$110 Million Salary Cap? Our Dreams Come True?

[SonnyandSam]

The Boston Globe is reporting that the NFL is seriously considering a $110 million salary cap. Not clear whether it would apply to 2006 or 2007.....probably 2007. But considering the League and players are pushing to get something done by March 3, the start of free agency, the $110 million cap, or something slightly lower could end up applying for 2006. If nothing else, it probably will add at least one year onto contracts to spread out signing bonuses.

You say you want Reggie Wayne?...OK...... Abraham?.....OK .......Howard?.......OK Hutchinson....OK

A portion of the article.....

It's crunch time in labor negotiations

Meetings have begun between representatives of the Players Association and the Management Council and will continue next week with the hope that the framework for an extension of the collective bargaining agreement will be in place by late February.

Technically, an extension would have to be in place by the start of the new league year on March 3 or problems would arise; agents would be faced with making deals for this year's free agents with only a four-year amortization period for bonuses, and some franchises would be forced to all but gut their teams because of salary cap problems, according to league sources on both sides of the issue.

''A number of teams would go into severe cap trouble if there's no extension," said a league source. ''A team like the Colts would have to blow their team up. And for agents, it will be hard to get a true market deal. Not hard. It would be impossible.

''The good news is, the way the system was designed the last year without an extension is very painful for both sides. Hopefully that will promote rational behavior on both sides. As we get closer to D-Day, people start to think more clearly on both sides."

Management has begun to put together some guaranteed cap numbers beginning at $110 million and swelling to $160 million six years later. Twelve years ago, when the salary cap era began, the first cap was around $36 million.

Linky.... http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal..._fails/?page=2

[inevitable]

I'm no salary cap junkie, but that sounds like great news to me!

What say you PASkinsgirl?

[vegeta2364]

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.. THe other teams w/o much revenue would be in shambles.. and plus football is surpose to be abou thte love of the game.. not all about the money.. were is more Brett Farve type players who love the game not because of the money but because it is the game? The NFL is already turning into more of a business pu**y sport then smash mouth hard nosed football it was before my time.. and the salary cap would just add to this.

[BigPlayJay]

Originally Posted by vegeta2364

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.. THe other teams w/o much revenue would be in shambles.. and plus football is surpose to be abou thte love of the game.. not all about the money.. were is more Brett Farve type players who love the game not because of the money but because it is the game? The NFL is already turning into more of a business pu**y sport then smash mouth hard nosed football it was before my time.. and the salary cap would just add to this.

Although it would benefit the Redskins more than probably any other team, I am not in favor of any uncapped year. That's why I don't like Baseball. I don't want the Redskins with a 220mil player payroll and the falcons with 40mil. That would cheapen any accomplishments to me.

[Slobberknocker]

Originally Posted by vegeta2364

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.

The real problem is that most insiders acknowledge that if the NFL has a season without a cap (2007), the chances are more than likely that the cap will NEVER be reinstated.

I would hate to see that. The NFL has everything going for it. Turning it into baseball because of greed -- that would be a tragedy.

Part of what makes the game so exciting is that every team is required to deal with the same cap. I HATE the Yankees and their determination to buy every available free agent, screw the cost.

The Redskins functioned least when we had the same motto. It's only now, that we're being frugal and discretionary that the team is flourishing.

I don't think more money is ever an answer in and of itself. It really comes down to what you do with it, whatever the ceiling happens to be. 110 mil? Fine... or 100 mil, fine.

Just like in Hollywood, the most money doesn't equal the best film... or the best team.

[bosshog001]

Originally Posted by vegeta2364

I wouldnt mind an uncapped year for ONE year. I cant see the NFL uncapped.. THe other teams w/o much revenue would be in shambles.. and plus football is surpose to be abou thte love of the game.. not all about the money.. were is more Brett Farve type players who love the game not because of the money but because it is the game? The NFL is already turning into more of a business pu**y sport then smash mouth hard nosed football it was before my time.. and the salary cap would just add to this.

Danny would certainly open his checkbook!!

[danny's stogie]

Originally Posted by HanburgerBum

Okay, let's see if I can address your specific point.

You say that the "majority" of teams can operate at a payroll of about 70-100 million. I don't know what is your basis for this figure, but let's assume it is accurate for the purpose of argument. How does a 85 million payroll continually compete against a payroll of 200 million and growing? Please don't trot out that argument that there is only one team with such a payroll. One is one too many when it comes to unfair competitive advantage.

Actually, the Yankee payroll shrinks to about 180 this year. They had bad contracts on the books last season that are now gone. Even the Yankees have a limit dictated by finances. How do all other teams compete? I will repeat this for the seventy-second and final time, free markets in sports increase the salary structure at all levels, not just the stars. The reason the Yanks don’t dominate (let me remind you that they haven’t won in 5 years now and during their run in the late 90s they had a modest payroll) is because while they can afford to pay ARod 25M a year, they can’t afford to stock the team with good middle relief, decent backups, or quality starting pitching across the board. That’s what happens to the salary structure in sports when owners aren’t allowed to collude to keep salaries down. Before, when there was no free agency and no cap and the reserve clause was in effect the Yanks could afford to stock their teams from top to bottom with great players. That’s why they dominated for a 50 year stretch.

