BuffaloBill Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 With teams generally being smarter about locking up their key players has Free Agency made the league more competitive? I believe the net outcome is that Free Agency has led to far more of the salary pie going to fewer positions and people. It has driven up pay for QB's, CB's, OLT and pass rushing DE's far more than it has had impact on other positions.
Nanker Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 It's kind of like the Draft used to be - with an exorbitant premium placed on QBs and the top ten rated players. Only now, it's the vets who are getting that money and they've at least proven that they can do the job and should be compensated accordingly. Of course there are guys like Osweiler with his $72M contract... not sure how a seven game starter commands that kind of moolah.
BuffaloBill Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 Of course there are guys like Osweiler with his $72M contract... not sure how a seven game starter commands that kind of moolah. That situation really screws up the market dynamics. Houston made a big bet. It will really hurt them if they are wrong. It also really plays into TT's situation with the Bills. He will see huge payday if he has good season. He may not even need to have a great season to hit the jackpot.
Nanker Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 That's very true. It's impacted Fitzbeardy already. He wants to cash in on the mad money that seems to be spewing out of fire hoses all around the league.
papazoid Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 With teams generally being smarter about locking up their key players has Free Agency made the league more competitive? I believe the net outcome is that Free Agency has led to far more of the salary pie going to fewer positions and people. It has driven up pay for QB's, CB's, OLT and pass rushing DE's far more than it has had impact on other positions. Free Agency spreads out the talent. Salary cap spreads out the talent. reverse draft spreads out the talent. spreading out the talent leads to an even playing field / parity. parity leads to more competitive games. any team can win on any given day. Pay is rising fast as a percentage of revenue the players get from the huge TV deals. the lopsided salary pie you talk about is because of the frequent use of the Franchise Tag....which drives up the cost of top tier players. which in turn forces clubs to have to fill roster with a lot of low level salary players to offset. it's the mid level veterans who are getting squeezed out.
BuffaloBill Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 I would agree that mid level vets are the ones being squeezed out. It would seem that this makes the league less competitive ultimately because depth becomes thinner. The QB market is also skewed simply because there are very few good ones, a handful of mediocre ones and the rest of them.
BarleyNY Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Free agency sure helps teams fill in holes on their rosters, so yes, it definitely helps balance the league. But it is more of a way of making sure all teams can at least be decent by getting competent players at positions of need rather than a path for teams to reach greatness by acquiring differencemakers. The former happens every year with virtually every team while the latter happens very, very rarely.
machine gun kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Papazoid - good points. I have zero problems with the current situation. The best teams are the ones who hire a great front office including cap management, evaluation of talent, and choosing a great coach who can bring in a great staff. Free agency and the cap is not the problem, it's about having a vision for a team, knowing your existing talent, and how to build a championship team. It's not by accident so many teams keep winning. If we want to win, this is the key. Let me remind the young guys what it was like with no cap, and no free agency. The same teams with the most money and the one parallel is hiring a good front office for the draft. It would take forever to change a team in the old day for mistakes as you only had the draft. Now everyone has a chance to win. It's a matter of sharp your team is at the top. We've demonstrated a gap there. Teams like Miami who like to make a splash in free agency to sell tickets is not an effective strategy. We made a mistake on Ryan. He sold tickets, and the effort was there to get a big name with experience, but he had flaws a lot of people saw, and we did not. I do believe in Whaley, and he should survive the next firing, and let him truly hire the next guy. As far as salaries, there are absolutely inequities. The rookie agreement was right, but basically place a lot of pressure on these guys for performance to get the second contract. The top guys get paid, and the durable veterans basically get screwed. It's a lot better than the past when Bradford as a rookie makes $70 mil. It's all trade offs, and this QB run this week reminds me of a true capitalist market where it is supply and demand. too many teams need QB's so they make money. It's not how good you are, but what yo u can get paid.
dpberr Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Free agency is the slow burn death of the NFL. On a more local level, has it changed the fortunes of the Bills much?
