THE BARON Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 5 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. Great post. Lots of items there to consider. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BARON Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, Warfish said: MLB would be a much better product with a cap. Yep. But the Yankees would not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours 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. You could couple it with a league revenue dollar split that rewards winning. My suggestion is divide the revenue pie into two pools. One pool is 17/21 of the total divided evenly by all teams. 4/21 (the number of weeks that are playoff weeks) is only divided amongst the playoff teams. An owner who doesn’t care about profitability could still spend like crazy even if you did this or implemented a luxury tax. But is there anything inherently wrong with owners more invested in winning to win more? I still believe the league’s primary motivation is to keep labor costs controlled more so than parity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry McCockinner Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 42 minutes ago, Warfish said: 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. 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 lowers the rivalry/animosity towards rivals the NFL used to have. I expect the Jets to suck. It's what they do. I hope one day they can figure it out, cap or no cap. I'm advocating for something I feel would make the league as a whole more enjoyable to watch and follow. I've always followed the league, not just the Jets. Ever since I can remember that's what you did on Sunday is watch whatever games were on. When you had teams that were able to keep their good players and build chemistry over years it resulted in great teams that were very difficult to knock off. Teams had more of a "personality" then and it was fun watching the lesser teams try to build something over the years that could eventually dethrone them. The top teams today seem to be more cyclical as they have to constantly shuffle the rosters and reload. Somehow we still get the same good teams popping up, they just aren't the same as the great teams of the past IMO. In short, I prefer high quality football to the illusion of parity. F parity. The Jets/Patriots wasn't much of a rivalry because we rarely won. They were good and just owned us for a couple of decades. As Jets fans we hate the Patriots but Patriots fans mostly just laugh at the Jets. They expect to beat us every time. When I talk about rivalries I was thinking more about the actual players on the teams hating each other. There doesn't seem to be as much of that today but maybe I'm just an old man yelling at the sky now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, jeremy2020 said: That doesn't seem like it keeps labor costs down.. The cap absolutely depresses labor costs 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Jet Nut said: Parity along with revenue sharing is what makes the NFL the huge moneymaker it is. Not the cap Problem is there isn’t parity. NFL is a two class system — teams with FQBs and those without. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetPotato Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 13 hours ago, hawk said: Parity is dead for the most part, but it would be 6 feet under without a cap. Yeah. Next thing you know, teams will go a dozen years+ without even making the playoffs. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BARON Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 minute ago, jgb said: Problem is there isn’t parity. NFL is a two class system — teams with FQBs and those without. Goes deeper that that. Teams with management that can draft and develop a franchise QB and ones that don't. And go one step up. Franchises that have owners that can hire the right GM to do the above and ones that don't. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetPotato Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours 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. This myth has been statistically debunked numerous times. Teams with good management win. When you win, your players get paid. Buying a championship is a strategy that fails every single time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenFish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Nah. Teams have the franchise tag and there’s already a team salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 3 minutes ago, THE BARON said: Goes deeper that that. Teams with management that can draft and develop a franchise QB and ones that don't. And go one step up. Franchises that have owners that can hire the right GM to do the above and ones that don't. You’re right the greatest predictor of a team’s success is the quality of their QB play. Teams that hit on a FQB in the draft have a giga advantage during his rookie contract years — because of the cap. I do believe the cap ultimately increases parity — but it also reduces it in important ways. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BARON Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 15 minutes ago, jgb said: You’re right the greatest predictor of a team’s success is the quality of their QB play. Teams that hit on a FQB in the draft have a giga advantage during his rookie contract years — because of the cap. I do believe the cap ultimately increases parity — but it also reduces it in important ways. There is another solution not involving massive contracts for QB's. Change the rules. Allow DB's some contact at least. Go back to the way it was in the 70's and 80's but keep the player safety rules intact. Oh... Wait. Then there would be massive contracts for ball carriers again 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 12 minutes ago, THE BARON said: There is another solution not involving massive contracts for QB's. Change the rules. Allow DB's some contact at least. Go back to the way it was in the 70's and 80's but keep the player safety rules intact. Oh... Wait. Then there would be massive contracts for ball carriers again Yeah that’s the real driver here. The rules have steadily increased the importance of QB. Is it a problem? Some may think so and some may not. But QB is the most important position in any team sport. Period. Nothing else even comes close. I have trouble even thinking what #2 is… point guard probably (who on average makes only 20% more than the lowest paid position, small forward). And there’s just not enough FQBs to go around. No matter what you do with the cap that won’t change. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rex-n-effect Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 More teams would find ways to pay players under the table TB12 style. