BarleyNY Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 Yes they are, but Freddy stated it "costs a fraction of the cap." I don't think it does. It still costs the same number of cap $'s, both soft and hard. Having a soft cap makes the practices almost apples and oranges. Contracts of re-signed players being able to go over the cap is based on their Bird rights, which you can only get by playing with the same team for 3 years. The NFL would effectively be adding a soft cap if they instituted any practice like this. I don't think it works that way either. There are exceptions in the NBA like the Bird Rule, Mid Level Exception, etc. I think the Bird Rule just forgives the amount over the player maximum and I think the Mid Level works similarly.
Saxum Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 I've always wondered why the NFL doesn't use cap breaks to help teams re-sign their own players. The NBA does a similar thing, allowing for home teams to offer players more money than other teams to stay with them. They still have to shell out the money, but it only counts a fraction against the cap. So, if we gave Glenn 12 million, only 10 million would count against the cap. If the purpose is continuity, I think this is a great idea. There would be provisions. Like, drafted players get a 20% cap exemption. FA's who've been with your team for 3 or more years get a 10%. Thoughts? Reasons why it wouldn't work? Because every agent would insist that client got this home town bonus and that would drive up percentage to players.
BarleyNY Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Because every agent would insist that client got this home town bonus and that would drive up percentage to players. Yes, it'd just force other teams to match that higher contract with the hometown discount and they'd just have to take the additional cap hit.
FireChan Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Yes, it'd just force other teams to match that higher contract with the hometown discount and they'd just have to take the additional cap hit. Or they could not match. Contract negotiations are tricky like that. It's a dangerous game to offer a ridiculous contract to a player that you aren't really willing to pay. It would really only happen in franchise QB negotiations, which never usually hit FA anyway.
Virgil Posted February 29, 2016 Author Posted February 29, 2016 The only way that the "rich get richer" is with teams that have good GM's and drafts. I don't have a problem with that. If a team drafts a good team and get an extra bonus to re-sign them and FA's that've been with the team for 3+ years, then more power to them.
FireChan Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) The only way that the "rich get richer" is with teams that have good GM's and drafts. I don't have a problem with that. If a team drafts a good team and get an extra bonus to re-sign them and FA's that've been with the team for 3+ years, then more power to them. But doesn't that negatively effect parity? The point of the salary cap and FA is so that good to great players on a single team get spread around the rest of the NFL. NE and the like would be even more unbeatable if they could skirt the cap to re-sign players. Competing in Super Bowls and making the most money they can. And the players who would rather experience a winning season than make an extra couple million would still leave. And the teams that make the most money would have a supreme advantage. Edited February 29, 2016 by FireChan
Virgil Posted February 29, 2016 Author Posted February 29, 2016 But doesn't that negatively effect parity? The point of the salary cap and FA is so that good to great players on a single team get spread around the rest of the NFL. NE and the like would be even more unbeatable if they could skirt the cap to re-sign players. Competing in Super Bowls and making the most money they can. And the players who would rather experience a winning season than make an extra couple million would still leave. And the teams that make the most money would have a supreme advantage. I agree. I've actually felt this way for a while. I hate when we didn't re-sign Pat Williams, Nate Clements, Winfield, all because they earned the paycheck we couldn't give them. I think parity would still exist, but agree that teams that can't draft or won't spend the money will suffer. But shouldn't they? Btw, I'm pry gonna change my name to FireRex, so please don't think I'm copying you. Or, take it for the homage that it is :-)
FireChan Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) I agree. I've actually felt this way for a while. I hate when we didn't re-sign Pat Williams, Nate Clements, Winfield, all because they earned the paycheck we couldn't give them. I think parity would still exist, but agree that teams that can't draft or won't spend the money will suffer. But shouldn't they? Btw, I'm pry gonna change my name to FireRex, so please don't think I'm copying you. Or, take it for the homage that it is :-) They already do. Why punish them more, when instead we can help them by breaking up All-Star teams and SB winners? In the long term, I think a move like this hurts teams like the Jags, Raiders, Titans, Bills and helps team like Denver and NE. Is it better for Buffalo's Super Bowl odds if teams like Denver, NE and Seattle can maintain teams filled with Pro-Bowlers until they retire? Probably not. If we face Denver next year in the playoffs, do you want to be facing every player returning on their defense from 2015, or have a couple go get paid around the league, almost certainly weakening them? You already see this in the NBA. You either strike gold with a Superstar like KD, Lebron, Curry, Westbrook or you will never be more than an "Also Ran." Has maneuvering around the cap to maintain awesome players and rosters been beneficial for the Lakers, the Heat, the Thunder, the Cavs and the Spurs? Sure thing. Has it been beneficial for the Bucks? What about the Magic (who lost Shaq, then Dwight when both wanted to move onto true contenders)? Or the Kings? Or the Timberwolves (who lost Love)? Why make a change that in the long run will ensure that downtrodden teams will never contend in the playoffs, let alone for a championship title, unless they happen to draft a top 5 player? Not to mention this is basically already how it is, at least we still have "Any Given Sunday". It would just make it worse. Any Given Sunday doesn't exist in the NBA. Also, you have my blessing. Saves me from having to do it. Edited February 29, 2016 by FireChan
KD in CA Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 No. The NFL is by far the most competitive league because of the salary cap. There is no reason to mess with it and no reason you can't construct a quality team for $165MM.
BarleyNY Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Couple additional thoughts: - On the topic of rewarding teams that draft well, doesn't the compensatory pick system already do that? And doesn't the existence of the tags (franchise and transition) restrict the movement of most of the best players? - Regarding parity, doesn't a relatively unrestricted free agency system help that? Tags, the draft and restriction during a player's first four (or five) years in the league probably restrict player movement enough. Why further restrict it?
Recommended Posts