CFZ It's Time To Upgrade the NFL's Method of Free Agency and Salary Caps

[conner01]

I don't disagree that the CAP as it is right now can at times be a nuisance for fans. Personally, I would prefer no CAP at all. Let there be a free market. But of course, we have to deal with reality. The truth is some owners would skimp on players and field horrible teams. Some would overspend and field all-star teams. The leagues doe not want this because it could make some teams less popular and that in the long run hurts the NFL. This is why, even with a CAP, there is a minimum teams have to spend on players.

I also think there will always be players who are just so much better than other players and they should get paid 50 times more. That's just the way it is. The more rare something is, the more in demand it is, the more it is worth. The best players, or competent QBs are both rare and in demand. That's why they get paid more - and should. Again free market.

I hate the CAP, but I especially hate it when a veteran player who has played for 1 team his entire career has to leave and go to another team because his salary is too much for his original team to pay. Players like Emmitt Smith, DeMarcus Ware, and Tyron Smith should be allowed to finish their careers with the team that drafted them. They should come up with a way to exclude their CAP or part of it. It seems to me a 10 year vet is on the downside of his career and excluding him from the CAP is not go to swing the balance of talent that much if they exclude those vets from the CAP.

But the question is really about QBs. I'd favor any change that reduces the overall impact of QB salaries on the CAP, whether they count only 75% of the compensation against the CAP or whatever percentage or some other relief for QBs I think it would be good for the players and the league. I don't think capping QB salaries or having a max % they can be against the CAP would work.

We just have to accept that the NFL looks at the league as a single business entity, and the NFL only cares about how the league as a whole is performing - and by performing I mean making money. Whether teams are struggling to get under the CAP or not is not a big concern for the NFL as long as squeezing players under the CAP does not hurt the business.

Some good ideas. I like a cap on any one player exceeding a certain pct of cap. Probably not 10% because that’s pretty low but the concept I like. But here’s the issue, owners aren’t doing anything that lowers their portion of revenue. That’s a non starter so exempting players from the cap does that so that’s never happening. And any deal means players have to agree to it. That’s why I think capping the pct any one player gets is most logical but would have to come with firmer spend levels so players agree. But that’s costs the same but spreads the money to more players so it cost teams no more, players get the same though it’s spread among more players. That seems sellable to both sides

 

[DogFace]

Which effectively means no cap and QB salaries soar even higher. No way owners would ever do that

A cap for QB,s and a cap for the rest of the roster. Or make x amount not applicable to the cap. I can’t see a solution being to pay them half of the cap or whatever it reaches.

If we’re honest the QB is a rare talent that deserves the market setting the pay. These owners live life by that mantra except when they don’t want to pay

 

[plasticman]

Regardless he refused to even try because he didn't want to pay McCarthy a few million to not coach in 2024. The thought of paying McCarthy to not coach while he would have to pay a new coach is not something Jerry wanted to do.

I'd love to see what you propose and then watch thousands of Cowboys fans suddenly realize Jerry and his son are way cheaper than you believed.

No owner, not even Jerry Jones, is going to fire a HC that went 12-5 three years in a row. How many times has an owner ever fired a HC for a winning record one year in a row? I know Jerry did it to Chan Gailey after the 1999 season but has since admitted it was a mistake.

If Jerry fired McCarthy after last season it would have immediately placed his new coach under incredible pressure in his first season. If that coach didn't surpass 12-5 and failed to get to the NFC championship game then Jerry would be the laughingstock of the NFL....once again.

 

[Sydla]

No owner, not even Jerry Jones, is going to fire a HC that went 12-5 three years in a row. How many times has an owner ever fired a HC for a winning record one year in a row? I know Jerry did it to Chan Gailey after the 1999 season but has since admitted it was a mistake.

If Jerry fired McCarthy after last season it would have immediately placed his new coach under incredible pressure in his first season. If that coach didn't surpass 12-5 and failed to get to the NFC championship game then Jerry would be the laughingstock of the NFL....once again.

You are missing the point. Jerry wasn't going to fire McCarthy anyway because he's literally said he does not like to pay a coach to not coach for him. So he likely wasn't going to fire McCarthy, pay him a couple of million to sit on his couch and then pay millions to a new coach.

The point being that over the years, Jerry has become cheap. You seem to operate that if Jerry had some way to get around the cap he'd pay for an elite roster. That's a fallacy. He can manipulate the cap right now if he wanted to pay guys but he chose not to. The red neon light is flashing in your face and yet you don't seem to see it.

