Salary cap

[Leomaz]

so, basically, a decent idea that won’t ever be incorporated into the NFL.
on a side note, if the Tag systems are still in the next CBA, something is very wrong

 

[iueyedoc]

the point of the salary cap is to split the earnings between the players and thew owners....

the owners are not just going to give a bigger piece of the pie to the players in this scenario. The money for this would have to come from the overall cap, thus reducing the cap for the other players.

Frankly I don't see this scenario affecting much in the way of retaining talent. Most FAs that leave are not because of a close money call. It is because the team does not want to pay it.

The players are not happy with the current split, something is going to change in the next CBA, the franchise tag seems to be a big target. Obviously there is not going to be a titanic shift in FA, but having a tool that allows for expanded player revenue, as it would be a cap exceeder, and giving the owners a tool to keep desired players seems a win win.

And as we see in all sports given the opportunity, owners will spend for a winner. Changing the cap from a hard cap to a flexible cap is not a new thing, see NBA supermax, MLB luxury tax, not sure why you think that a similar change may not be in store for the NFL.

 

[modo]

Ok...for argument sake...how would you designate the max that other teams can bid on someone else's homegrown talent?

Do you punish a player because he is really good, but is unfortunate enough to be stuck on the team that drafted him? How do you decide what is the most that another team can offer him.

Right now it is market value that decides it. So now you are introducing an artificial limit on what that player can make just so the drafting team can retain him...

I didn't know you guys were shills for owners.

 

[iueyedoc]

Another example. Mack. The Raiders were not going to pay him anything more because they just didn't have to money to allocate from a financial standpoint. Exception or no.

The idea may sound good on paper, but in actuality probably has little practical use.

Well of course, it woudn't allow you to just blatantly overpay everyone, the Raiders were cap poor because of bad contracts. Smart spending teams find a way to use the tools available to make it work, the Bears are retaining their own at this point quite well. They will have to let some go soon, a reduced cap hit may keep a T Cohen around when otherwise he is a regrettabley unaffordable non-re-sign.

 

[bearmick]

I didn't know you guys were shills for owners.

Shills for fan bases perhaps. Supergroup championships are never as special as home grown ones.

 

[Leomaz]

I think the gain of more emphasis on the merits of drafting well is worth losing a piece (it wouldn't be all) of the parity.

As far as the fan experience goes, I'll bet you every Broncos fan over the age of 40 would tell you that the Superbowls they won with John Elway, Terrell Davis and Shannon Sharpe meant more to them than the one they got with Peyton Manning, Demarcus Ware and Aqib Talib.

I’d like to see that poll.
I really don’t think anybody cares that Steve McMichael, Gary Fencik, Emery Moorehead, Leslie Frazier, Dennis McKinnon, Maury Buford and other were not drafted by the Bears.

 

[modo]

I haven't seen the response to my question as to what max value you would assign each player that was drafted. I'd honestly like to know how this would be implemented and how the NFLPA would agree to maxing out bids on all players.

 

[bearmick]

I’d like to see that poll.
I really don’t think anybody cares that Steve McMichael, Gary Fencik, Emery Moorehead, Leslie Frazier, Dennis McKinnon, Maury Buford and other were not drafted by the Bears.

Everyone will have free agents. When you think of the 85 Bears you think of Walter, McMahon, Hampton, Singletary. The biggest key players were still drafted by the Bears.

 

[iueyedoc]

Ok...for argument sake...how would you designate the max that other teams can bid on someone else's homegrown talent?

Do you punish a player because he is really good, but is unfortunate enough to be stuck on the team that drafted him? How do you decide what is the most that another team can offer him.

Right now it is market value that decides it. So now you are introducing an artificial limit on what that player can make just so the drafting team can retain him...

I didn't know you guys were shills for owners.

I don't think you are understanding what I am proposing.
The player is just a FA teams could pay whatever they want. Say Mack was a FA, other teams and the Bears offered him 6yr/140M, but then Macks agent could go back to the Raiders and say here is what we are looking at from another team, Mack would love to stay a Raider, but you've got to beat or match that offer for him to stay, the Raiders could offer say 6/145M but it would only count as 6/116M(80%), or whatever % the NFLand NFLPA agree to.

And lol at a shill for the owners. My idea allows the star players to increase their personal revenue and by association all other players contracts to rise as the benchmark contracts rise.

 

[bearmick]

I haven't seen the response to my question as to what max value you would assign each player that was drafted. I'd honestly like to know how this would be implemented and how the NFLPA would agree to maxing out bids on all players.

They could offer what they do now, but the players cap hit would be larger because they're a free agent. Yes this could enable the current team that drafted them to offer a bit more, but nobody's forcing that player to sign if they want to play for a different team.

The choice is still with the player if they want to stay or go.

