It's a salary cap & floor league -- why have roster limits?

[ivanvamp]

Interesting Roster Idea


From Ross Tucker:

"Really need limit on roster spots in salary cap league? If teams want to carry 58 dudes and fit them under $170M why not?"

I like it. For the players' association, it means more guys getting paid. For teams, it allows them more tools to work with. Obviously average salary goes down a little if teams go with more guys, but it would open up more opportunity for players.

Let each team manage it however they want. If you can get by with 55 guys, fine. If you want to have more players, fine, but you need to manage your roster and cap situation better than the other teams.

What do you guys think? What are the problems with this idea that would make it not workable?

 

[Biffins]

Personally I think it's a good idea. Clearly there is a huge disparity to player bagging groceries one day and then back in the league next day. We don't need minimum salaries to by $1m+ etc. Open the roster limits. Let them have more people on roster if they want.

Frankly they can even increase the minimum cap spend to ensure more $ gets spent if they want. This will also probably lead to lower injuries, or atleast better play. Will have less players sharing workload across special teams etc.

 

[PatsFan2]

I have no problems with it money is not an Issue and Football is a violent sport.

 

[Bourne Again Christian]

Thats a very intriguing idea
I'd also be up for adding 10 more players to each roster

 

[BlueThunder]

I wonder how adding more players to rosters would affect the game day inactives ?

 

[jmt57]

I'm just trying to get my head around the concept that Ross Tucker actually has a good idea.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sure players can't wait to take pay cuts to make this happen.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I'm sure players can't wait to take pay cuts to make this happen.

and we know how the 32 love giving a higher % of revenue to the NFLPA to fund player salaries, costs & benefits


"It's dead, Jim"

 

[Tony2046]

I'm sure players can't wait to take pay cuts to make this happen.

Would they have to take a pay cut? Flexile rosters would still require a team to spend to the cap whether they have a 50 or 60 man roster. A team could decide whether it valued depth over pro bowlers. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Would they have to take a pay cut? Flexile rosters would still require a team to spend to the cap whether they have a 50 or 60 man roster. A team could decide whether it valued depth over pro bowlers. Just thinking out loud.

160m for 53 players plus practice squad, or 160m for 63 players plus practice squad. Yes, *someone* needs to take a pay cut, it's simple math.

NFLPA might be happy to do this if they could secure an extra % or two of revenues from the owners. Otherwise, the player reps will look out for #1 first. Idea makes sense to the Ross Tuckers of the NFL who wouldn't be the ones taking the pay cuts. But the player reps will tend to be the types of players who would be impacted.

 

[borg]

Kraft would have to buy another plane

 

[Tony2046]

160m for 53 players plus practice squad, or 160m for 63 players plus practice squad. Yes, *someone* needs to take a pay cut, it's simple math.

NFLPA might be happy to do this if they could secure an extra % or two of revenues from the owners. Otherwise, the player reps will look out for #1 first. Idea makes sense to the Ross Tuckers of the NFL who wouldn't be the ones taking the pay cuts. But the player reps will tend to be the types of players who would be impacted.

I understand the simple math but I don't think that necessarily means a particular player has to take a pay cut. It could be a decision of paying for star power or depth. If a team chooses depth then they would have to sign less expensive guys.

 

[DaBruinz]

160m for 53 players plus practice squad, or 160m for 63 players plus practice squad. Yes, *someone* needs to take a pay cut, it's simple math.

NFLPA might be happy to do this if they could secure an extra % or two of revenues from the owners. Otherwise, the player reps will look out for #1 first. Idea makes sense to the Ross Tuckers of the NFL who wouldn't be the ones taking the pay cuts. But the player reps will tend to be the types of players who would be impacted.

When teams like the 49ers and Browns have $60 in free cap space, what sort of "pay cuts" are you talking about??

 

[Tony2046]

When teams like the 49ers and Browns have $60 in free cap space, what sort of "pay cuts" are you talking about??

