Poll: Would you support a salary cap discount for teams to retain players?

[RobertWeathers]

Something I've thought about for a while is whether or not it would be good for the league to offer teams a cap discount for re-signing or extending their own players. While I think the salary cap and free agency are overall good concepts, I've always wished that teams would keep their own players for longer. The Patriots have thirteen players remaining from Super Bowl 49, which was a mere four seasons ago: Brady, White, Edelman, Slater, Gronkowski, Cannon, Hightower, Chung, Ebner, Harmon, McCourty, Allen, and Gostkowski.. That's less than 25% of the 53-man roster.

I've always enjoyed continuity in sports; it's great to have some interesting shakeups in the offseason with some major free agent signings and some journeymen changing teams, but I've always thought it would be better to have more guys who spend their career - or a large portion of it - with the same franchise. We hear about the pre-free agency sports leagues from our parents generation and part of that is appealing as a fan.

As a compromise, what if the league allowed a 10% cap discount (just throwing out a number, could be different) to a team who is either extending a player or re-signing them in free agency (they'd need to have played for them last.) For example, if the Patriots had matched the Dolphins offer to Amendola, they would still be actually paying him the same amount, but there would be a 10% discount on books when it comes to the salary cap.

I'm sure the owners would absolutely hate the idea since it would likely cost them more money, but I'm curious if people like this concept, in a perfect world (where Roger Goodell was never born and Archie Manning had a vasectomy at age 20).

I would need to think this through more but philosophically speaking I love the idea of a "Larry Bird Rule" for the NFL. Always have.

 

[AlexB]

I think that change would hurt the Pats due to poor drafting position. Other teams would not only get impact players on cheap deals for 5 years, but could re-sign them for a discount.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

No. Keep any Larry Bird-type rule out of the NFL.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I appreciate the OP giving us something to think about. Thanks.

Others have pointed out some of its attractive aspects, but I'd be against it for two reasons:

One. It would limit the advantage that "smart" teams have over "dumb" teams. Belichick, Adams et al are geniuses at using the cap to their advantage, even when it disappoints fans. Teams like the Jests can, however, dig themselves into holes that it takes them years to get out of. Just look at the Giants now. They have big contracts for Eli & OBJ and already have to plan how to keep Saquon, but they can't afford to fix their O-line which is killing both their passing and running games. Look at the Steelers. Brown, Bell and Big Ben.

Two. Just too easy to game this. As another poster observed, an agent would have every incentive to say, "Hey, you can pay my guy $20 million, but it will only cost you $18 (or less)." Wink, Wink.

 

[Observer]

BB may be great at managing the cap but I would say that he us already a huge beneficiary of this sort of a thing due to the discounts that Brady has been giving the team. This rule would enable us to keep Brady while giving him market value. Everybody wins.

 

[TB_Helmet]

No. Keep any Larry Bird-type rule out of the NFL.

Why do you say that?

Also, it would be funny if they implemented it but still called it the Bird rule.

 

[Ring 6]

No, he is suggesting a benefit for player retention. That's not the same as an indiscriminate raising of the cap.

But that’s the result. That’s why owners would go for it, it’s increasing payroll above the cap.

 

[Observer]

But that’s the result. That’s why owners would go for it, it’s increasing payroll above the cap.

No it is not the same at all.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

It has the potential of increasing cash out from owners to players. I like that.
And it allows older players, ones maybe with families to CHOOSE if they want to stay (or not) where their family has set roots without making as substantive a reduction in income..

 

[Ring 6]

No it is not the same at all.

The result would be

 

[Hyped]

I like the idea, but I would adjust it to only allow for players who have been with the franchise for 7 full seasons or more. E.g. Matt Slater for us.

 

[Soliel]

He chewed off a finger?

It’s more of a bob Euker daydreaming of crowds chanting as he beats the East German in skiing

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

What you are essentially saying is raise the cap.

Yes, it would raise the cap in its simplest form. But to take advantage of the raised cap, teams would be re-signing or extending more of their own players for more continuity.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, it would raise the cap in its simplest form. But to take advantage of the raised cap, teams would be re-signing or extending more of their own players for more continuity.

I understand but the owners negotiated a fixed (percentage) cap. This is just a manipulation that would increase it.
I understand you are earmarking the increase for a specific reason but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that it’s an increase.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I think it’s a fine idea, I’m the kind of fan who gets quasi emotionaly attached to certain players. Like, brady, Welker, Vereen , the list goes on and on. I think that with proper parameters and limits, it would be nice.

I think you are like every fan, which is why I like some kind of incentive to keep players. Most us have plenty of old jerseys for guys who are now competing against the Patriots. Vereen is a great example of someone we would have loved to keep and might have re-signed, as is Solder...there a lot. The players themselves have roots in these cities and families that have settled in. Fans in general like to identify their team with their favorite players. Currently for most teams it’s the quarterback and 1-2 other star players that you can expect to stick around and everyone else is playing musical chairs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I understand but the owners negotiated a fixed (percentage) cap. This is just a manipulation that would increase it.
I understand you are earmarking the increase for a specific reason but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that it’s an increase.

As I said in my original post, the owners wouldn’t go for it, especially under this CBA. The question is whether or not fans like the general concept of having a more cohesive roster year-to-year. If it would benefit the league and the players and increase fan interest, it could be something to talk about in the next negotiations. There may be a way to structure it where the owners/players distributions are not altered much if they decreased the overall cap percentage slightly but left room to hit or exceed it by keeping teams intact.

 

[Soliel]

I think you are like every fan, which is why I like some kind of incentive to keep players. Most us have plenty of old jerseys for guys who are now competing against the Patriots. Vereen is a great example of someone we would have loved to keep and might have re-signed, as is Solder...there a lot. The players themselves have roots in these cities and families that have settled in. Fans in general like to identify their team with their favorite players. Currently for most teams it’s the quarterback and 1-2 other star players that you can expect to stick around and everyone else is playing musical chairs.

Maybe something like NBA protection thing they do during expansion drafts. They allow a certain number of protected players. I’m for free agency as well because I want them to get what they can while healthy. So, Seeing that the off seasons are chaos, there could be a rule that allows you to go over the cap to keep veterans. The overage being chained to market value

 

[Soliel]

Losing 90% of your free agents leads to games where the guys look like a high school game

 

[Ring 6]

As I said in my original post, the owners wouldn’t go for it, especially under this CBA. The question is whether or not fans like the general concept of having a more cohesive roster year-to-year. If it would benefit the league and the players and increase fan interest, it could be something to talk about in the next negotiations. There may be a way to structure it where the owners/players distributions are not altered much if they decreased the overall cap percentage slightly but left room to hit or exceed it by keeping teams intact.

I just don’t see how it would be feasible. If it comes out of lowering the cap by the amount that won’t count there is really no change. If teams cared about that continuity they could do the same hunt under the current system. Often the lack of continuity isn’t based upon money.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

There is already a veterans minimum cap benefit which limits cap charges for veteran players. I suppose it could be expanded to more veteran players, say those making up to 1.5 M and also having it apply not just to one year contracts. It would not help retain superstars, but it would be good for the Danny Woodhead/Shane Vereen-type vets, hanging on.

Understanding NFL Minimum Salaries & Veteran Cap Benefit Rule-(FREE) - Chris Landry Football

I'd prefer no changes, though.