Will the socialistic NFL salary cap keep the Seahawks from being a dynasty?

[RJKarl]

That may be the case in other sports. It's not in football. The least valuable team is worth $840M. Twenty-three teams are worth over $1B. Much of the the difference is about real estate.

AGAIN what I proposed was allowing teams to go over the cap to keep their own players. There's no reason (other than supporting bad ownership or outright socialistic mediocrity) not to support this.

 

[Kent]

Get rid of the cap, wait 5 years and the small market teams would be worth a fraction of that and the big market teams would be worth multiples of that.

I am more interested in a level playing field for (all) fans than I am redistributing wealth among millionaires and billionaires.

 

[faxmachineanthem]

This. Unless you want to turn the NFL into the Harlem Globetrotters vs the rest of us, we need a cap to (sort of) ensure that smaller market teams can compete.

You could also increase revenue sharing to level the playing field. (According to Jim Irsay, the richest franchises bring in twice as much as the poorest.) But obviously it's advantageous for the owners to use the cap instead to depress salary costs.

 

[RJKarl]

Get rid of the cap, wait 5 years and the small market teams would be worth a fraction of that and the big market teams would be worth multiples of that.

I am more interested in a level playing field for (all) fans than I am redistributing wealth among millionaires and billionaires.

Kent, not in football. Team's values are about NFL contracts, not local contracts. If no one showed up a game and there was no local TV/radio, teams would still be raking it in.

In every other sport, you'd be absolutely correct. You'd have to dramatically change the revenue sharing for your premise to be realistic.

 

[FckVwls]

Under your proposed scenario: The Seahawks would be able to sign all their current players to big FA contracts putting them way over the cap. In 3-4 years once those players aren't good anymore, the Seahawks would be in a very weak position until all those contracts cleared out and they could sign external talent again.

In real life: The Seahawks can probably retain everyone (if they wanted) by using lengthy back loaded contracts with big signing bonuses to stay under the cap next few years. In 3-4 years once those players aren't good anymore they'd have a lot of dead money on their cap and they would be in a weak position until those contracts cleared out.

I dunno, doesn't seem that different. Although I'm sure some teams would just go way over the cap and stay there and never acquire any new players except for the draft for a long time.

 

[RJKarl]

Under your proposed scenario: The Seahawks would be able to sign all their current players to big FA contracts putting them way over the cap. In 3-4 years once those players aren't good anymore, the Seahawks would be in a very weak position until all those contracts cleared out and they could sign external talent again.

In real life: The Seahawks can probably retain everyone (if they wanted) by using lengthy back loaded contracts with big signing bonuses to stay under the cap next few years. In 3-4 years once those players aren't good anymore they'd have a lot of dead money on their cap and they would be in a weak position until those contracts cleared out.

I dunno, doesn't seem that different. Although I'm sure some teams would just go way over the cap and stay there and never acquire any new players except for the draft for a long time.

In the NFL, you can get cut at almost any time. They wouldn't be in a weak position.

 

[ThinkingWithMyDeac]

In the NFL, you can get cut at almost any time. They wouldn't be in a weak position.

Players salaries for their contracts count against the cap even if they are cut, sometimes more so if they are cut. You think the Jets liked paying Mark Sanchez 10 million to sit on the bench, no its because it was better than the 12 million cap hit for not sitting on the bench. Patriots have a 7.5 million cap hit for Aaron Hernandez for next season, I don't think he is seeing the field anytime soon. Its like you have this idea but actually haven't looked at how things work now.

 

[FckVwls]

In the NFL, you can get cut at almost any time. They wouldn't be in a weak position.

I suppose that is true. That if there was no thought of the salary cap you could just give a player a $32 million dollar salary guaranteed in year 1 (instead of a signing bonus) to convince a star to re-sign with you instead of the way guaranteed money with singing bonuses are handled across the league now. I didn't think of that.

My point still stands, though. The Seahawks could keep everyone for a few years if the wanted if they work the cap and sacrifice their future flexibility.

 

[qcdeac]

I think players should be free to go to whatever team they want to go to as professionals.

Damn impressive that you remain a Mariner fan.

