Salary cap

[modo]

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.

There would be zero ability for a player to negotiate....he could only take a single offer from each competing team before his original team could match.

 

[modo]

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 # ?

They may have, for the reason I already stated...the Bears did not value them as much. So the whole hometown salary cap was pointless.

 

[bearmick]

There would be zero ability for a player to negotiate....he could only take a single offer from each competing team before his original team could match.

Whether his original team matched or not, the player would still be the one who chooses if he stays or goes, under my idea.

 

[bearmick]

They may have, for the reason I already stated...the Bears did not value them as much. So the whole hometown salary cap was pointless.

The point is that home teams would have an easier time signing their own players that they drafted, rather than having to let some of their own key players that they drafted go.

 

[modo]

Here is a scenario.......

Lets say the Bears have a safety they really want to keep.....he is really good.

The Packers make an offer of 10m a year for 5 years....

Do the Bears get a chance to immediately go out and pay the 10 million to keep him?

What is the timeline...of other teams being able to make offers?

Since there is a salary cap are teams only allowed to offer enough money to other players in outstanding offers to the level of their cap?

As it stands right now players can sign whenever they want and if a team does not get a player they can turn to another player, because free agency is staggered. meaning there is very little in the way of timelines.

 

[iueyedoc]

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?

My argument was right of first refusal? NO IT WAS NOT AND IS NOT. Where the hell do you get that from. You are waaaaaay over complicating this. It is almost as simple as it could possible be.


A) A player that is a FA that can sign with any team for any amount at any time.
2)The players home team can offer or not offer whatever they chose, less, equal, or more than any other offer but the cap hit for that homegrown player will count a certain % less than the actual cap numbers and that offer has no bearing on anything the FA would chose to do.
C) There is no C

 

[modo]

Whether his original team matched or not, the player would still be the one who chooses if he stays or goes, under my idea.

How much of a penalty or juice are you proposing in your scenario? Can they do it with all free agents or just a couple a year?

 

[iueyedoc]

They may have, for the reason I already stated...the Bears did not value them as much. So the whole hometown salary cap was pointless.

What? If they had offered Amos or Callahan the same amount then they would have had the same cap hit to sign them under the current CBA. If the Bears valued either or both at 90% of what the other teams paid them, they could have re-signed them and spent less than what they wanted in cap space on the player cap space under the new model.

Unless you are under the delusion that what teams value players at is in the actual money paid and not cap space % used, which is how every competitive team works, this is overly simple.

 

[bearmick]

How much of a penalty or juice are you proposing in your scenario? Can they do it with all free agents or just a couple a year?

The details would have to be determined. I don't have a business plan, just an idea that I think would be good for fans.

 

[modo]

My argument was right of first refusal? NO IT WAS NOT AND IS NOT. Where the hell do you get that from. You are waaaaaay over complicating this. It is almost as simple as it could possible be.


A) A player that is a FA that can sign with any team for any amount at any time.
2)The players home team can offer or not offer whatever they chose, less, equal, or more than any other offer but the cap hit for that homegrown player will count a certain % less than the actual cap numbers and that offer has no bearing on anything the FA would chose to do.
C) There is no C

I've already stated in my argument that rarely does a few extra dollars mean anything....we've seen that play out over and over....what you propose sounds like a good theory, but rarely would it be applicable. And therefore kind of pointless. I've stated several scenarios to this affect.

You are going on the premise that teams would be willing to go well over the cap to keep a few drafted players every year.

At that point you are destroying parity...the whole point of the cap in the first place.

If you are proposing that the home team gets just a small amount of less hit, I've already pointed out that rarely does this make a difference.

So what do you propose dollar amount-wise that the home team gets relief for?

 

[modo]

The details would have to be determined. I don't have a business plan, just an idea that I think would be good for fans.

The dollar amount would have huge implications, without that it really isn't a good idea. As I said it may sound good on paper, but have many unintended consequences.

 

[iueyedoc]

I've already stated in my argument that rarely does a few extra dollars mean anything....we've seen that play out over and over....what you propose sounds like a good theory, but rarely would it be applicable. And therefore kind of pointless. I've stated several scenarios to this affect.

You are going on the premise that teams would be willing to go well over the cap to keep a few drafted players every year.

