Should QB's be limited how much they make?

[buybuydandavis]

I've already said that other players will not do this but that doesn't change the economics of it. I don't know where you are getting all of this, "play for the love of the game" stuff. I never said that so that must either be something somebody else said or something made up. I never said anything like that. I said if he wants to win, he must understand that there is a financial balance to it. If he is just in it for the money, then fine but then we don't need to be acting like he is the standard for the team or that he is as important to the goal of winning as some suggest. By not recognizing this fact, he is in effect, acting counter productive to the team goal, which is winning a championship. What ever he wants to do, that's fine and it's his right but what it's not is a thought process that is supporting the team goal. That's just the truth of it.

If you feel as if he is a weirdo for not recognizing this fact, that's fine. I would consider him as highly intelligent and intuitive. If he is successful in Dallas and if he wins and becomes a household name, he stands to earn much more money, both on his next contract and outside of football, then if he goes for the whole ball of wax (which by the way is no guarantee) IMO. There is some logic in settling for less then the 25/30 million, whatever the number is.

I don't see "take one for the team" making sense for a single player. The few millions he gives up doesn't markedly change the team's chances.

But with *multiple* high priced players all needing contracts soon, if they can get everyone to sign on for the hair cut, then it's viable.

Dak, Zeke, Cooper, Lawrence, Byron, ET? Everyone takes a 17% cut, that's one more equivalent player.

But I've never heard of that happening in the nfl.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't see "take one for the team" making sense for a single player. The few millions he gives up doesn't markedly change the team's chances.

But with *multiple* high priced players all needing contracts soon, if they can get everyone to sign on for the hair cut, then it's viable.

Dak, Zeke, Cooper, Lawrence, Byron, ET? Everyone takes a 17% cut, that's one more equivalent player.

But I've never heard of that happening in the nfl.

I don't see it as, "Take one for the team". For example, if he invests in his success long term and takes a little less money here, he can make a lot more over the entirety of his career, if successful. I don't see it as a raw-raw thing, necessarily. As you know, we have a lot of guys that want contracts and all of them want to get paid. I think it's a sort of long term investment to consider a contract of 18 to 20 mil with a long term contract now, win a championship possibly, rather then hold out for a bigger contract and maybe fail or worse yet, find out that nobody is going to pay you what you and your agent thing you are worth.

I mean, you are right on the money, there is risk there but I think the risk is lower this way, then then the other way. I am actually skeptical that teams might line up to pay Dak 25 to 30 on a long term deal. That's just me.

 

[JPostSam]

First I'm TOTALLY opposed to a socialistic type league where the league sets limits on how much a player can make. We live in a free enterprise capitalism society. Right now the league minimum is based on vested years and that's how it should be so a player with 5 or 6 years in makes more than a rookie as it should be. Also there's a rookie wage scale that basically is the first player taken in the draft sets the top dollar and there's a formula that determines the most that can be offered and then all picks after the first pick's contract get smaller until the last player drafter makes the rookie minimum if he makes the team. The rookie salaries are slotted. The days of a rookie making a huge contract larger than many vets is gone.

Since the cap started it's been up to the teams to manage their money. Some have done better than others but no team had to start out with all the dead money the Cowboys had to and that's why it's taken until this past season for them to get out of cap he11.
.

you don’t like a “socialist” system that caps a player’s income... but you’re okay with a team-wide cap?

er, okay.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

you don’t like a “socialist” system that caps a player’s income... but you’re okay with a team-wide cap?

er, okay.

I actually like it in the old days, before there was a cap. Unfortunately, those days are gone for ever.....

Sigh......

 

[gjkoeppen]

QB's should be paid according to tiered performance level, according to wins,losses, and stats. But a QB tier that is based on performance would work for me. At some point the asinine money that QB;s get has to top out somewhere soon because its a team killer and bad for the game. Look at Kirk Cousins' deal. They actually went backwards with him at the helm.Case Keenum fit that system and performed better than him the year before.

The system now basically pays QB based on their "tier" by their stats. There's always going to be some that get more than what they should just like there are college QB's that were really good in college but turned out to be busts in the NFL. No system is going to be 100% fool proof or 100% fair to ALL players. I'll take a free market capitalistic system over any socialistic system every day and twice on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays..

 

[gjkoeppen]

its headed that way is the point if it doesnt get stopped..4 players make way too much and it inhibits the building of team and its getting worse..

If you're talking about the Cowboys, just which 4 are you referring to? The Cowboys had 2 whole players that made 10 mil or more for 2018, Smith at 10 mil and Lawrence at 17 mil. The next highest was 7 mil for Lee. Maybe you need to actually look at actual salaries instead of your way off base guesses.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

you don’t like a “socialist” system that caps a player’s income... but you’re okay with a team-wide cap?

er, okay.

