What would you most like to see in the NEW CBA?

[bsfins]

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...)

[Sunstroke]

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.

[bsmooth]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Jim Gray]

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]

[MikeO]

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.

[Sunstroke]

Get rid of the "franchise tag".

...Not be a slave for life to the team that drafted them...

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)

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[MikeO]

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)

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.

[MikeO]

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.

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!!

[Sunstroke]

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.

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...

[SilentTJ]

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.

[MikeO]

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

[Dave Gray]

So you want a soft cap.

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.