The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

As a fan...What would you like to see in the New Collective Bargaining agreement between the NFL players,and owners?

I have a strange one....It'll never happen,but I like the idea of it....

Instead of having different tags,different levels of free agency (exclusive rights free agent, Transition tag,Franchise tag,restricted free agents).I'd rather take the transition tag,and exclusive rights free agent away,and offer a compensation incentive to stay with that team.I could see coaches,and general managers liking this,and it being more for those middle of the road/development guys.

The tag would be applied to guy not a 1st round pick,but drafted by the team,or with the team for at least 4 years.... Guaranteed 1 million dollar bonus (just a random number),if the player re signs at least a 2 year contract with his team,paid by the league....Not every team would have one of these tags every year,so it wouldn't be ungodly cost to the league.The player would only be eligible for the bonus if he resigns with the team.The bonus isn't counted against the cap,which helps the team.

I think you could restrict the hell out of it,but I like the idea of the system being compensation/incentive based...Rather than the team controlled (the thinking behind the idea...)

I could get behind any sort of mechanism that would promote having players stay with a team for longer periods of time...whether it's bonus-based or otherwise.

I'm really looking forward to the rookie cap...think that is way overdue.

Bottom line...I just want both sides to get their collective shit together and get the players back out on the field, so they can bash and slam each other for my general amusement and fantasy glory.

I want to see one salary period. All raises are incentive based upon performance of both individuals and the team record.

I'd like to see something like a Larry Bird exception; some cap flexibility that allows a team to spend over the cap when it comes to re-signing their own players.

Like Stroke and Spider-Dan, I want to see some cap flexibility that allows teams to keep veterans in the last few years of their careers when the minimum veterans salary becomes a burden to the team and they end up cutting them.  I also like the idea of the rookie wage scale that only gives the massive contracts to players that prove themselves.  The current system is so completely unfair, I'm surprised it's taken this long to address it.

[mod edit: accidentally clicked Modify instead of Quote]

Get rid of the "franchise tag".

1) It's un-american on every level

2) If you want the Union and players to take any sort of "cut" in these times where the NFL is making money hand over fist, then you MUST let the players, ALL PLAYERS, shop themselves around on the open market when their contracts expire. Not be a slave for life to the team that drafted them on some rainy day in April.

Slaves get multi-million dollar contracts?

Franchise tags lock a player in for life?

Would a reasonable person consider both of those statements as blatant exaggerations to support your position?


(Answer key: No, No, Yes)

I agree with the masses.  After X amount of seasons, only Y amount of total salary counts towards the cap.  The larger X is, the smaller Y is.

Um, I don't think that's been a problem for any team.  It's not that teams are unable to pay a player the veteran minimum; it's that accepting such a contract would be a slap in the face to the player, particularly when they could get a great deal more on the market.

In the NBA, I strongly doubt any team has ever used their Larry Bird exception to sign a player for the veteran's minimum.  That's simply not the purpose of the rule.  The purpose of the rule is to allow you to keep your homegrown players, while paying them (approximately) market value.  No team is realistically going to go over the cap because of minimum-salary contracts.

Franchise tags lock a player in the years he has the most earning power. Then throw him to the curb the years he has his least earning power!! YES, its unfair! It hurts the players earning power. If the owners want the players to give stuff up, the owners must give as well. This will be something the players WILL go to the mat over!  No other sport has it and there is a reason for it! It's unfair on every level.

So you want a soft cap.

ha ha ha. Come out of la la land and back to reality son.

Try selling that theory to the Jacksonville, Green Bay, Cincy, Buffalo,...etc and all the small market teams who are complaining about not being able to compete in a HARD CAP system where money is divided evenly. Now a soft cap which will let the big market teams go crazy to a higher level will destroy the small market teams even more!!

If you proposed that idea to Jerry Richardson he might have another heart attack on the spot!!

I wasn't arguing the fairness of the franchise tag system, I was simply highlighting your misuse of the terms "slaves" and "for life" as part of my ongoing altruistic attempts to break your addiction to using exaggerations and hyperbole when trying to convince people that your opinion is the only legitimate opinion to have.

Speaking of addictions, I'm late for my Run-On Sentence Abusers Anonymous meeting...

