Salary Cap: Any Chance We Can Kill It??

[Off The Grid]

Precisely. You however would wish to make it so.

Say goodbye to Moss, Brady extention, Gronks after rookie contracts as they all head to Snyderville or somesuch as contracts expire.

AGAIN: FootBall is NOT BaseBall.

You managed to miss that point COMPLETELY.

 

[Off The Grid]

I'm not sure if you're trying to sound stupid.

I guess that's what you HAVE to say, as actually putting together a coherent argument of your OWN...is evidently FAR beyond your capacity.

 

[MassPats38]

By GOD, I'd love to see that

WILL it die with the next CBA??

Not a chance. If you are a fan of a former powerhouse team with big bucks, that may seem like a good idea as many of the powerhouses fell quickly under a salary cap. However, as this is a sport of 32 teams and not just 3 or 4 teams, most owners are not going to invite a bidding war against organizations with more resources. Lifting the salary cap will cost owners more, one of the primary concerns in this lockout to begin with, and will destroy any notion of competitive balance.

And if you are a Pats fan, exactly how successful were the Patriots before 1994? How many Super Bowls were actually worth watching, as an NFL fan not just a Pats fan, before the salary cap? The fact is before the salary cap 3 NFC teams owned the AFC for about 15 years, and most of the championship games during that period were lopsided and just plain lame. Not a good idea at all, for the Patriots or the NFL.

 

[mgcolby]

AGAIN: FootBall is NOT BaseBall.

You managed to miss that point COMPLETELY.

Now that is the most enlightening thing that you have said in this thread.

 

[Ring 6]

AGAIN: FootBall is NOT BaseBall.

You managed to miss that point COMPLETELY.

I think the point is that the cap is the reason football has not gone the way of basesball.
With no cap, small market teams would never win more than 2-3 games a year. It would be worse than baseball because there is no minor league system to build from.
While you cant buy Championships in the NFL under a cap, you could without one. Look at the Yankee payroll vs KC or teams like that. The Yankees top couple of players make more than the Royals entire team. The result would be that a handful of cities would have increased interest because there would basically be 4-8 teams with any chance of winning it all, and all of the other cities would lose interest. Bad overall.

 

[Deus Irae]

Baseball's salary structure works for baseball. Football's salary structure works for football. While both probably need to tweak their systems, they're both still better than basketball, so let's not go jousting at windmills here. The owners want the cap and, after this season, the players will want a salary floor and other protections. The cap isn't going away.

 

[JoeSixPat]

By GOD, I'd love to see that.

Parody be DAMNED.

***

What are your opinions, Gentlemen?

WILL it die with the next CBA??

I think the owners WANT a salary cap - and since they're driving the bus on the CBA/Lockout I don't see why they would roll over and play dead on that issue

My feeling as a Patriots fan is that the salary cap gives the Patriots a competitive advantage, at least under the old system that had top rookies taking up a huge amount of cap space

The Patriots rarely would be drafting in the top 5 (only in the top 10 thanks to good trades) therefore wouldn't have the big price busts that has kept teams like the 49ers and Raiders perpetually bad and in cap hell.

Give me a system where teams effectively are rewarded for taking high value players, and that's going to benefit the Patriots. Why we'd proposing a system that lets teams like the Raiders off the hook for deals like Jamarcus Russell I can't understand.

Raiders fans should want an end to the cap - Patriots fans likely should not.

 

[RDS11]

Well, I think SOMEbody's kidding themselves: FootBall eclipsed BaseBall in the SIXTIES, my friend.

The Cap arrived in 1994.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that FootBall wasn't THE dominant Sport, LONG before that?? :bricks:

The cap is just an extension of what Rozelle started in the early 60's : revenue sharing between all teams. It started with the national tv contract with CBS. Moreover, the only way the AFL was able to compete with the NFL was to copy it : they got a contract with ABC, and after that NBC.

National tv contract, that was what put the NFL as the major sport in North America...and again, the first objective was to make sure each team would get the same amount for broadcasting rights, so a big tv market like New York wouldn't crush a smaller tv market like Buffalo. The cap has the same objective, but instead of applying to revenue it applies to expenses.

 

[Off The Grid]

So I guess we're pretty much all in agreement?

All except ME, that is!!

***

For the record: The benefits of the Salary Cap are obvious, and we can all agree on them.

And I gratefully thank the FEW of you ~ particularly the last few posts! ~ who have weighed in with strong and sensible Arguments.

The dim bulbs who've only contributed snide remarks can go get stuffed.

