Interesting tidbit from PFT about Jeff Kessler, NFLPA Outside Attorney

[plk]

Not true. You can cheat the cap forever. You can use NLTBE bonuses in perpetude. It may never catch up to you. You can constantly dole out NLTBE bonuses to compensate for the NLTBE from the previous year and never have it catch up to you.

So if you give out say $2 million in NLTBE bonuses that are easily makeable this year and you do that every year. You just push that cap charge to the next year in perpetude. They only way it would come back to catch up with you is if the CBA comes to an end like last season and the NLTBE bonuses are charged against the cap when the bonus is met.

Therefore it isn't a true hard cap because it doesn't always catch up to you because there are ways to cheat the cap.

You understand that? Right?

I understand that any money pushed into the future will become part of some future salary cap.

I understand the teams will continue to push money into the future.

I understand that looking over a period of years, teams have the same, rigid salary cap.

 

[Rob0729]

I understand that any money pushed into the future will become part of some future salary cap.

I understand the teams will continue to push money into the future.

I understand that looking over a period of years, teams have the same, rigid salary cap.

Rigid salary cap? Name the last time a team went into cap hell. It is so rigid that teams who don't spend wisely are eventually punished by making the same foolish decisions over and over again without going to cap jail. Sorry there are ways to cheat the cap in perpetude. Hence why it is a hard cap in theory and a soft cap in reality. In the past, there was more of a hard cap, but teams have figured out all the ways to cheat the cap.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Rigid salary cap? Name the last time a team went into cap hell. It is so rigid that teams who don't spend wisely are eventually punished by making the same foolish decisions over and over again without going to cap jail. Sorry there are ways to cheat the cap in perpetude. Hence why it is a hard cap in theory and a soft cap in reality. In the past, there was more of a hard cap, but teams have figured out all the ways to cheat the cap.

I think some would argue that the reason why nobody's gone into cap hell since probably the early 2000s Titans (unless I'm missing a team since then) would be because of how quickly the cap has risen over the last half-decade or so. When the cap is growing by leaps and bounds, it's hard for past contracts, signed at old, lower market rates, to come back and haunt you too much.

Look at the Colts, their entire cap management system was essentially built around that premise. Contracts that were pretty much market-defining when they were signed became the market rate for very good players that that position just a couple of years later.

Not saying you're wrong, but I just think that there are a lot more factors behind teams avoiding cap hell than what you've mentioned.

 

[lamafist]

First, the draft is certainly a major factor in parity. The draft has been around since the 1930s, but free agency hasn't. That means teams that have stretches of superior drafts could create a dynasty because they could retain their HOF players without a cap restricting that. The draft has certainly been a major factor in parity, but not the only factor.

Right, and then free agency and the salary cap completely changed the game.

To the extent that there was parity in the pre-90's NFL, it was created through the combination of the draft and limited player movement, because draft picks had permanent value then -- the team that drafted a player had exclusive rights to him, and if after his first contract expired, an extension couldn't be agreed on, any other team signing the player would have to provide multiple high level draft picks.

The additions of free agency and the salary cap each acted to diminish the relative value of draft picks. Free agency meant the end of a draft pick's long-term value, and the salary cap mitigated the benefit of picking early with the requirement of paying more. If the draft was equitable prior to '93, the uneven changing in picks' utility via free agency and the cap means it has been inequitable ever since.

Here are some of the things you miss and direct responses to your point:

- The draft generates tens of millions off the draft between TV rights to ESPN, commercial on the NFL Network, licensing to draft publications, etc. The players get 60% of that revenue right now. Lose that money and the salary cap goes down because of it.

As I said in my prior post, I have yet to hear a good argument why the draft is inherently more valuable an entertainment property than a non-randomized player-distributing event of the NFL's devising, in conjunction, of course, with the NFL Network and ESPN. The draft structure itself isn't what attracts viewers -- they'll watch in numbers any day-long event in which the top college players are allocated to pro teams. All the draft structure does is give viewers a clock counting down to when they have to switch over from the baseball game they're watching.

- Comparing the baseball draft and the NFL draft is bogus. Exactly how many prospects drafted in the MLB draft enter MLB immediately? Unlike football, a large majority of the players drafted in baseball are raw prospects with little or no college experience and spend years in the minors before they come out. These players are far more drafted on potential than NFL prospects. This comparison is like saying you shouldn't buy a Macbook because Dell laptops are constantly infected with viruses. Weak example. I would agree if there was a football minor league and NFL teams drafted guys right out of high school and let them develop in the minors, the draft would be irrelevant.

