[VYholden]

Not offended, just pissed that my team is becoming one of the first people think of along these lines. And while they've gotten a lot of bad pub lately, but there are still several that deserve to be mentioned ahead of Miami in this conversation.

Miami just has the worst GM in football.

[Coededgeme]

that's great they all have tv money. it doesn't change the fact that the colts wouldn't be able to re-sign manning because teams in large markets would be able to offer manning way more money than the colts would in a league without a salary cap.

that's not even a remotely plausible scenario.

again, why would teams in larger markets be able to offer more money? I'm not understanding this. 80% of all revenue in the nfl is from tv markets, it's split evenly between all the teams, therefore all teams have roughly same money. Heck in baseball, even without a salary cap the Cardinals were able to sign Matt Holiday to one of the largest contracts that year. Every single team in the NFL and MLB could right this second add an Pujols sized contract to their payroll without losing money. Yes a small market team couldn't go out and get two Pujols, but there is no reason to think that the Colts wouldn't have been able to keep Manning if they wanted.


As to remotely plausible scenario. Maybe not, I don't know the football drafts too well. It doesn't seem to unreasonable to think that in a short time frame a smart front office could have ended up with a bunch of great players at the same time. The point is that the better players you develop, the more the salary cap hurts you by forcing you to give some of them up in their primes. It may not be at the skill positions, but you get this great draft because you shrewdly made the moves you needed to, and a few years later they are hitting their primes and are becoming free agents and you have to choose to keep one or another.

[Coededgeme]

Because the players would go on strike, they wouldnt play for year to year contracts for the league minimum..

At no point in time have I ever argued for a year to year contracts, heck I despise year to year contracts. I said the system baseball uses, and we are talking about a framework, not the actual system. With the NFL you would set the system up the way it is for incoming player, have them sign whatever contract you negotiate with them. Let's say you draft a running back, sign him for a 4 year contract, guaranteed(always guaranteed---another crime about the nfl system) but you own his rights for his first six years. After the contract runs out, it's an arbitration hearing, you submit a number(cannot be 20% lower than his previous year pay) he submits a number, an arbitrator rules.

[VYholden]

again, why would teams in larger markets be able to offer more money? I'm not understanding this. 80% of all revenue in the nfl is from tv markets, it's split evenly between all the teams, therefore all teams have roughly same money. Heck in baseball, even without a salary cap the Cardinals were able to sign Matt Holiday to one of the largest contracts that year. Every single team in the NFL and MLB could right this second add an Pujols sized contract to their payroll without losing money. Yes a small market team couldn't go out and get two Pujols, but there is no reason to think that the Colts wouldn't have been able to keep Manning if they wanted.


As to remotely plausible scenario. Maybe not, I don't know the football drafts too well. It doesn't seem to unreasonable to think that in a short time frame a smart front office could have ended up with a bunch of great players at the same time. The point is that the better players you develop, the more the salary cap hurts you by forcing you to give some of them up in their primes. It may not be at the skill positions, but you get this great draft because you shrewdly made the moves you needed to, and a few years later they are hitting their primes and are becoming free agents and you have to choose to keep one or another.

If the NFL didn't share expenses(players salaries) why would they share tv. If there isn't a cap, what is stopping a guy who's team brings in higher ratings from wanting his own network, ie baseball?

[GustavM]

Miami just has the worst GM in football.

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[VYholden]

Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Was your mother a prostitute?

[searkibia]

If the NFL didn't share expenses(players salaries) why would they share tv. If there isn't a cap, what is stopping a guy who's team brings in higher ratings from wanting his own network, ie baseball?

LEts be honest too, the only reason they do this in baseball (Revenue sharing) because if they didnt, teams like the Royals wouldnt exist. They would go bankrupt plain and simple and cease to operate.