BarleyNY Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 With teams generally being smarter about locking up their key players has Free Agency made the league more competitive? I believe the net outcome is that Free Agency has led to far more of the salary pie going to fewer positions and people. It has driven up pay for QB's, CB's, OLT and pass rushing DE's far more than it has had impact on other positions. That's just economics. Differencemakers will always get the discretionary dollars. The only ways to spread out money is to raise minimum salaries/benefits and/or cap the top salaries. Vets who make more than incoming players generally get squeezed out, but the NFL does discount the cap hits from vet minimum salaries to help this situation. Free agency definitely helps the market's process, but it'd be happening anyway. It is difficult to argue the impact of the elimination of free agency unless you know the system that would replace it. If you simply say that players can't change teams without a trade (or release) but teams are still bound by minimum spending then you might actually see more money flow to the highest performers and less to midlevel players. I'd argue that free agency actually causes money to be spread out to a greater degree simply because some moderate talents get much bigger deals than the market would indicate they should. We've seen a lot of that this week.
Freddie's Dead Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Certainly not the Bills 'zactly, the Bills have not figured out FA. Spent a fortune on Mario, got absolutely zip. Nothing yet for LeShady. Ted Washington, Bryce Paup, Takeo Spikes, the list goes on. All great players, but we never got over the hump.
Beerball Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 Football is easy. Have a QB and you stand a good chance of being a very competitive team. No QB and you are subjected to lower mediocrity regardless of the talent on the team.
machine gun kelly Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 I left out veteran minimums, and salary floor as other moves to make teams competitive. In the 90's we started free agency, and look at not so much the winners, but how many teams have made the SB. Chargers, Rams, Falcons, Panthers (early 2000's), and so on. Remember the 70's and 80's. Vikings, Steelers, Cowboys, Dolphins, 49 ers, and so on. It was the same teams year after year. If we want to go farther, we have to be smarter at the top with a vision. We have a fair chance like everyone else.
BuffaloBill Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 Free agency is the slow burn death of the NFL. On a more local level, has it changed the fortunes of the Bills much? The Bills would have been in much better shape had they not had a carousel of bad coaches. Levy as a GM was a joke. Even with the change to sexy Rexy's there is too much of a turn in rosters to get good quickly.
Best Player Available Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 The cap as much as free agency has had major implications. if Eddie D. Still owned the niners they would have doubled their Lombardi collection by now. Ditto the other known big spending owners.
papazoid Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 With teams generally being smarter about locking up their key players has Free Agency made the league more competitive? I believe the net outcome is that Free Agency has led to far more of the salary pie going to fewer positions and people. It has driven up pay for QB's, CB's, OLT and pass rushing DE's far more than it has had impact on other positions. All NFL players should be making at least $1 million per year Currently, the league ties minimum salary to experience. For new players, it’s $450,000. For players with 10 or more years of experience, the minimum rises to $985,000. This disparity makes younger players more attractive than older ones, even with the “minimum salary benefit,” a device that provides teams with a salary-cap break on older players with minimum-salary deals, but not a cash break. When it comes to the 29 positions on the 53-man roster that don’t go to offensive and defensive starters, cheaper is usually better. And younger is always cheaper. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/29/all-nfl-players-should-be-making-at-least-1-million-per-year/
jr1 Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 free agency has only helped replica jersey manufacturers and seedy gentlemen on dhgate.com
BarleyNY Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 All NFL players should be making at least $1 million per year Currently, the league ties minimum salary to experience. For new players, it’s $450,000. For players with 10 or more years of experience, the minimum rises to $985,000. This disparity makes younger players more attractive than older ones, even with the “minimum salary benefit,” a device that provides teams with a salary-cap break on older players with minimum-salary deals, but not a cash break. When it comes to the 29 positions on the 53-man roster that don’t go to offensive and defensive starters, cheaper is usually better. And younger is always cheaper. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/29/all-nfl-players-should-be-making-at-least-1-million-per-year/ While I agree that the NFL minimum salary should be raised, it would have to be phased in over time. Those huge deals that assume current minimum salaries can't be redone. If league minimum became $1M overnight a slew of teams would move over the cap and into cap hell immediately. It would have to be raised a little bit each year until it got to where they wanted it.
Recommended Posts