Is this Chris Ballard story true?

[meangreek]

the writing is on the wall when ownership wants to hire fox for the Gm to get his feet wet.
The same thing was done for Nagy with Fangio
Until we have changes at the top
nothings goona change

 

[remydat]

Just curious....how long have you followed the Bears. How long have u followed football? Get back to me on this.

I have followed it long enough to know what you are saying makes no fucking sense. Let break this down to you as someone that has spent an entire career in the financial world auditing companies all across the globe including a couple of NFL teams.

Minimum Cash Spending in 2020 | Over the Cap

Minimum Cash Spending in 2020 | Over the Cap

overthecap.com

There is a salary cap that has minimum spends over a 4 year period and the Bears have never come close to not meeting the minimum spend thresholds. So there cost structure is largely fixed and there is really no ability for them to significantly manipulate that cost structure. So them signing or not signing someone does not significantly impact their bottom line because at the end of the day they will need to hit their spending targets regardless. And if they fail to meet their targets, what would happen is any unused cap space comes out of their pockets and into the hands of the existing players on the team so they would be giving money away without actually improving the team by using that money to get better players.

So the issue is not that they are not spending. The issue is they are spending on the wrong combination of players, coaches and executives. Further, the bigger problem to your argument is they were capable of getting better players, coaches and executives they would because the only way for them to really increase profitability is by improving the product on the field. A better team means more fans coming to games, more merchandise sales and more remove from a media that likes to follow good teams. So your argument implodes on itself.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. Whether they sign a guy for 30 million a year or sign 5 guys for 6 million a year they will still end up spending by in large the same amount of money on players as that is the fucking point of the salary cap.

The Bears under the McCaskey's have sucked. That is due to incompetence not due to lack of trying or because they are focused on profitability. You may have had a case for this before the NFL implemented minimum salary cap spending thresholds and guaranteed a set percentage to players over a period of time but in today's NFL the best way to improve profitability is to be good because bad teams still have the spend a similar amount of money over a 4 year period.




P.S. The irony in all of this is the fact that it is Chris Ballard's team was in jeopardy of not hitting the spending thresholds as they were 43 million under at the start of the season. So again this has nothing to do with profitability and everything to do with competence. He has just spend the money more wisely than Pace but Pace has actually spent a lot more of it than Ballard. This is why some following the Colts surmised they gave Brisset his deal and then signed Rivers to 25 million a year so that they would be in better position to hit the threshold. So there is more evidence that Ballard is doing just enough to be competitive and focused on profitability than there is of Pace. If the Colts had spent more on better players they would probably be a SB favorite.

 

[run and shoot]

I have followed it long enough to know what you are saying makes no fucking sense. Let break this down to you as someone that has spent an entire career in the financial world auditing companies all across the globe including a couple of NFL teams.

Minimum Cash Spending in 2020 | Over the Cap

Minimum Cash Spending in 2020 | Over the Cap

overthecap.com

There is a salary cap that has minimum spends over a 4 year period and the Bears have never come close to not meeting the minimum spend thresholds. So there cost structure is largely fixed and there is really no ability for them to significantly manipulate that cost structure. So them signing or not signing someone does not significantly impact their bottom line because at the end of the day they will need to hit their spending targets regardless. And if they fail to meet their targets, what would happen is any unused cap space comes out of their pockets and into the hands of the existing players on the team so they would be giving money away without actually improving the team by using that money to get better players.

So the issue is not that they are not spending. The issue is they are spending on the wrong combination of players, coaches and executives. Further, the bigger problem to your argument is they were capable of getting better players, coaches and executives they would because the only way for them to really increase profitability is by improving the product on the field. A better team means more fans coming to games, more merchandise sales and more remove from a media that likes to follow good teams. So your argument implodes on itself.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. Whether they sign a guy for 30 million a year or sign 5 guys for 6 million a year they will still end up spending by in large the same amount of money on players as that is the fucking point of the salary cap.

The Bears under the McCaskey's have sucked. That is due to incompetence not due to lack of trying or because they are focused on profitability. You may have had a case for this before the NFL implemented minimum salary cap spending thresholds and guaranteed a set percentage to players over a period of time but in today's NFL the best way to improve profitability is to be good because bad teams still have the spend a similar amount of money over a 4 year period.




P.S. The irony in all of this is the fact that it is Chris Ballard's team was in jeopardy of not hitting the spending thresholds as they were 43 million under at the start of the season. So again this has nothing to do with profitability and everything to do with competence. He has just spend the money more wisely than Pace but Pace has actually spent a lot more of it than Ballard. This is why some following the Colts surmised they gave Brisset his deal and then signed Rivers to 25 million a year so that they would be in better position to hit the threshold. So there is more evidence that Ballard is doing just enough to be competitive and focused on profitability than there is of Pace. If the Colts had spent more on better players they would probably be a SB favorite.

Do you think a GM or Coach can somehow take ownership away?

Of course not.


Now...Please be specific on the number of years you've followed the Bears. I just want to keep a context as I address the rest. The "tough guy" hostile profanity is unnecessary.

