THE BARON Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 An idea here and probably a stupid one, but worth kicking around. If a team drafts smart and comes up with a world class player, in four year's time, if they want to keep that player, they will be paying out a contract that will probably make it prohibitive to keep other decent players. Especially if that player is a QB and wants top QB money. You'll wind up with a team that has a QB and not much else. Go see the Bengals when Burrow's rookie contract is up. What about putting some sort of a cap on individual player salaries ??? That would reward teams for good drafting. There would still be free agency if the player wanted out for reasons other than money. Comments ??? Flame welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSteve Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Could work, but the union would never go for it. Another idea: Each team gets to pay one player whatever they want. They can keep one player off-book, which in most cases would be the starting QB. Then, you build your team that way. Sort of like each team gets one superstar who can negotiate his contract for that year only. Risky to sign it, but an opportunity to make a LOT of bank in one year. Then, you build your team with a full salary cap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry McCockinner Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Get rid of the cap. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 33 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said: Get rid of the cap. Parity is dead for the most part, but it would be 6 feet under without a cap. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsAddict Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 The union will never go for it. Plus the Jets would be absolutely screwed in that format. The league wants parody, not another Patriots 20 year dynasty. I actually think a more interesting scenario is to remove the franchise tag. It would make the off-season a lot more interesting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said: Get rid of the cap. This is the way. 12 minutes ago, JetsAddict said: The union will never go for it. Plus the Jets would be absolutely screwed in that format. The league wants parody, not another Patriots 20 year dynasty. I actually think a more interesting scenario is to remove the franchise tag. It would make the off-season a lot more interesting. The league says they want parity… what they really want is to keep labor costs down. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy2020 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 17 minutes ago, jgb said: This is the way. The league says they want parity… what they really want is to keep labor costs down. How does removing the cap accomplish that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 3 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said: How does removing the cap accomplish that? Because then the pool of available dollars to pay players would not be artificially constrained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcoops Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, JetsAddict said: The league wants parody. That's why they have the Jets. We've been a slapstick impersonation of an NFL franchise for years. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnie Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 I'm watching the Browns to see how they carry the Watson albatross... If ever a team doomed itself with insanity ... That is it.Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 It's true the union wouldn't go for it, but more because of bad optics than bad policy. The total amount spent on all players in their union would be the same, since the teams' salary cap floors and ceilings would be unchanged. It's a bad look to have the best of the best to effectively mandate pay cuts to the players that fans tune in (or show up) to see the most. Also it necessarily penalizes the 2-3 best QBs by maxing out their pay the same as the 9th best veteran QB, since they'd all end up with an equal, max-contract for that position. I don't disagree it's a tough thing to juggle, but the idea is that a $50MM QB should be worth $20MM more than a $30MM/yr QB and eliminates the need for a $20MM/yr veteran player upgrade one other position (or $10MM upgrades at 2 positions, etc.). TBH I think that's an accurate equation. Yes, you pay a few QBs like that (e.g. KC is still a SB favorite after losing Hill, as though dropping the game's highest-paid WR from their roster didn't mean a thing). The problem isn't that, so much as some teams rewarding such contracts to QBs who just aren't worth $50MM/yr (or who haven't shown it yet, but they're gambling he's more likely to be worth it than they're likely to find an acceptable replacement in the draft right away). Arizona guessed wrong - or certainly seems to have guessed wrong - on this prediction. Baltimore appears to be looking like they want to learn from Arizona's mistakes with Jackson (or learn from their own such mistake, in rewarding Flacco like he was a top 3 QB not so long ago: he was a worthy starter for $5MM/year but not at $20MM/year that robbed them of the ability to add/keep 1 probowl starter and upgrade another from an average to a probowl-type starter). Are they right or wrong on being willing to part with Jackson vs. keeping him at $50MM/year? Time will tell, but his talent and injury history have shown that could go either way. Nobody's forcing these teams to make this choice in either direction. The bigger problem isn't whether a Mahomes is or isn't worth $45MM/year. It's that his contract average - based on stretching it out for a decade - becomes the baseline for a mere 3-4 yr