NFL salary cap system is insane

[PullMyFinger]

Salary cap = dynasty killer

 

[conner01]

Salary cap = dynasty killer

thats the point. the league does'nt want dynasties. they are not good for the league as a whole. this is about the whole league, not our favorite team. and the cap creates parity which is good for the league. when you have 20 teams with a reasonable shot at the playoffs thats good for the league. without the league you have no money to pay the dynasty teams. the whole league needs to prosper for the league to grow

 

[Tate]

The whole point, which no one seems to focus on, is that is that the salary cap is part of a system put in place to make sure that owners make a boatload of money. It's a hard cap and nearly impossible to get around, with severe penalties for those that try. Everyone splits money from the TV contracts, etc and the primary costs (players) are capped, so owners are guaranteed to make at least a minimum amount every year. So it's a wonderful system if you're an owner. GMs can make a stupid decision and over pay, but that just means there is less to pay other players (the cap is a fixed amount)- so it just costs players (and fans) not owners. And the concept of "dead money" or paying for players that are no longer on the team (and that a club isn't actually paying) is a great example of how the system is rigged to make it look like the owners are paying more than they actually are.

The fans continue to pay for it all and the owners can say their hands are tied by the cap. I for one would prefer a system that lets an owner be rewarded or penalized by how much or how little money they actually put into a team.

 

[Mavericks88]

Teams should be independent like major soccer leagues in Europe. Owners would get back so much more if they have a quality product. The NFLPA would probably fight it but it'd eventually be pointless. They'd get just around the same money they do now (+inflation and what not) , Certain stars probably more. They'd have a bit more flexibility all around, For middling players. #twentyyearsfromnow

 

[Hoofbite]

The whole point, which no one seems to focus on, is that is that the salary cap is part of a system put in place to make sure that owners make a boatload of money. It's a hard cap and nearly impossible to get around, with severe penalties for those that try. Everyone splits money from the TV contracts, etc and the primary costs (players) are capped, so owners are guaranteed to make at least a minimum amount every year. So it's a wonderful system if you're an owner. GMs can make a stupid decision and over pay, but that just means there is less to pay other players (the cap is a fixed amount)- so it just costs players (and fans) not owners. And the concept of "dead money" or paying for players that are no longer on the team (and that a club isn't actually paying) is a great example of how the system is rigged to make it look like the owners are paying more than they actually are.

The fans continue to pay for it all and the owners can say their hands are tied by the cap. I for one would prefer a system that lets an owner be rewarded or penalized by how much or how little money they actually put into a team.

The cap isn't a true reflection of salaries paid.

Not that owners would need the cap to keep spending down anyway. If an owner doesn't want to spend, he won't spend.

 

[speedkilz88]

The cap isn't a true reflection of salaries paid.

Not that owners would need the cap to keep spending down anyway. If an owner doesn't want to spend, he won't spend.

Ever hear of the frog and the scorpion. It's in their nature.

 

[visionary]

Salary cap = dynasty killer

the steelers, patriots, giants (you know teams with multiple SBs in last 10-12 years) and well run competitive teams like packers and the upcoming 49ers, seahawks all say hi!!!


Poor management of salary cap = dynasty killer

the cowboys front office says hi!!!

 

[Plankton]

And to think, one of the biggest advocates and proponents of putting the salary cap in place back in 1994 was Jerry Jones.

Owners want cost certainty, and this is one way of providing it.

The system isn't the problem. It's managing poor player selection, bad contract structures, declining performance and injury that is the problem.

 

[JPostSam]

i should clarify.

it's not the cap itself that is insane, but the ways in which it is manipulated to facilitate irresponsible decisions.

you can't spend 1/7 of your cap on 1/53 of your roster, but that's what lots of teams do. when they realize that they've screwed themselves, they start doing all kinds of voodoo with the numbers (signing bonuses, accelerated payments) to get the cap number down. then agents pretend those numbers are low -- because someone else has a higher cap number, and their client is clearly better than that player, and deserves to be paid more.

i swear, fantasy football owners have a better grasp on managing a salary cap. there's only so much they can pay for a given position, and they can either get 1 megastar and a bunch of scrubs, or a few excellent players and a bunch if decent ones.

i understand the reasons for dead money rules and whatnot. i just think that teams have been crazy about the way they acquire and release players because they've lost control of their financial good sense. fans lose out at least as much as the teams and the players do.

