Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Salary Cap discount for resigning drafted players?


Recommended Posts

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.

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.

Because the Skins have a committed owner? I'm not saying it's biased but it is something that certainly would be good for the skins and a few other teams, but not most teams in the NFL.

My point basically is this:

Teams that don't have committed owners probably are not going to build long term winners. Most likely, their only hope is a one shot deal through Free Agency. If you take that away, the teams with bad owners will never win and the fans of those teams will lose hope. This is not fair to the fans, who have no control over who owns their team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a great idea. I don't know necessarily how it would be put into practice, but I love the concept. It inspires loyalty instead of the constant search for a marginal upgrade or a cheaper replica of a current player on the team.

FWIW, I disagree with the concept that "less committed" owners will not be able to commit. Well, to be fair, I'm not really sure what is meant by the description, but I can only assume it is the owners who try to save money at the expense of the talent on the field.

From what I've seen, there are not that many owners like that. Bill Bidwell in Arizona is a prime example, but I really don't see many others in the NFL who don't care. Red McCombs was one, but he is gone. Tom Benson is probably another guy like that. The Jaguars' and 49ers' owners might be as well, but I don't know enough about their situations to say definitively.

In any case, I don't really see how this affects cheapskate owners. I am operating under the assumption that such owners won't pay boatloads for free agents anyway, so what difference does it make if big-name players don't make it to FA? If you assume that they already have mostly mediocre players due to their refusal to shell out big bucks, I don't see how there is any difference for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way you look at it, I think the fact that contracts always have cap numbers that increase dramatically towards the back end it forces a lot of players to be cut. Maybe they could make a reward system. For example, after 3 years with a team he counts 10% less than his real cap nuimber. So in year 5 he counts 80% of his true cap value, at 10 years 30%, ect. I think the league should encourage teams to hold onto players longer instead of forcing them into cutting people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...