Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Deus Irae, Jun 3, 2011.
The Daily Shoutout - CBSSports.com
All hearsay until we hear it from the horses mouth
There are as many positives as there are negative reports about the progress of negotiations.
Wow. If true, this is fantastic news.
Well, Judge Bye did say today that both sides should negotiate because he feels neither side will like the three Judge panel ruling. I don't know how both side will not like the ruling considering they are basically going to either uphold Judge Nelson's ruling or not. I didn't think they could come up with a third option.
If it happens, it will be a last minute agreement to avoid judge Bye's ruling. The players don't want a ruling and neither do the owners, but it forces the owners to actually try to make a deal, whereas previously they've just made outrageous demands and labeled it "negotiations".
the third option is probably the ones that make the lawyers happy...though they always seem to win out in these type of issues.
BTW, Kraft was right. Take the lawyers out of the room and there is significant progress in negotiations.
Some teams do spend significantly more money on players than others, and some teams spend significantly less. The Redskins are among the very top spenders.
The cap is an accounting gimmick, as the owners themselves have acknowledged with their "90%" promise.
It depends on how you define "significantly". The cap kind of prevents any team from reaching that level to me, especially compared to baseball where spending significantly more on players is the difference between $35 million and $200 million.
NFL.com Blogs Â» Blog Archive Moneyball, NFL style Â«
At just under $120 million dollars difference in spending from 2004-2008, you're looking at comfortably more than $20 million per year difference. Under current salary rates, that's a Peyton Manning/Tom Brady and change left over.
It would be good for the Pats since they are a have team, but it would destroy the NFL. Baseball has watched their popularity erode over the last decade or two in large part because they really don't have a salary cap or a salary floor. Yes, they have a luxury tax, but that doesn't kick in until teams spend 6 or 7 times more than the teams with the lowest payroll. And teams like the Pirates are rewarded with high profits for fielding a farm league team with a payroll lower than ARod's salary.
The salary cap is a large part of why the NFL is so popular. There aren't several teams that are significantly better than everyone else year after year and virtually every team has a shot at the Super Bowl and turn their fortunes around in a year or two if they go to the bottom of the barrell. You start to make it so a dozen teams are eliminated from the playoffs before the season even starts like MLB and the sport becomes regionalized which is a huge problem for MLB.
That's still just a 26% difference between the top and bottom, compared to baseball where (and I couldn't find one source to give me five years of data, so I did some quick calcs based on year to year), you've got the following from 2007-2011:
Pittsburgh - $215.90 million
New York Yankees - $1.009 BILLION
That's a difference of roughly $159 million per year (a 367% difference), or to follow your example, like adding seven Adrian Gonzalez's to your lineup.
And this is in a sport with 25 players per roster, not 53.
THAT is significant.
Baseball's gap being larger doesn't make the football gap insignificant, though. Imagine being even with the best team in the league, and then adding Tom Brady and another decent/good player to your team.
I don't want to go too far down this road, because people make very poor arguments about this and they're the same every time, but football does not have a hard upper and lower cap that can't be massaged, which is the only way to ensure that you have essentially even spending.
Nobody has argued that the spending disparity in footbal is on par with baseball's. Of course it isn't. But someone said that all teams spend about the same, and that's definitely not true when some teams are spending $20M more per year than others.
Imagine the Bucs adding four players of the Jerod Mayo/Vince Wilfork/Wes Welker caliber last year. That's what $20M can get you.
Well of course there's a difference, but my original comment was in response to the Dan Snyder example. Someone mentioned they didn't want the NFL to end up like baseball, someone else tried to use Dan Snyder as if to say this was already happening, and the numbers point out this is an entirely ludicrous comparison. What Dan Snyder is doing is NOTHING compared to what happens in baseball, which is why I did the comparison in the first place.
Separate names with a comma.