Should teams get cap help for cutting suspended players?

[HitStickTaylor21]

Does anyone else think a team should get an exemption from the league on the salary cap if they cut a suspended player? The commissioner is stressing the importance of good behavior from players, but teams still suffer the consequences if they part ways with them. Isn't that kinda of counteractive to what Goodell is trying to do? I saw a figure yesterday where if the Falcons cut Vick, they would get a 2007 hit of $6 million and a 2008 hit of $15 million. That could make a team hold on to a rotten apple. I know most players don't carry a hit like that, but it will still be a hit nonetheless.

So the question is this: If you were the commissioner, how would you handle this? No relief, some relief, a total exemption, etc.?

[skins4me58203]

Not really. They interviewed the guy, tested him, did backgroud checks. The team was willing to take the chance. It's their own fault.

[Ellis]

They spoke about this concerning Vick on the radio yesterday and I don't remember the rules they spoke of... but yes, in a special circumstance like this, the team is given some room to work with.

[SUSkinsFan]

I think the team should be exempt from any cap hits for the time the player is suspended by the league. If the Falcons decide to cut Vick, they would get their 6 mil in cap space back for the current season, but the next season when Vick is eligible to play again, his cap hit for that season would be placed on the team.

I don't think its fair for the league to suspend a player but the team be stuck with the cap hit when they (the team) did not suspend him. Also, someone in another post made a good point that superstar players who account for large amounts of cap space will not be able to keep their jobs simply because the team could not afford to cut them, it'll just be another way to encourage good behavior among the players.

And the argument that the team interviewed him does not hold water in my opinion. I doubt one of the questions on the questionnaire was "Have you ever been a party to dog-fighting", and even if it was I would be willing to bet Vick was smart enough to lie about it.

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

While it does seem unfair for teams to get penalized the way they do in certain suspension related situations, the long term reprecussions that would come from granting these clubs repreive is substantial.

For instance a club like Cincinnatti could continue on its thug life roster without penalty. Teams would be more willing to draft guys who were headcases in college because they know if the kid f's up they aren't hit too badly.

As for the interview process...if a team fails to do their due diligence that is there own problem. Teams are just way to happy to dole out millions for these athletes without doing proper background checks. I don't pity them one bit.

[D-Day]

Absolutely not,

If a team doesn't get cap relief for season ending injuries, sustained during practice or in the games, then why should they get relief because their players are dumbasses.

I do think the teams should get relief if a player retires though.

[AKM311]

I think if a player passes away (Korey Stringer) or retires, the team should get some relief.

I also think in this case (player is suspended for non football reasons), for whatever time the player is forced to sitout (via NFL punishment or Federal punishment) the team should get the relief for that time period.

[SonnyJ]

The only relief should come from the players returning the balance of the bonuses.

This is what a hard cap is all about - having to live with the choices that have been made. If a team pays out money - it has to account for it against the cap. Allowing loopholes opens Pandora's Box. The only exception should be for, like the NBA, re-signing your own players. I think some sort of Larry Bird rule for the NFL would improve the quality of play from the league.

But for suspensions? No way. You signed the turd, now you have to live with the consequences of that signing. As has been pointed out, if you allow an exemption for a suspension, then that actually will ENCOURAGE teams to sign thugs, not discourage it. There's no ramifications for doing so.

[D-Day]

I second the cap relief for a player passing away as well.

[Vinnick]

If a player dies. Then yes.

If the player gets himself in trouble. then no.

[SonnyJ]

I second the cap relief for a player passing away as well.

If a player dies. Then yes.

If the player gets himself in trouble. then no.

What if the player dies from being involved in something he shouldn't have been involved in? ODs on drugs, shot while in a fight, etc. Character-related stuff.

It's hard to make exceptions for this stuff.

[D-Day]

What if the player dies from being involved in something he shouldn't have been involved in? ODs on drugs, shot while in a fight, etc. Character-related stuff.

It's hard to make exceptions for this stuff.

I think something like a death should rule out the cause of the death when talking cap relief.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that if a player dies, then that team should get relief. If a player retires, I don't think they should just because it would only serve as a loop hole for teams, rather then what it was originally intended for. Teams would sign players to big contracts knowing full well that the player was going to retire and then basically, prevent other teams from signing him or manipulating the cap and basically creating huge surplus for years in which they new players were coming up for contracts.

In the case of a player being suspended by the league, I don't believe the team should get any cap relief. Part of forcing teams to value character more is making it costly for them to ingnore potential character flaws in players and just drafting them anyway (see Cincy). I think that teams should be made to face the music when they draft questionable players high. It keeps a franchise honest IMO. Besides, contracts can be drawn up to stipulate the fact that if a player gets in trouble, they must give up part of there bonus or what have you. The ability is there for a team to protect itself if they really have concerns.

[SonnyJ]

I think something like a death should rule out the cause of the death when talking cap relief.

2 players, Player A from Team X and Player B from Team Y. Two guys with big honkin' signing bonuses. Player A and B are hangin' together in the offseason and get involved in a drug deal. Things go south and the artillery comes out. Everyone's blasting away. The cops arrive on the scene and apprehend all involved. Unfortunately, both players have been shot. However, Player B pulls through, while Player A dies. Player B gets incarcerated and the league suspends him.

Two players, same scenario. Team X is "lucky", though, in that Player A dies, thus, under the death=cap relief guideline, they are off the hook. Team Y, OTOH, isn't as "fortunate" and is saddled with Player B's cap number. Doesn't seem fair to me.

For all intents and purposes, death=retirement or death=career-ending injury. That may sound cold, but the player's playing days are over in whichever scenario. Heck, if there was a death exemption, teams might start whacking cap headaches . I can just see Arthur Blank stalking Vick with a framing nailer...