Well, first off, with more prospects opting to play in college, and increasing sophistication in the physical training of younger players, MLB teams are seeing earlier dividends off of early draft picks these days. But that's besides the point, really -- the MLB draft might not have provided as immediate gratification, but the teams' rights to the player extended longer, so the relative value of a draft pick isn't significantly altered. Instead, the MLB prospects spend a few years as a form of league currency before they start contributing on the field.

What makes the MLB draft a bad comparison to the NFL's is actually is the lack of a salary cap or sharing of primary TV revenues in MLB. In both sports, free agency limits the long-term value of draft picks; in the NFL, the salary cap and revenue sharing encourage continued equitable distribution, whereas in MLB, smaller market teams become de fact farm teams for the Yankees, Mets or Red Sox.

- First, all sports have a degree of revenue sharing. Second, the NFL clearly does not have a true hard cap. There are ways to spend over the cap by giving things like NLTBE bonuses where cap money can be pushed into the next year. The revenue sharing and salary cap do play into parity, but you miss the real dollar aspect of the cap system. Teams can spend well over the cap (or well under the cap) in real dollars because of bonuses. Bypassing the draft will help teams with a lot of cash to pay out large bonuses (Washington, Dallas) and hurt teams who cannot pay out large bonuses because of cash flow (Buffalo, Jacksonville). Daniel Snyder can grab two or three first round caliber players (or more) in a free market system by giving them large signing bonuses and low salaries on longer term deals to make it more attractive to go to Washington.

All sports have *some* revenue sharing, but not the complete sharing of primary TV revenue that the NFL does. In the NBA and MLB, some teams can afford to have their own house network funneling ad revenue into the franchise coffers, while others have to beg FOX Sports or a local UHF channel to air their games. So between the huge difference in degree of revenue sharing, and the salary cap and floor, there's really not nearly as much room for salary inequity in football.

As for cash-over-cap, it'd be a more convincing problem if it were more prevalent, and any team had consistently benefited from it. You usually only see any number of teams making large cash-over-cap expenditures in the season or two prior to an expected jump in the cap number, whether from a new CBA or new TV contract or both. Cash-over-cap can theoretically give a team like the Redskins an advantage in competing for a FA, but it also increases the amount you're risking on that player. All cash-over-cap eventually turns into cash-under-cap, dollar for dollar, so if you don't get value for the players you shell out bonuses on, your franchise ends up hamstrung against the cap and having to cut salary while still having needs to fill. This is why the Synder method hasn't paid dividends for the Redskins, nor the Jones method for the Cowboys. The only reason things have worked out ok in Indi is that Polian's been such a good talent evaluator in the draft that he's been able to bail himself out of tight spots his cap management has gotten him into -- until recently.

Cash over cap is like a credit card, allowing teams to float a balance from one year to another, but it all eventually gets paid. That's why most good teams hover around the cap, a little over one year, a little under another. The teams with "cash flow" problems you mentioned would need to first stop bumping along the salary floor before attributing cash over cap to their lack of competitiveness.

(continued)

 

[lamafist]

- Just because a team drafts poorly and is hamstrung because of it doesn't mean that would be rectified in a free market system. The Jets drafted Vernon Gholston with the seventh pick and he turned into a major bust. If there was no draft, do you think that someone wouldn't have given him a contract the same level as what he got? That team would still be burdened with with his cap dollars. Besides, the way the cap has grown in recent years, few teams are really burdened with salary cap hell because of poor drafting anymore. Signing highly touted busts to large contracts is not going to change in a free market system. In fact, with a bidding war for the high talent, these high priced mistakes could be more costly to teams and parity.

For sure, not every high priced bust would be prevented or even ameliorated in a market-based rookie economy -- but many would. The NFL draft pre-fixes the distribution of salaries among the rookie class -- a player taken with pick no. X at position Y with make Z dollars, etc. In a market system, you take out the random element of team need vs. draft position out of the salary equation -- if there's a big dropoff between the top DE prospect and the rest, the salaries will tend to reflect that. If there are a bunch of DE prospects grouped together in perceived value, no team has to pay a huge premium for the negligible value of picking the first among equivalents. Alex Smith and Aaron Rogers, for example, would have likely ended up with roughly equivalent rookie contracts were it not for the oddities of the draft salary slots.

Getting rookie salary to accurately reflect the player's perceived value is at least a step towards getting their real values more in line with their salaries.

- I disagree that no draft gives GMs more flexibility. It will for some. For others it will give them less. If you are the Carolina Panthers, you get to select any player you want in this year's draft. If they settle on Jake Locker (who could be the next Tom Brady for all we know), there is no guarantees that any of the top QBs would want to play for the Panthers in a free market system since they suck so bad. Small market teams who can't shell out big bonuses would be at a disadvantage too for the reasons I explained above.