And, what is your basis for the statement that owners of teams having a payroll less than 70 million are not interested in winning? Have you interviewed these people? How do you know they can afford payrolls of say over 40 million? Any normal person wants to win. What makes these owners different?

Do I need to sit in a room with Bidwell or Angelos to know that they only care about their pocket books? They’re rent seekers who milk their respective leagues for all they can get. Free market competition would force them out of any other industry and professional sports would be no different. This is a silly argument; you’re grasping at straws.

I also note that you did not anwer my question as to how do you propose to curb the Yankees' obsecene spending that gives them an unfair advantage in the absence of a salary cap. Nor did you answer my question how do you sustain interest in small markets when their fans eventually realize that the present economic system means that their teams will never be able to compete on an even field.

Why would I answer that question if I don’t agree that they have an unfair advantage? There is absolutely no reason that the other teams in the division can't compete with the Yanks. Winning and (or) the perception that ownership wants to win maintains interest. If the fans still don’t come like in Florida then the franchise isn’t ment to be there. It’s not a small market problem, it’s a the franchise doesn’t belong there problem. I certainly don’t see the point in excessive revenue sharing or a salary crap being in place to prop up dead in the water franchises like that. Open up the game to free competition and move them to New York because it can certainly support another franchise.

I have the interests of ALL the teams, the fans of ALL the teams and even ALL the players, both present and future, at heart. Competitive balance maintains interest everywhere and preserves the long term health of the game. That, in turn, saves players' jobs. You, on the other hand, seem only interested in ensuring the ability of the present players (mostly a handful of super stars) to maximize their income in a free market--to squeeze out every possible dime. The future? Who cares?

What’s your deal? You keep saying I don’t care about the future of the game yet I keep saying that weeding out rent seeking ownership by removing artificial barriers that restrict the free movement of labor at market value is in the best interest of the game longterm. Quality ownership creates a quality product which in turn creates interest in the game. The salary crap creates an artificial competitive balance at the expense of quality i.e. this years’ super bowl. If that was my first impression of the game of football I certainly wouldn’t come back for more. Before you whine about how big the NFL is because of the salary cap and competitive balance let me remind you that the game was huge before the salary crap and if anything has helped the game over the past several years it’s the existence of 24 hour sports coverage on ESPN et al, fantasy football, and gambling. How else do I know the NFL’s growth wasn’t because of the salary cap? Because the same teams—the Saints, Cardinals, etc—that stunk before the cap and couldn’t generate interest still stink and still don’t generate interest. On the other hand, a team like the Pats change ownership in 91 from a dude who didn’t give a darn to one who strives to succeed and now the Pats not only do well, but have actually developed a following. Now I’ve repeated the same argument one hundred thirty-six times and it’s debunked every machination of your convoluted ideology. Cool now?

[redskin_rich]

The people in this thread that keep bringing up the Yankees are not taking into consideration that with the revenue sharing in the NFL, the difference between markets is nowhere near as big. Even if it is 20%, which someone said Forbes has shown, that is minimal compared to the discrepancy in the MLB.
Stop beating that dead horse, please.

Furthermore, I am not for getting rid of the salary cap completely. I would just like it to be more friendly in regards to keeping your own players. Sure, that would make it harder for players to move but ultimately, it would make the quality of the game better.

[HanburgerBum]

Originally Posted by danny's stogie

Actually, the Yankee payroll shrinks to about 180 this year. They had bad contracts on the books last season that are now gone. Even the Yankees have a limit dictated by finances. How do all other teams compete? I will repeat this for the seventy-second and final time, free markets in sports increase the salary structure at all levels, not just the stars. The reason the Yanks don’t dominate (let me remind you that they haven’t won in 5 years now and during their run in the late 90s they had a modest payroll) is because while they can afford to pay ARod 25M a year, they can’t afford to stock the team with good middle relief, decent backups, or quality starting pitching across the board. That’s what happens to the salary structure in sports when owners aren’t allowed to collude to keep salaries down. Before, when there was no free agency and no cap and the reserve clause was in effect the Yanks could afford to stock their teams from top to bottom with great players. That’s why they dominated for a 50 year stretch.



Do I need to sit in a room with Bidwell or Angelos to know that they only care about their pocket books? They’re rent seekers who milk their respective leagues for all they can get. Free market competition would force them out of any other industry and professional sports would be no different. This is a silly argument; you’re grasping at straws.



