The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

yupchagee wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:There is already a rookie cap in place... it's called teams having the stones to say "Here's the offer... sign now, or sign later, but that's the offer." There is no other option. They sign, or they sit.

They have to pay for those new H2's somehow...

That's not really fair though. When Danny and Jerry pay because they have the revenue and it's not a big deal, that puts places like St. Louis, Green Bay and Pittsburgh under a tough situation. And the players have the draft so it's not like they can go play for a team that will pay them the most. And if we don't have the draft, then what are we going to do with the NFL? Cut it back to half the teams or less? Are we going to have a 3 team league with the Skins, Cowboys and Giants?

It's easy to say the owners don't have discipline, but there are ecomonic realities behind it. Just saying they should be disciplined and stop there is sort of simplistically naive. What system do you propose?

They share network TV revenues, so that really isn't an issue. Let the marketplace control things.

I see, so as long as they share one source of revenue it's equal footing? Got it, Thanks!

Are we going to have a 3 team league with the Skins, Cowboys and Giants?

Oh! You mean like those years when the Redskins, Cowboys and Giants took turns embarrassing the Bills?

Look, the wealth of teams has no bearing. The draft is still the draft. You get whom you select. Just because another team has more money doesn't mean they can take your player. He is still obligated to you. This does not play into the hands of wealthy teams. It benefits them to ensure that the really big contracts go to the players that have earned them, as well.

Additionally, it is only necessary for the teams with the first 5 or 6 picks to stick to their guns. The top 20 or so picks generally sign in draft order.
What happens to 1 determines what happens to 2, then 3, and so on.

Skinsfan55 wrote:In sports salary caps are necessary. The NFL is so huge today in part because the salary cap levels the playing field enough that anyone can win it all year in and year out.

The Giants are a pretty average team, but they knocked off the Patriots this season.

Imagine if New England had 5 $15 million offensive linemen on the field along with Moss, Brady and Walker...

Football is fine the way it is, WITH the cap... and a rookie cap would be a brilliant idea. Why should someone unproven be given so much guaranteed?

I wonder how the NFL managed to make it for 70 years without caps?

Even with the caps in place, there are teams that have lower salaries (meaning: their cheap owners take their portion of the network monies and other revenues and pocket it, while some fans (Redskins, Jets, etc) pay way higher ticket prices to subsidize their markets (pockets).

And guess what? Most of the "traditionally" crappy teams during the era before free agency and salary caps are currently just as crappy.

The NFC East is still the NFC East (3 of 4 in the playoffs last year, and 1 won the SB).

In the AFC you still three teams dominating... Pats, and Colts and Chargers.

So tell me more about this parity thing.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:That's not really fair though. When Danny and Jerry pay because they have the revenue and it's not a big deal, that puts places like St. Louis, Green Bay and Pittsburgh under a tough situation. And the players have the draft so it's not like they can go play for a team that will pay them the most. And if we don't have the draft, then what are we going to do with the NFL? Cut it back to half the teams or less? Are we going to have a 3 team league with the Skins, Cowboys and Giants?

Incoherent ....and not reality. The NFL was born, grew, and thrived for 70 years without FA and salary caps.

As for your other ridiculous statement....Green Bay owned the 1960's, and Pittsburgh owned the 1970's. Free market was sure tough for them wasn't it.

Currently, even with the cap, the NFC was the Cowboys, Redskins and Giants, and Green Bay last year. The Pats dominated everyone except the Giants.

In fact, over the past 16 years, Dallas has won 3 SB, Denver 2, Pats 3-2, Packers 1-1, Giants 1-1, Rams 1-1.

That's the same 6 teams participating in 16 SB and winning 11 of them.

There wasn't much difference in the previous 16 years before FA.

RayNAustin wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:That's not really fair though. When Danny and Jerry pay because they have the revenue and it's not a big deal, that puts places like St. Louis, Green Bay and Pittsburgh under a tough situation. And the players have the draft so it's not like they can go play for a team that will pay them the most. And if we don't have the draft, then what are we going to do with the NFL? Cut it back to half the teams or less? Are we going to have a 3 team league with the Skins, Cowboys and Giants?

Incoherent ....and not reality. The NFL was born, grew, and thrived for 70 years without FA and salary caps.

As for your other ridiculous statement....Green Bay owned the 1960's, and Pittsburgh owned the 1970's. Free market was sure tough for them wasn't it.

Currently, even with the cap, the NFC was the Cowboys, Redskins and Giants, and Green Bay last year. The Pats dominated everyone except the Giants.

In fact, over the past 16 years, Dallas has won 3 SB, Denver 2, Pats 3-2, Packers 1-1, Giants 1-1, Rams 1-1.

That's the same 6 teams participating in 16 SB and winning 11 of them.

There wasn't much difference in the previous 16 years before FA.

I just want to point out that the Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in 11 years!!

RayNAustin wrote:

kaz wrote:if we don't have the draft, then what are we going to do with the NFL? Cut it back to half the teams or less? Are we going to have a 3 team league with the Skins, Cowboys and Giants?

Incoherent ....and not reality. The NFL was born, grew, and thrived for 70 years without FA and salary caps

By "incoherent" you're identifying what your reply is about to be since my point you responded to was about the draft and you came back with the NFL survived without FA and salary caps?

GSPODS wrote:The problem, as I see it, is that the worst teams are the ones spending the most money on draft picks. They are also eating the most cap space if the draft picks are cut. Because of that, the worst teams are being limited on their cap space. If that same bad team gets another top three pick the following season, they have another huge contract to pay, but they still have dead cap space from the previous top 10 draft pick cut the previous season. A team could easily have $10 Million or more tied up in dead cap space and one top 10 draft pick. Having 20% of any team's cap space eaten in this way is bad for the entire league. A bad team can't improve without cap space. It also affects revenue sharing. It affects the competition committee and any future Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations.

I think the best way to handle this situation is either to create a rookie cap, or to not count draft pick contracts towards the cap in the first year.

I think this is the most intelligent thing I've ever read about the subject, at least in theory. Who wrote it for you ?

However, the reality is that even with dead cap, the majority of the teams have plenty of cap space:

Increase has teams well under salary cap

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=j ... &type=lgns

RayNAustin wrote:

GSPODS wrote:The problem, as I see it, is that the worst teams are the ones spending the most money on draft picks. They are also eating the most cap space if the draft picks are cut. Because of that, the worst teams are being limited on their cap space. If that same bad team gets another top three pick the following season, they have another huge contract to pay, but they still have dead cap space from the previous top 10 draft pick cut the previous season. A team could easily have $10 Million or more tied up in dead cap space and one top 10 draft pick. Having 20% of any team's cap space eaten in this way is bad for the entire league. A bad team can't improve without cap space. It also affects revenue sharing. It affects the competition committee and any future Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations.

I think the best way to handle this situation is either to create a rookie cap, or to not count draft pick contracts towards the cap in the first year.

I think this is the most intelligent thing I've ever read about the subject, at least in theory. Who wrote it for you ?

However, the reality is that even with dead cap, the majority of the teams have plenty of cap space:

Increase has teams well under salary cap

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=j ... &type=lgns

From that article, 11 teams have to spend money to meet the floor.
The Floor is $100 Million. The Ceiling is $116.2 Million. So, teams can have no more than $16.2 Million in cap space when all is said and done.

1. Tampa Bay $42.8 million - $26.6M over floor
2. New Orleans $31.1 million - $14.9M over floor
3. Kansas City $30.0 million - $13.8M over floor
4. Tennessee $27.2 million - $11.0M over floor
5. Buffalo $26.6 million - $10.4M over floor
6. Jacksonville $26.2 million - $10.0M over floor
7. Green Bay $24.4 million
8. Chicago $22.5 million
9. Miami $21.0 million
10. San Diego $18.7 million
11. Minnesota $18.6 million

Suffice it to say teams aren't spending $10.0 Million on rookies to meet the floor. Tampa will just have to overpay a few people.

yupchagee wrote:
Why wait 3 yrs? All caps do is protect stupid owners from themselves.

