Collective bargaining agreement.... will it be renewed?

[RoadLizard 73]

Im wondering if the CBA which will expire next season is a good thing or a bad thing. I understand the argument for keeping little teams competitive but they have done this in the past(remained competitve) without caps and the cap has killed team chemistry over the years because its too hard to keep a team together. The Bills in the 90's. The Benglas in the 80's. Green Bay in the 60's. Pittsburgh in the 70's. No cap, small markets, lots of success!

 

In my opinion - Id prefer they get a CBA done so the players are happy but Id like to see them try to avoid a salary cap just to see how things go. People might be surprised that the Redskins and Cowboys do NOT just sign all the players and win...which was always a stoopid argument anyways. I bet the same teams are good and the same teams that always lose will still lose. The difference will be that teams will stay together longer and be good for a while instead of one-hit wonders all over the league. And, that jersey you buy might actually be worthy since the guy wil most likely stay on that team forever instaed of 3 seasons.

 

Speaking of one-hit wonders...The Cards will be 7-9 this year and will never get close to a SB again.

 

Thoughts?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I think that you will probably see a lockout after next season's uncapped year. I think that they need to have a cap in the NFL. Baseball is not as good competition-wise as the sports with a cap. The health of the game is very good right now even in these tough economic times and they need to make some tweaks.

 

I think that the owners need to work out their own differences in revenue sharing, which I think that they will do this year. Then, they will battle with the players on revenue sharing with both sides digging their heels in. The owners will lock out the players for a while and they will compromise on some of the lesser things with a cap still being in place.

[Vikings4ever 496]

You're forgetting one thing. In the pre salary cap era, there was also practically no free agency. If a team wanted to keep a player, they did.

 

In today's NFL, with rampant free agency, a salary cap (and floor) is a must.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Just had to do some bumping, since you seem to bring this up every year.

[RoadLizard 73]

You're forgetting one thing. In the pre salary cap era, there was also practically no free agency. If a team wanted to keep a player, they did.

 

In today's NFL, with rampant free agency, a salary cap (and floor) is a must.

 

But keeping players is a huge issue I have. I like when teams stay together and make a "run" as opposed to the lottery-style we have now where the league is basically a dice roll each season.

[RoadLizard 73]

Just had to do some bumping, since you seem to bring this up every year.

 

Yeah, but this year its more prevalent than ever since the CBA IS going to run out.

[Sho Nuff 720]

But keeping players is a huge issue I have. I like when teams stay together and make a "run" as opposed to the lottery-style we have now where the league is basically a dice roll each season.

 

I think a rookie cap would help fix this...(less on the high priced rookies means more to keep your vets)...as well as some sort of Vet rule if a player has been on the team for a while that only so much of it counts towards the cap...like a percentage cap break for signing a vet who has been on your team for say 5+ years or so(didn't the NBA or something have such a rule in their contract with the players?)

 

But getting rid of the cap altogether is idiotic...which is what I expect from the poster who wants all games played in domes.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

As a steeler fan going uncapped would probably be a good thing, we are one of the few teams up against the cap year in and year out, so it would allow the steelers to keep players that they just wouldnt be able to otherwise.

 

 

However for competitive balance i like the salary cap. I think it prevents the gap from becoming too large, and it gives every team a shot to turn it around.

[Vikings4ever 496]

But keeping players is a huge issue I have. I like when teams stay together and make a "run" as opposed to the lottery-style we have now where the league is basically a dice roll each season.

And how is ending the salary cap going to help with that? I mean other than a half dozen teams that can afford to keep their teams together? And even then, they wouldn't, since they can afford to go out and get better players every year.

 

The only way would be to have a salary cap with a veteran's exception, which would (generally) allow teams to keep their players, while not going out and buying every other team's players

[RoadLizard 73]

And how is ending the salary cap going to help with that? I mean other than a half dozen teams that can afford to keep their teams together? And even then, they wouldn't, since they can afford to go out and get better players every year.

 

The only way would be to have a salary cap with a veteran's exception, which would (generally) allow teams to keep their players, while not going out and buying every other team's players

 

First off - With no cap, teams wouldnt have to contemplate getting rid of players because they'd have no cap to worry about. Thats why guys leave, at least usually.