Why would I answer that question if I don’t agree that they have an unfair advantage? There is absolutely no reason that the other teams in the division can't compete with the Yanks. Winning and (or) the perception that ownership wants to win maintains interest. If the fans still don’t come like in Florida then the franchise isn’t ment to be there. It’s not a small market problem, it’s a the franchise doesn’t belong there problem. I certainly don’t see the point in excessive revenue sharing or a salary crap being in place to prop up dead in the water franchises like that. Open up the game to free competition and move them to New York because it can certainly support another franchise.



What’s your deal? You keep saying I don’t care about the future of the game yet I keep saying that weeding out rent seeking ownership by removing artificial barriers that restrict the free movement of labor at market value is in the best interest of the game longterm. Quality ownership creates a quality product which in turn creates interest in the game. The salary crap creates an artificial competitive balance at the expense of quality i.e. this years’ super bowl. If that was my first impression of the game of football I certainly wouldn’t come back for more. Before you whine about how big the NFL is because of the salary cap and competitive balance let me remind you that the game was huge before the salary crap and if anything has helped the game over the past several years it’s the existence of 24 hour sports coverage on ESPN et al, fantasy football, and gambling. How else do I know the NFL’s growth wasn’t because of the salary cap? Because the same teams—the Saints, Cardinals, etc—that stunk before the cap and couldn’t generate interest still stink and still don’t generate interest. On the other hand, a team like the Pats change ownership in 91 from a dude who didn’t give a darn to one who strives to succeed and now the Pats not only do well, but have actually developed a following. Now I’ve repeated the same argument one hundred thirty-six times and it’s debunked every machination of your convoluted ideology. Cool now?

I guess we can agree to disagree. If you don't think the Yankees have an unfair advantage, there is probably nothing I can say that will ever convince you otherwise. Sure, the Yankees don't win the championship every year, but they are always in the playoffs, always contending, because of their ability to buy free agents. The strengths of teams tend to be cyclical because of the built-in policies (e.g. draft in reverse order) to help the bad teams and the law of averages, but the Yankees never have to go thru any down period. That's fair?

You have this theory that competitive balance prompted by a salary cap eliminates excellence. You point to the most recent SB as an example. Yeah, that wasn't a particularly well-played SB, but it was certainly a competitive one. It's interesting that you fail to point out the fact that NE has won the previous 3 out of 4. I think one can make a pretty good case that the Patriots have been a model of excellence. Back in the days without a salary cap, there were no doubt some great teams (e.g. the Niners and the '85 Bears). You enjoyed those blow out SB scores (53-17, 51-10--don't remember the exact scores) these teams won by? Well, give me what the Steelers were able to accomplish this year any day over those blow outs. Pitt won it all from a 6th seed, beating 4 very good teams (Cincy, Indy, Denver and Seattle, with 3 of them on the road) en route. Now, that's excitement!

[DoGood]

Originally Posted by LaVarPA

The Boston Globe is reporting that the NFL is seriously considering a $110 million salary cap. Not clear whether it would apply to 2006 or 2007.....probably 2007. But considering the League and players are pushing to get something done by March 3, the start of free agency, the $110 million cap, or something slightly lower could end up applying for 2006. If nothing else, it probably will add at least one year onto contracts to spread out signing bonuses.

You say you want Reggie Wayne?...OK...... Abraham?.....OK .......Howard?.......OK Hutchinson....OK

A portion of the article.....



Linky.... http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal..._fails/?page=2

Don't stir the pot!

[CowboyKilla]

Stir, Stir, I love it. Good news, the higher the better.

[whistleandthumb]

Obviously, this would help us, but it would also help everyone else, so it's still an even playing field. The main thing it would allow us to do is pick up key FA's in the areas of need, without having to worry about our cap limits.

But again... so can everyone else. And there are other teams that, because they already have more cap room, are going to be able to spend EVEN MORE.

[helimech24]

Originally Posted by whistleandthumb

Obviously, this would help us, but it would also help everyone else, so it's still an even playing field. The main thing it would allow us to do is pick up key FA's in the areas of need, without having to worry about our cap limits.

But again... so can everyone else. And there are other teams that, because they already have more cap room, are going to be able to spend EVEN MORE.

But even then, some teams still won't spend the money needed to really compete. Players also don't want to play in certain areas or for certain teams. It will be interesting if it goes thru.

[GoDannyBoy]

If I read correctly if an agreement is not reached it is painful for both sides, meaning that there is not going to be an uncapped year.

The good news is that they might get something inplace before that happens and it might be big enough for Gibbs to jettison some players while allowing him to pick up an acquistion or two. Let's hope this is in place before March 1.

Redskins One is on the way to a city near you!

[GolfFreak]

I'm strongly against no salary cap, we can try it for one year, but I think it'll be hard to go back to the "normal" way afterwards. I'm all for getting the best talent and put a winning team on the field, but I think parody is what makes the NFL so great.