It depends on the perceived value of that asset to you.
Pace determined that those assets were not worth it to him at those numbers. Fine. But those numbers were still the market value.
So is it safe to say that market value isn't the same for each company even for the same possible resource? If so then like my previous post, market value has no real place in determining if one team should have paid what another team did.
No Ric, not really. The market value is the market price paid. That was what the commodity actually traded hands for in the open market (the offer to the player in this case). What that commodity is worth to each individual team is a certain number that they determine by all of the above criteria and more. That number is not the market value. It is the internally derived value by each potential buyer.
Yeah.. I mean splitting hairs here, no team is obligated to pay the market value for anything. They can decide that the value TO THEM is higher than the market value. So, your statement is true. But it also is true that in order to get that commodity, that is what it is worth at that point in time. That last statement is non-negotiable as the price paid proves that is the market value and what it was worth (to someone) at that time.
So if what you are trying to do is get me to say that Pace had to pay that amount for those players, no he did not (and he didn't). But if wanted them, yes, that was the price and what he was going to have to pay to get him. He determined that, for him, it was not worth it. I can't second guess him because I don't know his metrics and even more so, I don't know what he would have gotten out of the asset (the player). And he does not either. It is what it is. All I can say is I don't like what we got out of FA. Would I have paid more (what you call overpay) to get some of those guys? I think we did need some of them and think some of what we got won;t stick, so yes, I would have taken some of that capital that I think is wasted and moved it over to a different asset that I think would have been worth it. But I am not Ryan Pace. I am not saying he was wrong either. I'm just saying that I don't think we came out of FA all that well for what we spent. I have the benefit of being able to say I don;t like the results without having had to be graded on anything.
"Yeah.. I mean splitting hairs here, no team is obligated to pay the market value for anything. They can decide that the value TO THEM is higher than the market value. So, your statement is true. But it also is true that in order to get that commodity, that is what it is worth at that point in time. That last statement is non-negotiable as the price paid proves that is the market value and what it was worth (to someone) at that time."
If I want to buy a racecar to complete a team, and I can pick from several, but I am only allowed to spend a set amount of dollars; It really doesn't matter if the market value by another team for one is 200k, if I can get a car that performs similar for 80k. I'm not beholden, nor should it be considered smart to pay market value for the one that is slightly better, especially if it hurts my team down the line when I have to settle on lesser vehicles to surround that one.
My over riding point is, market value really has no meaning or place in the NFL if I'm a GM. I have my price and all I care about is my price when building my team, if another team is willing to pay far more for a piece I want, well feel free to have it; if I am willing to pay far more then another team, well so be it.
Any scout or person on my team talking about "market value" would likely not have a job in the NFL.
Now I know when it comes to capitalism and the open market, that's a completely different thing. I just think the NFL different in that regard.
JABF, looking back, I think he didn't try because he didn't have the draft pick to have decent odds. To be fair, we also apparently did not have much better of a scouting staff as anyone else did because we did not see Prescott being a good pick either. So barring that, you need a high pick.
When we finally had one, he pounced. I like it. It really is a progression in planning. You have to understand what you need to get the QB, and it's a high pick. Unfortunately, you really can't plan for a high pick. You do your best and either you get one or you don't. I look at last years losing season as a blessing, I really do. It is exactly what the Bears needed to take the next step they needed which was to get a QB.
We have all been debating and bitching about the QB situation forever. How the Bears haven't addressed the position, how we haven't had a good one since Jimmy Mac, blah blah, blah
I'm so sick of it and talking about it. I'm sure you guys are too. Well, finally now we have a legit "QB room" of 3 young guys with promise (I'm ignoring Sanchize cuz he's a glorified coach):
Mike Glennon is 27 has legit starting talent and is a low-mileage young vet with some experience but also some upside Mitch Trubisky is only 21 and was the highest ceiling QB in this draft. He will need 1-2 years of development time and he's a guy multiple other teams were interested in at #2 so clearly there's franchise potential here. Connor Shaw is only 25 and showed well last preseason before a cheap shot injury ended his year. The team liked what they saw enough to bring him back. His ceiling is probably as a backup but that's still a good find for a UDFA on an inexpensive contract.
We FINALLY have something to work with at the league's most important position. It's a breath of fresh air. And I say this as someone who was all in on Solomon Thomas for the Bears at #3.