At that point you are destroying parity...the whole point of the cap in the first place.

If you are proposing that the home team gets just a small amount of less hit, I've already pointed out that rarely does this make a difference.

So what do you propose dollar amount-wise that the home team gets relief for?

FFS, I've already been over this. You could limit it to 1-2 players a year, or say, 4 players under contract at any given time, or a $ limit over the actual cap, or any combination of those things.

As for the parity aspect, anything less than a hard cap with 100% player unfettered free agency affects parity. Franchise tags and RFA affect parity.

And your pointing out that a few extra dollars rarely make a difference,well that is just a figment of your imagination, you have zero clue what numbers have come between a FA re-signing with his home team or moving on, just as I have no clue.

This was just an idea to eliminate the player hated franchise tag, expand salaries, and increase team player identity. You may not agree with the idea, which is fine, I just rather you not distort what I suggested.

 

[pinkfloydster]

My argument was right of first refusal? NO IT WAS NOT AND IS NOT. Where the hell do you get that from. You are waaaaaay over complicating this. It is almost as simple as it could possible be.


A) A player that is a FA that can sign with any team for any amount at any time.
2)The players home team can offer or not offer whatever they chose, less, equal, or more than any other offer but the cap hit for that homegrown player will count a certain % less than the actual cap numbers and that offer has no bearing on anything the FA would chose to do.
C) There is no C

Sounds like reverse tariffs and we know how that ends

 

[Burque]

The NFLPA would probably be against anything that hinders free agency. Do you think the Bears or any other team would have looked the other way at Mack knowing they would take an even bigger cap hit if the signed him?

Don't think of it this way.

Think of it that if the Raiders had re-signed him they would've gotten a cap discount for keeping homegrown talent, any other team that signs him just pays full price on the cap.

How big should the discount be? I'm thinking it should be something like 10-25%.

 

[ZOMBIE@CTESPN]

Next cba allot of things considering the cap could be in play from contract structures, length of contracts, and guaranteed contracts. And in turn maybe teams will get some relief with maybe a luxury tax or injured player exemption money?

All this will depend on the players. They are the weakest of all sports. They bend to the owners every time never taking strong stances. If they had the will of nba or mlb players things would be much better than they are now for the players

 

[Leomaz]

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 # ?

how do you know they would be?

 

[Leomaz]

Next cba allot of things considering the cap could be in play from contract structures, length of contracts, and guaranteed contracts. And in turn maybe teams will get some relief with maybe a luxury tax or injured player exemption money?

All this will depend on the players. They are the weakest of all sports. They bend to the owners every time never taking strong stances. If they had the will of nba or mlb players things would be much better than they are now for the players

Ummmm. Were there any NBA players that sat on a bench last year, that were healthy and able to play but didn’t and still got paid%?

 

[modo]

FFS, I've already been over this. You could limit it to 1-2 players a year, or say, 4 players under contract at any given time, or a $ limit over the actual cap, or any combination of those things.

As for the parity aspect, anything less than a hard cap with 100% player unfettered free agency affects parity. Franchise tags and RFA affect parity.

And your pointing out that a few extra dollars rarely make a difference,well that is just a figment of your imagination, you have zero clue what numbers have come between a FA re-signing with his home team or moving on, just as I have no clue.

This was just an idea to eliminate the player hated franchise tag, expand salaries, and increase team player identity. You may not agree with the idea, which is fine, I just rather you not distort what I suggested.

It is a hard salary cap for a reason. There are teams with far less money than other teams. Anything over the cap and you invite richer teams to have an advantage. Thus defeating the whole point of a hard cap.

And speaking of my imagination, how do you know giving a little extra to teams to retain a player is anything more than window dressing. You are making assumptions just as I am, however I can clearly point out specific instances where a few extra dollars would make zero change in a team retaining a player.

 

[modo]

What you guys propose is a soft cap....there many bad reasons why a soft cap is bad for the NFL.

 

[modo]

What seems to be proposed is something similar the what the NBA does. NBA can offer supermax contracts to hometeam players.....that really hasn't seemed to keep certain teams on retaining players and frankly richer teams have an advantage.

The latter completely goes against the principles of what the NFL is trying to do.

Teams that draft better still have a big advantage in the NFL. I don't think decreasing parity is the way to keep the league popular and healthy.