Salary Cap Idea for new CBA

[Wheelssps]

I've had this idea for a few years now, and this lull during the bye week has finally gotten me to post it.
The idea is this:

What about if salary cap became a trade-able commodity under the new CBA?

As far as I know, all sports with a salary cap have a hard and fast cap, meaning it's the same for all teams, except with some sports with a weak or hybrid cap, like basketball and baseball, that just have luxury tax penalties for going over.

So, what if you could trade a pick for cap space? Like a 5th rounder from one team to get 3 million in cap space in return? The reason I thought of this is that some teams like developing home-grown talent (Patriots, Steelers, Colts, others come to mind) and other teams tend towards signing free agents, which generally tend to cost more than rookies, and thus eat up more cap space (Washington, anyone?) Everyone would start with the same salary cap, but teams could trade it for players, for picks, etc. Even current cap space for future cap space, like 3 million of 2011 cap space for 3.5 million of 2012 cap space, etc.

I was just thinking that this idea would give teams just a bit more flexibility in addressing their rosters. I was also thinking that this would give BB just one more way to fleece other poorly run teams, but that's my perspective as a Pats fan.

Thoughts??

Reasons it wouldn't work??

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What about if salary cap became a trade-able commodity under the new CBA?

I'm not yet sure if I like the idea, but it's certainly an intriguing one worth thinking about.

 

[signbabybrady]

My thoughts are that this would make Snyders job much easier as he could trade one years cap to the next and double up on talent for one season and really bye that championship he has been trying to buy for years.


The 97 Marlins come to mind with this type of cap. Buy your title and then disband it because it cost to much.

 

[Sicilian]

The problem I see is that the whole reason the cap exists is to keep the the haves from outspending the have nots. A team like the Patriots can likely afford more in player salaries than a smaller market team, so they would end up buying more cap space that the other teams might not want to spend anyway.

Interesting thought, but I don't think the end result would be desirable for the league.

 

[pheenix11]

Fun idea, but I like it the way it is. Parity is fun, especially when you have BB.

 

[signbabybrady]

Another thought came to mind and Miguel or another capoligist can explain it in more detail but there is way for a team to carry some of its unused dollars into the next year by using up the remaining space by changing the Likely and unlikely to be earned bonuses around. So this in someways satisfies what you are referring too just cant be other teams space but at least there is a way not to waste your own.

 

[Wheelssps]

Yeah, I've thought about the way that the cap is used now by teams, how they can distribute cap hits over several years, and I don't think that would have to change to also enable the trading of cap space. I would think teams would want to be able to keep spreading cap hits as they do now.

 

[Wheelssps]

The problem I see is that the whole reason the cap exists is to keep the the haves from outspending the have nots. A team like the Patriots can likely afford more in player salaries than a smaller market team, so they would end up buying more cap space that the other teams might not want to spend anyway.

Interesting thought, but I don't think the end result would be desirable for the league.

I completely agree on the desire of parity for the league, and you might be right, some teams in football might try to turn into the Florida Marlins of baseball and just do everything possible to avoid spending money on players.

As for keeping parity, I'm also thinking that Buffalo, which has a harder time attracting free agents than some other teams do, could potentially be helped by this. By trading some cap space for additional draft picks, they could intensify their attempts to rebuild through the draft.

Currently there exists a salary floor, and I would think those would still be in place, so the total level of spending league wide wouldn't be affected, and each individual team would still have to spend at least some minimum amount, as it is now. That number might be lowered to allow for the trading of cap space, but details...
Thus the Player's Association shouldn't have too much concern about overall spending being affected.

Anyway, just random thoughts during the bye week. Thanks for the replies!!!

 

[lamafist]

It's an interesting idea, but it might end up more difficult regulate than it's worth.I understand the upside of rewarding well-managed teams by allowing them to leverage their spare cap space into some of the cap-strapped teams' draft picks or players.

The downside, however, is the potential of some of the cheaper owners to try to run their organizations like small-market baseball teams, despite partaking in revenue sharing, and try to maximize personal profits by selling off cap space to field cheap teams of young guys who go to one of a handful of big-market teams willing to pay for an inflated-capped roster.

If you raised the salary floor enough to prevent this, you'de likely be reducing the margins for any meaningful cap-space trading.

Meanwhile, another problem here is incentive, in that, under the current CBA, teams don't have much incentive to take on cap space. Since contracts in the NFL aren't guaranteed, teams in need of cap space are able to just dump salary... and that's only if they can't create present space by converting salary to bonuses that then become "dead space" paid over the next several years.