Team's values are about NFL contracts, not local contracts. If no one showed up a game and there was no local TV/radio, teams would still be raking it in.

Hyperbole much? A franchise with no one showing up for games would end up relocating to your beloved LA or somewhere else. Now the reason rj sharted this thread makes sense. Yes, I am intentionally keeping that typo.

 

[FckVwls]

Example: Star player X is a FA. He warrants 12 million/yr on open market. Structure a contract for 8 years, 96 million with 40 mil gtd signing bonus. Structure annual salaries at 2,2,2,2,12,12,12,12. He is getting paid $12 million/yr the first 4 years (just got paid it up front on that bonus).

First four years cap hit = only $7 million. Do that a bunch of times for your stars. It might be a mess in 4 years but they can keep the band together if they wanted.

 

[FckVwls]

Players salaries for their contracts count against the cap even if they are cut, sometimes more so if they are cut. You think the Jets liked paying Mark Sanchez 10 million to sit on the bench, no its because it was better than the 12 million cap hit for not sitting on the bench. Patriots have a 7.5 million cap hit for Aaron Hernandez for next season, I don't think he is seeing the field anytime soon. Its like you have this idea but actually haven't looked at how things work now.

You are 100% correct about real life. But in RJ's dream world with no cap teams could just give their FA's 40 million dollar year one salaries fully guaranteed so all that money would go against their year 1 cap. So when they wanted to cut them in a few years they wouldn't have any dead money.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Good management is not hindered by a salary cap. Managing your roster and budget is what it is. There is a ceiling somewhere cap or resource limitations. Good management stays under that ceiling. A huge part of the value of NFL franchises is determined by the parity in the league. Messing that up would be a Pandora's box.

 

[qcdeac]

You are 100% correct about real life. But in RJ's dream world with no cap teams could just give their FA's 40 million dollar year one salaries fully guaranteed so all that money would go against their year 1 cap. So when they wanted to cut them in a few years they wouldn't have any dead money.

NEW YORK -- For the fourth time in five years, the Super Bowl has set a record for the most-watched television event in U.S. history, drawing 111.5 million viewers even though the Seattle Seahawks' 43-8 victory over the Denver Broncos wasn't really competitive.

Clearly the NFL is broken and rj is just the man to fix it.

 

[RJKarl]

I never said it was broken I said it is unfair.

Since you want it about me, I guess you are a champion of the mediocre and inept. That's who you protect.

 

[qcdeac]

Yep, those mediocre and inept billionaire owners.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I never said it was broken I said it is unfair.

Since you want it about me, I guess you are a champion of the mediocre and inept. That's who you protect.

5 years ago, Seattle was mediocre and inept.

 

[WFU Lurker]

There are elements of the NFL that aren't fair, but, much like college sports, the vast majority of participants benefit greatly from the system, including those that perhaps don't receive entirely fair treatment, and the system is dependent on some "injustice".

 

[RJKarl]

5 years ago, Seattle was mediocre and inept.

and they didn't deserve to be protected from the Rams or other teams.

You guys are amazing. Free markets....keep the government out...but let the NFL be a socialistic dictatorship to protect idiot owners.

 

[RacerDeac]

and they didn't deserve to be protected from the Rams or other teams.

You guys are amazing. Free markets....keep the government out...but let the NFL be a socialistic dictatorship to protect idiot owners.

You keep bringing up the government, and yet it has nothing to do with this at all. The salary cap is similar to some aspects of a socialist economic system, but this is not an economic system. There are many, many practices that make sense and work in the private sector that have no place being instituted and forced upon people by government. There is absolutely nothing ironic or hypocritical about supporting a salary cap in the NFL while at the same time supporting a free/capitalistic national economic system. Try again.

Most importantly, NFL owners are free to participate in your supposed "socialist" system, quit or start their own league. That's not socialism. That's freedom.

 

[Deacfreak07]

and they didn't deserve to be protected from the Rams or other teams.

You guys are amazing. Free markets....keep the government out...but let the NFL be a socialistic dictatorship to protect idiot owners.

I'm a commielib. Idiotic ownership is idiotic ownership regardless of how much they spend. Even without a cap, a huge majority of teams would have a limited payroll. Seattle would be one of those teams.