 

Secondly - A veterans exception is a fair compromise and would help with that ""keeping teams" together that Im all for.

 

Im actually shocked that more of you supposed die-hard football fans dont want teams to stick together longer... you guys must root for jerseys instead of players and teams!

[RoadLizard 73]

I think a rookie cap would help fix this...(less on the high priced rookies means more to keep your vets)...as well as some sort of Vet rule if a player has been on the team for a while that only so much of it counts towards the cap...like a percentage cap break for signing a vet who has been on your team for say 5+ years or so(didn't the NBA or something have such a rule in their contract with the players?)

 

But getting rid of the cap altogether is idiotic...which is what I expect from the poster who wants all games played in domes.

 

Its no more idiotic than not allowing teams to keep their players or build a stronger team without getting rid of players first. You guys must be liberal democrats....

 

As for domes - at least a retractable roof so we can enjoy the games during horrirfic weather instead of slipping, sliding, and total chaos. Besides, my fantasy players cant score as many TDs in the focking snow and mud. That sucks.

[WhiteWonder 2,242]

explain to me how no salary cap will allow teams to keep their players.

 

if you think smaller market teams would be able to offer high enough contracts to keep their stars, you are sadly mistaken. Just look at baseball. Except in the NFL, smaller market teams wouldn't have a farm system to replenish like the A's, Rays etc. do

[Lionsjunkie 1]

But getting rid of the cap altogether is idiotic...which is what I expect from the poster who wants all games played in domes.

 

 

Note to self....never open/respond to a RoadKill thread....evahhhhh

[Sho Nuff 720]

Its no more idiotic than not allowing teams to keep their players or build a stronger team without getting rid of players first. You guys must be liberal democrats....

 

As for domes - at least a retractable roof so we can enjoy the games during horrirfic weather instead of slipping, sliding, and total chaos. Besides, my fantasy players cant score as many TDs in the focking snow and mud. That sucks.

 

Liberal democrat? Nope. Nice try.

 

But yes...it is pretty idiotic.

Yes...Im sure the NFL really gives a damn about your sorry ass fantasy team.

[Sho Nuff 720]

And the way the cap has kept increasing...how many teams are really losing any big stars to FA because they could not afford them?

The cap was not the reason Haynesworth was gone this year.

[RoadLizard 73]

And the way the cap has kept increasing...how many teams are really losing any big stars to FA because they could not afford them?

The cap was not the reason Haynesworth was gone this year.

 

Well then..whats the issue? Are salaries too high? Is free agency starting become like employee unions - totally useless and bloated? What would have kept Haynesworth in Tennessee?

[WhiteWonder 2,242]

Well then..whats the issue? Are salaries too high? Is free agency starting become like employee unions - totally useless and bloated? What would have kept Haynesworth in Tennessee?

 

money.... but in reality, nothing. because in an uncapped system, Washington plays in a bigger media market than Tennessee and Daniel Snyder has deep pockets... He would be the Stienbrenner of the NFL...

 

with no cap, the teams with the most revenue and willing owners get their guys.

 

when it comes down to it. having a cap is actually the only way some teams CAN compete.

 

 

like i said before, in baseball small market teams can still sometimes compete because of th farm system. The A's are perfect examples.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Well then..whats the issue? Are salaries too high? Is free agency starting become like employee unions - totally useless and bloated? What would have kept Haynesworth in Tennessee?

 

Tennessee had plenty of cap room for big Al...they did not feel he was worth that contract.

That and they were dumb in not having him signed before going into the last season where they had to franchise him.

His own issues of missing games due to injury or suspension kept that from happening. They just did not know if they could count on him long term enough to pay him that much money.

[LT2_3 0]

And how is ending the salary cap going to help with that? I mean other than a half dozen teams that can afford to keep their teams together? And even then, they wouldn't, since they can afford to go out and get better players every year.

