02-26-2016, 02:05 PM
(02-26-2016, 12:32 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: when a lot of your talent is drafted by you you tend to have more money left over from not paying free agents.
What? Can you give me some examples?
What sense does this make? Why couldn't you simply pay the in-house players that you want to keep whatever you need to do that AND invest what is leftover elsewhere?
If, at the end day, we're left with no money to spend after inking our guys, and we deem "our guys" the best options for the respective positions, then I'm not sure anyone has a problem with that. It's only after signing "our guys" and having money just sitting there unused that many like myself will gripe.
I mean, unless you want to argue that there are zero players available in FA that are better than ANY of or players, I'm not sure I get the philosophy. What's wrong with trying to improve?
It sure has worked for teams like Denver, New England and Seattle. I'm not sure where those teams are without the veteran help they added in free agency.
