Jump to content
SportsWrath

The NFL Nuclear Winter is upon us. THE CBA Discussion


aussiegiant
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really think we are in deep shit. The whole game could go down the toilet. Can you imagine an uncapped year?

 

Plus have you seen the rules for what happens in the next two years!!??

 

It is worse than now. The NFL has been the bench mark for creating an relatively even playing field. I can't believe they would jeopardies that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for doing away with the cap, and returning to 80s style football. That being said, an agreement will be struck soon. Upshaw is being a drama queen.

 

So what the was the situation in the 80's? There was no player movement as far as I remember.

 

How was it structured echo?

Edited by AussieGiant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salary Cap is bullshit because they can charge anything they want, but have a cap on spending.

 

Their is no ticket price cap, or TV contract cap, or Apparell price cap, with that said, it has made football alot better because their are so many teams in the running throughout the season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm not so sure about that Nats.

 

The cap did work. You had to be under by March 1st. For example the deferment that Snyder has been doing will kill that team this week. With or without the CBA extended Washington is going to be a shell of a team by this Friday it is just a question of to which degree.

 

To me it is time for a correction. Since the last CBA teams have been generating more revenue and the NFL has been generating more revenue. That needs to be put on the table, counted up and re allocated to keep in the spirit of the sharing of revenue. Some teams don't seemed to want to give that up. I can see their point but their efforts over the last 10 years should help everyone. As long as team can show they are making prefessional attempts at maximizing their revenue's then the fact that some are better placed to make money should not disadvantage the rest of league as a whole.

Edited by AussieGiant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what the was the situation in the 80's? There was no player movement as far as I remember.

 

How was it structured echo?

 

Player movement wasn't nearly as rampant because you could spend what was needed to keep players you drafted. Now, you get penalized for sound drafting by losing all your players to FA. I truly can't remember players from lower income teams being poached by rich teams. It seems everyone kept their players. Since you could keep your players, I felt the quality of games was vastly superior to what you see today (of course this was over 15 years ago so my memory could be a little faded on this topic). The championship teams from that period would absolutely decimate todays teams. It would be like pro versus college. I may be partial to that era as well because the NFC East was absolutely dominant. By having the major free spending teams like Dallas and Washington in the division, it makes the Giants a better team since they have to keep up. I'm not sure how ticket prices were affected by no cap during this period.

 

Of course, by doing this, parity would go out the window to an extent. But I look at it this way, the Steelers won a bunch of SupaBows in the 70s, with no cap. GB won 'Bows, with no cap. Free spending does not instantly make you a good team. Look at the Skins for the last decade prior to this year. Maybe a luxary tax I could live with.

 

Anyhoo, I don't really care which way this all goes. Upshaw and Tags are not as stupid as Gary Bettman, so I have no doubt an agreement will be reached. The sky is falling talk is all posturing. I simply don't get the bad vibes from this that I got pre-hockey lockout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have certainly read that the 80's was when teams had OL's together for years.

 

The teams could groom players for 5 years even, and then they would step right in and play exceptionally well in the system designed by the team.

 

Player movement was minimal. Teams had depth out the window. That would certainly be good in general. Still I am not sure how that would work now.

 

I thought there had to be an ageement in place by tomorrow? Is that right? If it is the case then it is getting fucking close dude. :)

Edited by AussieGiant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auss, not sure where we disagree.

 

a cap is fine because is helps keep everyone competititive and keeps the onus on the team not the invididuals, like NE Pats. Which i thought made for better SBs than the crap we were getting used to seeing.

 

But the cap should be adjusted EVERY year. Thsi way players and teams can immediatley benefit from the added revenue.

 

But i am not so worried, footbal is run by a bunch of republicans, players and owners, so their will be a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auss, not sure where we disagree.

 

a cap is fine because is helps keep everyone competititive and keeps the onus on the team not the invididuals, like NE Pats. Which i thought made for better SBs than the crap we were getting used to seeing.

 

But the cap should be adjusted EVERY year. Thsi way players and teams can immediatley benefit from the added revenue.

 

But i am not so worried, footbal is run by a bunch of republicans, players and owners, so their will be a deal.

 

I think you're right. We don't disagree.

 

yes the total cap should be adjusted every year as you said. That would prevent this from happening again. The cap is adjusted every year but the "new money" which was not covered by the wording was not included. There needs to be more generic wording to include all of it.

 

"But i am not so worried, footbal is run by a bunch of republicans, players and owners, so their will be a deal."

 

And that my friend, I hope is absolutely true!! Go the Republicans!!! GO YOU GOOD THING!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not how it worked.