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 47 minutes ago, jgb said: But is there anything inherently wrong with owners more invested in winning to win more? Yes. Pay-to-Win in any sports or gaming environment in pure cancer. In almost every way I am a free market capitalist, except within a sports league, where I may as well be Comrade Warfish. Leagues are collective products, not 32 separate businesses. Cut the Jets out of the NFL (or the Yankees out of MLB) and they become worthless. The league is the product, separate ownership drives competition, but many other factors should be as equal as rules can make them. The market you play in should not be a driver in your on-field success. I don't think many NY'ers will ever understand how it feels to root for a team whose entire salary is less than the Yankees or Mets spend on whirlpool machines and organic sports drinks. I know I won't win this argument in this environment, so I'll just leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 48 minutes ago, JetPotato said: This myth has been statistically debunked numerous times. Teams with good management win. When you win, your players get paid. Buying a championship is a strategy that fails every single time. I'm sure the Yankees economic advantage had nothing to do with their 24 of 28 years in the postseason the past 28 seasons. It was just "good management", got it. Consider me debunked. Bad management can kill you, yes. Good management will never consistently overcome economic advantages in an uncapped league. Sure, a low-pay team will win once in a while, and (usually) immediately sell off their assets to the Mets, Yankees, Sox, Dodgers and Braves, lol. Low pay teams don't go to the post-season 24 out of 28 years. Of course, I may just be bitter that half of MY media market is Owned by the god damned Orioles, forever consigning the Nats to "only if exceedingly lucky" level of non-competitiveness, where (as we've been doing) we home-grow starts, then feed those stars to other teams instead of being able to afford them ourselves. Regardless, I love salary caps (and floors) and would have them in every league if I were Sports God. Which I'm not, of course. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 46 minutes ago, JetPotato said: Yeah. Next thing you know, teams will go a dozen years+ without even making the playoffs. Do you really believe Woody Johnson would actually spend if there was no cap? No cap, that will help the Jets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 3 minutes ago, Warfish said: Yes. Pay-to-Win in any sports or gaming environment in pure cancer. In almost every way I am a free market capitalist, except within a sports league, where I may as well be Comrade Warfish. Leagues are collective products, not 32 separate businesses. Cut the Jets out of the NFL (or the Yankees out of MLB) and they become worthless. The league is the product, separate ownership drives competition, but many other factors should be as equal as rules can make them. The market you play in should not be a driver in your on-field success. I don't think many NY'ers will ever understand how it feels to root for a team whose entire salary is less than the Yankees or Mets spend on whirlpool machines and organic sports drinks. I know I won't win this argument in this environment, so I'll just leave it at that. No worries I don’t view it as an argument. I guess my point is if parity is the primary goal (again, I argue it’s a secondary goal to keeping player salaries controlled) I think there’s a more effective way to do it. At a minimum, making some adjustments to how the cap is calculated. Fact is the cap has become like the tax code a little. Go to two accountants and they’ll each tell you that you owe (or are owed) a different amount. We need a flat cap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, jgb said: No worries I don’t view it as an argument. I guess my point is if parity is the primary goal (again, I argue it’s a secondary goal to keeping player salaries controlled) I haven't really touched on that, but yes, it's 100% for that purpose as well. Owners can't be trusted to do it themselves, so this is a legal form of collusion (collectively bargained of course) to do it for them. 2 minutes ago, jgb said: I think there’s a more effective way to do it. At a minimum, making some adjustments to how the cap is calculated. Fact is the cap has become like the tax code a little. Go to two accountants and they’ll each tell you that you owe (or are owed) a different amount. We need a flat cap! Lol, no objections to simpler systems. But any system will get exploited by the accountants. I am one, I know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 minute ago, Warfish said: I haven't really touched on that, but yes, it's 100% for that purpose as well. Owners can't be trusted to do it themselves, so this is a legal form of collusion (collectively bargained of course) to do it for them. Lol, no objections to simpler systems. But any system will get exploited by the accountants. I am one, I know. At least you have lawyers to look down on 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 5 hours 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. I used to hate this aspect of it all until Cohen bought the Mets, and now I think it's the bestest, fairest, and most wonderful way of doing things. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Willie White Shoes Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 19 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. This will never happen. The NFLPA would never agree. I would love to see a rule that states a player is ineligible to play the entire season if he does not report to training camp by August 1. I despise holdouts. They solve nothing and only lead to uncertainty for the team, provide an excuse for players to miss camp, and invariably lead to injuries and/or underperformance by the player. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Willie White Shoes Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 15 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said: Get rid of the cap. Not happening nor should it. The salary cap makes teams financially competitive and the difference between winning and losing comes down to scouting, coaching, etc. Baseball, the only sport without a cap, is a complete joke because of it. 1 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, Joe Willie White Shoes said: Not happening nor should it. The salary cap makes teams financially competitive and the difference between winning and losing comes down to scouting, coaching, etc. Baseball, the only sport without a cap, is a complete joke because of it. which is why baseball has had more unique champs than football since the NFL introduced the cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimjasi Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 6 hours 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. Can you quantify this in any way? Genuinely curious because the post below is compelling to me. Is there a statistical relationship between payroll and season win totals , for example? 