I don't see a problem with the franchise tag. It doesn't really prevent the player being paid top dollar as the team has to offer him a contract based on the top 5 salaries of other players of that position if it's exclusive. a non-exclusive tag allows them to shop around and be given offers that the home team must match in order to keep them. while they may not get the highest amount some other team might pay them, they're still going to get paid along the lines of the other top paid players of their position.

But it forces a player to stay in a city he might not want to stay in. After so many years a player should be able to leave. Every other sport lets that happen, the NFL doesn't.

Think Lebron would have been happy if the Cavs could have franchise tagged him? How about the Raptors with Bosh? Or AROD in Seattle back in the day? Of course not. They served their time, then they bolted for big money and to play in a place they wanted to be

No.  You would only be able to sign your own, homegrown players for a reduced cap hit.  Free agents would still be the full hit.  The idea is that guys at the tail end of their career don't have to switch teams to get fair market value.

Isn't a soft cap one that just allows for instances which a team can go over? It sounds to me like you do want a soft cap, with only one loophole.

No, I want a hard cap, with one loop-hole.

A soft cap is a cap that limits what you can spend, without penalty.  You can go over the cap all you want, but there are financial penalties.

A hard cap means that you can't sign players to your roster, above a certain amount.  I favor this version, but one that allows for a break if you're trying to re-sign one of your legacy players.  It's not just a decreased cap-hit for veteran players.  It's a decreased cap hit only for veteran players that are re-signing with their team.

A hard cap means you cannot exceed the salary cap for any reason. A soft cap is one with propvisions that would allow a team to exceed it. You are in favor of a soft cap with your rule exception. Just because you only favor one exception doesn't mean it is still a hard cap. The hard cap has no exceptions.

^ I don't think that's how it works, though I'm not sure.

A hard cap means no exceptions, like you said.  This would also have no exceptions.  All money in a contract doesn't go to the cap (you have things like signing bonuses and all that.)  This would just make other money not go towards the cap, based on legacy with the team.

A soft cap means that there are rules that you are ALLOWED to break, if you choose to take the penalty (usually means paying the other teams).
A hard cap means that there are rules that you can't break.

What I'm proposing is in the 2nd camp.

At least that's how I understand it.

We are just looking at it separate ways. The money they are spending in your plan still equates to salary, but you are not counting it against the cap. I'm no lawyer, but I don't know how that would fly on the legal side of things (allowing it for this but not for that kind of thing). I still think that would be considered a soft cap as it is salary and not things like incentives, bonuses, etc. that you are going over the limit with.

But  its still a soft cap what you proposed. Spin it anyway you want, its a soft cap.

It will never happen

And thats what makes it a soft cap.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Although everything appears to be black-and-white for you, very little about the NFL cap is. The implicit assumption that teams cannot exceed the cap for any reason under the current (former CBA) system in the NFL is incorrect. Salaries are accounted for in many different ways and it's not uncommon for teams to wind up over the cap. The standard punishment for this is a corresponding reduction in the following year's cap. If a team *knows* it's over the cap, it cannot sign new players (but it may not know that it is).

Additionally, even if a team is over (or at) the cap, there are still charges that can occur over which the team has little influence. One example of the latter is if a player meets the (performance) criteria for voiding one or more seasons of his contract. In that situation, any pro-rated money is immediately accelerated and counted against the current cap. The issue is muddied further with different rules for acceleration (specifically avoiding it by retaining the player in the voided years with an extension or new contract) depending on whether the performance criteria were deemed "likely to be earned" (LTBE) or not (NLTBE). Note furthermore that these designations have strict definitions bearing little relationship to the actual likelihood of the criteria being met.

I would like to see a percentage of each teams' revenues allocated to a fund to pay for new stadiums, so that the taxpayers don't have to.

A HARD CAP vs SOFT CAP is as "black and white" as it gets. I'm sorry. There is no inbetween

What you just described is a SOFT CAP!!

Then I hate to break it to you, MikeO: The NFL has had a SOFT CAP for years and years, by your very own definition.

So what does that make your argument that Dave's proposed change would never happen because it's a soft cap?

