Lombardi's view of uncapped future NFL world

[Jimke]

Bob Kraft and most of his fellow owners opted out of the CBA

because they thought that the players were getting too high a

share of total revenues. This would indicate to me that Bob Kraft

wants to pay less for players than he is now. I'm sure that he is

willing to pay more than Buffalo or Cincinnatti for players but not

as much as he is currently.

 

[JoeSixPat]

There aren't many teams who've been able to manage the cap as successfully as the Pats plus WIN and/or contend so consistently. JMO but I don't see them suddenly going insane, signing every superstar out there just because they're uncapped. Some teams will though,I'm sure, and we know who they are:singing:

The uncapped year comes at a great time for the Pats though, considering all the players we've got coming due after 09 like Big Vince, Sey, and Vrabes among others. No cap might allow the Pats some wiggle room should they decide to keep some of these guys, plus re-tag Cassel if the situation rolls in that direction.

I agree - but apparently we're in the minority on that view. Deus points out that even though the Patriots are privately financing their stadium while other teams have public financing, the Patriots are of a small handful of teams that will spend more than most of the other teams.

There's no question this would help keeping FAs we might not normally be able to keep - but I think Seymour's made clear he wants to test the waters.

That is probably a very wise and profound view of things, and likely true. Murphy's Law will likely hold true - make it harder for an idiot to screw it up, and a bigger idiot will just come along.

Yes - but the idiots now have no fiscal consequence for idiot moves.

Draft a Ryan Leaf? Sure you wasted a top draft pick - but you're no longer constrained by his wasted salary cap figure either. Write the check, cut the player and keep bringing in new guys until you've found someone who isn't a turd.

I prefer the system where they get saddled with the turd and the salary cap implications. That's worked very well for the Patriots. I find it difficult to advocate a change from what's worked so well.

Bob Kraft and most of his fellow owners opted out of the CBA because they thought that the players were getting too high a share of total revenues. This would indicate to me that Bob Kraft wants to pay less for players than he is now.

Again I agree - but Deus clearly believes that Bob Kraft wants to spend much much MORE on players - especially compared to other teams. In that view, I suppose he must think's Krafts concerns of the players getting too high a percentage of revenues is a smokescreen.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Bob Kraft and most of his fellow owners opted out of the CBA

because they thought that the players were getting too high a

share of total revenues.

My understanding was that the problem was not the share going to the players, but rather issues involving the revenue sharing between teams.

In any case, I don't think spending would change significantly one way or the other.

 

[Deus Irae]

I must have been imagining it when thinking back to player after player after player that the Patriots refused to overpay to bring back... and that other teams DID overpay for... and THAT'S in a salary cap situation.

With regards to overpayment, that is, as you know, in the eye of the beholder. Some players that would seem to clearly have been overpaid include Beisel and Starks. Players that were arguably overpaid include Samuel and Law. All teams overpay

Your assessment that the Patriots, now and in a non-capped system, will typically be the highest bidder for services seems somewhat off the mark.

Given that I never made this assessment, I don't know that I need to give this a serious response. However, it's basic math that a team that has $5 million dollars in disposable revenue can spend more than a team that has $1 million dollars in disposable revenue.

I don't expect a non-capped year to be the Wild West of the NFL. If it comes down to a bidding war on a player now, and in an uncapped system, I don't expect Kraft will be the one to over-pay or consistently be the highest bidder.

That's your take on it. History shows Kraft to be willing to pay premium dollars for premium performance.

And you continue to fully ignore the fact that teams that make poor fiscal choices will no longer be penalized for such moves. How is that better for the Patriots?

I'm not ignoring any such thing. Any team that makes poor fiscal choices will be penalized, and every team will make poor fiscal choices, just as every team makes such mistakes with a salary cap in place. When teams make those mistakes, they lose that money. Some teams, such as the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots, will have more money to cover those mistakes in an uncapped situation. On the other hand, smaller market teams like Buffalo and Green Bay will not be able to make up for similar similar mistakes, because their budgets won't be nearly as large as the budgets of the bigger teams. This same thing happens in baseball, where the Red Sox can outspend just about any team except the Yankees and, as a result, they can bounce back from mistakes like the Renteria signing and still be competing year after year much more easily than a team like Pittsburgh could.