 

[remydat]

Of course not.


Now...Please be specific on the number of years you've followed the Bears. I just want to keep a context as I address the rest. The "tough guy" hostile profanity is unnecessary.

I have provided you with evidence to support my point. That is all that matters. You either have a rebuttal to that evidence or you don't. Pace has actually spent more than Ballard. So do you have evidence to dispute the fact Pace has spent more than Ballard? Your premise is the Bears are more concerned with profitability and that somehow Ballard would change that yet Ballard has been cheaper than Pace over the time they have been GMs.

Finally, once you address the above, if you want to get into a pissing contest over who has followed the Bears for longer then feel free to be specific on the number of years you've followed the Bears. You are trying to cast aspersions on my knowledge of the Bears history without establishing you are an authority on the matter to distract from the fact that again Ballard has been cheaper than Pace.

 

[run and shoot]

I have provided you with evidence to support my point. That is all that matters. You either have a rebuttal to that evidence or you don't. Pace has actually spent more than Ballard. So do you have evidence to dispute the fact Pace has spent more than Ballard? Your premise is the Bears are more concerned with profitability and that somehow Ballard would change that yet Ballard has been cheaper than Pace over the time they have been GMs.

Finally, once you address the above, if you want to get into a pissing contest over who has followed the Bears for longer then feel free to be specific on the number of years you've followed the Bears. You are trying to cast aspersions on my knowledge of the Bears history without establishing you are an authority on the matter to distract from the fact that again Ballard has been cheaper than Pace.

It's not a "pissing contest". Just tell me when me when u started following the Bears.(Remember, I asked u first)
Plus I answered your " Do you think a GM or Coach can somehow take ownership away?" question....right?

And...No there's no distraction from Ballard. Remember, I injected him into the discussion earlier. And I plan to come back to him and I'll give u some additional irony on Ballard). Also, I'm going to circle back on the Bear profitability.

 

[remydat]

It's not a "pissing contest". Just tell me when me when u started following the Bears.(Remember, I asked u first)
Plus I answered your " Do you think a GM or Coach can somehow take ownership away?" question....right?

And...No there's no distraction from Ballard. Remember, I injected him into the discussion earlier. And I plan to come back to him and I'll give u some additional irony on Ballard). Also, I'm going to circle back on the Bear profitability.

Yes you asked me first but the point is your question is irrelevant to the topic. This thread isn't about how long we have followed the Bears. It is about Ballard and by extension Pace. So my comments are on topic. You want to go off topic for some strange reason. You circle back to irrelevant topics like the question you are asking. You don't circle back to the topic that is actually relevant to the thread.

Ballard isn't spending a lot of money in Indy so once again if the concern is profitability then Ballard appears to be the safer bet. A ton of money came off the books once Luck retired and Ballard has done very little to spend it.

 

[run and shoot]

Yes you asked me first but the point is your question is irrelevant to the topic. This thread isn't about how long we have followed the Bears. It is about Ballard and by extension Pace. So my comments are on topic. You want to go off topic for some strange reason. You circle back to irrelevant topics like the question you are asking. You don't circle back to the topic that is actually relevant to the thread.

Ballard isn't spending a lot of money in Indy so once again if the concern is profitability then Ballard appears to be the safer bet. A ton of money came off the books once Luck retired and Ballard has done very little to spend it.

Here's what I said
"And...No there's no distraction from Ballard. Remember, I injected him into the discussion earlier. And I plan to come back to him and I'll give u some additional irony on Ballard). Also, I'm going to circle back on the Bear profitability. "


Now......
Just tell me when me when u started following the Bears.(Remember, I asked u first)
Plus I answered your " Do you think a GM or Coach can somehow take ownership away?" question....right?

Look I answered your question even though it didn't make sense to me. So humor me and answer my question.

 

[remydat]

Here's what I said
"And...No there's no distraction from Ballard. Remember, I injected him into the discussion earlier. And I plan to come back to him and I'll give u some additional irony on Ballard). Also, I'm going to circle back on the Bear profitability. "


Now......
Just tell me when me when u started following the Bears.(Remember, I asked u first)
Plus I answered your " Do you think a GM or Coach can somehow take ownership away?" question....right?

Look I answered your question even though it didn't make sense to me. So humor me and answer my question.

You didn't answer the question. Your premise is as follows.

Phillips is there to protect the McCaskey's interest. Winning is secondary

I responded by pointing out the Bears have spent a lot of money trying to win. More than Ballard. This undercuts the above claim which is the only thing relevant to the thread topic. The other stuff is a distraction. So let's get to the the heart of your claim above and then once that is resolved we can go on whatever tangent you want.

As it stands now, the above has been disproven by the fact the Bears spend more than the GM that is the topic of this OP. What is your response to that fact?

The point is the Bears do just enough to stay competitive and profitable. That's the reality. Note this has 0 to do with winning. Anyone whose watched the Bears over the years knows this.

Side-note: Chris Ballard wanted to shake things up, "drain the swamp" and ownership wasn't having it.
Just curious....how long have followed the Bears. How long have u followed football?

