Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Does anyone else think that there should be a discount towards the salary cap when a team is resigning a player they drafted?...I mean more than just the vet's discount. I think the NFLPA and Owners should encourage team building and solid scouting and discourage the constant flux the league is in now. How about a discounted salary cap number for players with 4 or more years tenure with the same team? Things like this seem so simple to me. Am I off-base here, is there currently some structure similar to this in place? Anyone else have ideas to throw around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADF Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Does anyone else think that there should be a discount towards the salary cap when a team is resigning a player they drafted?...I mean more than just the vet's discount. I think the NFLPA and Owners should encourage team building and solid scouting and discourage the constant flux the league is in now.How about a discounted salary cap number for players with 4 or more years tenure with the same team? Things like this seem so simple to me. Am I off-base here, is there currently some structure similar to this in place? Anyone else have ideas to throw around? You know, I was thinking the same thing the other day. The player would still recieve the same amount of money but would count less on his original team's cap. And if the guy really wants to leave his team, there would be nothing stopping him. So it would work out for all sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Interesting thought. While it encourages players to stay with their teams, it could end up hurting the parity of the league because it would be harder for other teams (bad teams) to sign FA's and improve. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Parity is overrated. Rewarding a team for quality scouting and team building is not. I hate the fact that every team could win every year, thats not the way it should work. The Arizona Cardinals should never win. Their owner has never shown the commitment to his team or his fans to justify the ultimate reward, yet with Denny Green and a few FAs, they could make a Fluke run to the SB next year. Commitment and perseverence just dont exist in the NFL like they used to. Quick fixes and impatience rule the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 The Eagles would love this idea. A discount for a player they drafted who actually contributed to the team? God Banner and Lurie would jump all over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Parity is overrated. Rewarding a team for quality scouting and team building is not. I hate the fact that every team could win every year, thats not the way it should work. The Arizona Cardinals should never win. Their owner has never shown the commitment to his team or his fans to justify the ultimate reward, yet with Denny Green and a few FAs, they could make a Fluke run to the SB next year. Commitment and perseverence just dont exist in the NFL like they used to. Quick fixes and impatience rule the day. That is fine for the Redskins, but what about the fans of other teams? While 5-6 teams would be perenially good, the NFL as a whole would suffer. Nobody wants that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rydemps Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Does anyone else think that there should be a discount towards the salary cap when a team is resigning a player they drafted?...I mean more than just the vet's discount. I think the NFLPA and Owners should encourage team building and solid scouting and discourage the constant flux the league is in now.How about a discounted salary cap number for players with 4 or more years tenure with the same team? Things like this seem so simple to me. Am I off-base here, is there currently some structure similar to this in place? Anyone else have ideas to throw around? I think that is how the NBA is set up. Any free agent re-signing from your team is not counted towards the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 This has always been my biggest problem with the cap. I wish that the NFL implemented something like a Larry bird rule that made it so that players that qualify count agains the cap at a discounted rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think that is how the NBA is set up. Any free agent re-signing from your team is not counted towards the cap. Players that qualify for the bird rule DO count against the cap. The difference here is that the NBA employs a soft cap. This means that you can go over the cap for the purpose of signing some of your own players. Once over this soft cap however, it will become increasingly difficult to sign free agents since you are only allowed to use exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 That is fine for the Redskins, but what about the fans of other teams? While 5-6 teams would be perenially good, the NFL as a whole would suffer. Nobody wants that. Im not saying this in any Redskins light at all. Fact is if there was a system like this for the last 5 or 6 years, the Skins probably wouldnt be any good... I just want to see a league where you can actually not like a player and not have to worry about having to root for him the next year or vice versa. Also, I dont think its such a bad thing if there are fewer teams at the top year after year. Work hard, scout hard and you will be rewarded with a TEAM. Not a collection of free agents thrown together in two seasons. Also, I think the quality of play would be better. Close games are not always good. Maybe we would see more games like the 1st Redskins Bucs game, which, despite the result, was one of the best games I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz13 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I always thought that the longer a player is on a team, that the team should get cap relief for them. For instance: Player A stays on same team for 5 years: Contract only counts 90% against cap 8 years: Player contract counts 80% against cap. 10 years: Player contract counts 70% against cap. 12 years: Player contract counts 60% against cap. 15+ years: Player contract counts 50% against cap. This way teams will keep players longer resulting in better continuity on teams, which means better football. Also players like J. Rice for example won't have to finish their career on other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rydemps Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Players that qualify for the bird rule DO count against the cap. The difference here is that the NBA employs a soft cap. This means that you can go over the cap for the purpose of signing some of your own players. Once over this soft cap however, it will become increasingly difficult to sign free agents since you are only allowed to use exceptions. Thanks for the explaination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think you're on to something here. The part about the salary cap that really bugs me is not being able to keep players. I miss the days when we same the same basic team for years at a time. You should never have to cut a player who you want and who wants to stay just because his cap figure has escalated over the years. That **** sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Considering the Redskins are going to have something like nine home-grown players on the roster at the end of this week, how does this impact them? I love the idea of drafting, developing, and keeping talent. Unfortunately, the Redskins have not really done that for the better part of a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Actually, I like the idea. I think the NFL should have a Larry Bird Rule of some kind. Basically, I would allow each team to designate one