 

[Jimke]

My understanding was that the problem was not the share going to the players, but rather issues involving the revenue sharing between teams.

In any case, I don't think spending would change significantly one way or the other.

The small team owners would like the total revenue of all teams added
to the pot and divided equally. This way owners that didn't agressively
tout their product would benefit from owners like Bob Kraft who do
a good job merchandizing their product.

One of Kraft's gripes is that the players now get 60% of the revenue
from the luxury boxes. Part of this money is used to pay off the NFL
loan towards building Gillette Stadium.

 

[fgssand]

There aren't many teams who've been able to manage the cap as successfully as the Pats plus WIN and/or contend so consistently. JMO but I don't see them suddenly going insane, signing every superstar out there just because they're uncapped. Some teams will though,I'm sure, and we know who they are:singing:

The uncapped year comes at a great time for the Pats though, considering all the players we've got coming due after 09 like Big Vince, Sey, and Vrabes among others. No cap might allow the Pats some wiggle room should they decide to keep some of these guys, plus re-tag Cassel if the situation rolls in that direction.

This is especially true because with any kind of a decent year, we will only be allowed to re-sign our own FA's anyway - one of the many "poison pills" found in the uncapped futureworld.

 

[JoeSixPat]

With regards to overpayment, that is, as you know, in the eye of the beholder. Some players that would seem to clearly have been overpaid include Beisel and Starks. Players that were arguably overpaid include Samuel and Law. All teams overpay

Given that I never made this assessment, I don't know that I need to give this a serious response. However, it's basic math that a team that has $5 million dollars in disposable revenue can spend more than a team that has $1 million dollars in disposable revenue.

That's your take on it. History shows Kraft to be willing to pay premium dollars for premium performance.

I'm not ignoring any such thing. Any team that makes poor fiscal choices will be penalized, and every team will make poor fiscal choices, just as every team makes such mistakes with a salary cap in place. When teams make those mistakes, they lose that money. Some teams, such as the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots, will have more money to cover those mistakes in an uncapped situation. On the other hand, smaller market teams like Buffalo and Green Bay will not be able to make up for similar similar mistakes, because their budgets won't be nearly as large as the budgets of the bigger teams. This same thing happens in baseball, where the Red Sox can outspend just about any team except the Yankees and, as a result, they can bounce back from mistakes like the Renteria signing and still be competing year after year much more easily than a team like Pittsburgh could.

:ugh:

Look - this isn't rocket science. Maybe these two words will help.

Dead - Money.

Take the Lions last year. $15.2 million in "dead money" hitting their salary cap,

In 2008 there were 13 players no longer with the Lions who still counted significantly toward the cap. Six of them were starters from 2007 who were no longer on the roster, but still counted heavily against the team's cap: Edwards, Shaun Rogers, Fernando Bryant, Kenoy Kennedy, Damien Woody and Kevin Jones.

It's not just about "losing money" - it's about how that "dead money" impacts a team by effectively lowering their salary cap. And the Lions didn't just get hit with the cap hit of those they parted ways with - then they had to hire and pay guys to take their place.

There's plenty of other examples - Look at the Raiders. Lots of huge "mistake" contracts that, if not for the salary cap hit, I'm sure players would be immediately cut. But let's just say if they cut Javon Walker next season, his dead cap space, along with that of DeAngelo Hall, would total $20 million in 2009. And once again, they need to pay other players to take their places.

Do you know how much dead cap space Oakland or Detroit will have in an uncapped year?

None! There's no Cap! The Raiders aren't put in a cap disadvantage as they are now. And clearly Al Davis has no problem spending a lot of money - he spent $10 million more than Bob Kraft to put that turd of a team on the field... its just that right now he's constrained from making cuts by the salary cap. That's no longer the case in an uncapped NFL.

And you don't see the elimination of teams' dead cap space as a signficiant change in the NFL? :wha:

 

[NoCal Patriot]

In this case The Players should watch what they wish for since I think an uncapped season will create two classes of players.There will be that "Haves" who will cash in big time and this will be 6 to 10 players on most teams and the "Have Nots" which will be the rest of the roster and they will be earning less than they imagine right now.The Owners when in comes to money are not stupid and they will do everything in their power to anticipate their costs.
Some Playeres will cash in but most will be hurt.