***

This is how I see it, and then I'll shut my Pie Hole:

* BaseBall is the only "Set Piece" sport of the Big Four, where players play almost autonomously, and most Managers don't even matter.

* In FootBall, the DESPERATELY vital importance of passionate and dedicated Synergy and TeamWork, combined with the SEISMIC impact of superior and innovative Coaching, PRECLUDES the Apocalyptic Horror Show that so many seem dead certain would ensue.

This is why the lasting dominance of one team has NEVER come to pass in FootBall, even though The Cap is but 16 years old, and FootBall had been INCREASINGLY more popular than ALL other sports for DECADES before its advent.

I believe that if the rules of the 80's were in place today, there's no way in HELL that Kraft, Belichick, and Brady don't DOMINATE...perhaps even MORE so.

But I digress, gentlemen: may you enjoy the rest of this fine day.

 

[Bledsoe11]

The NFL has been gaining popularity as you say for 50 years, yes. But don't kid yourself as to why the sport is head and shoulders above Baseball and Basketball. It is the competitive balance created by the salary cap. And if it disgusts you to see good teams disassembled then blame the management team that went for broke and sold out for a short term run. Luckily we have a management team that understands that is not how you manage a team.

I have no doubt that Kraft would spend big if there were no cap as would Snyder, Jones, Johnson and few others. But how would that be good for football? Do you think people in Kansas City get excited when baseball season starts? Hell about 20 fan bases in MLB know they have no chance to compete for the playoffs, let alone the world series every single year. How is that a good thing?

The NFL is the only sport where every team has a legitimate shot at making the playoffs and every year a team that everyone think will suck ends up turning it around and making the playoffs. You can't say that about Baseball or Basketball.

So no I wouldn't say that is a joke. The salary cap is the reason why the NFL sells out just about every game every year and can charge billions for tv contracts.

Actually, I don't see any reason for fans in Kansas City to get excited about football season anymore either. The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game since BEFORE the salary cap. Everyone here seems to think that a league without a salary cap is evil capitalism, but I'd argue that the sport was healthier when it didn't have one. Having no salary cap will put pressure on teams to draft well and take care of their own players. I , for one, could've done without seeing Willie Mac and Ty Law in different uniforms. Also, I'd argue that a Cowboys-Steelers SB would bring more money to the league than a Cardinals-Bengals game regardless of the score.

 

[mgcolby]

Actually, I don't see any reason for fans in Kansas City to get excited about football season anymore either. The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game since BEFORE the salary cap. Everyone here seems to think that a league without a salary cap is evil capitalism, but I'd argue that the sport was healthier when it didn't have one. Having no salary cap will put pressure on teams to draft well and take care of their own players. I , for one, could've done without seeing Willie Mac and Ty Law in different uniforms. Also, I'd argue that a Cowboys-Steelers SB would bring more money to the league than a Cardinals-Bengals game regardless of the score.

They may not have won a playoff game since the implemnetation of the salary cap but they have gone to the playoffs, no? When was the last time the Royals, Pirates, Blue Jays, Orioles etc... have made the playoffs or even had hopes of making the playoffs? And before last season when was the last time the Cowboys won a playoff game. I don't think that was much of an argument.

 

[mgteich]

Your analysis justifies a nomination for the worst analysis of the year.

Kraft and the patriots have benefited from the cap. The patriots benefited MOST when the cap was tighter with less money. It was other teams that failed when they couldn't manage the cap. The patriots would benefit from additional constraints on compensation or player movement.

You don't think that there were dominant teams in last 16 years. Well, there was certainly ONE. It is the height of absurdity to want to get rid of one the critical elements that has made nfl football the dominant sport that it is. We have both dominant teams and 20 or so teams in the playoff hunt at Game 12. We have a system of free agency that works. The CBA has worked. It took the worst recession since the 1930's for it to need serious revisions. Even now, the changes won't huge.

Finally, it is NOT the patriots who "CANNOT" keep their players because of the cap. It is other teams that cannot offer FREE AGENTS enough incentives to want to stay with their teams. We've kept Brady for a decade and he will re-sign. Even this year, we extended Bodden, Wilfork and Gostkowski.




WITHOUT A CAP
Kraft wouldn't own the team. Belichick would be a dominant coach for an owner that paid five times what he makes now, and Brady would make triple his salary for someone else..

.I believe that if the rules of the 80's were in place today, there's no way in HELL that Kraft, Belichick, and Brady don't DOMINATE...perhaps even MORE so.