Market size isn't a major deciding factor in revenue, and since the amortized bonus amount will effectively lower the cap (and floor) over the life of the contract in terms of actual expenditure, there's no such thing as a team that can't shell out a big bonus. Also, if the Panthers want to draft Locker #1 overall, they're going to need to pay him a big bonus.

Furthermore, I think it is ultimately a good thing for franchises to have to sell themselves to top tier talent the way law firms go after the top Harvard grads. I don't think it will be as hard for a team like the Panthers are you make it out. Most of the teams with dire need at QB suck to some degree. And the combination of Locker wanting to go somewhere he won't get stuck waiting for his chance, and teams without pressing need at QB not offering as much money, I don't think teams that are just bad, as opposed to dysfunctional, will have problems signing.

And if the looney bins like the Raiders have trouble convincing players to sign? Good! I for one don't think it's good for football to let Al Davis ruin some promising prospect's career every year. It's not good for the NFL for teams to not have to compete over the young talent pool -- it enables deadbeat owners like the Fords and Bidwells, and insane cadavers like Davis. I like the idea of Jake Locker wanting to talk about the Panthers' plan to bolster the offensive line before he signs with them. I think having to be accountable to the talent pool will incentivize sound team-building in a way that accountability to fans doesn't.

- Rookie holdouts isn't much of problem. You may get 1-2 a year. In a free market system, some of the first round talent may still not sign until into training camp because no one is giving them the dollars they are looking for.

There are a lot of players who miss chunks of training camp, and that can really affect development. Rookie contracts take so long because threatening a holdout is a draft pick's only leverage, and there's nothing to gain from signing early. In a market system, if a player wants too much, the team can just go after someone else, so a prospect who drags his feet in getting signed to a team will just see teams move on without him. A veteran who's already had a big payday might be willing to hold off and see if training camp injuries improves the market for his services, but not a rookie looking for his first big score.

- As to your comment that the players selecting the teams they want to play for. That directly goes against the parity will remain issue.

It hasn't caused parity problems via FA, has it? Money is pretty much always the deciding factor, and after that, a better chance of playing time is usually as attractive as how good a team already is, if not more. Heck, players wives' preference in cities often overrides which team is better.

- As to the no contract restrictions, you really want to destroy the NFL. So Daniel Snyder can offer Jake Locker a 10 year, $100 million contract with a $40 million signing bonus. How is a small market team going to match that? Sorry, there will have to be rules to what rookies could make in a free market system or the league would turn into the haves and the have nots.

And throwing huge bonuses at rookies won't pan out for Snyder any better than throwing it at FAs has. The flexibility to spend cash-over-cap is only an advantage when done in moderation, spending a little over the cap in one year, and under it another, because otherwise, the dead money builds up, and you find yourself constrained to sign new players, and having to cut old ones.

It is a silly premise because the players and the owners know that the Draft is great for both sides and both sides lose without it. The players seem to have pushed Kessler to the side for the Brady et la vs. the NFL based on yesterday. So even they know that the Draft is in their best interest.

Begging the question.

 

[Rob0729]

Right, and then free agency and the salary cap completely changed the game.

To the extent that there was parity in the pre-90's NFL, it was created through the combination of the draft and limited player movement, because draft picks had permanent value then -- the team that drafted a player had exclusive rights to him, and if after his first contract expired, an extension couldn't be agreed on, any other team signing the player would have to provide multiple high level draft picks.

The additions of free agency and the salary cap each acted to diminish the relative value of draft picks. Free agency meant the end of a draft pick's long-term value, and the salary cap mitigated the benefit of picking early with the requirement of paying more. If the draft was equitable prior to '93, the uneven changing in picks' utility via free agency and the cap means it has been inequitable ever since.

I will argue free agency increased the value of the picks. The problem with free agency is that teams didn't lock up a player for his entire career. That means that you need a rookie to make an impact earlier because you are constantly losing a decent amount of impact players every year or two. That is why Belichick stockpiles draft picks. Not because he likes them so much. Because he can almost completely turnover the roster and still be a legitimate Super Bowl contender. Without the draft, the Pats don't win a Super Bowl in 2003 or 2004. They are also not likely to be competitve now because all their core players have retired or left via free agency.

