Should QB Compensation Be Carved Out of the Salary Cap?

[Mr. WEO]

51 minutes ago, st pete gogolak said:

No, it's an issue in search of a solution.  You certainly don't want the NFL to devolve into the NHL where teams are openly tanking to obtain the next Gretzky, McDavid or Bedard.  At least in the NHL you have a lottery to potentially prevent a successful tank (looking at you, Buffalo Sabres).  

 

Plus, recent Super Bowl history doesn't support your thesis.  In the last ten years, there are maybe two QB's who won Super Bowls on rookie deals.  Mahones winning over SF.  KC is back this year when Mahones isn't on his rookie deal, so what does that prove?  Maybe that if your QB HC and GM are good enough it doesn't matter if your QB is on his rookie deal.  Wilson winning when Legion of Doom destroyed the Broncos.  Yes, that fits.  Otherwise, it's mostly Brady, Manning and Stafford at the tail end of their careers.

 

The original point of the post is that there isn't any other sport with a salary cap or luxury tax where one position knocks the whole system totally out of whack other than QB in the NFL.  The solution can't be tanking to hit on a franchise QB and then sign a bunch of free agents to win a Super Bowl on the QB's rookie deal.  That's nuts.

 

This doesn't really need to be said but....no other sport has one player position as critical as QB, so that's where the value is naturally focused.  That's not "my theory"...it's simply that way everyone understands it to be and there's no reason to change it. 

 

The Sabres have been tanking for a decade, yet they can't make the playoffs despite years of top picks.  The NFL isn't like that (plus it's infinitely richer than the NHL).  The Eagles didn't tank to get Wentz and they had 1 losing season between SBs that allowed them to hit the jackpot on Hurts.  KC won 43 games in the 4 seasons before they drafted Mahomes. 

 

The model of "the last 10 years" is done--the era of HOF QBs available to move to your team for a last gasp SB run has died with each of their careers.  What you are proposing is a way for teams and GMs to be bailed out for bad roster decisions.  Think of the Browns with that dumb contract for a guy with one very good season.  Or whatever the Ravens will have to waste on Lamar Jackson.  

 

The NFL is the one sport where teams have to make do with a budget (certainly more than other leagues).  It rewards shrewd GMs and great coaches---why would there be any appetite to change that??

 

There simply is none.  Your deeming it an "issue" does not make it one.

[machine gun kelly]

On 1/31/2023 at 5:43 PM, st pete gogolak said:

Full disclosure.  I've been a Bills fan since 1965 so I'm obviously biased about this because if it somehow came to pass it would benefit the Bills enormously.  That said, QB compensation in the NFL and how it distorts the salary cap is, if not unfair, frankly bizarre and unlike any other sport that maintains a salary cap.  That's because QB compensation is so dramatically higher than any other position.  That's not true in basketball or hockey.  Yes, you pay your superstars but McDavid isn't making double or triple every single one of his teammates.  

 

You're punished for selecting a QB who turns into a franchise QB.  That's if you do it right.  Heaven help you if you pay a QB that lands you in cap purgatory (Prescott, Cousins) or, even worse, one that lands you in cap hell (Wilson).  

 

A carve out probably lets the Raiders keep Carr.  I don't know what the solution is but you shouldn't have to gut your team because you found your franchise quarterback.  

Nope and will never happen.the owners buy these teams as there is a hard cap and can’t be parsed out like the NBA.  A 53 man roster with another 16 on the PS so very different than a 20 man roster.

 

it’s why these billionaires see these buys as long term lucrative.  The MLB, NBA, and NHL arr all very different leagues.  This barstool work is a non starter.

[TheFunPolice]

what about 1 salary cap exemption that could be used on an annual basis? Sort of like a franchise tag in mechanics. 

 

This could change year to year, and help teams clear out terrible contracts. For example, Packers want to trade Rodgers but have a crazy cap charge. Use the exemption and do it. Pay that $$ to players on your team. 

 

Instead of just being for QBS, a team like SF could sign an Aaron Donald type player to huge $$ and add him to their stacked roster, with (insert your name here) at QB. It could encourage some different kinds of roster building. 

 

I still don't love it, but I've seen it come up in a few places and if it ever happened it would be cool to see it applicable to any player on an annual basis. 

 

 

[iinii]

Unselfishness. Brady was never a pig at the salary-cap trough. Coming off that Atlanta Super Bowl win, in 2017, Brady’s salary was 8.3 percent of the team’s cap. The year New England went 16-0 in the regular season, Brady was 6.7 percent of the cap. Just spend to the cap every year, and I’ll be reasonable, he’d tell Pioli and his successors with the keys to the Patriots’ vault. When Brady won Sports Illustrated’s Sportsman of the Year in 2005, magazine editor Terry McDonell referenced Brady’s contractual unselfishness as part of the reason for the award.
 

This is from King’s article this morning and seems appropriate. Love him or hate him, he seems to have understood the sun of the part’s concept.

[Augie]

On 1/31/2023 at 6:44 PM, FrenchConnection said:

If the QB position was uncapped, guys like Mahomes would have infinite value. How much do you think Jerry Jones would pay Mahomes in an open FA market. $200 million? More? I have no idea, but it would be a lot more than $50 million. 

 

It’s a football TEAM, not “team plus one”. You have to balance the QB vs the rest of the roster. Not having a franchise QB salary on the books helps teams compete against teams with the franchise QB. It’s all about parity in the NFL.