 

[crazytown41]

thats the point. the league does'nt want dynasties. they are not good for the league as a whole. this is about the whole league, not our favorite team. and the cap creates parity which is good for the league. when you have 20 teams with a reasonable shot at the playoffs thats good for the league. without the league you have no money to pay the dynasty teams. the whole league needs to prosper for the league to grow

Let's not confuse parity with mediocrity. Because that's what this League is now. I mean this mediocre Cowboys team had it's way with the Super Bowl champs if it weren't for Gingerboy's brainfarts. A good handful of teams have a shot to win it all every season. Hell, you don't even have to playing the best in the regular season. Just get in the playoffs and you have a chance. There are no truly ELITE teams anymore. Elway's Broncos will probably the last one.

 

[conner01]

Let's not confuse parity with mediocrity. Because that's what this League is now. I mean this mediocre Cowboys team had it's way with the Super Bowl champs if it weren't for Gingerboy's brainfarts. A good handful of teams have a shot to win it all every season. Hell, you don't even have to playing the best in the regular season. Just get in the playoffs and you have a chance. There are no truly ELITE teams anymore. Elway's Broncos will probably the last one.

one mans parity is another mans mediocrity. mediocrity in a time when record after record is falling. seems more like parity to me. the differense between the best teams and middle of the pack teams is very close. thats the definition of parity. you will always have great teams and bad teams

 

[Hoofbite]

i should clarify.

it's not the cap itself that is insane, but the ways in which it is manipulated to facilitate irresponsible decisions.

you can't spend 1/7 of your cap on 1/53 of your roster, but that's what lots of teams do. when they realize that they've screwed themselves, they start doing all kinds of voodoo with the numbers (signing bonuses, accelerated payments) to get the cap number down. then agents pretend those numbers are low -- because someone else has a higher cap number, and their client is clearly better than that player, and deserves to be paid more.

I think it would be an absolute assumption on your part as to what agents actually use in terms of negotiating for the their clients.

I think any agent who had a player with a base salary of 5M would get laughed out of the room if he went into the GMs office and asked for more money because another player with a base salary of 4M also has 2M in signing bonus money pumping up his cap number to 6M.

Anyone who thinks in these terms isn't in touch with reality.

i swear, fantasy football owners have a better grasp on managing a salary cap. there's only so much they can pay for a given position, and they can either get 1 megastar and a bunch of scrubs, or a few excellent players and a bunch if decent ones.

I see no problem with how the cap works or how teams tend to allocate their cap resources.

If having a guy count for 1/7th of the overall cap means you can compete, you'd be an idiot to flat out refuse to have that cap hit on some sort of general principle.

It's pretty simple, the most important piece is going to get paid as such. It is possible because other positions don't cost anywhere near that amount and you'd be the laughing stock of the league if you were paying your long snapper an amount that is representative of the roster space he takes, and not actually representative of what he provides.

Some players are more valuable than others. They get paid as such and their cap hits reflect their higher contracts.

You only have 11 guys from your team on the field at any given time so advocating for some sort of cap hit proportional to roster spots taken is just misguided.

Quite frankly, the league doesn't have enough talent to even warrant a more "appropriate" distribution of cap space. Every year a number of players are pushed off the team and replaced by minimum contracts.

i understand the reasons for dead money rules and whatnot. i just think that teams have been crazy about the way they acquire and release players because they've lost control of their financial good sense. fans lose out at least as much as the teams and the players do.

Doesn't really apply to all teams and even the one's it might it doesn't apply equally.

 

[JPostSam]

I think it would be an absolute assumption on your part as to what agents actually use in terms of negotiating for the their clients.

I think any agent who had a player with a base salary of 5M would get laughed out of the room if he went into the GMs office and asked for more money because another player with a base salary of 4M also has 2M in signing bonus money pumping up his cap number to 6M.