I never said I liked the current cap. I only explained why and how it started and why they continue with it. If you're asking, I've been against the cap from the get go. If an owner can't afford to keep up with the Jones's, Kraft's, and Allen's then they need to sell their team to someone that can and stop not allowing those who created a vast wealth to use it on the teams they bought. Even after the cap a man that in normal situations would have been considered set for life having 12 million dollars but couldn't keep up and eventually had to sell his team, Art Model and the Browns. There are no guarantees if you start or buy a business that it will succeed and/or make a lot of money but the NFL with their cap is trying to do that. It should be either they can make it or they can't and if they can't sell the term to someone who can. The only rule I'd make on buying an existing team is once they buy it they can not move the team for a10 year period as to not screw the fans and/or the local economy.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I don't see it as, "Take one for the team". For example, if he invests in his success long term and takes a little less money here, he can make a lot more over the entirety of his career, if successful. I don't see it as a raw-raw thing, necessarily. As you know, we have a lot of guys that want contracts and all of them want to get paid. I think it's a sort of long term investment to consider a contract of 18 to 20 mil with a long term contract now, win a championship possibly, rather then hold out for a bigger contract and maybe fail or worse yet, find out that nobody is going to pay you what you and your agent thing you are worth.

I mean, you are right on the money, there is risk there but I think the risk is lower this way, then then the other way. I am actually skeptical that teams might line up to pay Dak 25 to 30 on a long term deal. That's just me.

The problem many of the players see with signing a long term contract of 4 or 5 years over a 1,2 or 3 year deal is many times the players never see that 4th or 5th year because of the salary. Then they sometimes have to sign a 1 year prove it contract. I've said this several times now, Prescott is smart and he knows the Cowboys would never sign him to a 25 or 30 mil a year contract. Right now the 2 highest per year salaries are 33 mil for Rodgers and 30 Mil for Ryan and both Prescott and the Cowboys know he isn't going to get a contract tied for the 2nd biggest contract per year based on just 2 playoff wins, no NFC championships and no Super Bowl appearances.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The problem many of the players see with signing a long term contract of 4 or 5 years over a 1,2 or 3 year deal is many times the players never see that 4th or 5th year because of the salary. Then they sometimes have to sign a 1 year prove it contract. I've said this several times now, Prescott is smart and he knows the Cowboys would never sign him to a 25 or 30 mil a year contract. Right now the 2 highest per year salaries are 33 mil for Rodgers and 30 Mil for Ryan and both Prescott and the Cowboys know he isn't going to get a contract tied for the 2nd biggest contract per year based on just 2 playoff wins, no NFC championships and no Super Bowl appearances.
.

Actually, QBs contracts are usually not 3 or 4 year deal with outs. Actually, big time QB deals are more like 5 or 6 year deals with option years so it's not like other players or other deals. It's much more guaranteed money and for much longer. Normal contract rules do not apply to these deals.

I do hope Prescott is smart and I've said this all along, I hope both sides are smart and realize the situation here.

 

[Rayman70]

The system now basically pays QB based on their "tier" by their stats. There's always going to be some that get more than what they should just like there are college QB's that were really good in college but turned out to be busts in the NFL. No system is going to be 100% fool proof or 100% fair to ALL players. I'll take a free market capitalistic system over any socialistic system every day and twice on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays..

I agree on that last sentence 100%...BUT see, that's not what I am talking about. My stance is, at what point is the nonsensical astronomical amount of money teams shell out for a QB gonna cap out at? You don't think this is bad for teams going forward? Call it whatever you wish...socialist or whatever, I call it a common sense question we need to be asking and solving.

 

[DFWJC]

The system now basically pays QB based on their "tier" by their stats. There's always going to be some that get more than what they should just like there are college QB's that were really good in college but turned out to be busts in the NFL. No system is going to be 100% fool proof or 100% fair to ALL players. I'll take a free market capitalistic system over any socialistic system every day and twice on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesday, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays..

Sure
But a free and pure capitalistic system (something that rarely really exists) would mean no salary caps at all.
The cap changes things considerably

 

[gjkoeppen]

I agree on that last sentence 100%...BUT see, that's not what I am talking about. My stance is, at what point is the nonsensical astronomical amount of money teams shell out for a QB gonna cap out at? You don't think this is bad for teams going forward? Call it whatever you wish...socialist or whatever, I call it a common sense question we need to be asking and solving.