While teams do go over the cap, to my knowledge that has always happened before the cap deadline hits. Once that deadline is reached they must have made the adjustments to comply. So technically it does happen, but I don't know of it being very common. Also the punishment can be much higher than just adjusting next year's cap. It can include loss of draft picks, cancellation of existing contacts, fines, etc. While there is a gray area, it is pretty black and white once the deadline comes, you have to be under the cap without excuses.

The "voided years" issue happens regularly and is not considered "cheating". There's a simple "penalty" for going over in that manner (lowered cap the following year).

Another very common one is incentives for e.g. winning the Super Bowl. If you look at the total salaries for teams that win the Super Bowl, they are often quite high compared to other teams. Part of this is NLTBE incentive bonuses with the criteria being "winning the Super Bowl".

Now, there's a big difference between these issues and purposefully going over the limit during the season. Those instances should be caught by the NFL, as all contracts are subject to league approval, but contracts being contracts, sometimes teams manage shady things. Such underhanded dealings will result in the penalties you describe (the 49ers, for instance, were fined for just such an offense in 2000, in addition to forfeiture of a 3rd and a 5th round draft pick the following seasons).

These rules, and much more, is covered on any one of the numerous sites around the web dedicated to "capology". Ask The Commish is a good team-neutral one. A good place to start would be their FAQ: http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

EDIT: Just to nitpick... there is no "deadline". The salary cap is (was) ALWAYS applicable. All contracts subject to league approval. If e.g. cutting a player gets you over the cap, you have 7 days to get it back under. In the meantime, you cannot sign anyone.

Thanks for the links. There is a period during the offseason where these teams do not completely fall under the salary cap. They have signed vet free agents, have their own talent under contract, have been at the draft, and signed UDFAs. The salary cap only counts against the top portion of the team (somewhere around the number included on the active roster). So technically they are still complying.

I don't know if its CBA related but I'd like to see these monopolist agreements with other companies go away.  Like the agreement with Reebok to make jerseys and other gear, or the agreement with EA to make Madden.  I think these are, in general, bad for the consumer, and make it bad for the economy in the long run. 

Arguing what is and what isn't a hard cap seems like stupid semantics.  That said, I still think I'm right.

A hard cap can have exceptions.  The NFL has a hard cap with exceptions right now.

A soft cap means that you can break the cap if you want, but it costs you.

Is that not the case?

That is the basis for the argument,. During the season the NFL does not have exceptions (unless you are counting bonuses which are spread over several years which I am not), that is why it is a hard cap. Each season each team has to be at a certain level. A soft cap means there are exceptions that would allow going over during the season. I don't think the "it costs you" part has anything with if it is a soft or hard cap. The difference between the two is one has exceptions and the other doesn't.

No it doesn't.

BINGO! Someone gets it

You said it, not I. I was simply using your definition and tying that directly to a subsequent post of yours.

As for Phisfan's comment and your "BINGO!" reply... someone may well "get it", but that someone doesn't appear to be you.

Incentive bonuses can most certainly be reached DURING the season (most, in fact, are) and thus it's easily possible for a team to go over the cap during the season. That, by your definition, is a soft cap.

I disagree with your definition, but that's another matter. Try looking "hard cap" up in reputable sources... you'll see the definitions are hardly as black-and-white as you portray them.

They classify these bonuses as likely to be earned and not likely to be earned though. The likely to be earned incentives are already counted against your salary cap. That only leaves the unlikely to be earned ones not counting against the cap. Since all of the incentives that are likely to be earned already count against your cap, how can you argue that this sole item is the cause for teams going over the cap regularly (which I'm not conviced is accurate)?

There are two separate issues here:

1) The definitions of LTBE and NLTBE are only loosely related to the actual likelihood of the incentive criteria being met. For example, if the Dolphins has decided to give a player a bonus based on the Dolphins winning 2 or more games after the 1-15 season, that bonus would be considered NOT likely to be earned.

2) The issue of "voided years", which I brought up earlier, isn't covered by these rules. Regardless of whether the criteria for voided years are deemed LTBE or NLTBE, any remaining pro-rated bonus money is immediately charged to the teams salary cap. In the event that this amount pushes the team over the cap, that amount is deducted from next years cap, allowing the team to break the cap in one year, while taking a hit in another. The bonus classification only affects the hit the team takes if the player is actually on the roster at a later date, despite the voided years.