Anyone who thinks in these terms isn't in touch with reality.



I see no problem with how the cap works or how teams tend to allocate their cap resources.

If having a guy count for 1/7th of the overall cap means you can compete, you'd be an idiot to flat out refuse to have that cap hit on some sort of general principle.

It's pretty simple, the most important piece is going to get paid as such. It is possible because other positions don't cost anywhere near that amount and you'd be the laughing stock of the league if you were paying your long snapper an amount that is representative of the roster space he takes, and not actually representative of what he provides.

Some players are more valuable than others. They get paid as such and their cap hits reflect their higher contracts.

You only have 11 guys from your team on the field at any given time so advocating for some sort of cap hit proportional to roster spots taken is just misguided.

Quite frankly, the league doesn't have enough talent to even warrant a more "appropriate" distribution of cap space. Every year a number of players are pushed off the team and replaced by minimum contracts.



Doesn't really apply to all teams and even the one's it might it doesn't apply equally.

1. players absolutely have looked at their base salary and told their agents to demand more from the team. it happens all the time. it should be as simple as saying, "hey, moron, your base salary is meaningless because we gave you a $16 million signing bonus just two years ago." but it isn't. look at the chris johnson situation, for example.

2. if you see no problem with signing one key player $15 million per year while having to cut three more key players who make $4 million to $8 million per year, then the fault lies with you. go look at what the lions are paying matt stafford and calvin johnson and then tell me how they're supposed to field a decent defense, too.

3. teams screw up their player evaluations all the time. paying great players great money only works when you actually *get* great players. or when they stay healthy. look at the panthers' running backs situation and tell me that hasn't hurt them. look at ratliff's contract and free's contract and tell me that the joneses don't get heartburn signing those checks. the rookie wage scale was put in place precisely because teams were being destroyed by bad contracts they could no longer control. a jamarcus russell deal can destroy a team.

4. of course some players are worth more than others. i'm not calling for an equal distribution of salaries for all 53 players. i'm calling for a smarter distribution. i'm calling for fewer loopholes and accounting tricks, so that teams don't have to pay for a player who's been off the roster for two years, and so that good players past their prime can continue to play for the teams that drafted them, and not spend their last 3 seasons with 3 different teams.

5. of course, players are pushed out of the league and replaced by scrubs on minimum contracts. the point is, those scrubs on minimum contracts are necessary because some diva is pulling in 20 times that player's salary. the dearth of talent that you mention, if it exists, exists because there are too many overpriced players to afford more moderately priced players.

finally, i do believe the market works. it just gets broken before it gets well. i think we may be beginning to see the market for players become more efficient, as teams realize they can't just keep playing the signing bonus game and they can't afford to pay tons of cash to players who get hurt or don't pan out. but it's still wacky all over.

 

[AmericasTeam31]

1. players absolutely have looked at their base salary and told their agents to demand more from the team. it happens all the time. it should be as simple as saying, "hey, moron, your base salary is meaningless because we gave you a $16 million signing bonus just two years ago." but it isn't. look at the chris johnson situation, for example.

2. if you see no problem with signing one key player $15 million per year while having to cut three more key players who make $4 million to $8 million per year, then the fault lies with you. go look at what the lions are paying matt stafford and calvin johnson and then tell me how they're supposed to field a decent defense, too.

3. teams screw up their player evaluations all the time. paying great players great money only works when you actually *get* great players. or when they stay healthy. look at the panthers' running backs situation and tell me that hasn't hurt them. look at ratliff's contract and free's contract and tell me that the joneses don't get heartburn signing those checks. the rookie wage scale was put in place precisely because teams were being destroyed by bad contracts they could no longer control. a jamarcus russell deal can destroy a team.

4. of course some players are worth more than others. i'm not calling for an equal distribution of salaries for all 53 players. i'm calling for a smarter distribution. i'm calling for fewer loopholes and accounting tricks, so that teams don't have to pay for a player who's been off the roster for two years, and so that good players past their prime can continue to play for the teams that drafted them, and not spend their last 3 seasons with 3 different teams.