 

The only way would be to have a salary cap with a veteran's exception, which would (generally) allow teams to keep their players, while not going out and buying every other team's players

 

I don't think a veteran's exception would work out the way you think. As someone mentioned above, the problem is free agency. Players want to be able to get paid what the market will bear and get the contract security that comes with a large signing bonus. Any sort of veteran's exception would have to work like the franchise tag and not give the security of a long term deal negotiated on the open market. Players would never agree to that. They hate the franchise tag as it is.

 

No matter how you slice it, you can't achieve teams staying together the way proposed without eliminating free agency, and that's not going to go away under any circumstances because a federal judge gave that to the players. The only way it could conceivably happen would be for the players to give it up - and that's just not going to happen.

 

I understand the desire for teams to be able to retain their players, but it's just not going to happen because the players WANT to enter the free market and get the best deal for themselves.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Any sort of veteran's exception would have to work like the franchise tag and not give the security of a long term deal negotiated on the open market. Players would never agree to that. They hate the franchise tag as it is.

How so?

 

Something like only 75% of a vet's salary (a vet being someone who's played something like 5, 6 years for their current team) counting against the cap would be nothing like the franchise tag. Any player that truly wants out (barring getting franchised) would be able to get out. But it would be more affordable for teams to sign their own players rather than go out and sign someone else's.

 

With my example, maybe alter the franchise tag so that a player can't be tagged twice in a row.

 

Basically, I think there should be some incentive for teams to resign their own players, while not allowing big market teams to buy every player from small market teams.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

How so?

 

Something like only 75% of a vet's salary (a vet being someone who's played something like 5, 6 years for their current team) counting against the cap would be nothing like the franchise tag. Any player that truly wants out (barring getting franchised) would be able to get out. But it would be more affordable for teams to sign their own players rather than go out and sign someone else's.

 

With my example, maybe alter the franchise tag so that a player can't be tagged twice in a row.

 

Basically, I think there should be some incentive for teams to resign their own players, while not allowing big market teams to buy every player from small market teams.

 

Players today have veteran minimum deals. If you sign one of these deals, then only a percentage of the deal counts against the cap. The problem is that it cannot have a material signing bonus (I think it has to be less than $20k) and it must be for a relatively low amount (for long term vets, I think that the max is $950k). That actually works pretty well in that it allows teams to keep veterans in lieu of signing rookies or younger players for cheaper. I think that you are talking about something more substantial, sort of like the NBA's Larry Bird exception. I think that (if that is the case), then it gets away from a hard cap and I think that the hard cap is good for football.

 

With respect to players being tagged twice in a row, it can happen today. You can't tag a player three times in a row, but you can do it twice.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Players today have veteran minimum deals. If you sign one of these deals, then only a percentage of the deal counts against the cap. The problem is that it cannot have a material signing bonus (I think it has to be less than $20k) and it must be for a relatively low amount (for long term vets, I think that the max is $950k). That actually works pretty well in that it allows teams to keep veterans in lieu of signing rookies or younger players for cheaper. I think that you are talking about something more substantial, sort of like the NBA's Larry Bird exception. I think that (if that is the case), then it gets away from a hard cap and I think that the hard cap is good for football.

 

With respect to players being tagged twice in a row, it can happen today. You can't tag a player three times in a row, but you can do it twice.

Yes, I was talking about something more substantial. For all veterans, whether they make 1 million a year or 10.

 

Not exactly a Bird exception. If there's not enough room under the cap to pay a vet (or rather, the 75% of his salary), they can't sign him. Period. And anyway, the NFL doesn't exactly have a hard cap now. The Vikings and Eagles have been masters at getting around the cap using Likely To Be Earned incentives to transfer cap space from one year to the next.

 

And I know that players can be tagged twice in a row. I was suggesting with a proposed vet's exception, that could be done away with.

[LT2_3 0]

How so?

 

Something like only 75% of a vet's salary (a vet being someone who's played something like 5, 6 years for their current team) counting against the cap would be nothing like the franchise tag. Any player that truly wants out (barring getting franchised) would be able to get out. But it would be more affordable for teams to sign their own players rather than go out and sign someone else's.

 

With my example, maybe alter the franchise tag so that a player can't be tagged twice in a row.

 

Basically, I think there should be some incentive for teams to resign their own players, while not allowing big market teams to buy every player from small market teams.