Even if the league change their cap rules, Jerry isn't going to spend like a drunken sailor for a championship. The evidence is clear as day on this.

 

[plasticman]

You are missing the point. Jerry wasn't going to fire McCarthy anyway because he's literally said he does not like to pay a coach to not coach for him. So he likely wasn't going to fire McCarthy, pay him a couple of million to sit on his couch and then pay millions to a new coach.

The point being that over the years, Jerry has become cheap. You seem to operate that if Jerry had some way to get around the cap he'd pay for an elite roster. That's a fallacy. He can manipulate the cap right now if he wanted to pay guys but he chose not to. The red neon light is flashing in your face and yet you don't seem to see it.

Even if the league change their cap rules, Jerry isn't going to spend like a drunken sailor for a championship. The evidence is clear as day on this.

And you are underestimating what a championship would mean to Jerry. If he thought that it would bring a championship, yes, he would spend like a drunken sailor.

Also, if McCarthy had gone 5-12 last season, you can bet he would have been gone despite the "dead money" Jerry would have to pay him.

Jerry is not cheap, all evidence to the contrary. You can look at the costs for AT&T stadium, Dieon Sanders initial Cowboys contract and Will McClay's contract to stay.

 

[Sydla]

And you are underestimating what a championship would mean to Jerry. If he thought that it would bring a championship, yes, he would spend like a drunken sailor.

Also, if McCarthy had gone 5-12 last season, you can bet he would have been gone despite the "dead money" Jerry would have to pay him.

Jerry is not cheap, all evidence to the contrary. You can look at the costs for AT&T stadium, Dieon Sanders initial Cowboys contract and Will McClay's contract to stay.

I am not.

Because again, THEY CAN MANIPULATE THE CAP RIGHT NOW TO GO OUT AND SIGN MORE PLAYERS IN FA BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TO. So sorry, you can't say that if Jerry could spend to win a championship he'd do it and then ignore the fact he could spend more right now to win a championship and he refuses to do it.

All evidence to the contrary? What? The evidence shows that in fact, the Cowboys are cheap. If you look at actual cash spent over period over the last decade, the Cowboys rank near the bottom. They sit out FA most years and don't sign quality FAs. They literally could have worked the cap this offseason to sign their guys and bring in some quality FAs, they did not.

The evidence actually refutes your claim at this point.

 

[conner01]

A cap for QB,s and a cap for the rest of the roster. Or make x amount not applicable to the cap. I can’t see a solution being to pay them half of the cap or whatever it reaches.

If we’re honest the QB is a rare talent that deserves the market setting the pay. These owners live life by that mantra except when they don’t want to pay

Why would the owners agree to any deal that increases what they pay? Both sides have to agree. That’s why I think tighten rules on spend so teams are actually spending up to the cap and cap any one player at what ever pct they can agree on. Then the other 52 make more but owners are still spending the same. Owners are never gonna agree to raising what they have to pay out and a separate pay for a QB would be a very large increase in what they pay out. It has to be something the owners and players can agree on or it can’t pass

 

[DallasEast]

No owner, not even Jerry Jones, is going to fire a HC that went 12-5 three years in a row. How many times has an owner ever fired a HC for a winning record one year in a row? I know Jerry did it to Chan Gailey after the 1999 season but has since admitted it was a mistake.

If Jerry fired McCarthy after last season it would have immediately placed his new coach under incredible pressure in his first season. If that coach didn't surpass 12-5 and failed to get to the NFC championship game then Jerry would be the laughingstock of the NFL....once again.

Being seen as laughingstock does not halt narcissism.

 

[ghst187]

I think this is a very bad idea that will only create more separation between the tier 1 and tier two teams. Patrick Mahomes may end up the best QB ever, so he should hit their cap as if he is. Suddenly giving the KC Chiefs 20-30m$ in cap relief isn’t going to create more parity.

Paying or not paying your QB big bucks is a developed strategy for GMs. It is what makes the NFL so interesting and special. “We have no choice but to give Dak Prescott 60m$” is the wrong way to look at it.

The separation will still basically be whether you have a good qb or not.

 

[ArtClink]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

Excellent post! The NFL really needs a nepotism rule too. It might be the only hope for our franchise.