extension for any FQB who isn't worth that amount plus inflation like Murray or R.Wilson, nor even 90% of his contract average like Dak, Carr, Stafford, etc. The truth is the league's QB-pay disparity problem stems more from the rookie contracts for star QBs being so low; not that the veteran contracts for star QBs are so high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 The cap is designed to protect owners from bidding wars amongst themselves and to create player movement for parity. It’s supposed to lead to cutting and trading players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry McCockinner Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 8 hours ago, hawk said: Parity is dead for the most part, but it would be 6 feet under without a cap. The NFL was a better product before the cap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnie Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 The cap is designed to protect owners from bidding wars amongst themselves and to create player movement for parity. It’s supposed to lead to cutting and trading players. If you do it right .. you have a FQB and another FQB development every year on your roster ... Ala Green Bay.Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, jgb said: Because then the pool of available dollars to pay players would not be artificially constrained. Like Baseball. Withe same resultant few high payroll teams with legit shots to win each year, and most of the rest of the league as farm teams for the big $ teams. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 23 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said: The NFL was a better product before the cap. MLB would be a much better product with a cap. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry McCockinner Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 9 hours ago, hawk said: Parity is dead for the most part, but it would be 6 feet under without a cap. 56 minutes ago, Warfish said: Like Baseball. Withe same resultant few high payroll teams with legit shots to win each year, and most of the rest of the league as farm teams for the big $ teams. 56 minutes ago, Warfish said: MLB would be a much better product with a cap. Fun fact: The NFL introduced the salary cap in 1994. Since 1995 MLB has had 16 unique champions. The NFL has had 15. I start in 95 because MLB didn't have a 94 champ. The NFL has 2 more teams than MLB. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimjasi Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said: Fun fact: The NFL introduced the salary cap in 1994. Since 1995 MLB has had 16 unique champions. The NFL has had 15. I start in 95 because MLB didn't have a 94 champ. The NFL has 2 more teams than MLB. Very interesting. Thanks for pointing this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockeJET Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Three out of the four teams left in the NFL have quarterbacks on rookie deals. So you either better have one of the top two or three quarterbacks in the entire NFL or a loaded team with a quarterback, still on his rookie deal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post hawk Posted January 25, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said: The NFL was a better product before the cap. The NFL was a better product when they still played football too. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Ghost Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 6 hours ago, jeremy2020 said: How does removing the cap accomplish that? Marvin Miller told a story that when was fighting to improve working conditions for MLB players, his biggest fear was that the owners would realize the best way to suppress salaries would be to make every player a FA at the end of every season. He knew if they did that the players (and union) would be stymied. The market would be flooded with talent. Thankfully for the union, the owners never realized this, and they instead tried to limit the number of players to be FA’s as much as possible, thinking that was to their benefit. What it did though was the opposite of their intent. It made an extremely small number of players available to a large group of teams, thus creating an inflated market. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said: Fun fact: The NFL introduced the salary cap in 1994. Since 1995 MLB has had 16 unique champions. The NFL has had 15. I start in 95 because MLB didn't have a 94 champ. The NFL has 2 more teams than MLB. Great example showing you may not understand the purpose of the cap. It's not to generate "unique champions" at all. In MLB, on opening day, >50% of the league knows, absolutely knows, they have no real chance to compete. In the NFL, on opening day, almost every team knows they do have a chance to compete. That's why the cap exists. P.S. If we weren't all fans of a team in the largest market in the U.S., very few of you would support a "no cap" league. It's pretty obvious Jets Fans want to be the Yankees of the NFL. 24 of the last 28 years in the Postseason, primarily because of their market advantages and ability to pay more than almost anyone else for more players than anyone else, not because they're the best run or managed team in Baseball. Put them in a smaller market, with a much smaller payroll, and the Yankees are nobodies, with maybe a few playoff years over that same near-30 year span. TLDR: You want a Pay-to-Win league. Trouble is, the Jets aren't the Yankees, and Woody isn't that kind of spendy-rich, and market (because of revenue sharing, which I'm sure you also want to get rid of) eliminates the massive income advantage. We'd still lose out to personally richer owners, lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry