How Do You Define Cheap?

September 19th, 2010

Yesterday’s report about 2010 NFL salaries puts the Bucs at the bottom of the league payroll this season.

No surprise that Tampa Bay is one of the teams taking advantage of the demise of the salary cap floor.

Per the NFL, the Bucs checked in last in the league in player spending from 2004 through 2008. And 2009 was another year spent at the salary cap floor.

So the Bucs have been bottom-spenders now for seven seasons.

Now does this mean Team Glazer is running the franchise with money being more important than winning?  Have they become cheap after being among the NFL’s big spenders before 2004?

Those answers really come down to how one personally chooses to define cheap, frugual or whatever other word one can use to describe an ownership group operating with a low payroll.

One could make the argument that the Bucs drafted so poorly over the past several years that the team didn’t have its own players to smartly sign to fat long term deals. One also could make the case that the Bucs invested heavily in coaching and were eager to spend $13 million to land Brett Favre, whose signing likely would have changed the numbers a bit.

But many take a more bottom line view and see Team Glazer spending the least on players for so long, and therefore have no choice but to believe they’re being the cheapest owners in the NFL.

Of course, Joe knows the timing of Team Glazer buying Manchester United in 2005, and accruing massive debt in the process, adds a new dimension to the perception.

Where does Joe stand in all this? Frankly, Joe’s not 100 percent sure. Joe knows there are many factors at play, including several Joe didn’t reference above. But Team Glazer has, in fact, spent the very least for seven years, which doesn’t feel good to Joe, or any fan he knows.

12 Responses to “How Do You Define Cheap?”

  1. Mr. Lucky Says:

    The Bucs are sitting in first place in the NFC South for the first time in 2 years and all Joe wants to talk about is the Glazer’s payroll?


  2. Pete Says:

    #1, I’d hold off on the whole “first place” or “any place” talk until we get about halfway through the season. Right now half the league is in first place.

    As far as the cheap thing, I have observed owners over the years who were called cheap, but did spend money when there was talent to spend it on. So, I don’t think team Glazer is cheap, but they simply know when to spend the money and also who to spend it on.

  3. admin Says:

    Joe here,

    Sorry Mr. Lucky, Joe’s calling LAME on you. This story about Bucs payroll is fresh news. Would you prefer Joe blow it off?

    Joe, of course, will have some pregame news, and the fastest and most comprehensive postgame coverage available.

  4. Aldo Says:

    i dont get it, if i remember, when chucky was here he offered for Brett Favre, last year we offered for fat albert, and after all is not like the team who spent more money is the super bowl champion!!

    all is about bussiness!! is not how much u spend, is all about how u think to use ur money for a benefit, the prove for all this are Dan Snyder and the DEADSKINS!!

  5. rob in tampa Says:

    I’d be concerned about payroll if the Bucs had let a ton of really productive draft picks go to free agency. That being said, name 1 draft pick from the last 7 years that they let go due to money. Barret Ruud still hasn’t shown he is a top-level LB.. he reminds me a lot of Broderick Thomas.. he was a good player on a crappy team- not at the level of a Brooks or a Nickerson. The Bucs were willing to pay Haynesworth (glad they didn’t), Favre (would have liked to see him tutor Freeman), Bryant (sorry about the knees), and Winslow (knees again)…

    How come when Robert Kraft or his son who now runs a good chunk of the family business doesn’t give huge contracts to middle-of-the-line players he’s called a genius, but the Glazers are said to be “cheap with Daddy’s money”? Yes, they’ve won quite a bit– but that’s due to great drafting and player decisions, and the fact that they took a huge risk on a coach that failed in his first HC job.

    Let’s face it- as much as Doug Williams was a fan favorite and was hard for fans to see him go, he was part of the problem here. For every Ozzy Newsome there is at least 5 Doug Williams, Jim Browns, or other players who DON’T make good talent evaluators. Let’s give the current team a few years to see how it goes.

  6. gotbbucs Says:

    The team also has about 15-18 of their own free agents to resign next year and it should be one of the deepest pools of UFA’s in a long time so before any of you go jumping off the end of the world why don’t you just worry about football until next offseason, then everybody can bitch all they want and fly off the deep end when the team doesn’t sign the most expensive guy out there.

  7. OB Says:

    If Josh Freeman, Mike Williams, Gerald McCoy, Roy Miller, Dave Price, Reggie Benn, Mike Spurlock, Sammie, and the entire Linebacker, and DB crew continure to grow along with the most of the OL (Faine and Penn have big contracts, along with Winslow), we will see if the Glazer’s are cheap or if they put up the money to keep them.

    Remember we “lost” two high priced players in Clayton and the RB whose name I have already forgot.

  8. Scott Says:

    I have to admit I have moved from the ‘Glazers are cheap’ to the ‘I’m not sure, let’s hope not camp’, simply because it looks to me like they have started something good this year. If, as the team jells and there is a need to re-sign proven performers or acquire a free agent to fill a key need and if the Glazers pass on doing so then I will be back in the ‘Glazers are cheap’ camp.

    That said people need to quit holding up the offer to Haynesworth as an example of the team being willing to spend. The deal they offered had lots of incentives and very little guarentee. Now in retrospect that looked like a wise move, but it can’t be held up as an example of big spending on the Glazer’s part.

  9. Lakeland Bob Says:

    Good post Rob-I totlly agree.Also if the Glazers only worried about a profit,they would have kept Chucky and Bruce with their temperary band-aids instead of rebuilding and spending big bucks on top draft picks.

  10. JimBuc Says:

    The Glazers lost all their money to Madoff. Tampa2 told me so.

  11. Pruritis Ani Says:

    You don’t go from spending to not spending for no reasong at all. In opinion, it’s one of two things
    1) Lack of money
    2) Lack of interest

    Hard to believe that all of a sudden they have no interest in the team..

  12. Miguel Grande Says:

    The Glazers stole their $50 million Buccaneers down payment from a dotcom IPO that the sons did back in the stock market bubble. They were going to replace that stolen money with the $50 million that Baltimore was going to give any NFL team willing to move. When they approached Art Modell, head of the relocation committee, with the details he screwed them and stole the deal. He took their $50 million and moved the Brownies in the middle of the night. They then probably had to refinance the Bucs so the sons would stay out of jail.
    The purchase of Manchester United was probably as convoluted. The Glazers are broke jokes, never had any money and never will. They have never made a sound, ethical business decision in their lives. They should be in the trailer park business where they came from. Once, getting out of his limousine, Donald Trump pointed out a homeless person sitting out in front of the Plaza Hotel to his daughter and said,”See that guy. He’s got $8 billion dollars more than me.” Glazers have a negative $1.6 billion.