 

[DogFace]

Why would the owners agree to any deal that increases what they pay? Both sides have to agree. That’s why I think tighten rules on spend so teams are actually spending up to the cap and cap any one player at what ever pct they can agree on. Then the other 52 make more but owners are still spending the same. Owners are never gonna agree to raising what they have to pay out and a separate pay for a QB would be a very large increase in what they pay out. It has to be something the owners and players can agree on or it can’t pass

If you subtract the qb cap from the total cap it’s not an increase. If you start to pay qb’s 130 million or whatever it goes to there will be other issues.

I’m not saying it’s the answer. I’m saying the qb salaries are out of hand and getting worse—as in too large of a portion of the team salary.

 

[Mannix]

Cap should be off the board and not in play for one player on offense and one player on defense…problem solved.

 

[cristglo]

I love the idea of getting cap relief from signing your own players.
You could have an exemption if you have a player that you drafted and has a 10yr vested they would only be charged a certain percentage of their cap hit.
They already have a limit on Rookies and All rookies should be Exempted from the cap.
The Qbs are the main reason our cap gets deleted before we even get started.
The Owners are the ones to blame for this They are the ones that keep doing these outrageous deals.
Hey, Browns how is that Watson contract working out for you?
I will go one further Jerry how is Dak contract working for you?

By the Way PM really great post!
I don't really see tanking in the NFL but a lottery would be good.

 

[kskboys]

What I don't understand is how the player's U can be so dumb as to not implement some sort of cap for a position/player/something. Paying one player an outrageous sum severely limits what other players can be paid. How are they not insisting on changes?

 

[Adreme]

I love the idea of getting cap relief from signing your own players.
You could have an exemption if you have a player that you drafted and has a 10yr vested they would only be charged a certain percentage of their cap hit.
They already have a limit on Rookies and All rookies should be Exempted from the cap.
The Qbs are the main reason our cap gets deleted before we even get started.
The Owners are the ones to blame for this They are the ones that keep doing these outrageous deals.
Hey, Browns how is that Watson contract working out for you?
I will go one further Jerry how is Dak contract working for you?

By the Way PM really great post!
I don't really see tanking in the NFL but a lottery would be good.

Honestly for Jerry pretty well as they would not have 3 straight 12 win seasons with some random draft pick. For context those picks would have been either a trade up for Mac Jones or Justin Fields or waiting a year and getting Kenny Pickett or Desmond Ritter. So yes I am sure Jerry is quite happy when the alternative is put in his face.

Similarly most teams that are not on the QB carousel are VERY happy to be off of it and in no hurry to get back on. Every once in awhile there is a bad deal but if you look at the majority of these big deals the teams that did them are happy with the outcome, with the exceptions being the Browns and Giant, the latter of whom EVERYONE saw coming a mile away.

Again though every idea people seem to have about "solving" the QB problem seems to ignore that this "problem" is exactly the situation that the salary cap is designed to create. You are not supposed to be able to signa great QB and a great OLine and great weapons and a great defense. You can sign SOME of that and then you have to hope you get lucky with the draft and since teams will not that creates that parity that the league desires. All of these fixes would reduce the parity that the league is trying to create.

It also makes sense from a business perspective. Young QBs having loaded rosters is by design because it lets the league build new stars. Older higher priced QBs having less talent around them is also good because they already are stars that sell tickets.

 

[StarOfGlory]

The bolded is contrary to the market value you are proposing. A long term vet has a lesser market value due to decreased ability. So, if you want the free market, then the aging star will get less as his value is less. You can't have it both ways.

That does depend on the player though. Would you rather have a solid starting vet QB at age 30, or Tom Brady at 38? All things being equal, I have a better chance at a Super Bowl with Brady. I wouldn't care if he was 38.

 

[blueblood70]

What about a separate cap for QB’s or that QB’s aren’t part of the cap at all?

You can't do that,

I've thought about this if you start removing the cap from certain players why have a cap at all?? because then the teams can go out and buy the best quarterback available steal quarterbacks and pay them$100 million a year, because these billionaires can do that and they'll always have the best quarterbacks, there's a reason there's parity built in with a salary cap is to make it fair for all teams but there are certain teams that would be willing to go out and spend $100 million to get the best quarterback I'm talking about per year...

IMHO you can't do it you either need to remove the entire cap for the league or do it like the NBA and have a luxury tax and penalize but allow teams to spend more if they want to spend it etcetera or just like baseball just remove it all together I mean you can't just start picking out one or two positions because it'll start throwing the balance off because other players will want that too the union won't allow it it'll be way too hard to keep the peace between the other positions on the team who feel they're just as important there are other players on the team that feel they need to have their work as well that's why they're demanding to be the next highest paid outside of the quarterback now not just in their respective positions....