McCockinner Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 9 minutes ago, Warfish said: Great example showing you may not understand the purpose of the cap. It's not to generate "unique champions" at all. In MLB, on opening day, >50% of the league knows, absolutely knows, they have no real chance to compete. In the NFL, on opening day, almost every team knows they do have a chance to compete. That's why the cap exists. P.S. If we weren't all fans of a team in the largest market in the U.S., very few of you would support a "no cap" league. It's pretty obvious Jets Fans want to be the Yankees of the NFL. 24 of the last 28 years in the Postseason, primarily because of their market and ability to pay more than almost anyone else for more players than anyone else, not because they're the best run or managed team in Baseball. Put them in a smaller market, with a much smaller payroll, and the Yankees are nobodies, with maybe a few playoff years over that same near-30 year span. TLDR: You want a Pay-to-Win league. It seems the "every team knows they do have a chance" is nothing more than an illusion, based on results. TLDR: You want to believe in Santa I want a league where powerhouse teams can be built and maintained over a decade. It made for better quality football and better rivalries. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undertow Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 hours ago, Warfish said: MLB would be a much better product with a cap. The luxury tax is being used as an artificial cap only the Dodgers and Mets have gone over it recently....baseball would benifit from a floor right now forcing teams to spend money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcat Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 15 hours ago, THE BARON said: An idea here and probably a stupid one, but worth kicking around. If a team drafts smart and comes up with a world class player, in four year's time, if they want to keep that player, they will be paying out a contract that will probably make it prohibitive to keep other decent players. Especially if that player is a QB and wants top QB money. You'll wind up with a team that has a QB and not much else. Go see the Bengals when Burrow's rookie contract is up. What about putting some sort of a cap on individual player salaries ??? That would reward teams for good drafting. There would still be free agency if the player wanted out for reasons other than money. Comments ??? Flame welcome. one problem. NFLPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy2020 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 6 hours ago, jgb said: Because then the pool of available dollars to pay players would not be artificially constrained. That doesn't seem like it keeps labor costs down.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 10 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said: It seems the "every team knows they do have a chance" is nothing more than an illusion, based on results. TLDR: You want to believe in Santa And you don't live in the same reality most sports fans do. Must be a NY'er thing. 10 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said: I want a league where powerhouse teams can be built and maintained over a decade. Because you think it'll be us. It won't be. 10 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said: It made for better quality football and better rivalries. Lol, you want rivalries in this day and age? Ok, ban all Fantasy Football, because that piss did more to kill off real rivalries than anything the NFL did. Half this fanbase wants Tom f'ing Brady as our QB, please do not lecture me about rivalries, lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 minute ago, undertow said: The luxury tax is being used as an artificial cap only the Dodgers and Mets have gone over it recently....baseball would benifit from a floor right now forcing teams to spend money. 100% absolutely, a Salary FLOOR is just as important as a Salary Cap. The true cheapskates milking the league for their own profit need to be brought up to a minimum standard as well. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsAddict Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said: It's true the union wouldn't go for it, but more because of bad optics than bad policy. The total amount spent on all players in their union would be the same, since the teams' salary cap floors and ceilings would be unchanged. It's a bad look to have the best of the best to effectively mandate pay cuts to the players that fans tune in (or show up) to see the most. Also it necessarily penalizes the 2-3 best QBs by maxing out their pay the same as the 9th best veteran QB, since they'd all end up with an equal, max-contract for that position. I don't disagree it's a tough thing to juggle, but the idea is that a $50MM QB should be worth $20MM more than a $30MM/yr QB and eliminates the need for a $20MM/yr veteran player upgrade one other position (or $10MM upgrades at 2 positions, etc.). TBH I think that's an accurate equation. Yes, you pay a few QBs like that (e.g. KC is still a SB favorite after losing Hill, as though dropping the game's highest-paid WR from their roster didn't mean a thing). The problem isn't that, so much as some teams rewarding such contracts to QBs who just aren't worth $50MM/yr (or who haven't shown it yet, but they're gambling he's more likely to be worth it than they're likely to find an acceptable replacement in the draft right away). Arizona guessed wrong - or certainly seems to have guessed wrong - on this prediction. Baltimore appears to be looking like they want to learn from Arizona's mistakes with Jackson (or learn from their own such mistake, in rewarding Flacco like he was a top 3 QB not so long ago: he was a worthy