 

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it work without massive changes to the way things currently work.

 

1. It would be a soft cap. The NFL does have a hard cap in that you can't exceed the cap during any league year. The rollover you refer to only happens when you don't use all of your cap anyway. The accounting is still a hard cap though. If the cap is 100 mil one year and you roll over 10 mil, then the following year it's the cap +10 mil. you can't ever spend more than you were supposed to have in the first place.

 

2. I don't think it would have the effect you are looking for because your suggestion doesn't address guaranteed money which is what players care most about. A player might likely choose a 4 year $40 mil contract with $20 mil guaranteed from another team than a 4 year $50 mil contract with $10 mil guaranteed that only costs the home team $37.5 mil against the cap.

 

3. With the cap getting so inflated over the past 3 years, teams are more worried about the actual dollars that they are spending whereas in the past they were trying to work the cap. So, before the last CBA extension, your idea might have worked, but as it stands now, saving cap space is pretty much the last thing on a team's mind. They don't need to worry about it because there is way too much of it.

 

Maybe if you gave me examples of players that you think should have stayed with their own teams I could tell you why your suggestion would or wouldn't have worked. Someone brought up Haynesworth. In that case, your suggestion would have had no effect because the Titans didn't want to give that kind of guaranteed money to a player with an injury and suspension history.

 

I'll give you another example: Bernard Berrian. The Bears were in the running to re-sign him, but the Vikes offered more than the Bears were willing to pay in real world dollars and particularly guaranteed money. It's not like they didn't have the cap space. They rolled over $10 mil last year to this year. They currently have over $20 mil in cap space. Some form of salary cap savings wouldn't have affected their decision one iota.

 

I agree that it would be nice if players could stay with their teams more often. However, the fundamental nature of free agency is that teams with a glaring need will always be willing to pay more and guarantee more than teams without as great a need whether it's their first team or not. So, sure, it's a fun thing to talk about in the slow part of the offseason, but there is no way that the league will ever move away from a hard cap and guaranteed money will always be more important to a player rather than caring who pays it to them.

 

It's a noble thought, but I don't see any way to effectively implement it without changing the current system radically. With your proposal, it would just mean that teams would just have to PLAN to spend far more on a FA than the team they were already on.

[Vikings4ever 496]

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it work without massive changes to the way things currently work.

 

1. It would be a soft cap. The NFL does have a hard cap in that you can't exceed the cap during any league year. The rollover you refer to only happens when you don't use all of your cap anyway. The accounting is still a hard cap though. If the cap is 100 mil one year and you roll over 10 mil, then the following year it's the cap +10 mil. you can't ever spend more than you were supposed to have in the first place.

 

2. I don't think it would have the effect you are looking for because your suggestion doesn't address guaranteed money which is what players care most about. A player might likely choose a 4 year $40 mil contract with $20 mil guaranteed from another team than a 4 year $50 mil contract with $10 mil guaranteed that only costs the home team $37.5 mil against the cap.

 

3. With the cap getting so inflated over the past 3 years, teams are more worried about the actual dollars that they are spending whereas in the past they were trying to work the cap. So, before the last CBA extension, your idea might have worked, but as it stands now, saving cap space is pretty much the last thing on a team's mind. They don't need to worry about it because there is way too much of it.

 

Maybe if you gave me examples of players that you think should have stayed with their own teams I could tell you why your suggestion would or wouldn't have worked. Someone brought up Haynesworth. In that case, your suggestion would have had no effect because the Titans didn't want to give that kind of guaranteed money to a player with an injury and suspension history.

 

I'll give you another example: Bernard Berrian. The Bears were in the running to re-sign him, but the Vikes offered more than the Bears were willing to pay in real world dollars and particularly guaranteed money. It's not like they didn't have the cap space. They rolled over $10 mil last year to this year. They currently have over $20 mil in cap space. Some form of salary cap savings wouldn't have affected their decision one iota.

 

I agree that it would be nice if players could stay with their teams more often. However, the fundamental nature of free agency is that teams with a glaring need will always be willing to pay more and guarantee more than teams without as great a need whether it's their first team or not. So, sure, it's a fun thing to talk about in the slow part of the offseason, but there is no way that the league will ever move away from a hard cap and guaranteed money will always be more important to a player rather than caring who pays it to them.