As I said in my prior post, I have yet to hear a good argument why the draft is inherently more valuable an entertainment property than a non-randomized player-distributing event of the NFL's devising, in conjunction, of course, with the NFL Network and ESPN. The draft structure itself isn't what attracts viewers -- they'll watch in numbers any day-long event in which the top college players are allocated to pro teams. All the draft structure does is give viewers a clock counting down to when they have to switch over from the baseball game they're watching.

Again, I have yet to hear any good argument for a system of a televised rookie free agent event without a draft. I think a six hour bidding process on each draft prospect would great and it being a month long event would get a lot of advertising for the NFL. But is unrealistic to make this a televised event because even if they simplified contracts, contracts cannot be revised, offered, and accepted in a minute or two. Imagine what it will do to a team that in a rush overs a $10 million signing bonus rather than a $1 million signing bonus.

It isn't that the draft structure is more entertaining, it is that a draft structure of a televised event is actually realistic. An auction event is completely unrealistic unless you make it a weeks long event or possibly months. You have yet to make a realistic argument on how the league and players make multimillion dollar contracts so simplied and uniform that they can be adjusted and accepted on the fly in the confines of a 5-10 minute period. And just saying they all can agree is not an argument.

Well, first off, with more prospects opting to play in college, and increasing sophistication in the physical training of younger players, MLB teams are seeing earlier dividends off of early draft picks these days. But that's besides the point, really -- the MLB draft might not have provided as immediate gratification, but the teams' rights to the player extended longer, so the relative value of a draft pick isn't significantly altered. Instead, the MLB prospects spend a few years as a form of league currency before they start contributing on the field.

So baseball prospects get into the majors in 2-3 years rather than 3-5 years. Again, how is that like the NFL where a significant percentage of the rookies are playing day one and many are starting their rookie year. That is a significant difference. The player the Pats draft in the first round with the Patriots will likely start this upcoming year and might start day one. The player the Red Sox drafted in the first round this year might not see the field until 2015 and he might have been traded away by the Sox by the time he makes the majors. How are they remotely the same thing.

What makes the MLB draft a bad comparison to the NFL's is actually is the lack of a salary cap or sharing of primary TV revenues in MLB. In both sports, free agency limits the long-term value of draft picks; in the NFL, the salary cap and revenue sharing encourage continued equitable distribution, whereas in MLB, smaller market teams become de fact farm teams for the Yankees, Mets or Red Sox.

Baseball isn't the best example, but the NBA and NHL are closer examples.

As for cash-over-cap, it'd be a more convincing problem if it were more prevalent, and any team had consistently benefited from it. You usually only see any number of teams making large cash-over-cap expenditures in the season or two prior to an expected jump in the cap number, whether from a new CBA or new TV contract or both. Cash-over-cap can theoretically give a team like the Redskins an advantage in competing for a FA, but it also increases the amount you're risking on that player. All cash-over-cap eventually turns into cash-under-cap, dollar for dollar, so if you don't get value for the players you shell out bonuses on, your franchise ends up hamstrung against the cap and having to cut salary while still having needs to fill. This is why the Synder method hasn't paid dividends for the Redskins, nor the Jones method for the Cowboys. The only reason things have worked out ok in Indi is that Polian's been such a good talent evaluator in the draft that he's been able to bail himself out of tight spots his cap management has gotten him into -- until recently.

It is pretty prevalent. Look at the Bills. They rarely acquire big name talent and when their star players get to free agency, they usually let them leave. A large reason for this is the real cash dollars it takes in bonuses. It is far more prevalent with the teams at the bottom of the revenue stream than the top.

Cash over cap is like a credit card, allowing teams to float a balance from one year to another, but it all eventually gets paid. That's why most good teams hover around the cap, a little over one year, a little under another. The teams with "cash flow" problems you mentioned would need to first stop bumping along the salary floor before attributing cash over cap to their lack of competitiveness.

(continued)

Since this phenomenon started with the new CBA in 2006 and last year was an uncapped year, we have only four years of data to look at. But the numbers seem to disagree with what you state.

In 2008, the salary cap was $116 million and 13 teams spent over that in actual pay roll with teams spending upwards to $34 million over the cap.

2008-09 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com


In 2006, the cap was $94 million and 20 teams spent over that with some spending up to as much as $35 million more than the cap.

2006-07 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com

One common theme is that several of the small market teams spent consistently well below the cap in real dollars. Tampa spent $84.6 million in 2009 (with a $129 million cap), $104.3 million in 2008 (cap was $116 million), $98.1 million in 2007 (cap was $109 million), and $78.8 million in 2006 (cap was $94 million). The Chiefs spent $81.8 million in 09, $84 million in 08, $108.4 million in 07, and $81.7 million in real dollars. There are many other teams that are in smaller markets that spent below the cap every year or three of the four and significantly below the cap two or three years. So eventhough there aren't as many teams consistently spending over the cap in real dollars, plenty of teams consistently spending well under the cap in real dollars.