Issue number 2, specifically, was what got MikeO in trouble with his definition of a soft cap.

^^ I didn't get in trouble with anything. You clearly don't know the difference between a hard cap and a soft cap and your ramblings make that clear.

Trying to classify the NFL as a soft cap is just flat out 100% incorrect. It's a hard cap. You think roster bonuses being pushed off till next year makes it soft. NO, that is when roster bonuses are due. THat doesn't make the cap soft in any way. It just means when they are due, you must have your cap adjusted to fit such player under.

The problem, MikeO, is that the NFL doesn't fall into your strict definition of a hard cap.  So, either the NFL isn't a hard cap (which it is) or your hard and fast definition of a hard cap is too strict (which it is.)

MikeO, if the NFL had a "hard cap" (as you define it), you would not be allowed to violate it for any reason, right?

In 2009, the NFL salary cap was ~$128 million (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4169590), yet NYG's payroll was ~$137 million (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009).  How?  Because the Giants used a salary cap loophole (http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2009/01/with_help_of_loophole_giants_c.html) to create more space under the cap.  This means that one of two things is true:

1) the NFL does not have a "hard cap" (as you defined it)
2) a "hard cap" can still have exceptions and loopholes (which you dispute)

To be perfectly clear, the key sentence to take away from the "loophole" article I cited (emphasis added):

"According to NFLPA records, the Giants recently exercised a common practice used by many teams to create more salary-cap room for the upcoming season."

So which is it?  Does the NFL have a "hard cap," or not?

^^^ Thanks for providing some links, but your loophole article doesn't support your 2009 salary cap. That loophole was for a way for them to increase their 2010 cap, it had nothing to do with where they stood in 2009. I don't count finding a loophole that allows you to increase the salary cap as actually being a way of going over the cap. Perhaps they employed a very similar technique in 2008 and increased their cap space for 2009? The article does say it is a common practice. As a matter of fact that is a January 2009 article which mentions they are under the cap by $7.2M at that point. That leads me to believe the either used that loophole for 2009 or your USA Today link has bad information.

Phishfan, the 2008-09 NFL season ended in January 2009.  An article written in January 2009 that talks about "next season" is, therefore, referring to the 2009-10 NFL season, which started in September 2009.  This is corroborated by the fact that the Giants exceeded the "hard cap" in the 2009-10 season.   Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to use a loophole to make space in the 2010 cap... when the 2010 season had no cap.

As for your opinion that a loophole that allows you to increase the cap doesn't count... isn't that the entire point of this tangent?  Dave said he wanted a hard cap with a loophole, and people started screaming that a hard cap cannot have loopholes.  So which is it?

Makes sense. Since the Super Bowl wasn't until February I was reading it as the current season still. Besides, was the uncapped year a reality at that point? I know it had been talk, but wasn't sure when it went from talk to reality.

As for the loophole and hard versus soft caps. I bow out by saying that technically, the Giants did not go over their salary cap because it had been increased so I still win :P (please take in jest)

As soon as you allow all sorts of "accounting practices" to shuffle around salary to count as cap in different years, it's not black-and-white anymore, IMHO. And when you allow for a "whoops, we went over the cap, so we'll just take the amount we went over and move that to next year" with regards to voided years, it certainly pushes the definition of "hard cap" into the gray area.

Just FYI, here's a graph of ACTUAL TEAM PAYROLLS (money paid to players). The gray lines indicate the salary cap and salary floor, just for comparison.

(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/fyodor_/salaries.jpg)

Yeah, not the prettiest graph ever...

A few of interesting notes:

-> 2009 payouts were really low, which would seem to indicate that either teams really were struggling financially or, more likely IMHO, that they were dumping payouts into the uncapped 2010 season.

-> Even a 3 or 5-year moving average doesn't get individual team payouts in line with the salary cap.

-> Over the 10-year period, the low 2009 manages to get total payouts from everyone but the Redskins and Saints in under the total cap over the 10-year time frame.

-> The Redskins spent about $120M more than the Chiefs during this period (which, coincidentally, matches Snyder's ownership quite well).

-> The Chargers and Bills are the only two teams not to pay out more money in any year than the salary cap.

-> The Cardinals and Bears are the only two teams not to pay out less money in any year than the salary floor.