 

[Leomaz]

Everyone will have free agents. When you think of the 85 Bears you think of Walter, McMahon, Hampton, Singletary. The biggest key players were still drafted by the Bears.

if that’s how you think that’s fine but If Leslie Frazier, Gary Fencik, Steve McMichael to mention a few, weren't key players on the 85 team.....then I’m not sure who was.
Nobody would care that Mack, Trevathan, Hicks, Robinson, Gabriel, Burton, etc, etc, were not drafted by the Bear if they win a super bowl.

 

[modo]

I don't think you are understanding what I am proposing.
The player is just a FA teams could pay whatever they want. Say Mack was a FA, other teams and the Bears offered him 6yr/140M, but then Macks agent could go back to the Raiders and say here is what we are looking at from another team, Mack would love to stay a Raider, but you've got to beat or match that offer for him to stay, the Raiders could offer say 6/145M but it would only count as 6/116M(80%), or whatever % the NFLand NFLPA agree to.

And lol at a shill for the owners. My idea allows the star players to increase their personal revenue and by association all other players contracts to rise as the benchmark contracts rise.

I understand fully what you are proposing.

Any team can do that now. There is nothing stopping a team from making a better counter offer. Most teams don't do it because they don't have the money or just don't value the player...

Because there is already tenders in the NFL that do some the same thing. There is already restricted free agents....

 

[modo]

They could offer what they do now, but the players cap hit would be larger because they're a free agent. Yes this could enable the current team that drafted them to offer a bit more, but nobody's forcing that player to sign if they want to play for a different team.

The choice is still with the player if they want to stay or go.

You and doc are proposing 2 different things right now....so I am having to make 2 separate arguments.

 

[bearmick]

if that’s how you think that’s fine but If Leslie Frazier, Gary Fencik, Steve McMichael to mention a few, weren't key players on the 85 team.....then I’m not sure who was.
Nobody would care that Mack, Trevathan, Hicks, Robinson, Gabriel, Burton, etc, etc, were not drafted by the Bear if they win a super bowl.

Again, there would still be free agents, it would just be easier to keep the players you drafted, while free agents would be more of a luxury item to supplement your roster, which they're supposed to be anyway.

 

[iueyedoc]

I understand fully what you are proposing.

Any team can do that now. There is nothing stopping a team from making a better counter offer. Most teams don't do it because they don't have the money or just don't value the player...

Because there is already tenders in the NFL that do some the same thing. There is already restricted free agents....

Actually, you don't seem to understand it at all. There is no tool that allows a home team to offer a FA more money than his best FA offer yet count less against the cap, allowing them to spend more on other players. Not even sure how you think tenders are even close to the same.

 

[modo]

They could offer what they do now, but the players cap hit would be larger because they're a free agent. Yes this could enable the current team that drafted them to offer a bit more, but nobody's forcing that player to sign if they want to play for a different team.

The choice is still with the player if they want to stay or go.

again, I've already stated that most teams don't make better counter offers because they don't value that player as much as a team willing to overpay. So the application of this would not really practical, because it just wouldn't come up.

Most teams overpay for free agents, and even if teams want to keep them then the little extra juice really isn't going to make a difference, because as it stands now, that is never really the difference.

 

[bearmick]

again, I've already stated that most teams don't make better counter offers because they don't value that player as much as a team willing to overpay. So the application of this would not really practical, because it just wouldn't come up.

Most teams overpay for free agents, and even if teams want to keep them then the little extra juice really isn't going to make a difference, because as it stands now, that is never really the difference.

So what's the problem then? If a team doesn't want to keep a player, they don't have to. I'm not seeing what you're objecting to here.

 

[Leomaz]

So what's the problem then? If a team doesn't want to keep a player, they don't have to. I'm not seeing what you're objecting to here.

LMFAO

 

[modo]

Actually, you don't seem to understand it at all. There is no tool that allows a home team to offer a FA more money than his best FA offer yet count less against the cap, allowing them to spend more on other players. Not even sure how you think tenders are even close to the same.

Your argument was right of first refusal, which can be done with a tender. Also, you would be limiting negotiations for players, which the NFLPA would never stand for.

Do other teams only get to make 1 offer.....Lets say a free agent gets no offers from other teams because they don't think they can pay for him.....how do you reconcile that?

Or even worse:

a great player gets a couple subpar offers because their other offers are tied up with other players. so a really good player may be stuck with a shitty offer that the current team can pay a little bit more to retain....

I'm not sure how you work offers? Can a team only make a single offer to a player?

 

[iueyedoc]

again, I've already stated that most teams don't make better counter offers because they don't value that player as much as a team willing to overpay. So the application of this would not really practical, because it just wouldn't come up.

Most teams overpay for free agents, and even if teams want to keep them then the little extra juice really isn't going to make a difference, because as it stands now, that is never really the difference.

You state this like you actually know. Do you know that Amos or Callahan didn't have Bears offers at about 80% of what they got, or that the Bears would not have been interested at that lower # ?