starter for $5MM/year but not at $20MM/year that robbed them of the ability to add/keep 1 probowl starter and upgrade another from an average to a probowl-type starter). Are they right or wrong on being willing to part with Jackson vs. keeping him at $50MM/year? Time will tell, but his talent and injury history have shown that could go either way. Nobody's forcing these teams to make this choice in either direction. The bigger problem isn't whether a Mahomes is or isn't worth $45MM/year. It's that his contract average - based on stretching it out for a decade - becomes the baseline for a mere 3-4 yr extension for any FQB who isn't worth that amount plus inflation like Murray or R.Wilson, nor even 90% of his contract average like Dak, Carr, Stafford, etc. The truth is the league's QB-pay disparity problem stems more from the rookie contracts for star QBs being so low; not that the veteran contracts for star QBs are so high. Which is another reason the franchise tag should be abolished. Mediocre players are getting paid more than superstars. Bad teams are the ones who have cap space and they are forced to use it on players not worth paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry McCockinner Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 minute ago, Warfish said: And you don't live in the same reality most sports fans do. Must be a NY'er thing. Because you think it'll be us. It won't be. Lol, you want rivalries in this day and age? Ok, ban all Fantasy Football, because that piss did more to kill off real rivalries than anything the NFL did. Half this fanbase wants Tom f'ing Brady as our QB, please do not lecture me about rivalries, lol. Why would I assume it would be us? It wasn't before they introduced the cap. How did fantasy football kill rivalries? I've never heard that argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockeJET Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 21 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said: How did fantasy football kill rivalries? I've never heard that argument. Never heard that either. I’m guessing he’s going to say that it forces fans to root for players on rivalry teams? Not sure what else it could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Nut Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 7 hours ago, jgb said: The league says they want parity… what they really want is to keep labor costs down. Parity along with revenue sharing is what makes the NFL the huge moneymaker it is. Not the cap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 12 hours ago, CanadaSteve said: Could work, but the union would never go for it. Another idea: Each team gets to pay one player whatever they want. They can keep one player off-book, which in most cases would be the starting QB. Then, you build your team that way. Sort of like each team gets one superstar who can negotiate his contract for that year only. Risky to sign it, but an opportunity to make a LOT of bank in one year. Then, you build your team with a full salary cap. That's what the Chiefs need. Another huge advantage. Not only do they have the best QB in the league, they don't even have to count him against the cap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BARON Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Dcat said: one problem. NFLPA. Yeah... I know it was a stupid idea. Too "commie" LOLZ. I figured if they restrict teams with a hard cap so that small medial market teams are on the same playing field as the big ones. why not have max caps for salary amounts too. This way, one guy does not make all the loot. They have a rookie min, so why not a vet max ??? There would still be FA and players could leave at the end of a contract if they want. Such an arrangement would favor teams that drafted well, had good facilities and treated employees well from top to bottom. As impossible as a top salary cap seems, it would probably make for a better workplace for the roster and organization as a whole. But yeah... Too commie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said: Why would I assume it would be us? It wasn't before they introduced the cap. So you're advocating for something that you think would harm us? I doubt that. I'm confident most Jets Fan proponents of a cap-less NFL believe it would help a NY-market based team to eliminate spending limits, so we could buy up smaller market teams talent like the Yankees do. It may not work (i.e. the Mets), but most will buy into the idea it "can't hurt" at worst. 1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said: How did fantasy football kill rivalries? I've never heard that argument. Really? Not going to write a novel about it, but in short Fantasy has clearly had an effect on making fans of players instead of teams, to root for those players, and not what is best for their teams, and has materially lowered the threshold for willingness of fans to accept a most-hated-rival on their own team (in fairness, free agency did alot of that too pre-fantasy). I'll repeat, the idea that any Jets Fan would want Tom f'ing Brady is utterly abhorrent to me, because he is our most hated single rival of all time. But the modern fantasy-based-fan's ethic is more "eh, he's better than what we got, rivalries shouldn't get in our way, plus then I can root for him and the Jets when I roster him in fantasy, go Tom Brady, go!!!!". How many times have we heard "well, the Pats crushed us, but at least I had Tom Brady on my fantasy team" or something similar. Plenty. And that inherently lowers the rivalry/animosity towards rivals the NFL used to have. Like betting against your own team (legalized sports gambling, like fantasy, will have a similar long-term result). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.