Salary cap question (mainly for FA)

Originally posted by lamontb:
I'm not really for or against a salary cap. Just b/c a teams spends the most doesn't mean they are spending it on quality and winning players. See Redskins and Haynesworth.

There's two sides to that. It's not just spending the most to acquire the most talent, it's also protecting the lower revenue teams so that they have the ability to retain their own players. The only thing that stopped teams like the Redskins from spending even more to take other team's top free agents is the cap.

Originally posted by amir_tn80:
The way the cap has been going up the last few years it has been pretty much non-existent. The cap should stay a thing of the past. Just continue the revenue sharing and let the teams that want to spend their own money to go right ahead and do that. The way the NFL is now, going on spending sprees and signing all the top free agents doesn't guarantee a damn thing. Top teams in the league now are the best drafting teams.

The fact is no team has done that. Even though 2011 was an uncapped year teams aren't able to just go out and spend what they want because of potential future cap ramifications.

When there is a salary cap a bad contract can cost your organization for many years. Sometimes long after the player is gone. With the cap increasing by multiple millions every year since 2005 it hasn't been as much of a problem as it was in the past but it could easily be again in the very near future because, if there is a cap, it's probably going to be the same or lower and it won't be increasing by $5-10million a year going forward.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by lamontb:
I'm not really for or against a salary cap. Just b/c a teams spends the most doesn't mean they are spending it on quality and winning players. See Redskins and Haynesworth.

There's two sides to that. It's not just spending the most to acquire the most talent, it's also protecting the lower revenue teams so that they have the ability to retain their own players. The only thing that stopped teams like the Redskins from spending even more to take other team's top free agents is the cap.

That really doesn't bother me b/c the skins would probably be trying to sign the wrong guys. Didn't bother me in the 90's doesn't bother me now. It puts a emphasis on having smart football guys in place, and drafting well. Just look at last off season with no salary cap. I think fans are blowing it out of proportion. Jerry Jones and Daniel Synder will not sign every pro bowl free agent.

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by lamontb:
I'm not really for or against a salary cap. Just b/c a teams spends the most doesn't mean they are spending it on quality and winning players. See Redskins and Haynesworth.

There's two sides to that. It's not just spending the most to acquire the most talent, it's also protecting the lower revenue teams so that they have the ability to retain their own players. The only thing that stopped teams like the Redskins from spending even more to take other team's top free agents is the cap.

That really doesn't bother me b/c the skins would probably be trying to sign the wrong guys. Didn't bother me in the 90's doesn't bother me now. It puts a emphasis on having smart football guys in place, and drafting well. Just look at last off season with no salary cap. I think fans are blowing it out of proportion. Jerry Jones and Daniel Synder will not sign every pro bowl free agent.

You're missing the point. The Skins and Cowboys aren't the only teams that can do this. They aren't even the highest two payrolls in the NFL. The Raiders had by far the highest payroll in 2010, party in order to get a bunch of guaranteed money off the books before the next CBA because the cap IS important.

And even though there was an uncapped year in 2010, do you think they just assumed that every year after was going to be the same way? You can't just spend indiscriminately in one free agency period because there is no cap that season (unless of course you only sign guys to one year contracts). The guaranteed money will add up and if one of those guys gets hurt or doesn't pan out you're on the hook for that cash, against the cap, for years in the future.

Also it's like I said, it's not just that the high revenue teams will always win because they can spend the most on the best players, that isn't the main point. The most important point is to allow teams to keep their own players when they hit free agency. The Yankees and Red Sox don't always win the World Series but they sure as hell are able to pay more for any player they want, and often take them from the lower revenue teams simply because those teams can not compete financially to keep their own players.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by lamontb:
I'm not really for or against a salary cap. Just b/c a teams spends the most doesn't mean they are spending it on quality and winning players. See Redskins and Haynesworth.

There's two sides to that. It's not just spending the most to acquire the most talent, it's also protecting the lower revenue teams so that they have the ability to retain their own players. The only thing that stopped teams like the Redskins from spending even more to take other team's top free agents is the cap.

That really doesn't bother me b/c the skins would probably be trying to sign the wrong guys. Didn't bother me in the 90's doesn't bother me now. It puts a emphasis on having smart football guys in place, and drafting well. Just look at last off season with no salary cap. I think fans are blowing it out of proportion. Jerry Jones and Daniel Synder will not sign every pro bowl free agent.

You're missing the point. The Skins and Cowboys aren't the only teams that can do this. They aren't even the highest two payrolls in the NFL. The Raiders had by far the highest payroll in 2010, party in order to get a bunch of guaranteed money off the books before the next CBA because the cap IS important.

And even though there was an uncapped year in 2010, do you think they just assumed that every year after was going to be the same way? You can't just spend indiscriminately in one free agency period because there is no cap that season (unless of course you only sign guys to one year contracts). The guaranteed money will add up and if one of those guys gets hurt or doesn't pan out you're on the hook for that cash, against the cap, for years in the future.

Also it's like I said, it's not just that the high revenue teams will always win because they can spend the most on the best players, that isn't the main point. The most important point is to allow teams to keep their own players when they hit free agency. The Yankees and Red Sox don't always win the World Series but they sure as hell are able to pay more for any player they want, and often take them from the lower revenue teams simply because those teams can not compete financially to keep their own players.

They are the owners they can sign guys and then vote for the cap not to come back. Not to mention why would the implement a cap number that some teams have already surpassed and then force those team to cut or restructure a player they just signed that same off season. They would just circumvent that rule somehow.