Then you follow up with this illogical statement you claim being competitive and profitable has 0 to do with winning which is asinine. Being competitive is in fact an attempt to win as if you didn't care about winning then you aren't really trying to be competitive.

Further you claim Ballard wants to drain the swamp but if he is doing Irsay's bidding in Indy and keeping salaries down to a much greater extent than the Bears then there is no reason to think he would push back on the McCaskeys if in fact the McCaskey's didn't want to spend.

Again, the Bears are well above the spending threshold while the Colts were 43 million or so below it and thus had to give both Brisett and Rivers larger deals than they probably warranted just to get to the minimum 89% threshold.

Sidenote - Chris Ballard has not shaken up shit in Indy. He has left more money in Irsay's pockets thus far than Pace has to the McCaskeys.

 

[run and shoot]

You didn't answer the question. Your premise is as follows.



I responded by pointing out the Bears have spent a lot of money trying to win. More than Ballard. This undercuts the above claim which is the only thing relevant to the thread topic. The other stuff is a distraction. So let's get to the the heart of your claim above and then once that is resolved we can go on whatever tangent you want.

As it stands now, the above has been disproven by the fact the Bears spend more than the GM that is the topic of this OP. What is your response to that fact?



Then you follow up with this illogical statement you claim being competitive and profitable has 0 to do with winning which is asinine. Being competitive is in fact an attempt to win as if you didn't care about winning then you aren't really trying to be competitive.

Further you claim Ballard wants to drain the swamp but if he is doing Irsay's bidding in Indy and keeping salaries down to a much greater extent than the Bears then there is no reason to think he would push back on the McCaskeys if in fact the McCaskey's didn't want to spend.

Again, the Bears are well above the spending threshold while the Colts were 43 million or so below it and thus had to give both Brisett and Rivers larger deals than they probably warranted just to get to the minimum 89% threshold.

Sidenote - Chris Ballard has not shaken up shit in Indy. He has left more money in Irsay's pockets thus far than Pace has to the McCaskeys.

You got it all jumbled up. But, I'll unpack everything as I always do. Again, I answered your question " Do you think a GM or Coach can somehow take ownership away?"
But you keep running from how long have u followed the Bears . Was it since 2012 when u joined here? Was it b4? what year did become a Bears fan? Most ppl. are proud to say to quantify their Bears allegiance.

Don't worry I'm gonna come back and unpack Ballard, Ted, ownership and the Bear philosophy.

 

[remydat]

Nope I was on CBMB before here as well as a Bears forum over at Worldcrossing. Came here when CBMB closed.

 

[run and shoot]

Nope I was on CBMB before here as well as a Bears forum over at Worldcrossing. Came here when CBMB closed.

So how long have u been a Bears fan?

 

[Nail Polish]

To be fair... As much as I think Phillips should be fired, a team CEO can't have a HC coming in telling him who belongs in the front office or not.. Business just isn't run that way.

 

[Leomaz]

they only reason their interests are protected is because fools still wait on lists behind other fools that still buy season tickets and sellout a stadium to see a shitty product on the field year after year. If people didnt pay to watch, they would drop Teddy P pretty quick.

And I’ll never give up my season tickets.

 

[Penny Traitor]

And Jamais Vus said Teddy is not part of the problem......

Depends on the problem. If we are still talking the product on the football field...no, he is not.

If a movie sucks...you will site things like actors, scripts or even the director.

You don't ever think a movie sucks because of the President of Universal Pictures.

 

[Leomaz]

everyone says it, their beat writers, owner, fans, players and coach. Ballard will have a real career, while Pace will be saying “welcome to LA fitness may I swipe your card” in the next 5 years

LMFAO

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Rumor is that Ted Phillips personally scouted Jaylon Johnson. He was instrumental is that draft selection.

 

[remydat]

Yeah it is funny how everyone was on Pace and Nagy's jock at one point and now despite being given total control it is somehow Teddy's fault when they **** up. As if Teddy should have stormed into the War Room, slapped the shit out Pace and told him to take Mahomes.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Yeah it is funny how everyone was on Pace and Nagy's jock at one point and now despite being given total control it is somehow Teddy's fault when they **** up. As if Teddy should have stormed into the War Room, slapped the shit out Pace and told him to take Mahomes.

That part is true. It's been widely reported that Ted Phillips was pounding the table for Pat Mahomes. It was Pace that called up George, got Ted out of the war room, and selected Trubisky. If Pace listened to Ted, we'd have won 3 SBs by now.

 

[Tillman33]

That part is true. It's been widely reported that Ted Phillips was pounding the table for Pat Mahomes. It was Pace that called up George, got Ted out of the war room, and selected Trubisky. If Pace listened to Ted, we'd have won 3 SBs by now.

If this is true, I don’t know how Pace could show his face again in the building these last few years. Pat becomes the greatest QB of all time and Trubisky becomes a pastor

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

If this is true, I don’t know how Pace could show his face again in the building these last few years. Pat becomes the greatest QB of all time and Trubisky becomes a pastor

It's 100% true. Ted actually knows what he is doing. It's all Pace.