Before the meatball fans get all jealous of some other QB-needy teams' picks and draft haul, consider this: San Fran & NY Jets both STILL have nothing but hot garbage at the position with little in the pipeline...and the Buffalo Bills just canned their GM and scouting staff one day after the draft. Unbelievable!
"Yeah.. I mean splitting hairs here, no team is obligated to pay the market value for anything. They can decide that the value TO THEM is higher than the market value. So, your statement is true. But it also is true that in order to get that commodity, that is what it is worth at that point in time. That last statement is non-negotiable as the price paid proves that is the market value and what it was worth (to someone) at that time."
If I want to buy a racecar to complete a team, and I can pick from several, but I am only allowed to spend a set amount of dollars; It really doesn't matter if the market value by another team for one is 200k, if I can get a car that performs similar for 80k. I'm not beholden, nor should it be considered smart to pay market value for the one that is slightly better, especially if it hurts my team down the line when I have to settle on lesser vehicles to surround that one.
My over riding point is, market value really has no meaning or place in the NFL if I'm a GM. I have my price and all I care about is my price when building my team, if another team is willing to pay far more for a piece I want, well feel free to have it; if I am willing to pay far more then another team, well so be it.
Any scout or person on my team talking about "market value" would likely not have a job in the NFL.
Now I know when it comes to capitalism and the open market, that's a completely different thing. I just think the NFL different in that regard.
That right there is the bottom line of a free market. And then whatever is actually paid for the player becomes the market value for that point in time.
No, i never said that, and I honestly do not believe you thought I said that.
What I said was that I hold others to the same standards that I hold myself. That I would have taken it as a personal failure that I missed it and that I wanted to understand why so I could get better. What you are referring to is what I would have done as a manager to ANOTHER person. No, I would not have blamed the employee. Everyone else missed it also. But I would have asked them after the fact if he had seen anything that looking back with 20/20 vision might have shown that he was a good player. In other words, stimulate the desire in the employee to find out shy (if he already was not on it).
I would not have done anything differently because it obviously was not something was easily seen. A multitude of people on many staffs missed it. What I would do AFTER THE FACT, would be to do as I mentioned. To make sure that MY STAFF tried to get something out of it so that next time hopefully we would see something that others missed.
Create a department, that never makes errors?..... Please...... that's not what I said or what I do. It IS what I STRIVE to do, and if you don;t have that as a goal, well, then all I can say is that some of your competitors WILL have that as a goal and good luck with that...
You don;t know me from Adam. Publicly, I take responsibility for all my staffs failures, not only because I feel that whatever happens under me is something I own, but because it is the right way to treat people and I always have people from other areas wanting to work for me. You get the best people. Privately, yeah, there is probably going to be a conversation that the employee might not enjoy. But not in this case. No one got it right. But what I want is people who's professional pride was hurt that they were not the one to get it.
And, no... I have no problems whatsoever hiring people.
Personally I suspect that the scouting organization for the teams and their scouting combines (like BLESTO) have barely enough people to cover their areas of responsibilities. Check out some of the stories and videos on being a NFL scout. It is a tough job. And there can be a pretty good turnover rate.
NFL Network had a 4 part show called Finding Giants that was well reviewed among scouts for accuracy. It focused on scouts in the Giants organization. If you haven't seen it I hope it is available somewhere n the internet as I thought it a really interesting show.
I am sure that Pace as well as other GMs conduct post draft reviews on their scouting effectiveness. And I am also sure that they review their approach and constantly try to improve.
But the point I am trying to make is that even smart people, working very hard can miss things. And they do miss things. And even after reviews and improvements they will miss things next year.
During the college football season (and pre-season), these scouts are constantly on the road. They have to see games, practices, etc. They talk to coaches, local journalists, etc. They have to prioritize their efforts to get to the greatest number of impact players as they possibly can. This IMO is where players get missed. There just isn't enough time to see every player that every coach on your circuit wants you to see. I assume that the scouts work closely with their management to develop this prioritization.
IMO the only way to reduce the miss rate would be to increase the number of college scouts in an organization by something like 20% or 30%. And I expect the return on this investment would not be enough to justify the expenditure. So sometimes a guy like Dak Prescott (or Tom Brady or Kurt Warner) gets missed.
oh, I agree. They should continue to strive for perfection. Every organization should. But there is no way to achieve that in scouting. Too many moving parts and reliance on things that you have no insight into.
Generally I think he is doing a positive job. Although this year's draft and FA may have a bit of meh to it he I think is quietly trying to build the roster his way and not Fox's. Although he has to listen to some degree to Fox.