PDA

View Full Version : Salary Cap? Money well spent, or wasted?


J-Mike88
09-21-2010, 10:50 AM
Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com ran the team-by-team salary-cap figures on his site Sunday.

The interesting thing to me is that the last 2 teams on the list -- Tampa Bay ($80.8 million) & Kansas City ($84.5 million) -- are 2-0, & 2 of the 4 highest-paying teams -- Dallas ($166.5 million) and Minnesota ($143.4 million) are 0-2.

Of course, those records will change. But still, very interesting.

Addict
09-21-2010, 10:58 AM
I guess it's the veterans on both teams that take up a lot of cash. KC and Tampa are two overachieving and young teams. I'm not that surprised.

yourfavestoner
09-21-2010, 11:07 AM
I wrote this in another thread:

That's why I don't think the cap/floor is necessary. Football rosters are so much larger than baseball ones, it'd be impossible for a team to completely outspend all the others like the Yankees do in baseball.

Plus, the cap floor hurts small market teams more than it helps them.

The intent of the salary cap wasn't to level the playing field, it was to curb player salaries from rising astronomically. And it failed in that purpose, since salaries rose to ridiculous levels anyways.

It's not necessary, and football can live on without it. Parity in the league exists due to how good your QB is, and the rotating strength of schedules, not how much money you spend/don't spend.

The salary cap system was inherently broken. People are just scared of losing it because they thought that it created parity. The salary cap/floor wasn't implemented to create parity, it was created in order to curb player salaries. And it failed magnificently in that regard.

Parity exists in the NFL because of quarterbacks and schedules. There are more people playing football than ever before. Guys from small schools are getting more attention and getting drafted higher than ever. There is a ton of talent in this country. It's not like baseball, where a guy has to develop for 2-3 years in the minors before even getting called up to the pros. Most guys are making an impact within two years.

J-Mike88
09-21-2010, 11:12 AM
The late 80's/90's 49ers & Cowboys beg to differ about that "salary-cap means nothing in football" theory.

yourfavestoner
09-21-2010, 11:17 AM
The late 80's/90's 49ers & Cowboys beg to differ about that "salary-cap means nothing in football" theory.

The majority of talent on both of those teams was drafted and developed on the cheap. It's not like Pitt and Dallas went out and bought up all those Hall of Famers as free agents.

J-Mike88
09-21-2010, 11:23 AM
The majority of talent on both of those teams was drafted and developed on the cheap. It's not like Pitt and Dallas went out and bought up all those Hall of Famers as free agents.
Maybe so, but super-expensive guys like Deion Sanders and Charles Haley were clear difference-makers on those championship teams for Dallas & San Francisco.

That Dallas OL would never remain in tact with a cap either, because a few of those guys could have gotten Steve Hutchinson type money from someone else but not fitting in with Dallas with a cap.

Now we have parity in the NFL.

AntoinCD
09-21-2010, 11:30 AM
Great point about how the salary cap isn't the be all and end all in making a team competitive. From the 1970s forward the best teams have been

Pittsburgh Steelers who drafted Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Greene, Jack Ham, Jack Lambert etc

San Francisco 49ers who drafted Joe Montana, Jerry Rice etc

Dallas Cowboys who drafted Troy Aikman, Emmitt smith, Michael Irvin etc

Indianapolis Colts who drafted Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Dwight Freeney, Bob Sanders etc

New England Patriots who drafted Tom Brady, Tedi Bruschi, Richard Seymour, Asante Samuel etc

These teams' best players were all drafted by the team but most importantly the QBs were put in place through the draft. Very seldom does a truely elite QB become available on the open market so if you don't draft one then your team will find it hard to win on a consistent basis, regardless of the talent around him

yourfavestoner
09-21-2010, 11:30 AM
Maybe so, but super-expensive guys like Deion Sanders and Charles Haley were clear difference-makers on those championship teams for Dallas & San Francisco.

That Dallas OL would never remain in tact with a cap either, because a few of those guys could have gotten Steve Hutchinson type money from someone else but not fitting in with Dallas with a cap.

Now we have parity in the NFL.

I think the Patriots and Steelers did a pretty damn good job this past decade of crapping all over the "dynasties can't exist in the salary cap era" theory.

It's all about the quarterback. Find a way to restrict quarterbacks from changing teams, and parity will continue to exist.

J-Mike88
09-21-2010, 11:36 AM
Looking over those teams mentioned above, and I don't think the Patriots are a dynasty by the way.

The 49ers and Cowboys were clearly the greatest teams for about an 8-year period of time, with a little bit of Washington and the NYG mixed in there here or there.