 

[lamafist]

I will argue free agency increased the value of the picks. The problem with free agency is that teams didn't lock up a player for his entire career. That means that you need a rookie to make an impact earlier because you are constantly losing a decent amount of impact players every year or two. That is why Belichick stockpiles draft picks. Not because he likes them so much. Because he can almost completely turnover the roster and still be a legitimate Super Bowl contender. Without the draft, the Pats don't win a Super Bowl in 2003 or 2004. They are also not likely to be competitve now because all their core players have retired or left via free agency.

The conclusion you draw doesn't match the argument you make. Free agency has a net zero effect on the total number of veteran impact players; for every team that loses one, another team gains one. The balance of veteran talent vs. younger talent remains unchanged by free agency. The change is that a draft pick only entitled you to maybe 1/3 as long as before, which while reducing the long-term value of a draft pick, also changes the ways in which rookie prospects are valued relative to each other.

FA makes prospects who could contribute right away become more valuable relative to prospects who are seen as "projects." So yes, teams are looking to get more from their draft picks earlier because of FA, but this doesn't effect their net contribution to NFL franchises.

Also, you seem to be arguing as if without a draft, there won't be any new talent coming into the NFL. BB would still be able to rebuild and sustain the team on the fly with young players through a different mechanism for allotting young talent. The only thing that FA changes w/r/t to draft picks is that they don't entitle you to as much of their career as it once did. Every other variable remained unchanged.

Again, I have yet to hear any good argument for a system of a televised rookie free agent event without a draft. I think a six hour bidding process on each draft prospect would great and it being a month long event would get a lot of advertising for the NFL. But is unrealistic to make this a televised event because even if they simplified contracts, contracts cannot be revised, offered, and accepted in a minute or two. Imagine what it will do to a team that in a rush overs a $10 million signing bonus rather than a $1 million signing bonus.

It isn't that the draft structure is more entertaining, it is that a draft structure of a televised event is actually realistic. An auction event is completely unrealistic unless you make it a weeks long event or possibly months. You have yet to make a realistic argument on how the league and players make multimillion dollar contracts so simplied and uniform that they can be adjusted and accepted on the fly in the confines of a 5-10 minute period. And just saying they all can agree is not an argument.

Well, if you're set on an auction format, you could actually just use the contract values relative to position and pick number from the draft as bidding tiers. So teams would essentially bid how early they'd be willing to draft a player, with the contract corresponding as presently. This would mitigate some of the benefits of not having a draft, though, and its only real selling point is resemblance to the status quo.

Alternately, you could let it play out like a cross between the first day of Free Agency and the media events high school recruits now throw to announce their letters of intent. As it stands, teams already spend three months studying tape, attending combines and pro days, and bringing in players for workouts and meetings with the coach. There's no reason why what type of contract the player is looking for shouldn't be discussed, and even negotiated in the hypothetical. With nothing potentially binding possible until the rookie signing event starts, prospects and franchises will have every incentive to play things close to their chest and meet with all interested parties.

Then, when the signing day comes, with three months to get an idea of who wants what, it wouldn't be as complicated as you make out for teams and prospects to come to an agreement in principle -- length, salary allocation and guarantees -- which they and the agent can then file with the league, at which point the player comes out and announces which team he'll play for. We've already watched it work on a smaller scale without the added optics for TV on the first day of FA, and it routinely croaks PFT's servers. With a much larger pool and every franchise likely looking to get involved, this could easily be a big enough event to successfully market, and with the added advantage of fans not being able to only tune in when their team's on the clock.

So baseball prospects get into the majors in 2-3 years rather than 3-5 years. Again, how is that like the NFL where a significant percentage of the rookies are playing day one and many are starting their rookie year. That is a significant difference. The player the Pats draft in the first round with the Patriots will likely start this upcoming year and might start day one. The player the Red Sox drafted in the first round this year might not see the field until 2015 and he might have been traded away by the Sox by the time he makes the majors. How are they remotely the same thing.



Baseball isn't the best example, but the NBA and NHL are closer examples.

The changes in time frame you bring up just affect the pace, not the long-term effect of a draft and FA in a cap-free sport. Players take longer to contribute, but their initial contracts are easily proportionally longer. The MLB draft would never be as immediately interesting to fans because of how long it takes to see dividends, but the effect on team parity isn't greatly altered. With FA and a draft, but no cap, in the NFL, low-revenue franchises would have fire sales on veterans they won't be able to resign just like in baseball, only it will be for draft picks who can play next year as opposed to minor league prospects. Low-revenue teams would all try to be the NFL's Marlins, but I'd worry that continuity is too valuable in the NFL.