So I'm totally against any of that you wrote up there they're thinking about doing they just need to remove the cap. Why do we need it anymore all these billionaires have the same kind of money let them spend what they want and go out and do what they want and see how it falls in place just just like in baseball there are a lot of small Moneyball teams that have been beating the big boys many times over the years without a cap in baseball....​

​

So yes I'm all for removing the cap if that's what they want to do at quarterback they need to do it for the whole team.... Maybe the NFL needs to change this along with maybe changing in my opinion stop having the draft after free agency I watched the other leagues I believe I don't know the NBA and the NHL both had the draft and then they had free agency which makes more sense because then you know what and who to go out and spend on that you didn't get in the draft...​

​

So I didn't read the original posters post quite yet but if changes need to be made that's where it's at remove the cap change to having the draft early and then free agency after...​

 

[blueblood70]

I doubt that it was the NFL's purpose to design a system in which a player can get paid over 50 times more than another on a team. At the very least, it contradicts the entire concept of a team sport.

I doubt that the NFL envisioned one player getting paid a fifth of a salary cap.

Perhaps it is true that they wanted a more fluid group of teams each year competing in the playoffs. They didn't want the same 5-6 teams every year in the conference championships, so they made it difficult for great teams to maintain that greatness. Successful teams couldn't keep all the players that made the team great. Teams are forced to constantly find replacements for about 20% to 25% of their teams each year. Rebuilding is something every team does every season to some degree.

As a result, consistency is a constant challenge. Successful teams are deliberately handicapped in a way that seems more severe than their position in the draft. That's because successful teams have players that believe they contributed to that success, rightfully so. However, the degree to which they contributed compared to salary demands is what drives them away from that team.

Should success be handicapped to this degree? Is parity the answer to a better NFL? There should be some effort to balance the talent pool in the NFL but I don't think it should deprive teams of the fruits of their labor. They should be able to hold on to their teams a little longer.

I am in favor of a softer salary cap in which teams can pay a penalty for going over the cap amount with the penalty being equally distributed among the remaining teams. I would say something to the effect that, for every million over the cap, they must pay an equal amount to be distributed among the other teams. This is somewhat similar to the NBA but without the severe penalties.

I also think there should be a stipulation where no player counts more than 10% of the current cap. This should distribute the salaries more evenly among the team, particularly, the starters. That QB didn't walk onto that field alone. There were over 50 others that made sure he had the opportunity to play at an elite level.

I also toyed with the idea that teams get a break when they resign their own players. I even thought about the salary cap only applying to players that didn't get drafted by that team. players can still look to other teams, but their original team will be in the position, overall, to offer better deals.

I also think that the drafting order should be based on a weighed lottery based on their final won/loss ranking. In other words, the worst team wouldn't automatically draft first, but they would have the highest probability of drafting first. I think this would eliminate any concept relating to "tanking" the season. This would also make the draft equally exciting to all fans.

Some of these ideas might be good, bad, awful or even "Please don't post any more!" That's fine....just remember the rules....you can imply it......just don't call me that outright.

I agree either remove the cap altogether like in baseball or have the luxury tax thing like they have in the NBA and while they're making changes, I wish they would for God's sakes have the draft early and do free agency after liking these other leagues. Parity is no longer real , still some bullies in the nfl and divisions are lopsided ie top heavy.,. It worked for while but change is needed.

But are there really any technically small market teams in the NFL that doesn't have a multi billionaires and owner that can't afford to be in an uncapped era and just may the best man win... It's not about how much money they can spend because they all can spend the money it's about picking the correct players and making the right moves...

You know a perfect time to do this would be if you're gonna make this an 18 game season we need more players they need to allow all 63 players active on the roster remove the cap and just let this thing play out for five years without a cap and see how it works...

 

[Flamma]

I'd rather not make rules to save someone from themselves. If it ever comes to a point where they can't field a competitive team, then they'll have to say no. No rules needed when you have little choice. What good is an elite QB if you're going to go 5-12? But it has to get to that point.

 

[Flamma]

Which effectively means no cap and QB salaries soar even higher. No way owners would ever do that

Right. It would never happen. They'll never agree to QBs not counted against the cap. However, they can cap the QB. That's not going to save, or cost the owners more money.