But how about some love for the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's?
Those guys made FOUR straight Super Bowls. That's incredible.

I think the Rams or Patriots... Steelers, Colts, the most we've seen since then is 2 in a row right?

yourfavestoner
09-21-2010, 11:39 AM
How can the Patriots NOT be a dynasty? Three Superbowl wins in four years, and a Superbowl loss in a season where they went 18-0.

AntoinCD
09-21-2010, 11:42 AM
Looking over those teams mentioned above, and I don't think the Patriots are a dynasty by the way.

The 49ers and Cowboys were clearly the greatest teams for about an 8-year period of time, with a little bit of Washington and the NYG mixed in there here or there.

But how about some love for the Buffalo Bills of the early 90's?
Those guys made FOUR straight Super Bowls. That's incredible.

I think the Rams or Patriots... Steelers, Colts, the most we've seen since then is 2 in a row right?

But the point that is quite easy to make here is the Patriots won the two Superbowls in a row they were in. The Steelers won two in four years. The Bills didn't actually win one.

LizardState
09-21-2010, 11:58 AM
Wonder if that would change if they counted the coaches' salaries in the cap, or just the HC's salary.................

I think the Patriots and Steelers did a pretty damn good job this past decade of crapping all over the "dynasties can't exist in the salary cap era" theory.

Clearly the difference in the recent Steelers & Patriots dynasties (if there are those in pro sports anymore) were the coaches, Cowher & Bellichick had their own unique touches to their championship teams, & they commanded big raises to some of the highest paid coaches in the league once they had established themselves as consistent winners. Same for the various Parcells-coached teams that won SBs, he did that everywhere he was HC except Dallas but he had had formidable reputation when he came out of retirement for the umpteenth time to take that job & commanded like $5M/yr. when he started.

Belichick had such huge pay raises after his successes outcoaching other coaches in NE that when he got the $1M fine for videotaping opponents' practices I'm sure he didn't lose any sleep over it. NE is famous for winning with underpaid players who overachieve & then dumping them when they are due huge bonuses, that may be changing now though with the talent draining away from NE & showing up in the W-L rcd. last yr.

If the cap means anything it keeps rich teams from buying the Lombardi Trophy, if they could Snyder & the Skins would have a trophy case full. The difference IMO is formidable HCs who can win consistently.

FlyingElvis
09-21-2010, 01:14 PM
There are too many factors that go into making a qaulity team. The salary cap seems like a totally irrelevant number at this point in the NFL. I suppose it keeps Jerry & Dan from breaking the bank on every talented player available, but that's about it.

J-Mike88
09-21-2010, 02:29 PM
There are too many factors that go into making a qaulity team. The salary cap seems like a totally irrelevant number at this point in the NFL. I suppose it keeps Jerry & Dan from breaking the bank on every talented player available, but that's about it.
That's enough right there!

Splat
09-21-2010, 02:39 PM
I don't think the Patriots are a dynasty by the way.

3 SB's in four years, if that isn't a dynasty I don't know what is.

killxswitch
09-22-2010, 11:48 AM
I hate the Pats but they definitely were a dynasty.

J-Mike88
09-22-2010, 01:03 PM
3 SB's in four years, if that isn't a dynasty I don't know what is.
I know... most think it was.
To be, dynasty is one of those words thrown out there too often, like "great" or "elite".

To me, dynasties are rare.

I think:
Lakers
Bulls with Jordan
Old school Edmonton Oilers
Old school NY Islanders

The Braves of the 90's were damn close, but they didn't win the WS enough, just once.
That might be part of my complained about the Patriots that keeps them on the fence for me. I, wrong or right, feel like if they had Scott Norwood or Nate Kaeding kicking for them, they would have not won any of those Super Bowls. Or if they had a ref that didn't give them the BS tuck-rule.

They had to rely on their kicker for all that, and to me, that's not dominance.

Also, they didn't sustain dominance other than the 2007 season, ironically in a season they didn't win it all.

I remember the scores of Super Bowls in the 1980's and 90's, and teams like Dallas & San Francisco just crushed teams, so did the Redskins.

All the Patriots SB's were nail-biters which could go any way depending on a bad call by a ref or a kick.

That's impressive that they won them all, but I don't think the word dynasty fits. People are too generous with that word. To me, that word is special and rare.

killxswitch
09-22-2010, 01:54 PM
I agree the Pats SB wins are tainted but there are no asterisks in record books so the degree to which they won the SB doesn't matter. 3 SB wins and 4 appearances in 7 years has to be a dynasty.

Saints-Tigers
09-22-2010, 02:05 PM
It's not like it was 3 flash in the pan years either, they are elite every single year it seems.