...

 

[lamafist]

It is pretty prevalent. Look at the Bills. They rarely acquire big name talent and when their star players get to free agency, they usually let them leave. A large reason for this is the real cash dollars it takes in bonuses. It is far more prevalent with the teams at the bottom of the revenue stream than the top.



Since this phenomenon started with the new CBA in 2006 and last year was an uncapped year, we have only four years of data to look at. But the numbers seem to disagree with what you state.

In 2008, the salary cap was $116 million and 13 teams spent over that in actual pay roll with teams spending upwards to $34 million over the cap.

2008-09 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com


In 2006, the cap was $94 million and 20 teams spent over that with some spending up to as much as $35 million more than the cap.

2006-07 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com

One common theme is that several of the small market teams spent consistently well below the cap in real dollars. Tampa spent $84.6 million in 2009 (with a $129 million cap), $104.3 million in 2008 (cap was $116 million), $98.1 million in 2007 (cap was $109 million), and $78.8 million in 2006 (cap was $94 million). The Chiefs spent $81.8 million in 09, $84 million in 08, $108.4 million in 07, and $81.7 million in real dollars. There are many other teams that are in smaller markets that spent below the cap every year or three of the four and significantly below the cap two or three years. So eventhough there aren't as many teams consistently spending over the cap in real dollars, plenty of teams consistently spending well under the cap in real dollars.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the cash over cap "phenomenon" started in 2006. The NFL's bonus-laden contracts have meant that teams' actual payroll expenditure exceeding that years' salary cap since the cap was instituted in 1993. We have in reality nearly 17 years of data at our disposal. and in fact, if anything, the prevalence of cash over cap has decreased since the 2006 CBA.

In 2009, only 1 team spent over the cap. In the 2008 season, 13 teams did spend over the cap, and one did spend $34 million over -- the small-market, perennial loser Cardinals, incidentally -- but 8 of the 13 teams were within 6 million of the cap, and only two teams more than 16 million over.

Then, in 2007, only 3 teams spent over the cap, only 1 by more than 10 million. Incidentally, the Bills had the 4th highest actual payroll expenditure in the league that year. In 2006, 15 teams paid cash over cap, but all but 4 were within 10 million. In 2005, 8 teams paid cash over cap, but again, only 4 by more than 10 million. With signing bonuses for decent starting players routinely topping $10 million, teams seem to seldom be topping the cap by multiple new contracts' worth.

Equally importantly, it's not the same teams spending over the cap every season. Between 09 and 08, only 1 team -- the Saints -- were in the top five in salary expenditure both years. The Vikings were in the top 5 in salary in '08 and '06, but were in the bottom 5 in salary in '07, and bottom 10 in '09. Jerry Jones is known as one of the league's big spenders, and true to form, the Cowboys were 2nd, 6th, and 3rd in salary in '08, '07 and '06, respectively -- causing them to drop to 4th lowest in payroll in '09, and were middle of the pack in '05 and 2nd lowest in payroll in '04. No team is probably more synonymous with big spending than the Redskins. Snyder payed the most payroll in the league in '07, after paying the 6th most in '06 -- having paid the 3rd lowest in '05 due to dead cap space from prior spending, and dipping to the middle of the pack in '08 and '09.

You also see some surprising teams at the top of the salary heap from year to year -- the Dolphins and Texans in '09, Browns and Raiders in '08, Bills and Chiefs in '07, Bengals and Ravens in '06, Seahawks and Raiders in '05, Eagles and (lo!) the Lions in '04, and Bengals and Buccaneers in '03, were all in the top five in cash expenditure in those respective years.

All told, although there are certainly tendencies for some franchises to spend higher and some less, the extremes in cash over cap seem largely due to situational factors, like bonuses paid to top draft picks, or needing to resign a number of players whose profiles rose following a SB win or appearance. Spikes in cash expenditure are almost always accompanied by dips either post or prior, as the dead space from large bonuses effectively lower the teams' cap.

As you point out yourself, there are far more teams spending considerably under the cap, and by larger amounts, than there are those spending over it. The ability to spend cash over cap ultimately hasn't had much of an effect on spending inequality. Primarily, it simply enables the NFL's preferred contract structuring in which the players receive a larger up front sum in return for not having guaranteed contracts like in baseball and basketball.