player their "Bird Rule" and be able to resign them to a contract that does not count against the cap....or is treated as a veteran minimum salary. In other words, if Bob Kraft wants to pay Tom Brady $36 million a year, he can with no ramifications to the cap. Same with, say, Sean Taylor in five years. It would guarantee that each team has one home grown star that can play their for their entire career. The problem you would run into is if you have two young stars like Roethlisberger and Polamalu. Which one do you break the bank on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Does anyone else think that there should be a discount towards the salary cap when a team is resigning a player they drafted?...I mean more than just the vet's discount. I think the NFLPA and Owners should encourage team building and solid scouting and discourage the constant flux the league is in now.How about a discounted salary cap number for players with 4 or more years tenure with the same team? Things like this seem so simple to me. Am I off-base here, is there currently some structure similar to this in place? Anyone else have ideas to throw around? Jethro. Great post. I'm almost certain that this very issue has been brought up before and I think it should be instituted. But, it would be counter productive as far as the Redskins go because they have been one of the worst teams in regards to the draft and like to build their teams with proven commodities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Jethro. Great post. I'm almost certain that this very issue has been brought up before and I think it should be instituted. But, it would be counter productive as far as the Redskins go because they have been one of the worst teams in regards to the draft and like to build their teams with proven commodities. Ive said as much in my posts. This idea was not meant to specifically benefit the Skins in any way, merely to provide an avenue to reward teams who draft and develope well. The Skins could still build with proven commodities if they wanted, and the last two years have been a start to proving that method successful, but I have never thought that the best way to stay at the top of the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 This could be a great idea, or a horrible idea. It all depends on your perspective. Think about this, before FA ever existed, there were still dynasties in sports, and there were powerhouses. This was a direct result of great scouting, and drafting. Right now, it seems to be that players are drafted more on hype than actual ability or long term potential. An example I see, which NOBODY agrees with me on, is Reggie Bush. How is it that this guy was only the second best RB on his team and won the Heisman Trophy? I'm not saying he isn't good, I think he's incredible, I've seen the "Demo Tape". But what I have noticed, is he tries to make every play a highlight reel play, and while it's great for college ball, it doesn't cut it in the NFL. If he remains the way he is now, he will surely be another self-promoting showboater like T.O. and Meshawn. In other words, he will hurt his teams more than he helps, and it will be worse since he will be on a losing team for at least a few years, which he has never been accustomed to. Second thought.....FA is great to help worse off teams build a better team, as long as they are willing to spend the cash. The main thing FA has changed about the NFL, is players would rather go to a doormat team than a winner if the money is right. While it's good for their bank accounts, it doesn't help the team that they go to that is only willing to sign 1 big name. So basically, my personal opinion is, I think teams should be rewarded for retaining players and draftees, because it would actually be better for the teams to try and recruit quality over flashiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Side note: Reggie Bush is ridiculous. He definately wasnt the second best back on his team, thats absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Side note: Reggie Bush is ridiculous. He definately wasnt the second best back on his team, thats absurd. I was speaking in reference to the stats, and contributions to the team. In that aspect, yes, in 2005 Reggie Bush was number 2. I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating a fact. Stats don't lie, and I watched almost every game. Reggie is my favorite of the 2, and I love the guy, I'm not arguing his talent. I'm just stating that because of his 2004 performance, he got more credit than White did in 2005, even though White had 8 more TD's on less carries than Bush (White 24, Bush 16), and 4 of Bush's 16 TD's were under 5 yards, and White had only 1 under 10. As far as career stats go, Bush is better. As far as the NFL goes, I think Bush will try to hard to impress and pad his stats, and I think guys like ST will eat him when he gets up field. TD's win games, not fancy runs. Nobody has ever been known for making a 90+ yard run and coming up short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Im not saying this in any Redskins light at all. Fact is if there was a system like this for the last 5 or 6 years, the Skins probably wouldnt be any good...I just want to see a league where you can actually not like a player and not have to worry about having to root for him the next year or vice versa. Also, I dont think its such a bad thing if there are fewer teams at the top year after year. Work hard, scout hard and you will be rewarded with a TEAM. Not a collection of free agents thrown together in two seasons. Also, I think the quality of play would be better. Close games are not always good. Maybe we would see more games like the 1st Redskins Bucs game, which, despite the result, was one of the best games I have ever seen. Well it is in a Redskins light, because you said teams with committed owners should be rewarded while teams with bad owners should not. My point is that is nice for the 6 or so owners committed to winning, but it is not fair to the other NFL fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 once again: Reggie Bush was not the 2nd best RB on his team, that is absurd. White is a great player, but Bush is better. I dont care what the stats say, you can twist them to say anything you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Then again, players might start demanding more than their market value because they know that it won't have as large a cap hit on the team. This could lead to inflated prices for teams trying to keep their own draft picks. I think it's a very interesting idea, i'm just playing devil's advocate here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 How is saying that committed owners should be rewarded biased toward the Skins? I would say the same thing if I was a Cardinals fan. In fact, I am a A-Braves fan. The team is owned by a corporation that doesnt give it the commitment needed to sustain a championship caliber team. Witness the outflow of players the last 4 years. Although I would love to see them win a WS, I think they would need to get a different owner in the box to do so. Time-Warner or whatever group of shareholders that owns the corp does not deserve to win a WS more than Steinbrenner, and I hate the Yankees. If there are only 6 or so owners in the league that are committed to winning (and there are many more than that), then they are the only ones that deserve to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethrodsp Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 If a player wants to demand more than the market will bear then he can still test the market and see what he can get. But if there is a mutual attraction, then the team will be able to pay him market value and stand a better chance of affording it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.