NoSaint Posted January 27, 2020 Posted January 27, 2020 On 1/23/2020 at 9:38 PM, Rock'em Sock'em said: In 2018, Cleveland ate Osweiler's guarantees for a 2nd round pick from Houston - and trading cap space for draft picks is not a far jump from that scenario. Trading cap for straight up cash may be against the CBA. The CBA and salary cap have minimum spend provisions. And those provisions are meant to make the league competitive. Trading cap space for dollars would work against that goal. So long as the minimum spend provisions are met (without regard to sold cap space), I guess it could work. I would not see this as an oft-used tool. Among other things, it's a bad look for a team. Minimum spend has nothing to do with being competitive and everything to do with players ensuring that enough dollars are promised to float their way
LSHMEAB Posted January 27, 2020 Posted January 27, 2020 (edited) On 1/23/2020 at 1:53 PM, Chaos said: I think you would end up with a barbell effect of teams going all in and teams selling off all their cap for future picks. For example, maybe the Packers would be have the incentive to trade off several years of their future, to acquire a whole bunch of players for a last hurrah, figuring they will be horrible when Rodgers retires anyway. And a team without a good QB decides to trade all of their cap space for draft capital in hopes of finding a franchise QB and tooling up from there. Allow cap to be traded, sort of defeats the parity purpose it was, in part, created for. I don't see how that works in the Packers scenario. Green Bay would most likely not be able to accumulate a whole bunch of players because they'd run into the cap. As others have noted, this basically already happens. I don't have an opinion either way, but I don't think it swings the pendulum all that much. Edited January 27, 2020 by LSHMEAB
Koko78 Posted January 27, 2020 Posted January 27, 2020 I think it could be entertaining, so long as there were some controls, such as: 1.) Each team must still spend to at least 90% of the salary cap (or even increase it to 95%); and 2.) Teams cannot trade cap space in consecutive years. This would ensure that the cheapasses like Brown cannot use it to consistently to pocket money, and it lets short-sighted teams shoot themselves in the foot by selling off draft picks to fund bloated contracts, in order to 'win now' (which almost never works.)
Chaos Posted January 27, 2020 Posted January 27, 2020 7 hours ago, LSHMEAB said: I don't see how that works in the Packers scenario. Green Bay would most likely not be able to accumulate a whole bunch of players because they'd run into the cap. As others have noted, this basically already happens. I don't have an opinion either way, but I don't think it swings the pendulum all that much. The look of the original posit is that teams can get cap space via trading draft picks. So the packers could trade 1 and 2 for 2020 in exchange for additional cap used to sign two key free agents for more immediate help 1
Recommended Posts