The real driver in terms of spending inequality is the large gap between the NFL's salary cap and floor, the breadth of which likely made the past two CBA extensions possible.

 

[Joker]

when I see the word "ameliorated" in a post on a FOOTBALL board, I realize that this game I've loved since youth has finally jumped the shark.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

when I see the word "ameliorated" in a post on a FOOTBALL board, I realize that this game I've loved since youth has finally jumped the shark.

He was a good FB, but the game has passed him by.

 

[Rob0729]

lamafirst,

Since this thread is quickly becoming a private discussion between us on the topic, I will make a few points about your responses (which I haven't read in full since, sorry):

1.) No matter how you try to make it an easy thing to do, it is impossible to make a bidding war on players on a televised event possible. Players' contracts are complicated and required a lot of back and forth negotiation for every detail. Every contract has impacts on the cap not only this year, but every year of the contract. When teams make contract offers, they need to be well aware of the impact of that year and years to come. It is not something that can be negotiated in minutes even if they are simplified. Neither side will want to get into a deal worth tens of millions of dollars that is so inflexible that lawyers are not neccessary nor will they want to get into a deal worth that much that is flexible without their lawyers going through the deal with a fine tooth comb.

2.) Your current sugguestion is to have fixed salaries for players based on how high they are bid on which isn't realistic. Neither side would want this and it would take years for both sides to negotiate a system like this if they did based on the squabling they are doing now.

3.) The MLB comparisons for parity are just not going to fly. You are talking two very different systems. I already talked about why people aren't interest in the MLB draft (players don't play for years, they are relative unknowns and more raw talent that may never develop, and they may be traded away) which affects parity too, but there are other reasons why it doesn't affect parity:
a.) Many of the top prospects still go to big market teams - Many small market teams trade away top picks because they cannot afford to sign top prospects who aren't going to help the team for years.
b.) Successful draft picks don't play with small market teams long - It takes so long for a player to contribute in baseball that many of the best draft picks get to the majors with only a few years left on their deal. If they explode on a small market team when they do, they quickly get swooped up in free agency to large market teams. Few small market teams can keep their superstars. If the NFL had a simliar system, Peyton Manning would have probably ended up with the Jets or Giants or other large market team around 2003. No way could the Colts have kept him.
c.) International free agency - All players coming from other countries are exempt from the MLB draft and can sign with anyone. Since some of the best players are coming from Latin America and Japan, small market teams have no shot at the best prospects.

4.) The 2006 phenomenon that I am talking about is the fact that no teams are really affected to greatly from the cap because the CBA signed then made the cap nearly impossible to go over. Making it no longer a true hard cap.

 

[stealthdog]

Your points about the baseball draft are factually wrong.

Teams can't trade draft picks in baseball.

Teams control players for 6 years once they hit the majors. The player receives minimal contract status for the first 3 years in the majors and then has 3 years of arbitration. Their clock doesn't start ticking until they have their first qualified year in the MLB.

 

[Rob0729]

Your points about the baseball draft are factually wrong.

Teams can't trade draft picks in baseball.

Teams control players for 6 years once they hit the majors. The player receives minimal contract status for the first 3 years in the majors and then has 3 years of arbitration. Their clock doesn't start ticking until they have their first qualified year in the MLB.

Sorry, I don't follow baseball. So I guess I am wrong. Still I still am pretty sure that small market teams let big name players go within 2-3 years for trades for prospects because they cannot afford the arbitration dollars or giving them a big deal. But I guess I can be wrong there.

Overall, it doesn't change the point that MLB and the NFL are very different. Comparision to the two on parity and the draft are not relevant.

 

[lamafist]

lamafirst,

Since this thread is quickly becoming a private discussion between us on the topic, I will make a few points about your responses (which I haven't read in full since, sorry):

1.) No matter how you try to make it an easy thing to do, it is impossible to make a bidding war on players on a televised event possible. Players' contracts are complicated and required a lot of back and forth negotiation for every detail. Every contract has impacts on the cap not only this year, but every year of the contract. When teams make contract offers, they need to be well aware of the impact of that year and years to come. It is not something that can be negotiated in minutes even if they are simplified. Neither side will want to get into a deal worth tens of millions of dollars that is so inflexible that lawyers are not neccessary nor will they want to get into a deal worth that much that is flexible without their lawyers going through the deal with a fine tooth comb.