5 hours 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetPotato Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 50 minutes ago, hawk said: Do you really believe Woody Johnson would actually spend if there was no cap? No cap, that will help the Jets. I don't believe that the Jets will ever win as long as Woody Johnson is owner, whether there is a salary cap or not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, jgb said: Problem is there isn’t parity. NFL is a two class system — teams with FQBs and those without. It's more than that. The whole comp pick thing rewards better teams, giving them extra draft picks every year. Now, teams that have minority coaches that get hired elsewhere also get additional picks. When SF loses their DC co-ordinator after this season, they will receive 2 additional 3rd round picks for the 3rd time in 4 seasons I believe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Just now, chirorob said: It's more than that. The whole comp pick thing rewards better teams, giving them extra draft picks every year. Now, teams that have minority coaches that get hired elsewhere also get additional picks. When SF loses their DC co-ordinator after this season, they will receive 2 additional 3rd round picks for the 3rd time in 4 seasons I believe. Lots of factors but I believe the one with the highest correlation of team success is QB play, at least in the short term. Over a span of decades, quality of management/ownership is probably is most important. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimjasi Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, jgb said: Problem is there isn’t parity. NFL is a two class system — teams with FQBs and those without. Hard to do anything about that one given how few guys can play NFL QB at a consistently high level. It was less of an issue years ago when the game favored defense and dominant running games, but nowadays, it's harder to win without a stud QB and there are very few of them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirorob Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, jgb said: Lots of factors but I believe the one with the highest correlation of team success is QB play, at least in the short term. Over a span of decades, quality of management/ownership is probably is most important. Good owners set up a stable work place. They hire quality people to run the business, and create the proper atmosphere, top to bottom. Not just in football, but in any business. Consequently, the best candidates want to work someplace where they know they will have time to implement their vision of a team, and not worried about being fired in 2 years. Teams with rapid turnover will never attract quality coaches or GMs. Why would you go somewhere to be a HC if you know you can be fired after 2 years because your GM has given you no talent to work with? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warfish Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, slimjasi said: Can you quantify this in any way? Genuinely curious because the post below is compelling to me. Is there a statistical relationship between payroll and season win totals , for example? I cannot. Haven't done the statistical analysis, and honestly I don't care enough about this entirely pipe-dream hypothetical argument to do it. MLB will never impose a cap. The NFL will never get rid of theirs. It's all moot. But there is no universe where I believe a MLB team could make the postseason 24 out of 28 years, over several GM's and Managers, simply with "better management". Especially when that same team is well known for being towards the top of the league every year in salary. Like I said before, it's not about who wins the WS, but how many time these ultra-rich teams make the postseason. The Yankees, 24 out of 28 years (#3 in salary in 2022). The Dodgers, 10 out of 10 years (#1 in salary in 2022). The Astros, 7 out of 8 years (#8 in salary in 2022). The Braves, 22 out of 32 years (#9 in salary in 2022). Even the hit or miss Red Sox, 16 of 35 years (#6 in salary in 2022, has been much higher before). High Salary does not guarantee success, but it sure as hell is correlated with more frequent trips to the postseason than low-pay teams over time. They'll always be exceptions to prove the rule, the Mets don't make it as much as their excessive spending at times would imply they should, and some teams like the TB Rays (* of 15 years) do manage to have smaller payrolls and a few years of success before they have to sell-off all the assets. Good management and a robust farm team can certainly help offset pay disadvantages, but you have to really churn and develop a hell of alot of talent in-house to do that. The Yankees et al. just have to buy it every offseason. And as a fan of a smaller market team (or cheap Owners ripped off by MLB just to get us a team again, meh), having watched us fail to resign star players we grew and developed for the usual suspects of big-market, ultra-rich Owners has really crushed my interest in the sport post-2019 World Series. Like I said tho, it's all moot. MLB will burn before they'd get a cap agreed to by players, the Union loves 10 year, $300+ million, 100% guaranteed contracts. The league is weak. The NFL is vice versa, the players can't beat the league and will never get the cap eliminated. So it all is what it is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy2020 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 hours ago, jgb said: The cap absolutely depresses labor costs yes... so how would removing it help with keeping their labor costs lower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 12 minutes ago, chirorob said: Good owners set up a stable work place. They hire quality people to run the business, and create the proper atmosphere, top to bottom. Not just in football, but in any business. Consequently, the best candidates want to work someplace where they know they will have time to implement their vision of a team, and not worried about being fired in 2 years. Teams with rapid turnover will never attract quality coaches or GMs. Why would you go somewhere to be a HC if you know you can be fired after 2 years because your GM has given you no talent to work with? I hear you but I’d also submit for consideration that turnover is the symptom of hiring the wrong people in the first place and not a cause in and of itself of sustained success. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgb Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, jeremy2020 said: yes... so how would removing it help with keeping their labor costs lower? I said the opposite. Also as a fan I don’t particularly care about the league’s ultimate profitability unless it endangers the sport’s continued existence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy2020 Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 minute ago, jgb said: I said the opposite. Also as a fan I don’t particularly care about their ultimate profitability unless it endangers the league’s continued existence. You said they should remove the cap. Why would they do that? 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.