Addict
09-22-2010, 02:46 PM
I think the lack of a cap allowed teams to keep around those elite talents they would have to let go FA at some point. Also keep in mind that in those days without free agency the market for salaries and contracts was much less explosive as it is now.

Honestly removing the cap at this point could lead to some teams really getting the shaft.

descendency
09-22-2010, 03:24 PM
I've said for a long time that baseball has more parity than a lot of people give it credit for. The 'lack of parity' comes up when dynasties play well but there are a lot of teams that just manage the market really well.

One thing SIGNIFICANTLY different from baseball and football is how late the trade deadline really comes. In baseball, it's over half the season. In football, it's well before half the season is over. It's realistic that week 6 is quite a few teams 5th game. And no team is usually ever completely down and out by week 5. A few maybe, but how many of them have assets anyone would want in a fire sale? Rarely any.

I think the salary cap just did a good job in controlling how much specialist and other 'non-important'/role players got paid by implementing the salary cap floor. I don't think the ceiling really did anything.

edit: A general rule in sports: Elite teams develop young talent. They draft well. They trade well. That's regardless of a salary cap. While some might disagree, the bulk of the reason the Patriots are in the playoffs almost every year (or at least in the hunt) is because they draft good, young players at important positions and recently, because they are loaded with good young talent. Other teams have done the same.

Brent
09-22-2010, 04:01 PM
it's the salary floor that is ******* teams, not the cap.

yourfavestoner
09-22-2010, 04:11 PM
it's the salary floor that is ******* teams, not the cap.

You can't have one without the other, though. The union would never agree to a capped salary system without insurance that teams will be forced to spend a certain amount of money.

yourfavestoner
09-22-2010, 04:22 PM
how do you plan to do that? let's say the bucs pick up QB X next year in the draft (purely for argument's sake, no comment on freeman) in the 6th round. QB X gets signed for next to nothing for 3 years, but turns out to be Tom Brady's slightly younger, slightly less evil twin brother. the bucs, like the devil rays, quickly turn into a contender. but then, X's contract expires. he wants a peyton manning contract. the bucs tell him to get ****** because the glazer's would rather keep that extra money and draft some other dude in the 6th. i mean, people came to the games before they were good, right? why waste money.

so now you've got a team that, if they continue to scout well, will be decent once every three years, then will turn over the player it needs to be competitive to whoever feels like spending the most money that year.

or, you're going to somehow compel that qb to stay with whatever team signs him for below market value (somehow, i don't see that getting past the anti-trust lawsuits).

i don't *entirely* disagree with the idea that a salary cap doesn't help anymore. and really, if the salary cap stays gone, a rookie wage scale should never be introduced, as it would prompt more players to join super teams when their original drafting team refused to pay them after their cheap contract expired.

All valid points.

No matter what, I think they're going to have to come up with something fairly new and creative. The salary cap helped create parity to a certain extent, but it failed miserably in curbing players' salaries, which was its intended purpose. They're gonna have to come up with something different, and I'm interested to see what it is.

As weird as it is to say, I'm looking forward to the CBA negotiations. I'll miss football if there's a lockout, definitely, but creating a new landscape for teams to work out of is something that intrigues me.

ShyneQuasiOG22
09-22-2010, 04:49 PM
There's valid arguments in favor of and against a salary cap/floor. Only way to find out if the cap really does create parity is to go on without it, and only time will tell if that's really going to happen. The Redskins outspend everyone almost annually, and it doesn't seem to work out well for them. Creating a championship team is about a lot more then just spending money on talent and I think the league would do just fine without a cap, unless players demands and holdouts get completely out of control.

RagingColt
09-22-2010, 11:09 PM
I hate the Pats but they definitely were a dynasty.

Agree, they won the games, the big games in a 4 year time period to qualify as a true dynasty.

descendency
09-22-2010, 11:11 PM
When you appear in 5 AFC or NFC title games in your decade (and 6 within 9 years), you are most definitely a dynasty.

J-Mike88
09-23-2010, 01:25 PM
When you appear in 5 AFC or NFC title games in your decade (and 6 within 9 years), you are most definitely a dynasty.
That's the Donovan McNabb Eagles then. Dynasty?

People throw that word around way too loosely these days.

Splat
09-23-2010, 01:30 PM
D-y-n-a-s-t-y.

http://i54.tinypic.com/or8gg4.jpg

J-Mike88
09-23-2010, 03:49 PM
D-y-n-a-s-t-y.
Even if.....
http://www.decoratingideakidrooms.com/products/wall%20art/onceuponatime.JPG

........that chapter has ended.