But I digress, gentlemen: may you enjoy the rest of this fine day.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

One major thing that people forget is that the salary cap also comes with a salary floor. Yes, there's a maximum to spend. But there's also a minimum, guaranteeing that teams will at least be somewhat competitive (Pittsburgh Pirates, I'm looking at you).

MLB has a luxury tax, not a real salary cap, and that allows the Yankees to spend over $206 million, compared to the Pirates spending under $35 million. In fact, only 7 other teams can claim they spend at least half as much as the top team. That means 3/4 of the rest of the league can pretty much give up before the season even starts.

Meanwhile, the other major North American sports have an actual cap (the NBA is a bit wishy washy, with luxury tax components). So I don't see why anyone would want to abandon it entirely, considering the NHL just locked out the players and lost a year to implement the cap.

Competitive balance matters. The cap is a way of maintaining that balance, not just through limiting money, but forcing owners to spend a certain amount to maintain a competitive team. At the same time, there are already several ways of keeping players (franchise tags, et cetera) built-in if an owner really wants to keep a player.

Also, party due to the early trade deadline and also the smaller amount of games played, but also due to the salary floor, there are rarely fire sales by owners who have given up on the season, which happens all the time in baseball, basketball and hockey. Teams stay at a general level of competitiveness throughout the season, unlike some of the crud you see out on an MLB diamond or NBA court in the last two months of a season as teams duel for the worst record for high draft picks.

I really can't think of a good reason not to have a cap other than some teams would dominate. And by some teams, I mean us because we've got the best guy in the league to manage us. But eventually that would destroy interest in the league if only 3 or 4 teams had a chance every year.

 

[resdubwhite]

One question that is probably fair to ask is does the cap make the league more competitive. If the answer is yes. It should stay. Irrespecitve of which team you support.

 

[RDS11]

I believe that if the rules of the 80's were in place today, there's no way in HELL that Kraft, Belichick, and Brady don't DOMINATE...perhaps even MORE so.

But I digress, gentlemen: may you enjoy the rest of this fine day.

To get back to the rules of the 80's, you have to take away free agency too...I'm not sure the players will agree with this. It doesn't seem like you factored in that fact in your argument.

 

[patsfan-1982]

That's just a foolish premise.

Nobody's talking about OVER paying...except YOU.

What I'M talking about...is retaining ~ at fair value ~ all the valuable components of a great team.

like the way they traded Seymour, and still have not paid Mankins, like i said the pats will still run there team like there is a CAP and will still let some walk


and players will not just stay or sign with the pats "at fair value" if there is a lot more money to be goten out there

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, I don't see any reason for fans in Kansas City to get excited about football season anymore either. The Chiefs haven't won a playoff game since BEFORE the salary cap. Everyone here seems to think that a league without a salary cap is evil capitalism, but I'd argue that the sport was healthier when it didn't have one. Having no salary cap will put pressure on teams to draft well and take care of their own players. I , for one, could've done without seeing Willie Mac and Ty Law in different uniforms. Also, I'd argue that a Cowboys-Steelers SB would bring more money to the league than a Cardinals-Bengals game regardless of the score.

You dont think that there is pressure to draft well now?

A cap puts a limit on free agency, no cap would increase player movement, so players spending their career with one team would be less likely.
Using the Chiefs as an example rings hollow. They were favored to go the SB not that long ago with Trent Green and Vermeil, then made a bad decision to bring in Herman Edwards and are now rebuilding.
They realistically can be a SB team in short order, if they make good decisions. The Royals have no chance.
The Chiefs are on equal footing competing to build thier roster with every other NFL team. 0 disadvantage.
The Royals cant even talk to an above average free agent player and when they have a good one, they have to trade him before its contract time because they cannot afford good players at their market price.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

Is this a joke?

Man, you're about five months late on the whole April Fool's thing but damn, it's a good one!

 

[mgcolby]

like the way they traded Seymour, and still have not paid Mankins, like i said the pats will still run there team like there is a CAP and will still let some walk


and players will not just stay or sign with the pats "at fair value" if there is a lot more money to be goten out there

I hope you just spewed this garbage to be funny. First they offered Mankins the going rate. Second the Pats along with just about every other team, with the exception of the Jets are operating with the belief that the cap will be back in place with the next CBA. If the cap goes away you will see the Pats be among the higher spenders. Regardless of what some choose to be Kraft will spend money and he has one of the highest grossing teams in the league.

Drew Bledsoe's contract says hi.

 

[Pats726]

AGAIN: FootBall is NOT BaseBall.

You managed to miss that point COMPLETELY.

And the salary cap IS ONE reason it is NOT baseball...THANK GOODNESS!!!!!