The QB salaries will eventually level off and start a slight downward trend when the owners realize they can't maintain a winning roster with the QB getting those huge contracts. That type of correction has happened in another area before. Before the NFL turned into a passing league the 2nd highest paid player was a RB and before it turned into a passing league the salaries already started to drop for most RB's because the owners realized that RB's have the shorts life span on average and they couldn't afford to tie up so much money on a position with a short life span. Now just like everything else there were a couple of exceptions, but by and large we saw RB's go from the 2nd highest salaries to a much more manageable salary. I'm not saying it will happen this year or even next year but the owners at some point they will realize that it will be in their own best interests to get a handle on QB's contracts. Now on the other hand I've always been in favor of players or anybody being able to get as much money as they possibly can. I don't want any type of cap placed on what I can earn so I'm not going to jump up and down and start to say that QB's should be able to get as much as they can.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Sure
But a free and pure capitalistic system (something that rarely really exists) would mean no salary caps at all.
The cap changes things considerably

If you look back at one of my comments here you'll see just what I think about the cap. BTW the vast majority of businesses in this country operate in a free market capitalistic environment. Prices are mostly dictated by the market. Note I didn't say all, the vast majority.
.

 

[DFWJC]

If you look back at one of my comments here you'll see just what I think about the cap. BTW the vast majority of businesses in this country operate in a free market capitalistic environment. Prices are mostly dictated by the market. Note I didn't say all, the vast majority.
.

Yes, of course. That's why I said pure...as in absolute. Not really real world.
Any regulations, restrictions, or state to state tax breaks (Texas > California for example) cause it to not be 100% absolute, but that part is actually a good thing. I you already know that

 

[Doomsday101]

The QBs aren't deciding on their own salaries. They can only get paid what the owners are willing to pay them.

It is a 2 way street, yes owners pay it but the players demand it. I just think the salary of 1 player on the team can create havoc throughout the team and believe it or not a QB success rest a lot on others around them. When 1 position can cost you valuable players on your roster it makes you wonder are they only interested in money or the overall success of their team.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Dear Fellow Fanzone Freaks--- I am so sick and tired of how much money QB's make in NFL compared

the rest of the players on a team...plus it cripples the team from being able to put quality players

at other positions....we have all heard the top 6 QB's who make the most money in NFL were not even

in the playoffs...i am so sick of it...the good teams have QB's that take less so other players can make

more and have a better team...i wish Dak would step up and say...i am only taking 15 mil a year cause

i want and need good players around me!!...but he wont...he will be a money grabber probably

what do you all think????..thanks for your views in advance

sincerely
GORICO

I've sometimes wondered if the league should make a per-position salary cap, but I'm not even sure if it would be legal in the free market.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Yes, of course. That's why I said pure...as in absolute. Not really real world.
Any regulations, restrictions, or state to state tax breaks (Texas > California for example) cause it to not be 100% absolute, but that part is actually a good thing. I you already know that

The are only 2 things that are 100% absolutely true in this world. First you are born, second at some point you die. Well at this time in this country there are also a couple of other 100% certainties. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. To take a line from a movie, water is wet, sky is blue and old Satan is out there to get us. From Bruce Willis in The Last Boy Scout.
.

 

[millennial_legend]

First I seriously doubt you even understand why and how the cap started and is now. It started so the 2 or 3 super wealthy owners couldn't buy up all the talent like Jones did prior to the cap. The Cowboys paid backups starting type pay and had an unbelievable depth at just about every position. So the cap was started to make it an even playing field for all teams. Unfortunately for the Cowboys with the payroll they had they had to let a lot of players go and were in cap he11 in dead money from the start until this year. They continue the cap to try and keep the field level. They don't do it for socialistic reasons. Every team has the power to negotiate contracts they wish to and I'll bet that at some point in the next few years they will stop the excessive contracts for QB's on there own without any player caps. I TOTALLY against socialism and fully support the free enterprise capitalistic society.
.

The salary cap is the same concept as marxism/high taxes/income redistribution, so it's really one or the other

 

[millennial_legend]

High income tax rates are what cements a wealthy aristocracy in place. It protects them from competition from those who work for a living.

If you want to attack concentrations of wealth, tax wealth, not income. The wealthy don't realize income on their wealth, they roll over their capital gains into accumulating asset value.

The political "fight" over raising income taxes to tax the wealthy is a heads they win, tails you lose shell game of the ruling class, to keep the tax argument focused on income instead of wealth.

Problem with taxing wealth is, then you'd have big brother peering into all our bank accounts... do you really want that? Besides, the wealthy would find a way to store all their money in Panama or Switzerland or something.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Problem with taxing wealth is, then you'd have big brother peering into all our bank accounts... do you really want that? Besides, the wealthy would find a way to store all their money in Panama or Switzerland or something.

I expect Big Brother is already up to his eyeballs in your bank accounts.

Offshoring of assets is a big issue, as are the shell games of companies like Google offshoring their profits in tax havens.

But notice that Switzerland has a wealth tax itself. Big money isn't in a pile in banks, it's in ownership of businesses.