[GustavM]

At no point in time have I ever argued for a year to year contracts, heck I despise year to year contracts. I said the system baseball uses, and we are talking about a framework, not the actual system. With the NFL you would set the system up the way it is for incoming player, have them sign whatever contract you negotiate with them. Let's say you draft a running back, sign him for a 4 year contract, guaranteed(always guaranteed---another crime about the nfl system) but you own his rights for his first six years. After the contract runs out, it's an arbitration hearing, you submit a number(cannot be 20% lower than his previous year pay) he submits a number, an arbitrator rules.

Football already has a system similar to this. The fact that you only need 4 years to become a free agent is the difference. And the reason the players fought for that in the new CBA is because of the nature of the game as these guys already pointed out.

[vaalmerruutel]

Nope. I'm saying that a salary cap is a crutch that people use to lie to themselves about how their team is going to be in the future. If you have a crappy front office, you have a crappy front office, no matter how much you spend(see the Mets) it doesn't change that fact. The only financial setup that makes sense is a system that encourages(rewards) teams for improving and for winning. Most systems do reward teams for winning(just making the post season in baseball is financial boon for teams) but they don't reward for improvement. And conversely there is no punishment for getting worse.

Salary cap is not an improvement, it's a different way of getting the same results, the only difference is that the owners are now pocketing the money, and the fans are fooled into thinking their owners are trying.

Yeah, the salary cap has fooled me into thinking that Jeffrey Lurie really cares about winning and about the phans, and that making money is secondary.

Yup, that's me!

[GustavM]

Was your mother a prostitute?

THAT'S your proof? Please.

[Coededgeme]

I understand and I didnt mean to offend, its just Miami is not in a good spot right now. THey missed out on free agency and have a really good defense but a ton of holes on offense. Im not singling them out, Lets just stick with the Browns. Perennially they suck, how does no salary cap make them better? And if they dont improve under the cardsfanboy rule and go 3 years stinking up the joint, ok ya penalize them. Then what? How do they get better then? Ok the owner sucks, the management sucks etc.. I get that, how is that the salary caps fault in the first place?

No salary, a salary cap, it doesn't matter, which is kinda my point. Teams suck because they have crappy management, teams are good because they have good management. Salary cap doesn't figure into the equation.

As to how the penalties would work, in the nfl. It's fairly easy in the NFl, since most of the revenue is shared revenue.

Any team that has three consecutive years (meeting whatever requirements you set) that fails to meet the requirements would get a 10% penalty to their revenue sharing, and a salary floor will be required. If the next season they don't show an improvement in their record, the floor will go up, and the penalty will also be increased. If this happens three years in a row, the league assigns a competitive committee to take over the franchise, and requires the owner to sell the team.

There are other ways to do this, but this gives you an idea of what I'm talking about.

[vaalmerruutel]

again, why would teams in larger markets be able to offer more money? I'm not understanding this. 80% of all revenue in the nfl is from tv markets, it's split evenly between all the teams, therefore all teams have roughly same money. Heck in baseball, even without a salary cap the Cardinals were able to sign Matt Holiday to one of the largest contracts that year. Every single team in the NFL and MLB could right this second add an Pujols sized contract to their payroll without losing money. Yes a small market team couldn't go out and get two Pujols, but there is no reason to think that the Colts wouldn't have been able to keep Manning if they wanted.


As to remotely plausible scenario. Maybe not, I don't know the football drafts too well. It doesn't seem to unreasonable to think that in a short time frame a smart front office could have ended up with a bunch of great players at the same time. The point is that the better players you develop, the more the salary cap hurts you by forcing you to give some of them up in their primes. It may not be at the skill positions, but you get this great draft because you shrewdly made the moves you needed to, and a few years later they are hitting their primes and are becoming free agents and you have to choose to keep one or another.

I can't think of a single player that the Andy Reid-led Eagles have let go because of the salary cap. They let players go because they were believed to be done (Staley, Dawkins, McNabb traded in his contract year) or they were not considered worth the market price (Trotter, Simon, Taylor). It wasn't because they couldn't fit under the cap. Smart, forward-thinking front offices have no issue with the salary cap.

[Coededgeme]

If the NFL didn't share expenses(players salaries) why would they share tv. If there isn't a cap, what is stopping a guy who's team brings in higher ratings from wanting his own network, ie baseball?