 

[PatOnTheArse]

The playoffs would improve because the richest teams would have a monopoly on the best players. However, the regular season would be far worse off.

The attendences of the less wealthy franchises would be harmed. Most sides have one special player. If you took away these special players from twenty of the poorer teams then I cant see large attendences.

An uncapped world would mean that there would be four/five franchises that can win the superbowl at the start of the season. That would be terrible. English soccer has become very ordinary and defensive because there are four teams far ahead of everyone else.

 

[Deus Irae]

:ugh:

Look - this isn't rocket science. Maybe these two words will help.

Dead - Money.

Take the Lions last year. $15.2 million in "dead money" hitting their salary cap,

In 2008 there were 13 players no longer with the Lions who still counted significantly toward the cap. Six of them were starters from 2007 who were no longer on the roster, but still counted heavily against the team's cap: Edwards, Shaun Rogers, Fernando Bryant, Kenoy Kennedy, Damien Woody and Kevin Jones.

It's not just about "losing money" - it's about how that "dead money" impacts a team by effectively lowering their salary cap. And the Lions didn't just get hit with the cap hit of those they parted ways with - then they had to hire and pay guys to take their place.

There's plenty of other examples - Look at the Raiders. Lots of huge "mistake" contracts that, if not for the salary cap hit, I'm sure players would be immediately cut. But let's just say if they cut Javon Walker next season, his dead cap space, along with that of DeAngelo Hall, would total $20 million in 2009. And once again, they need to pay other players to take their places.

Do you know how much dead cap space Oakland or Detroit will have in an uncapped year?

None! There's no Cap! The Raiders aren't put in a cap disadvantage as they are now. And clearly Al Davis has no problem spending a lot of money - he spent $10 million more than Bob Kraft to put that turd of a team on the field... its just that right now he's constrained from making cuts by the salary cap. That's no longer the case in an uncapped NFL.

And you don't see the elimination of teams' dead cap space as a signficiant change in the NFL? :wha:

If it's not rocket science, why are you missing the blatantly obvious? Assuming no salary cap exists....

Team A: Post expense revenue: 100 million dollars for spending on players

Team B: Post expense revenue: 200 million dollars for spending on players.

Now, assuming a reasonable level of fiscal responsibility for both teams, which team has is better able to shrug off a lousy contract over the course of time and still be capable of signing top flight free agents?

 

[JoeSixPat]

If it's not rocket science, why are you missing the blatantly obvious? Assuming no salary cap exists....

Team A: Post expense revenue: 100 million dollars for spending on players

Team B: Post expense revenue: 200 million dollars for spending on players.

Now, assuming a reasonable level of fiscal responsibility for both teams, which team has is better able to shrug off a lousy contract over the course of time and still be capable of signing top flight free agents?

So Bob Kraft, who openly expressed a concern about the existing CBA requiring too much money to be allocated to players in the current system is now going to a 180 degree turn and spend $100 MORE on players than he does now?

And that Belichick and the Patriots will suddenly begin to make the same errors in judgment that have plagued teams like the Lions and Raiders - but will be able to recover because they have $100 million more to spend on players than a handful of other teams?

First of all, unlike baseball, there's not just 2 teams that have significant revenue. And you seem to keep overlooking the fact that Kraft is financing a stadium whereas other teams are having the taxpayers subsidize that too - freeing up cash that Kraft can't, even if his revenue is higher.

You seem to be focused on revenue only - not expenses.

Second of all, basing your assertion on the contention that Belichick can better recover from stupid personnel moves tends to overlook the fact that he's not prone to making stupid personnel moves - but other teams are.

And given that fact, a system that rewards smart decisions and penalizes stupid decisions is the system that most favors the Patriots. Three Super Bowl rings attest to that.

 

[JoeSixPat]

So you've never heard of the Boston Red Sox then?

If you're referring to the same team that today came out in favor of a salary cap for baseball, well then yes I have.

Great rejoinder on your part.