Logic might tell us that having people like Chris Jericho, Brock Lesnar and Rob Van Dam perform on an abbreviated basis is better than not having them at all.
But is it so?
In reality, trying to analyze this is impossible since we don't know what they're costing WWE. Sure, it's easy for us to tell the company to pony up big bucks for these guys. Since it isn't our money, what do we care how much they have to pay?
But I'd like to know whether they're getting bang for their bucks; whether what they're paying these men is worth it......and how this is determined.
How much is gained in viewers tuning into TV broadcasts when RVD performs 6 months out of the year, as opposed to a full-time schedule? How are his merchandise sales affected? How hard is it for the writers to come up with stuff for him to do, knowing whatever they create has to be curtailed when it's time for Rob to take his extended break? Does RVD even care what they have him doing? Plainly, he's functioned as an enhancement talent much of the time since his return....and I presume he's okay with it, or he wouldn't have come back. Does he like it? Do you like it?
Then, there's Brock. What we see on our TV screens suggests his deal is bigger than the other part-timers, right? He performs far, far less than RVD or Jericho, yet the build-up to each of his returns dwarfs the other two guys. I can't even hazard a guess at what the company is paying Brock.....can you? But given that they keep bringing him back surely indicates he's worth it. Is he?
Lately, we've been talking about Kurt Angle who, apparently, wants the same part-time deal as these other gentlemen and.....from what we've read in past months on pro wrestling hotlines....seemed to feel he'd have no trouble getting one.
Now, it appears he might have been wrong, although it would be just like WWE to have him run in at the Royal Rumble and eliminate a few people before bowing out.....this, after having not heard a peep from him in the months leading up to January. Recent rumors, though, have him staying at TNA, probably with his tail between his legs after overstating his worth to the pro wrestling industry.
But if WWE doesn't want him part-time, does it call into question the idea of what these "sometimes" performers bring to the party? Is WWE re-thinking the idea altogether......or does it apply this time only to Angle? What formula does WWE use to determine this.....and how does it pertain to their (apparent) refusal of Kurt Angle's services?
Obviously, the list of all-time great wrestlers who could command this type of deal is extremely limited. I've been trying to come up with others who might qualify....and all I could think of is Goldberg. Maybe you could come up with others, but it's a short list, in any case.
In short, are part-timers worth the investment?
But is it so?
In reality, trying to analyze this is impossible since we don't know what they're costing WWE. Sure, it's easy for us to tell the company to pony up big bucks for these guys. Since it isn't our money, what do we care how much they have to pay?
But I'd like to know whether they're getting bang for their bucks; whether what they're paying these men is worth it......and how this is determined.
How much is gained in viewers tuning into TV broadcasts when RVD performs 6 months out of the year, as opposed to a full-time schedule? How are his merchandise sales affected? How hard is it for the writers to come up with stuff for him to do, knowing whatever they create has to be curtailed when it's time for Rob to take his extended break? Does RVD even care what they have him doing? Plainly, he's functioned as an enhancement talent much of the time since his return....and I presume he's okay with it, or he wouldn't have come back. Does he like it? Do you like it?
Then, there's Brock. What we see on our TV screens suggests his deal is bigger than the other part-timers, right? He performs far, far less than RVD or Jericho, yet the build-up to each of his returns dwarfs the other two guys. I can't even hazard a guess at what the company is paying Brock.....can you? But given that they keep bringing him back surely indicates he's worth it. Is he?
Lately, we've been talking about Kurt Angle who, apparently, wants the same part-time deal as these other gentlemen and.....from what we've read in past months on pro wrestling hotlines....seemed to feel he'd have no trouble getting one.
Now, it appears he might have been wrong, although it would be just like WWE to have him run in at the Royal Rumble and eliminate a few people before bowing out.....this, after having not heard a peep from him in the months leading up to January. Recent rumors, though, have him staying at TNA, probably with his tail between his legs after overstating his worth to the pro wrestling industry.
But if WWE doesn't want him part-time, does it call into question the idea of what these "sometimes" performers bring to the party? Is WWE re-thinking the idea altogether......or does it apply this time only to Angle? What formula does WWE use to determine this.....and how does it pertain to their (apparent) refusal of Kurt Angle's services?
Obviously, the list of all-time great wrestlers who could command this type of deal is extremely limited. I've been trying to come up with others who might qualify....and all I could think of is Goldberg. Maybe you could come up with others, but it's a short list, in any case.
In short, are part-timers worth the investment?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire