09' Last Year Of Salary Cap Says Upshaw

[AbeBeta]

The only thing guaranteed contracts do is let players make money they don't earn. In the NFL, each player's contract isn't (normally, or completely) guaranteed, but ANOTHER player will make the money that doesn't get paid out of any terminated contracts. Let's say you cut a player who would have made $5 million in base salary -- now you have $5 million more to pay someone else. If you're paying $5 million to someone who can't get on the field, that's $5 million less to pay players who can.

And if a player can't fulfill his contract because of injury, there are numerous protections and benefits that he'll receive anyway.

Not earned? I disagree -- those back ends of a deal are usually earned by early career performances that are under paid. This allows teams to re-evaluate what a guy is worth each year rather than being tied to bad decisions. That's good for the owners but not as good for the players.

Does another player get that money? Sometimes -- but often that money goes away simply to get a team under the cap. So not really.

 

[dogberry]

Microsoft and Google appear to be in a death struggle. But if the Cowboys don't want to be the modern equivalent of the Harlem Globetrotters, our opponents can't be killed off.

Do MLB, the NBA, and NHL always go to the richest teams?

 

[Beast_from_East]

Microsoft and Google appear to be in a death struggle. But if the Cowboys don't want to be the modern equivalent of the Harlem Globetrotters, our opponents can't be killed off.

Do MLB, the NBA, and NHL always go to the richest teams?

I would love for the Boyz to be the modern day Globetrotters and blow out every team by 20 points.

Relistically however, that would not be the case. You would basically have 2 group of teams, the high revenue teams and the low revenue teams.

Unfortunately for us, the teams in our division are all large market, high revenue teams. So for us, we would still have a tough division schedule and our "blow out" games would be against the Bills and Titans of the NFL.

 

[AdamJT13]

Not earned? I disagree -- those back ends of a deal are usually earned by early career performances that are under paid.

That assumes that the team giving the guaranteed contract is the team he was with early in his career. Or that the player lives up to his contract in the first place.

Does another player get that money? Sometimes -- but often that money goes away simply to get a team under the cap. So not really.

If the team has to get under the cap, that means other players are getting paid. If that contract was guaranteed, other players wouldn't be getting enough to put the team over the cap in the first place.

Say the cap is $116 million. Unproductive Player A has $10 million guaranteed, and the team is $4 million over the cap. To get under the cap, the team cuts other players whose contracts add up to $4 million. So Player A gets $10 million, and his teammates get $106 million.

Unproductive Player B's team also is $4 million over the cap, but it decides that Player B isn't worth his $10 million unguaranteed salary, so it cuts him. Now the team is at $110 million for Player B's teammates ($4 million more than Player A's teammates), and it has $6 million available to spend on other players. Player B doesn't get the $10 million he's not worth, but everyone else comes out better -- including the team, which has money to add players who might be worth what they're paid.

 

[AbeBeta]

That assumes that the team giving the guaranteed contract is the team he was with early in his career. Or that the player lives up to his contract in the first place.



If the team has to get under the cap, that means other players are getting paid. If that contract was guaranteed, other players wouldn't be getting enough to put the team over the cap in the first place.

Say the cap is $116 million. Unproductive Player A has $10 million guaranteed, and the team is $4 million over the cap. To get under the cap, the team cuts other players whose contracts add up to $4 million. So Player A gets $10 million, and his teammates get $106 million.

Unproductive Player B's team also is $4 million over the cap, but it decides that Player B isn't worth his $10 million unguaranteed salary, so it cuts him. Now the team is at $110 million for Player B's teammates ($4 million more than Player A's teammates), and it has $6 million available to spend on other players. Player B doesn't get the $10 million he's not worth, but everyone else comes out better -- including the team, which has money to add players who might be worth what they're paid.

Of course, in both cases you assume guarantees under the current cap structure - and we both know that the guarantee structure impacts the type of cap we have.

Again, at issue here is when the guy "earned" the deal. I believe what you sign for is what you earned based on your past performance especially since most big contracts are given out to guys who are coming off their rookie deals.

The other side of this is the common practice of asking players to take pay cuts -- can you think of any other sport wherein the CBA is structured so that something like that becomes common practice? Thanks for your service, now take a pay cut or pack your bags. Score another one for the owners.

I think we both know that the owners are getting a huge score with a "hard cap" structured as it is in that it forces a non-guaranteed structure onto deals. If the players wanted a luxury tax type system with guaranteed $s - then there would be far more cash in the player's pockets.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't like it w/ owners like Danny Snyder in the division, that midget, *** ***** is going to hay-wire

 

[dogberry]

Don't teams ask players to take massive pay cuts when they fire them? A rather frequent practice, I've heard.