 

It's a noble thought, but I don't see any way to effectively implement it without changing the current system radically. With your proposal, it would just mean that teams would just have to PLAN to spend far more on a FA than the team they were already on.

1. No, cap space doesn't automatically roll over. Any unused cap space is gone. That's why LTBE incentives are so popular, they make space that would have gone unused one year transfer to next year.

 

2. If they do, that's their choice. But their current could offer (in theory) 33% more money, including bonus money.

 

3. I agree, something would have to be done with the salary cap. A lower base number would help if the players would agree to it (if the players union would explain to them that it could help them, despite appearances), and especially if the rookie salaries are brought under control, the lower cap would help the veterans and the owners (with the rookies getting screwed, except the ones that pan out and especially the ones that resign with the team that drafted them).

 

I can't really name any FAs off the top of my head, as you never really know how much of letting players go is money, how much is current/future cap space, and how much is other considerations.

 

Would the Titans or Bears have signed Haynesworth and Berrian if they knew that only 75% of the guaranteed money would have counted against the cap (especially if my other proposals went into affect)? The Bengals were in the running to resign Whosyourmomma, but the Seahawks offered more. The Eagles let Brian Dawkins walk at least partly due to his contract demands.

 

The current system wouldn't really have to be changed RADICALLY, but there would have to be a few tweaks here and there to make it viable.

[LT2_3 0]

1. No, cap space doesn't automatically roll over. Any unused cap space is gone. That's why LTBE incentives are so popular, they make space that would have gone unused one year transfer to next year.

 

Yes - the LTBEs were the mechanism that I was referring to that rolls free cap space over to the next year. The principle remains the same though. Teams can't spend more against the cap in the current year unless they failed to spend it the previous year and used LTBEs to roll it over to the current year. It's like not having any credit and getting a paycheck for $1000 per week. You can't spend more than $1000 now unless you saved money from a previous paycheck. That's a hard cap.

 

2. If they do, that's their choice. But their current could offer (in theory) 33% more money, including bonus money.

 

Yes they could, but what I'm saying is that bonus money risk is a risk of actual dollars, not of cap space. So even if it costs less against the cap, different teams would determine a different level of acceptable risk based on the level of their need. So basically, if the Seahawks really need to sign a vet WR, they will be willing to pay 34% more than the Bengals for Houshmanzadeh.

 

3. I agree, something would have to be done with the salary cap. A lower base number would help if the players would agree to it (if the players union would explain to them that it could help them, despite appearances), and especially if the rookie salaries are brought under control, the lower cap would help the veterans and the owners (with the rookies getting screwed, except the ones that pan out and especially the ones that resign with the team that drafted them).

 

I'd like to know how a lower cap (and corresponding cap floor) would be better for the players. I see that it would be better for fans that want teams to keep their vets around longer if they implemented your vet thing, but how could a lower salary cap possibly be better for the players?

 

I can't really name any FAs off the top of my head, as you never really know how much of letting players go is money, how much is current/future cap space, and how much is other considerations.

 

Now are we talking about players that get released or players that are lost in free agency on the open market? The reason I ask is that players that are considered top tier rarely make it to free agency anymore. I would also suggest that players getting released would get released also under your scenario because of the nature of contracts. If a team thinks a player needs to take a paycut when on their 2nd contract (which are how you defined the "vets" in your scenario), they would already have a discounted price against the cap. At that point, if a player refuses a paycut, then they get released or traded so the net effect is still the same. So, in both cases, your proposal would have very little effect on player movement. Perhaps fewer guys get asked to take a paycut, but how many get asked to do that in the first place?

 

Would the Titans or Bears have signed Haynesworth and Berrian if they knew that only 75% of the guaranteed money would have counted against the cap (especially if my other proposals went into affect)? The Bengals were in the running to resign Whosyourmomma, but the Seahawks offered more. The Eagles let Brian Dawkins walk at least partly due to his contract demands.