And yet, every year, teams trade up and down in the draft and choose a player of one position over another position, often at the last minute, even though these moves have profound effects on the contracts they have to offer and the salary cap. Every year, there are a dozen players whose signings are announced within the first 12 hours of free agency, even though they were supposedly not able to talk to teams before then, and there are a fraction of the number of players available. Every year, teams draft any number of players all of whose contracts parameters are determined by pick number and position, making decisions in 15 minute windows with with the exact type of cap ramifications you say can't be done over the course of an afternoon, when all available evidence points strongly toward the contrary.

What's more, unlike free agency or the draft, in this case, teams will have three months to have preliminary discussions with any number of prospects about general figures of what it would take to sign them. So while it's unlikely that teams really will need any added flexibility w/r/t cap space when it comes the contracts they offer, that's easy enough to accomplish of the NFL wishes to afford its teams that by giving the franchises leeway in how they apportion the cap hit of any guaranteed money in the contract over the length of the deal, independently to how it's payed out to the player.

2.) Your current sugguestion is to have fixed salaries for players based on how high they are bid on which isn't realistic. Neither side would want this and it would take years for both sides to negotiate a system like this if they did based on the squabling they are doing now.

That's one suggested alternative, which I admitted up front was less than optimal. And given the current state of discord between owners and players, I don't think any solution is particularly more realistic than the other. At least a big shakeup like I suggest would make it harder for both sides to keep score of whether they're "winning" or "losing" the negotiations.

3.) The MLB comparisons for parity are just not going to fly. You are talking two very different systems. I already talked about why people aren't interest in the MLB draft (players don't play for years, they are relative unknowns and more raw talent that may never develop, and they may be traded away) which affects parity too, but there are other reasons why it doesn't affect parity:
a.) Many of the top prospects still go to big market teams - Many small market teams trade away top picks because they cannot afford to sign top prospects who aren't going to help the team for years.
b.) Successful draft picks don't play with small market teams long - It takes so long for a player to contribute in baseball that many of the best draft picks get to the majors with only a few years left on their deal. If they explode on a small market team when they do, they quickly get swooped up in free agency to large market teams. Few small market teams can keep their superstars. If the NFL had a simliar system, Peyton Manning would have probably ended up with the Jets or Giants or other large market team around 2003. No way could the Colts have kept him.
c.) International free agency - All players coming from other countries are exempt from the MLB draft and can sign with anyone. Since some of the best players are coming from Latin America and Japan, small market teams have no shot at the best prospects.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here. The differences you're pointing out between the NFL and MLB all speak to exactly my point about the effect of the NFL's salary cap and revenue sharing, and only tangentially have anything to do with the draft.

Yes, small market teams in baseball trade early draft picks and rising star players to large market franchises -- because without significant sharing of TV revenue, teams w/ large markets make orders of magnitude more than small market teams, and thus find negligible downside in taking on the small market team's expensive assets. If the NFL had no salary cap and teams sold their own TV rights, you're 100% correct that the Giants or Jets would have signed Peyton Manning out from under the Colts -- in other words, with a draft but no cap or revenue sharing, the NFL looks like MLB.

This is exactly what I'm arguing: it's not what team gets to pick which rookie first that helps create parity, it's the fact that all of the teams are on a level playing field when it comes to retaining the talent they develop.

4.) The 2006 phenomenon that I am talking about is the fact that no teams are really affected to greatly from the cap because the CBA signed then made the cap nearly impossible to go over. Making it no longer a true hard cap.

Again, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and don't understand how they relate to your larger argument.

I agree that the 2006 CBA has put into stark contrast the widening gap in payroll expenses of the NFL's high revenue vs. lower revenue franchises. (I think it's important to avoid using the "large market/small market" designations, as market size isn't a great predictor of franchise viability.) I disagree that it makes the cap "nearly impossible" to go over, and not sure what you mean when you say it's "no longer a true hard cap," as there is no definition I'm aware of for "hard cap" vs. "soft cap" that is at all conditional on the likelihood that a team would want to spend over it.

The fact that NFL team payroll amounts were more tightly bunched around the cap than they were at lower amounts shows that even though teams were not having trouble staying under it, it was still strongly influencing their spending. I would argue that in an ideal NFL, this would remain the case -- the best cap value would be one that any team that did not take foolish risks with its cap space could stay under. The problem, as you yourself identified in an earlier post, is the size of the gap between the teams hovering around the salary cap, and the teams the routinely hug the floor.

This growing disparity owes to a marked commensurate increase in the disparity in local revenues of NFL franchises over the past ten years or so. The NFL's high-revenue teams are growing their profits at a faster rate than the low-revenue teams, and as long as this remains the case, there will be unrest amongst the owners and between the owners and players. This is a fundamental issue in the NFL's current labor problem, but has little, IMO, to do with the argument over value of the draft.