5. of course, players are pushed out of the league and replaced by scrubs on minimum contracts. the point is, those scrubs on minimum contracts are necessary because some diva is pulling in 20 times that player's salary. the dearth of talent that you mention, if it exists, exists because there are too many overpriced players to afford more moderately priced players.

finally, i do believe the market works. it just gets broken before it gets well. i think we may be beginning to see the market for players become more efficient, as teams realize they can't just keep playing the signing bonus game and they can't afford to pay tons of cash to players who get hurt or don't pan out. but it's still wacky all over.

By not allowing teams to "play with the numbers" and prorate signing bonuses over the contract's life you leave teams with even less wiggle room than they already have, while the players would get even less "security" in their contracts. How do you have guaranteed money in a contract that is equally divided over the term of the contract? Every player becomes expendable with no recourse to the team at the end of every season? Is that what you want to see?

Without messing with the numbers and working the cap Dallas' payroll for last season was just under $148 million (taking each contract value and dividing it evenly by the term of the contract), that is well over the $120.6 million cap. So how do you field a team with that idea in mind? Where do you cut out $28 million and still have a full roster without a market adjustment?

As I said before, it's a great theory, but it will never happen...

As to how a team like Detroit who has that kind of money tied up in to two players. They can field a great defense by finding the right players in the draft. Like it or not the league is different now. You have to decide which core group of maybe 4 great players (if you're lucky) you are willing to pay long term to keep after their rookie contracts are up. The others you just need to let walk and let other teams sign them to the big payday's. In this league you have to hit on the draft. You must capitalize when you've got great players on their rookie contracts because there is no way you're keeping all of them around after that.

 

[TwentyOne]

someone needs to have the guts to say, "no player on any team can count for more than 10% of their team's salary cap. there can be no phony baloney 'signing bonuses'. you pay a player a salary, period. and terms of the deal are like this: 5 years for $50 million means 5 years at $10 million per year. if they're not worth it, don't offer it and then try to play around with the numbers after the fact."

that, at least, would be sane.[/rant]

As always in a democracy there is not one person who has the right to say what to do or how to do it. And it's the same with the salary cap and the NFL. There are two organisations: the NFL (owners) and the NFLPA (players).

Point is, and thats where decissions are made that look either unlogical or as you call it "insane": The Interests of both parties are not the same.

Players for instance want security. Thats why there is something like a signing bonus. A player gets guaranteed money up front. Your idea of an deal like the one you mentioned wouldn't been liked by the NFLPA. The NFLPA wouldn't also not like the idea of a cap for players inside the cap.

The NFL on the other side doesn't like to pay too much money for players. Thats the main reason there is something like a salary cap. Also the ownser like to have flexibility with players, meant they can be creative with the cap hit and easily get rid of players they don't want anymore on their team.


As always to find a compromise the ultimate solution is rather complex and does not look logical at a first glance. That doesn't mean i fully understand or do like everything about the salary cap. But overall i think it's a very good idea and with all those different teams winning Bowls it seems to work out pretty good.

 

[burmafrd]

the steelers, patriots, giants (you know teams with multiple SBs in last 10-12 years) and well run competitive teams like packers and the upcoming 49ers, seahawks all say hi!!!


Poor management of salary cap = dynasty killer

the cowboys front office says hi!!!

none of those teams would last long against the real dynasty teams of the early 90's.

 

[burmafrd]

one mans parity is another mans mediocrity. mediocrity in a time when record after record is falling. seems more like parity to me. the differense between the best teams and middle of the pack teams is very close. thats the definition of parity. you will always have great teams and bad teams

records are falling because the league has changed the rules to benefit the passing game

and there are no more great defenses because no team can build one anymore.

Records falling mean diddly squat.

I fear the NFL will become like the NBA- all offense all the time.

 

[JPostSam]

"security" for players does not come in the form of signing bonuses. it comes in the form of playing to the value of your contract.