 

I would say no on Haynesworth and Berrian for 2 reasons. 1. Neither the Bears or Titans are low on cap space so that leads me to believe that their qualms on guaranteed money were more based on the real world dollars and not related to the salary cap. 2. The other reason is that I believe the Redskins and Vikes would have paid more than they did to get those players.

 

As for Houshmanzadeh, I think he was looking to get out of Cincy.

 

The current system wouldn't really have to be changed RADICALLY, but there would have to be a few tweaks here and there to make it viable.

 

Sure, I think they could implement the system you propose, I'm saying it's not going have the effect you are aiming for. In fact, it might even result in MORE player movement than without it. Teams will realize that if they want to sign someone else's free agents that they will have to overpay. The players knowing tjis, then will be less likely to sign a new contract before their old contract expires because their payday will be bigger simply by hitting the open market.

 

The bottom line is that this would not benefit the players in virtually any scenario other than the fact that they would get paid even more ridiculous money to change teams.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Yes they could, but what I'm saying is that bonus money risk is a risk of actual dollars, not of cap space. So even if it costs less against the cap, different teams would determine a different level of acceptable risk based on the level of their need. So basically, if the Seahawks really need to sign a vet WR, they will be willing to pay 34% more than the Bengals for Houshmanzadeh.

It's a risk in both actual dollars, and cap space. And the Seahawks wouldn't have to pay 33% more than the Bengals. They'd just have to pay more (if that's all the FA wants). It would just be a much bigger cap hit.

 

I'd like to know how a lower cap (and corresponding cap floor) would be better for the players. I see that it would be better for fans that want teams to keep their vets around longer if they implemented your vet thing, but how could a lower salary cap possibly be better for the players?

 

The lower cap would be a must if a veteran's except were to be included. Where's the logical place to cut? The future draft picks (who have no say at all in the NFLPA at the moment). Altogether, balance it so that spending is roughly the same as it is now, but more money is allocated to the veterans, especially ones that stay with their team.

 

I would say no on Haynesworth and Berrian for 2 reasons. 1. Neither the Bears or Titans are low on cap space so that leads me to believe that their qualms on guaranteed money were more based on the real world dollars and not related to the salary cap. 2. The other reason is that I believe the Redskins and Vikes would have paid more than they did to get those players.

 

How are they (projected) in cap space next year? 2 years from now? Are there any major contracts coming to an end soon? I'm honestly not familiar enough with the teams financial situations to answer those questions. How much more would the Redskins/Vikings be willing to pay? There's a breaking point somewhere. Theoretically, the Titans/Bears could afford to pay 33% more than the Redskins/Vikings, with the same cap hit.

 

As for Houshmanzadeh, I think he was looking to get out of Cincy.

The Bengals were in the running for TJ up until he agreed with the Seahawks.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3947108

 

Sure, I think they could implement the system you propose, I'm saying it's not going have the effect you are aiming for. In fact, it might even result in MORE player movement than without it. Teams will realize that if they want to sign someone else's free agents that they will have to overpay. The players knowing tjis, then will be less likely to sign a new contract before their old contract expires because their payday will be bigger simply by hitting the open market.

Teams already have to overpay. Steve Hutchinson's contract was considered crazy. Michael Turner getting 7 million a year from the Falcons was nuts. Javon Walker getting 9+ million a year was ludicrous (although that might be a bad example as Al Davis is nuts).

 

And if players want as much money as possible, they already wait to hit the open market to see what they can get. But more often, they take the safe route and sign a new contract before the old one is up, especially if they like where the play. Is it possible there will be a few more? Sure. I don't see it being a huge issue though.

[LT2_3 0]

It's a risk in both actual dollars, and cap space. And the Seahawks wouldn't have to pay 33% more than the Bengals. They'd just have to pay more (if that's all the FA wants). It would just be a much bigger cap hit.

 

Exactly.

 

The lower cap would be a must if a veteran's except were to be included. Where's the logical place to cut? The future draft picks (who have no say at all in the NFLPA at the moment). Altogether, balance it so that spending is roughly the same as it is now, but more money is allocated to the veterans, especially ones that stay with their team.