I understand you homie, it just doesn't bother me. And sounds like they could still keep profit sharing so the lesser teams can be on a more even level. And in baseball due to profit sharing many of the owners are just happy to make money. They don't want to or care to resign their young talent. Then they use that bigger market team as a ploy to trick fans. Say we can't compete with the big guys while the whole time they could careless b/c they at the bank cashing in. The majority of these owners want to make a profit bottom line. The Nationals made 44 million last year they can compete they just choose not too. Of course they don't have the history and cache as the Yank's and sox but that comes with time. And it comes with smart management, and coaches. The teams winning in the NFL right now are the teams with good ownership, who hires a great coach and staff, and then they draft the correct people. And with or without a salary cap I don't see that ever changing. That's why it doesn't bother me if they have one or don't.

The cap has worked to prevent the few pee brains from messing things up-guys like the cowgirls and skins. The cap prevents teams from chucking the rest.

If there is no cap then expect a raise in the amount of years a player serves before he can run off to FA.

Other things that may affect the cap is whether the union gives the owners 18 games opposed to 16. I think 16 is right, 18 is a bit much.

If you want to know what the ceiling is then look at last year and incresase it say by 10 %?

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by lamontb:
I'm not really for or against a salary cap. Just b/c a teams spends the most doesn't mean they are spending it on quality and winning players. See Redskins and Haynesworth.

There's two sides to that. It's not just spending the most to acquire the most talent, it's also protecting the lower revenue teams so that they have the ability to retain their own players. The only thing that stopped teams like the Redskins from spending even more to take other team's top free agents is the cap.

That really doesn't bother me b/c the skins would probably be trying to sign the wrong guys. Didn't bother me in the 90's doesn't bother me now. It puts a emphasis on having smart football guys in place, and drafting well. Just look at last off season with no salary cap. I think fans are blowing it out of proportion. Jerry Jones and Daniel Synder will not sign every pro bowl free agent.

You're missing the point. The Skins and Cowboys aren't the only teams that can do this. They aren't even the highest two payrolls in the NFL. The Raiders had by far the highest payroll in 2010, party in order to get a bunch of guaranteed money off the books before the next CBA because the cap IS important.

And even though there was an uncapped year in 2010, do you think they just assumed that every year after was going to be the same way? You can't just spend indiscriminately in one free agency period because there is no cap that season (unless of course you only sign guys to one year contracts). The guaranteed money will add up and if one of those guys gets hurt or doesn't pan out you're on the hook for that cash, against the cap, for years in the future.

Also it's like I said, it's not just that the high revenue teams will always win because they can spend the most on the best players, that isn't the main point. The most important point is to allow teams to keep their own players when they hit free agency. The Yankees and Red Sox don't always win the World Series but they sure as hell are able to pay more for any player they want, and often take them from the lower revenue teams simply because those teams can not compete financially to keep their own players.

They are the owners they can sign guys and then vote for the cap not to come back. Not to mention why would the implement a cap number that some teams have already surpassed and then force those team to cut or restructure a player they just signed that same off season. They would just circumvent that rule somehow.

I understand you homie, it just doesn't bother me. And sounds like they could still keep profit sharing so the lesser teams can be on a more even level. And in baseball due to profit sharing many of the owners are just happy to make money. They don't want to or care to resign their young talent. Then they use that bigger market team as a ploy to trick fans. Say we can't compete with the big guys while the whole time they could careless b/c they at the bank cashing in. The majority of these owners want to make a profit bottom line. The Nationals made 44 million last year they can compete they just choose not too. Of course they don't have the history and cache as the Yank's and sox but that comes with time. And it comes with smart management, and coaches. The teams winning in the NFL right now are the teams with good ownership, who hires a great coach and staff, and then they draft the correct people. And with or without a salary cap I don't see that ever changing. That's why it doesn't bother me if they have one or don't.

Absolutely. The reason there is parity in the NFL is because of revenue sharing and not because of the salary cap. The cap had an impact in the mid to late 90's. In the last few years it had gone up so high it became pretty much insignificant. Half of the league was 20+ million under the cap.

Teams like Green Bay, New England, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh hardly ever make any big free agent signings and they contend every year. With or without the cap, franchises with the most astute front offices that draft the best will always win. If a franchise wants to spend 200 million dollars in one offseason, more power to them. It won't even guarantee a playoff spot.

John Clayton wrote an article today about the teams who are projected to be over the proposed cap of around $120 mil. Does anyone know how the 49ers would stack up if that is indeed the number?

Originally posted by forty9ers49:
John Clayton wrote an article today about the teams who are projected to be over the proposed cap of around $120 mil. Does anyone know how the 49ers would stack up if that is indeed the number?

I can answer that, I think you posted in my cap thread here, I totally forgot to answer.

So here goes. We currently are at about 110M in commiteed salaries, Now that leaves only 10M, but remember their a few players who make some good chunk that wont be here to see it (ie. Norris, Snyder, Carr, and Nate Clements needs to re-do his deal)

Easily we can save a good amount.

Snyder if cut would save $2M
Carr 2.375M
Heitmann 1.95M
Norris 1.5M

and then re-do Clements deal, he makes 7.25M in base, and an extra 7.95M in bonuses. You can't re-do the bonus, so he would need to take his base down to the minimum, around 1.5M, which would save about 5.75M