 

[jnday]

i don't have a problem with the cap. you can't take away bonus money unless you make contracts guaranteed and thats never, ever going to happen and should'nt. thats what the bonus money is for. rookies should make less than vets and comparing vickers to murray is silly since murray is under his rookie deal.
the salary cap is doing exactly what it was intended to do. it creates parity and like it or not thats good for the league as a whole

That is a good point, but I don't care about parity and the rest of the league. The current state of the NFL is a watered down product. There will be no more great teams. The last was the 90s Cowboys. There needs to be some changes in my opinion to slow down the massive amount of player movement. I don't think a team that has a regular season record of 9-7 has any business in the Super Bowl. An average champion is a sure sign of an average league. That is not a good thing unless you are a fan of average.

 

[Hoofbite]

1. players absolutely have looked at their base salary and told their agents to demand more from the team. it happens all the time. it should be as simple as saying, "hey, moron, your base salary is meaningless because we gave you a $16 million signing bonus just two years ago." but it isn't. look at the chris johnson situation, for example.

I'm not sure what your position is on this. Above you said that a guy would argue for a higher salary because of another guy's cap hit. The cap hit isn't what a guy is paid in a given year.

2. if you see no problem with signing one key player $15 million per year while having to cut three more key players who make $4 million to $8 million per year, then the fault lies with you. go look at what the lions are paying matt stafford and calvin johnson and then tell me how they're supposed to field a decent defense, too.

The problem with the Lion's is that they were forced to pay Stafford regardless of whether or not he had earned it. If anything, the Lion's are guilty of sucking for too many years in a row and racking up too many top picks.

3. teams screw up their player evaluations all the time. paying great players great money only works when you actually *get* great players. or when they stay healthy. look at the panthers' running backs situation and tell me that hasn't hurt them. look at ratliff's contract and free's contract and tell me that the joneses don't get heartburn signing those checks. the rookie wage scale was put in place precisely because teams were being destroyed by bad contracts they could no longer control. a jamarcus russell deal can destroy a team.

Sure, crappy contracts happen. They're more frequent when they are forced by the draft which is probably why they moved away from that model. That still doesn't change the fact that QBs are paid because they are the most important piece on the team and the majority of the one's who take up 1/7th of the cap as you said earlier are the one's who have earned it by proving to be the most important piece on the team.

4. of course some players are worth more than others. i'm not calling for an equal distribution of salaries for all 53 players. i'm calling for a smarter distribution. i'm calling for fewer loopholes and accounting tricks, so that teams don't have to pay for a player who's been off the roster for two years, and so that good players past their prime can continue to play for the teams that drafted them, and not spend their last 3 seasons with 3 different teams.

Teams are free to allocate cap space however they want now that contracts are not forced onto them by the draft. If a team wanted to forego paying their QB a ton of money, have at it. The consequence is likely mediocrity.

The cap allocations by position are a result of what the league feels those players are worth.

5. of course, players are pushed out of the league and replaced by scrubs on minimum contracts. the point is, those scrubs on minimum contracts are necessary because some diva is pulling in 20 times that player's salary. the dearth of talent that you mention, if it exists, exists because there are too many overpriced players to afford more moderately priced players.

Or those scrubs are able to play because some older player can't get the job done any more. Not to mention many of these scrubs hardly see the field so you'd be a fool to pay them anything more than scrub money.

finally, i do believe the market works. it just gets broken before it gets well. i think we may be beginning to see the market for players become more efficient, as teams realize they can't just keep playing the signing bonus game and they can't afford to pay tons of cash to players who get hurt or don't pan out. but it's still wacky all over.

I'm not sure it's inherently broken. The cap is fluid and depending on the team it's managed to different extents.

I will say that I too think that teams are sort of having a change of heart about the cap. For proven high quality players I think some teams are taking the approach that they will have just have to take the cap hit that comes with those players.

I mean, Tom Brady is a perfect example in that the Patriots basically have his cap number set for the next 5 years.

I think they are just realizing that this is what it's gonna take and there's not much sense in trying to have a cap bargain with these guys because it will catch up down the road.

There's definitely different mindsets in terms of managing the cap. I think trying pin high dollar contracts into backloaded deals is foolish and I think some teams are moving away from such structures.