dadirtbags Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I'd love it if there was no cap. Having no cap is what gave the Redskins 3 Super Bowls in the 80's. We had a rich owner who outspent every other owner in the league. We'd have the same thing all over again... I agree to a certain degree.....although, the skins in the 80's did not buy a superbowl IMO..I do agree they were able to put together a great core of guys with a championship mentality ..Cooke still paid within reason of what each player deserved depending on position and value.....with todays players I think a CAP is a good thing....guys expect the bling without the dings first...I think it would get out of hand as well..... mediocre leveled players snagging big money due to a teams needs which would increase the value of the better players....I see a no cap a big risk and a huge mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailRiggoRanger Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think I'm one of the few people that is hoping the CBA doesn't get signed b/c it's good for the Redskins. With a dozen players restructuring their contracts, we'll be fine in 2006. Snyder can spend to his heart's content in 2007. The player's union decertifies after that and no strike. If I were Snyder, there's no way I would cave into the Bidwells of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 With no CBA you would certainly hope that guys like Bidwell and Brown would sell their teams to someone like Jerry Richardson, who knows how to market a team and make money despite their smaller market size. Then there wouldn't be as much complaining about revenue sharing. It could also allow the Skins to field better teams. Unfortunately, no CBA would probably drive up ticket prices, parking and concessions even more. Comparing the NFL to the MLB is like comparing apples and oranges but the fact remains that I don't fork over money for MLB games very often because I consider them too expensive. I could see Skins ticket prices soaring to $100 a game if there were no salary cap. A lot of you would pay it but I'm not so sure I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailRiggoRanger Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 With no CBA you would certainly hope that guys like Bidwell and Brown would sell their teams to someone like Jerry Richardson, who knows how to market a team and make money despite their smaller market size. Then there wouldn't be as much complaining about revenue sharing. It could also allow the Skins to field better teams. Very well said. No CBA means get ridding of the free riders in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I agree to a certain degree.....although, the skins in the 80's did not buy a superbowl IMO..I do agree they were able to put together a great core of guys with a championship mentality ..Cooke still paid within reason of what each player deserved depending on position and value.....with todays players I think a CAP is a good thing....guys expect the bling without the dings first...I think it would get out of hand as well..... mediocre leveled players snagging big money due to a teams needs which would increase the value of the better players....I see a no cap a big risk and a huge mess. Actually with no cap owners wouldnt have to pay outragous saleries anymore Saleries of players would actually drop if the cap is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Yep, our All-Star team in 2000 really kicked some serious butt, didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timdaley73 Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Yep, our All-Star team in 2000 really kicked some serious butt, didn't they? That was pre-Gibbs II... before Dan Snyder got the right man to pick his "Redskins" type of players and lead to Victory!! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSk1nsfan Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Yea, that's it. Let's just vote against any CBA agreement so that we can turn this sport into another baseball. Whoopy! As long as we can be the "yanks" HEHEHEH JUST KIDING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSk1nsfan Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Here is an anology... You and a group of coworkers have the same job and responsibilities... getting the same pay... But, YOU on your own decide to invest and work beyond the norm to increase your household income... Would you share your WEALTH with your coworkers?!?! HECK NO!! Thats a neat way to think of it. I had not thought about it like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 That was pre-Gibbs II... before Dan Snyder got the right man to pick his "Redskins" type of players and lead to Victory!! :point2sky Which is precisely why it would never happen again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shallyshal Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I think if I was Dan Snyder, I would vote against the new CBA. It could hurt us for one year. But, 2007 will be a different story (no cap). Why give Millions and Millions to the lower market teams that don't deserve your money to be in an OK situation this year?!?!? :point2sky i think snyder wanted it because gibbs wanted it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kofeshopphilosopher Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Snyder probably would enjoy an uncapped league, as would any owner whowill do whatever it takes to make his team great. However, if there is no CBA then there will more than likely be a lockout and no football. The risk of losing some "potential" money while still profiting is far better than risking not having a business and thus no profits at all. For this I'd venture to say Snyder would like a CBA. Not to mention Gibbs wants a CBA done, and Snyder is smart now w/ whom he listens to. I think this is one very good reason, the possibilty of a lockout, but I'd say that's just one of many. Let's not forget a salary cap also helps keep a team from spending too much money on a much needed player in one particular year. Christ, even the Yankees git out bid when somebody else really, really, wanted A-rod. The cap gives Snyder some parameters to work within. I think he quite assured that when needed, he can manipulate those parameters for his benifit. Plus, there so many ways in which this could aversely affect the leauge as a whole, like this poster I'm quoting and so many posters have stated. Finally, isn't it better the devil you know, than the devil you don't? But it would have been fun without a cap. Even if it was the first sign of the Apocalypse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.