 

Agreed. But you haven't answered the question. If a new rookie scale is implemented as expected, then how does a lower salary cap (just for implementing your idea) benefit the players at all? The players wouldn't like it because they don't ALL just want as much money as possible. What they want is the FREEDOM of an open market with no restrictions or limitations. Your proposal would artificially give an advantage to the home team. If a player from Florida gets drafted by Buffalo, he's going to want to have the option to weigh the relative merits of an offer from Miami or Tampa in free agency based on equal footing. In other words, he wants to shop the Buffalo offer to a Florida team to see if they'll match it. If the offers are similar, he gets to move home.

 

Another reason the players wouldn't like it is that the salary cap ceiling and floor are based on perccentages of league income. If you lower the cap by lowering the percentage of revenues to implement your idea, you lower the floor even further. Turning the cap from a hard cap to a soft cap would be basically mean that teams would have a far lower requirement on spending. I think you are operating on the assumption that most teams are operating at or near the cap ceiling. That's not true. There are at least 5 teams that have over $20 million of cap space at this point in the season - which is after all the major free agents have been signed. There really isn't anyone worth spending those cap dollars on.

 

I'm pretty sure that if there is a new CBA that involves a salary cap, the cap ceiling will be lowered (% wise), the cap floor will be raised (% wise), and the use of LTBEs to roll over cap space will be limited or eliminated. I don't see how the players would ever agree to lowering the floor even further.

 

How are they (projected) in cap space next year? 2 years from now? Are there any major contracts coming to an end soon? I'm honestly not familiar enough with the teams financial situations to answer those questions. How much more would the Redskins/Vikings be willing to pay? There's a breaking point somewhere. Theoretically, the Titans/Bears could afford to pay 33% more than the Redskins/Vikings, with the same cap hit.

 

Not to be snarky, but there is no projected cap for next year. Because of that it's impossible to know how far under (or over) the cap any team is.

 

The Bengals were in the running for TJ up until he agreed with the Seahawks.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3947108

Teams already have to overpay. Steve Hutchinson's contract was considered crazy. Michael Turner getting 7 million a year from the Falcons was nuts. Javon Walker getting 9+ million a year was ludicrous (although that might be a bad example as Al Davis is nuts).

 

I checked the article and all it says is that he didn't rule out Cincy as an option - which is classy. That's all. I also find it funny that 2 of the 3 players you mentioned wouldn't have gotten an offer of 75% of what they ended up getting anyway - which serves to underscore that your proposal wouldn't have affected them anyway and they would have changed teams.

 

And if players want as much money as possible, they already wait to hit the open market to see what they can get. But more often, they take the safe route and sign a new contract before the old one is up, especially if they like where the play. Is it possible there will be a few more? Sure. I don't see it being a huge issue though.

 

I just don't understand why you think it would be a good idea.

 

1. It changes the cap system from a hard cap to a soft cap.

 

2. It doesn't benefit the players and in fact I don't think they would allow it

 

3. It would overly complicate the upcoming and already complicated CBA negotiations

 

The problem is that the real issue is free agency. You're trying to use a mechanism that bastardizes the cap to circumvent the effect that free agency has on player movement.

 

There is no way that it could be collectively bargained because it wouldn't benefit either side enough for them to give up something to get it. Sure, everyone wishes they had a unicorn that farts rainbows, and that's about as likely to happen.

 

Is there a player that left his original team that you thought should have stayed with his original team that makes you think this is such a good idea?

[Vikings4ever 496]

Agreed. But you haven't answered the question. If a new rookie scale is implemented as expected, then how does a lower salary cap (just for implementing your idea) benefit the players at all? The players wouldn't like it because they don't ALL just want as much money as possible. What they want is the FREEDOM of an open market with no restrictions or limitations. Your proposal would artificially give an advantage to the home team. If a player from Florida gets drafted by Buffalo, he's going to want to have the option to weigh the relative merits of an offer from Miami or Tampa in free agency based on equal footing. In other words, he wants to shop the Buffalo offer to a Florida team to see if they'll match it. If the offers are similar, he gets to move home.

Then the FA tells his desired team to match it based on cap terms, rather than just contract terms. If money's not all that he wants, he'll take the lesser contract to move home.