One thing to consider that would function kind of like trading cap space, but within inherently limited enough parameters to not throw things out of whack, is to enable teams trading for a player to take on some of the player's remaining bonus money owed. This would enable teams with cap money and interest to acquire players whose original teams might normally be disinclined to part with despite not needing as much, because of already sunk costs.

 

[scout]

In the end, you would have the superstar GM's ruling the day (BB). Then you'd have franchises like Washington who are really bad at judging talent, doomed, really, really doomed
I like the football cap better then any other capped sport, and it will prob. get better in this next negotiation. Baseball is a joke. How do you have a major league sport in which the playing field is not even? Basketball, is ok. I think they are in for a major hit. Deservedly so.

 

[lamafist]

Another thing to consider is the example of the NBA, where teams essentially trade for cap space by trading quality by pricier players for older guys whose contracts are about to expire.

This works ok in the NBA, in part because some of the negatives are defrayed by the big plus of having a number of the league's better players funneled onto play-off contenders just before the deadline. This works ok in basketball because you're only really building teams of 6-8 guys, and teams can assimilate new talent more smoothly, so it ends up a decent way to showcase more of the league's talented players. In the NFL, where team building is more large-scale, long term, and precarious, this would just result in a lot of bad football.

Meanwhile, the downside that the NBA puts up with for this is the unending talk about trades, expiring contracts, lottery-protected and unprotected picks, and various other salary cap arcana. Sure, in the NFL, you occasionally hear some complicated cap jargon, but it's one tenth of what you hear in the NBA, and it kind of distracts from the actual sport being played in front of you, and sort of cheapens the "brand names" of once beloved players by affixing 's expiring contract to the end of their name for an entire season, like they're just another toxic mortgage-backed derivative asset to be traded.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Interesting in theory, never happen in practice.

Why? Parity.

NFL wants parity. Any mechanism that allows smarter GMs to tool the idiots in the league defeats the intent of the draft where failure is rewarded. After the 2011 draft I look for owners to try to put in restrictions inhibiting well managed teams (e.g. the Patriots) from making draft trades that net them future year 1st rounders, etc.

 

[Wheelssps]

Interesting in theory, never happen in practice.

Why? Parity.

NFL wants parity. Any mechanism that allows smarter GMs to tool the idiots in the league defeats the intent of the draft where failure is rewarded. After the 2011 draft I look for owners to try to put in restrictions inhibiting well managed teams (e.g. the Patriots) from making draft trades that net them future year 1st rounders, etc.

I hear what you're saying, and I'm not suggesting that this idea is just amazing, must implement, etc. I've just had it in the back of my mind for a couple of years and thought that it was interesting enough to put out to you all for thoughts.

I would not be in favor of such restrictions to draft say trades as you propose, however, as it prohibits poorly run AND well run teams from having another opportunity to improve themselves. At some point you have to let the Matt Millen's of the NFL do their thing. Otherwise, why not just put BB in charge of running each and every team? GM and coach against himself? If the NFL is a grown man's sport, then you can't create too many restrictions in the name of parity before you've put kid gloves back on the sport.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I hear what you're saying, and I'm not suggesting that this idea is just amazing, must implement, etc. I've just had it in the back of my mind for a couple of years and thought that it was interesting enough to put out to you all for thoughts.

I would not be in favor of such restrictions to draft say trades as you propose, however, as it prohibits poorly run AND well run teams from having another opportunity to improve themselves. At some point you have to let the Matt Millen's of the NFL do their thing. Otherwise, why not just put BB in charge of running each and every team? GM and coach against himself? If the NFL is a grown man's sport, then you can't create too many restrictions in the name of parity before you've put kid gloves back on the sport.

Not knocking your clever idea. It's too clever for the NFL.

To be clear I am NOT proposing ANY such draft trade restrictions merely speculating that the league will connive a way to inhibit the Patriots org's excellence.

 

[Wheelssps]

Not knocking your clever idea. It's too clever for the NFL.

To be clear I am NOT proposing ANY such draft trade restrictions merely speculating that the league will connive a way to inhibit the Patriots org's excellence.

No, I didn't think that you were knocking the idea. I was just clarifying that I didn't think that it was entirely practical myself, but just that it seemed like an idea that should be shared.

And gotcha, you don't think that such restriction on trades should be put in place, just that the NFL (and Bill Polian and Goddell) will try to take away anything that the Pats do particularly well. Such is the trouble with message boards, inflection and clear meaning can be hard to come by.

Thanks for the comments on the idea overall, appreciate yours and everyone's responses! Cheers.