 

 

Before free agency, you had "Plan A" players and "Plan B" players. The plan A guys were protected; you couldn't get them no matter what. But each team could only protect something like 30 players.

 

Plan B guys were essentially free agents, where other teams could make offers to them. But the team itself chose which guys were Plan A or Plan B.

 

The teams had a lot more leverage as to player salaries because the players couldn't go anywhere. Once you were with a team, if you wanted to leave and they wanted you to stay, the best you could hope for was to hold out and force a trade.

 

No salary cap WILL NOT make the game more like the 80's. It will make it more like baseball, where you pay 7 million bucks for your third string backup OG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not how it worked.

Before free agency, you had "Plan A" players and "Plan B" players. The plan A guys were protected; you couldn't get them no matter what. But each team could only protect something like 30 players.

 

Plan B guys were essentially free agents, where other teams could make offers to them. But the team itself chose which guys were Plan A or Plan B.

 

The teams had a lot more leverage as to player salaries because the players couldn't go anywhere. Once you were with a team, if you wanted to leave and they wanted you to stay, the best you could hope for was to hold out and force a trade.

 

No salary cap WILL NOT make the game more like the 80's. It will make it more like baseball, where you pay 7 million bucks for your third string backup OG.

 

 

AND THAT IS JUST WHAT I THOUGHT!!!

 

And that is why without plan A and B systems in place this game is as good as fucked!! If the cat gets out of the bag!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not how it worked.

Before free agency, you had "Plan A" players and "Plan B" players. The plan A guys were protected; you couldn't get them no matter what. But each team could only protect something like 30 players.

 

Plan B guys were essentially free agents, where other teams could make offers to them. But the team itself chose which guys were Plan A or Plan B.

 

The teams had a lot more leverage as to player salaries because the players couldn't go anywhere. Once you were with a team, if you wanted to leave and they wanted you to stay, the best you could hope for was to hold out and force a trade.

 

No salary cap WILL NOT make the game more like the 80's. It will make it more like baseball, where you pay 7 million bucks for your third string backup OG.

 

Thanks for clearing that up Seph. However, I don't think salaries would get that blown out of proportion. In the end, players will want to play, and will go wherever they get the chance. I think the big problem would come draft time. Unless the 80s version of FA was implemented, you'll have draftees demanding trades left and right to go to the team who pays them the most. Expansion over the last decade could also create a whole bunch of have nots I suppose.

 

I still like the idea of no cap. Parity has not made the game any better. Chris Mortensen said it best in a chat he just did:

 

Allen (NC): Any new news with the CBA? What are they thinking?! Isn't this really going to hurt the players? They could end up playing for less money, only the stars would get the big bucks. They lose their 401k and insurance. It sounds like the players are the one to lose everything. What are the owners going to lose?

 

Chris Mortensen: (12:15 PM ET ) Good questions..don't know if I have all the answes. But the players will only have a tighter money market this year...after this year, there will be plenty of money. Sure, big stars may get more but there will be plenty to go around...and no salary cap can work for the players. There will be another CBA at some point and that will address benefits...in the uncapped year '07 under this current agreement, owners do not make their annual contribution to most of the benefit funds but the following years will certainly be negotiated with those things in tact. Could there be a strike/lockout in '08? Sure but a deal will get done at some point. Owners will lose the safety net of cost controls but good management, scouting, coaching will still rule in this league - perhaps more than ever. That may not be a bad thing. It's not a very good league right now in terms of quality of game and the current system is a contributor to that demise.

 

which was followed up with this:

 

Clint, Ohio: Please clarify your statement: "It's not a very good league right now in terms of quality of game..."

 

Chris Mortensen: (12:20 PM ET ) The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The pereception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject.

 

I agree totally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought if an aggreement was not met the teams would have to cut payroll to get under the previous cap?

 

I think that the cap is a great thing, Who wants the NFL to become like baseball, where smaller market teams just cash it in becasue they can no longer compete with the $ the Yankees/Red Sox of the league are willing to spend.

 

Maybe the best way to dictate what the cap is, to adjust it every 5 years to follow the change in revenue that the league has been bringing in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's kind of a complicated set up and there's good arguments on both sides.

 

 

Small markets need money to compete but some of those small markets aren't neccessarily so small. If you don't do a good job fielding a competitive team and are a poor marketer than your team will probably not make a whole lot of money.

 

The Redskins make a ton of money and it's a big market but some of the credit has to go to the way the team is marketed. I can understand how owners who do a good job bringing in money would feel bitter about giving away their earnings to teams that don't make money. Especially if those teams are really poorly marketed.