Actually, it protects the owners from the rookie's agents. It's the agents for these rookies that drive the draft prices higher and higher each year, and if you do "have the stones" to say here's the offer take it or leave it, then you are the one villified in the media by the agent, in the media by your rokkie number 1 draft pick, and by the media itself for being cheap and not doing enough to improve your football team.

The price of all rookie draft picks is determined by how much the number 1 overall recieves. He sets the bar for all the other negotiations. That's why rokkies love seeing a QB go number 1 because the price for a QB is generally higher than a lineman.

Why 3 years? Look at Reggie Bush. Picked number 2 overall. Had a great first year, and not so much last year.

Bob 0119 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:
Why wait 3 yrs? All caps do is protect stupid owners from themselves.

Actually, it protects the owners from the rookie's agents. It's the agents for these rookies that drive the draft prices higher and higher each year, and if you do "have the stones" to say here's the offer take it or leave it, then you are the one villified in the media by the agent, in the media by your rokkie number 1 draft pick, and by the media itself for being cheap and not doing enough to improve your football team.

The price of all rookie draft picks is determined by how much the number 1 overall recieves. He sets the bar for all the other negotiations. That's why rokkies love seeing a QB go number 1 because the price for a QB is generally higher than a lineman.

Why 3 years? Look at Reggie Bush. Picked number 2 overall. Had a great first year, and not so much last year.

All the agents are doing is representing their clients best interests. I don't think the owners are that easy to bully.

In a one-on-one, you're right, the owners could stand up to the agents demands no matter how ridiculous they think they are.

However, with free agency, and the media, and teams like the Redskins, Raiders, and Cowboys who seem to like to throw gobs of money at players they know that while the kid may sit out his first year, he's likely to get picked up by someone else willing to pay the money.

That leaves them two choices. I either negotiate as best I can, or I watch this prospect go play for a rival team and become vilified by the press and my fan-base.

What if the kid is worth it? What if he is a genuine superstar and we passed him up? How would we (the fans) respond (like if ey or Taylor had played for the Eagles because we didn't want to negotiate)?

What if we sign the contract and the kid turns out to be a bum (Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard, etc.)? Now we've thrown all that money away and burned up cap room that could've been used for someone else.

It's not just the agent they can't stand up to, it's the corner the agent's have them backed into.

Bob 0119 wrote:In a one-on-one, you're right, the owners could stand up to the agents demands no matter how ridiculous they think they are.

However, with free agency, and the media, and teams like the Redskins, Raiders, and Cowboys who seem to like to throw gobs of money at players they know that while the kid may sit out his first year, he's likely to get picked up by someone else willing to pay the money.

That leaves them two choices. I either negotiate as best I can, or I watch this prospect go play for a rival team and become vilified by the press and my fan-base.

What if the kid is worth it? What if he is a genuine superstar and we passed him up? How would we (the fans) respond (like if ey or Taylor had played for the Eagles because we didn't want to negotiate)?

What if we sign the contract and the kid turns out to be a bum (Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard, etc.)? Now we've thrown all that money away and burned up cap room that could've been used for someone else.

It's not just the agent they can't stand up to, it's the corner the agent's have them backed into.

You're telling us that VERY successful businessmen need special protection in order to run their businesses I don't buy that

I'm opposed to both the draft & the cap.

Bob 0119 wrote:In a one-on-one, you're right, the owners could stand up to the agents demands no matter how ridiculous they think they are.

However, with free agency, and the media, and teams like the Redskins, Raiders, and Cowboys who seem to like to throw gobs of money at players they know that while the kid may sit out his first year, he's likely to get picked up by someone else willing to pay the money.

That leaves them two choices. I either negotiate as best I can, or I watch this prospect go play for a rival team and become vilified by the press and my fan-base.

What if the kid is worth it? What if he is a genuine superstar and we passed him up? How would we (the fans) respond (like if ey or Taylor had played for the Eagles because we didn't want to negotiate)?

What if we sign the contract and the kid turns out to be a bum (Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard, etc.)? Now we've thrown all that money away and burned up cap room that could've been used for someone else.

It's not just the agent they can't stand up to, it's the corner the agent's have them backed into.

You mean like Pierce?