Or if the Pats decided to expand to 55 they had plenty of cap space to sign Carr and Lucien for an example. I do understand that example can branch into a cap space management conversation although signing two rookies would cost about 1 million.

 

[nabwong]

Or if the Pats decided to expand to 55 they had plenty of cap space to sign Carr and Lucien for an example. I do understand that example can branch into a cap space management conversation although signing two rookies would cost about 1 million.

Or if a team gets lucky and drafts a stud QB on a rookie contract, they have 4 years to really max out their roster. I think given this scenario, it might be unlikely that the NFL would go for this. It might be anti-parity. Might be a good incentive to tank your season. Just throwing it out there.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

When teams like the 49ers and Browns have $60 in free cap space, what sort of "pay cuts" are you talking about??

Teams like the Browns and 49ers are bad, cheap, and rebuilding. They likely have the intention to carry forward that cap space for when they're good again. What benefit would they see in spending another $2.5m on 5 back end of the roster players when they still expect/even want to finish 4-12? In my opinion, they wouldn't. Just my opinion though.

Or if the Pats decided to expand to 55 they had plenty of cap space to sign Carr and Lucien for an example. I do understand that example can branch into a cap space management conversation although signing two rookies would cost about 1 million.

For a team like the Patriots who do spend near the cap, it still comes down to cap management. They're carrying the specific amount of cap space they have right now for a reason. I doubt they'd dig into it to add extra players. If they did, from their perspective they're borrowing from next year's budget for this year. So the way they'd carry extra players would be to lower the cost of the existing 53. That affects someone or multiple people. Again, just my opinion though.

 

[Biffins]

160m for 53 players plus practice squad, or 160m for 63 players plus practice squad. Yes, *someone* needs to take a pay cut, it's simple math.

NFLPA might be happy to do this if they could secure an extra % or two of revenues from the owners. Otherwise, the player reps will look out for #1 first. Idea makes sense to the Ross Tuckers of the NFL who wouldn't be the ones taking the pay cuts. But the player reps will tend to be the types of players who would be impacted.

How do you balance that versus 320 more new jobs (assuming 10 more players per roster)

 

[Biffins]

Teams like the Browns and 49ers are bad, cheap, and rebuilding. They likely have the intention to carry forward that cap space for when they're good again. What benefit would they see in spending another $2.5m on 5 back end of the roster players when they still expect/even want to finish 4-12? In my opinion, they wouldn't. Just my opinion though.



For a team like the Patriots who do spend near the cap, it still comes down to cap management. They're carrying the specific amount of cap space they have right now for a reason. I doubt they'd dig into it to add extra players. If they did, from their perspective they're borrowing from next year's budget for this year. So the way they'd carry extra players would be to lower the cost of the existing 53. That affects someone or multiple people. Again, just my opinion though.

This will be a massive boon to the Pats. We are pretty adept at finding good cheap options. Already we had the strongest roster of 90 players and that's evidenced by the fact that we had the highest number of our waived players picked up by others than any other team (4), meanwhile we didn't bother to even try to put a claim on anyone. If we had 10 more roster spots, we'd have kept a lot more of our rookies and cheap vets, without any discernible impact on overall cap.

 

[jmt57]

A potential downside is that veterans who are not stars could more likely lose their jobs. Three vets (or six) making about $800k per year each get replaced by five rookies (or ten) making $465k each, for example.

Aside from this suggestion not helping veterans retain their job, what about the quality of the product? Wouldn't the expectation be that those veterans would understand their role better, and therefore make fewer mistakes than rookies that would otherwise be on the practice squad?

A larger roster does not automatically guarantee a better team or a higher quality game to watch.

 

[chasa]

almost gotta figure only the top what 45 contracts count against the salary cap, this opens up a window for teams to sign a bunch of players below the 45th guy and just hoard players preventing other teams from signing guys.