 

As well, teams that just built new stadiums need to earn money to recoup their costs. There should be credit for invensting in the team and the infrastructure.

 

I don't know what the figures are exactly but it seems like the Packers seem to do alright and they are in a tiny market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the slashing begins.

 

All these players I beleive would not havebeen let go if the CBA was already redone.

 

Bronco's

 

Anderson

Pryce

Putzier

 

Bills:

 

S Adams

L Milloy

M Campbell

 

Panthers:

 

Buckner

 

There have been more cuts of course but these guys seem to have taken the bullet because of the lack of CBA renewal.

 

I hope we are in a position to take advantage of the up coming carnage. We could drop Luke and get a better and cheaper Left Tackle.

 

tick, tick, tick this bomb is going to blow us all away. I can't wait to see the carnage in Washington!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope we are in a position to take advantage of the up coming carnage. We could drop Luke and get a better and cheaper Left Tackle.

 

tick, tick, tick this bomb is going to blow us all away. I can't wait to see the carnage in Washington!!

 

We have virtually no cap room if the cap is indeed set at $94.5-$95.5 mil. As of right now, we have around $3.5 mil in cap space. That wil be going to resigning Kendrik Clancy & Chad Morton, and tendering (or exntending) David Tyree.

 

I just hope EA doesn't get stupid with Clancy's deal. if the CBA is not worked out by midnight, there will be plenty of options at DT, so EA better not give him any more than $1 mil/year.

 

Morton? Eh. I'd like to see Jamaar Taylor (if he can stay healthy) get a shot. I don't like wasting a roster spot on a KR/PR who can't play 3rd or 4th WR or 2nd 3rd string HB. I was also reading we may tender Ponder. That's just stupid, imo, if we resign Morton. It's one or the other as far as I'm concerned. You can't waste a roster spot on someone who only returns kicks.

 

Any starting holes we have, namely S, WLB, SLB, CB, will be addressed in the draft. Any FA signing will be for depth. LT will not be addressed until next year when releasing LP won't be as big a burden in dead money against the cap.

 

HOWEVER, if next year goes uncapped, and this is key and one of the reasons I wouldn't mind the cap going the way of the dodo and simply using revenue sharing, we can get out of some questionable EA signings for nothing. We could release LP, Emmons (may be gone anyway), Robbins and Toomer from their deals, and if Strahan and Tiki finally show their age, we can renegotiate or cut them. Of course, there would be no cap hit with no cap :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have virtually no cap room if the cap is indeed set at $94.5-$95.5 mil. As of right now, we have around $3.5 mil in cap space. That wil be going to resigning Kendrik Clancy & Chad Morton, and tendering (or exntending) David Tyree.

 

I just hope EA doesn't get stupid with Clancy's deal. if the CBA is not worked out by midnight, there will be plenty of options at DT, so EA better not give him any more than $1 mil/year.

 

Morton? Eh. I'd like to see Jamaar Taylor (if he can stay healthy) get a shot. I don't like wasting a roster spot on a KR/PR who can't play 3rd or 4th WR or 2nd 3rd string HB. I was also reading we may tender Ponder. That's just stupid, imo, if we resign Morton. It's one or the other as far as I'm concerned. You can't waste a roster spot on someone who only returns kicks.

 

Any starting holes we have, namely S, WLB, SLB, CB, will be addressed in the draft. Any FA signing will be for depth. LT will not be addressed until next year when releasing LP won't be as big a burden in dead money against the cap.

 

HOWEVER, if next year goes uncapped, and this is key and one of the reasons I wouldn't mind the cap going the way of the dodo and simply using revenue sharing, we can get out of some questionable EA signings for nothing. We could release LP, Emmons (may be gone anyway), Robbins and Toomer from their deals, and if Strahan and Tiki finally show their age, we can renegotiate or cut them. Of course, there would be no cap hit with no cap :)

 

 

 

It wont be great, but it will be better than 3 mill. We have alot of cuts as well. An at least one retirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wont be great, but it will be better than 3 mill. We have alot of cuts as well. An at least one retirement.

 

That's incuding the most recent cuts (Green, Whittle, Alexander & a street FA C). Alexander did not retire. He was suppose to, but then decided he wanted to play another year, hence getting cut. John Clayton over at ESPN has the up to date #s. The cap issue has been discussed in depth over at BBI. You can get an approximation at this link of the Giants cap situation. Good shit, pretty accurate, and a lot of fun seeing when it's best to cut certain players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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