 

Another reason the players wouldn't like it is that the salary cap ceiling and floor are based on perccentages of league income. If you lower the cap by lowering the percentage of revenues to implement your idea, you lower the floor even further. Turning the cap from a hard cap to a soft cap would be basically mean that teams would have a far lower requirement on spending. I think you are operating on the assumption that most teams are operating at or near the cap ceiling. That's not true. There are at least 5 teams that have over $20 million of cap space at this point in the season - which is after all the major free agents have been signed. There really isn't anyone worth spending those cap dollars on.

I was only thinking about seriously reducing the cap, not the floor.

 

Not to be snarky, but there is no projected cap for next year. Because of that it's impossible to know how far under (or over) the cap any team is.

Fair enough.

 

I just don't understand why you think it would be a good idea.

 

1. It changes the cap system from a hard cap to a soft cap.

 

2. It doesn't benefit the players and in fact I don't think they would allow it

 

3. It would overly complicate the upcoming and already complicated CBA negotiations

 

The problem is that the real issue is free agency. You're trying to use a mechanism that bastardizes the cap to circumvent the effect that free agency has on player movement.

 

There is no way that it could be collectively bargained because it wouldn't benefit either side enough for them to give up something to get it. Sure, everyone wishes they had a unicorn that farts rainbows, and that's about as likely to happen.

 

Is there a player that left his original team that you thought should have stayed with his original team that makes you think this is such a good idea?

 

Honestly, the more I think about it, maybe I am living in the past. It's just so ingrained that the cap is something teams are always up against, it's sometimes hard to remember that the salary cap has almost tripled in 10 years (57 million in 99 vs 128 million in 09), and shows no sign of slowing down. But as some point, the spending won't be sustainable (although that's been said about the government for years). If/when we get to the point where the cap is a huge issue again, I'd like to see a system where teams are allowed/reward for keeping their own free agents, but still allows players who out to go.

[LT2_3 0]

Then the FA tells his desired team to match it based on cap terms, rather than just contract terms. If money's not all that he wants, he'll take the lesser contract to move home.

 

That's how it would work if implemented but that doesn't address why the players would ever agree to it in the first place.

 

I was only thinking about seriously reducing the cap, not the floor.

 

Ok, then how would that work? The salary cap ceiling is (roughly) 59% of the league's total revenue. The salary cap floor is (roughly) 85.6% of the cap ceiling. So a cap ceiling of 100 million would have a cap floor of 85.6 million. If you lower the ceiling to 90 million, the floor lowers to 77.4 million. What's the ongoing formula that you would propose?

 

Honestly, the more I think about it, maybe I am living in the past. It's just so ingrained that the cap is something teams are always up against, it's sometimes hard to remember that the salary cap has almost tripled in 10 years (57 million in 99 vs 128 million in 09), and shows no sign of slowing down. But as some point, the spending won't be sustainable (although that's been said about the government for years). If/when we get to the point where the cap is a huge issue again, I'd like to see a system where teams are allowed/reward for keeping their own free agents, but still allows players who out to go.

 

We're at the point right now that the cap is a big issue. The last CBA changed the cap from being 60% of basically stadium and TV revenues to 60% of ALL revenues. That sounds reasonable until you realize that many teams are paying back hundreds of millions of dollars that they borrowed to pay their portion of either new stadiums or stadium rennovations. It is currently unsustainable and that is why the owners opted out of the CBA early. All of the current parameters are going to change somehow.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of system to incentivise players staying with the team that drafted them. I think that players would reject what you have proposed.

 

The reason I keep asking for examples is because I'm trying to identify what type of players you are trying to target with the proposal. It sounds to me that you're trying to keep the big name players mostly, not the backup CB/nickleback that a team drafted. Ones that were probably already franchised perhaps? Maybe if it's only applied as a bargaining tool after they've franchised a player. So instead of it being available for every player, it's only available for a guy that the team has designated as a franchise player. The players get a guaranteed 1 year of being franchised, and the owners get a 25% discount against the cap while negotiating for a long term contract in year 2.

 

How's that sound?