Because the NFL national tv contract blows away any tv revenue that they would get. You can't compare MLB's revenue stream to the NFL, they are designed differently and get their money differently. Baseballs national contract is a pittance compared to the NFL, as far as revenue is concerned. Meanwhile the gate receipts for the two sports are reversed.


I have no problem with a salary floor. At least in the NFL, it makes sense for the most part.

[searkibia]

No salary, a salary cap, it doesn't matter, which is kinda my point. Teams suck because they have crappy management, teams are good because they have good management. Salary cap doesn't figure into the equation.

As to how the penalties would work, in the nfl. It's fairly easy in the NFl, since most of the revenue is shared revenue.

Any team that has three consecutive years (meeting whatever requirements you set) that fails to meet the requirements would get a 10% penalty to their revenue sharing, and a salary floor will be required. If the next season they don't show an improvement in their record, the floor will go up, and the penalty will also be increased. If this happens three years in a row, the league assigns a competitive committee to take over the franchise, and requires the owner to sell the team.

There are other ways to do this, but this gives you an idea of what I'm talking about.

How american..

[VYholden]

And I think we're having a little bit of revisionist history with baseball. It wasn't that long ago that rumors about contracting teams were abound.

[Coededgeme]

Football already has a system similar to this. The fact that you only need 4 years to become a free agent is the difference. And the reason the players fought for that in the new CBA is because of the nature of the game as these guys already pointed out.

Do you think the players would give up two years, to eliminate the salary cap and have guaranteed only contracts? Maybe not, due to signing bonus advantage of the non-guaranteed contracts. And you are getting hung up on specifics, my point is that they can design a better system that doesn't result in a salary cap. A salary cap is a crutch, it's an illusion of parity, it's an illusion that teams are trying, and it's a hindrance to a new front office taking over for a crappy front office.

I just don't see any advantages to the salary cap, and nobody has ever remotely proven that it helps competition.

[Coededgeme]

How american..

You do realize how utterly insane that is coming from someone favoring limiting pay right?

[VYholden]

Because the NFL national tv contract blows away any tv revenue that they would get. You can't compare MLB's revenue stream to the NFL, they are designed differently and get their money differently. Baseballs national contract is a pittance compared to the NFL, as far as revenue is concerned. Meanwhile the gate receipts for the two sports are reversed.


I have no problem with a salary floor. At least in the NFL, it makes sense for the most part.

So at a certain point rich people decide they don't want to get richer, and it is better to share?

[BaselBimbooooo]

again, why would teams in larger markets be able to offer more money? I'm not understanding this. 80% of all revenue in the nfl is from tv markets, it's split evenly between all the teams, therefore all teams have roughly same money. Heck in baseball, even without a salary cap the Cardinals were able to sign Matt Holiday to one of the largest contracts that year. Every single team in the NFL and MLB could right this second add an Pujols sized contract to their payroll without losing money. Yes a small market team couldn't go out and get two Pujols, but there is no reason to think that the Colts wouldn't have been able to keep Manning if they wanted.


As to remotely plausible scenario. Maybe not, I don't know the football drafts too well. It doesn't seem to unreasonable to think that in a short time frame a smart front office could have ended up with a bunch of great players at the same time. The point is that the better players you develop, the more the salary cap hurts you by forcing you to give some of them up in their primes. It may not be at the skill positions, but you get this great draft because you shrewdly made the moves you needed to, and a few years later they are hitting their primes and are becoming free agents and you have to choose to keep one or another.

let's take dallas as an example. they get money from college football games, boxing, and soccer games that the colts don't get. they probably also get more money for radio rights as well as any and all advertising associated with the team. they sell more merchandise than the colts. i don't know irsay's background, but i'll assume jones has a bigger war chest than him.

[Coededgeme]

And I think we're having a little bit of revisionist history with baseball. It wasn't that long ago that rumors about contracting teams were abound.

At no point in time was contraction an option. It was a bargaining tool for the owners. It never would have happened. It never could have happened.