The salary cap is a joke!

[X-Era]

Consider this for a moment.

The current rend in the NFl is to simply franchise tag the players you do not want to lose. Some teams perpetually franchise tag players to prevent losing them.

Teams manage to find players that develop into starters or even pro-bowlers and then simply franchise tag them to keep them. That all seems well and good. Except that the salary cap is high enough to allow teams to do this every year and still be competitive. One of the concepts of the salary cap is to level the playing field. Instead, we are now to the point where a perpetual deep playoff or even SB team is able to franchise a backup QB to the tune of 14.6 million. Thats not the purpose of the salary cap.

Effectively, whats happening is that teams that have a very good team are able to let so so players leave and tag their very good players, the free agent market becomes watered down, and teams that are deperate to add top notch talent never get a chance to.

That forces teams to rely heavily on the draft which is not a bad thing. But you must build your por-bowlers from within and then retain them through huge resignings or the franchise tag. If your a team that cant spend up to the exorbanant cap, or if you simply choose not to, you let your own best players leave and then cant replace them due to the watered down pool.

The Bills are caught in a catch 22 at this point. They are not poor eneough to be in a position to draft the next Matt Ryan, Patrick Willis, or Julius Peppers, and none of those players will ever hit free agency. They obviously have caused their own problems with multiple mistakes over the years, but the system doesnt help byt any means.

I sincerely hope the new CBA drops the salary cap way back and forces teams to make prudent and wise decisions where they cant keep everybody due strictly to the cap. Unfortunately, right now the only people benefiting from the huge cap are the rich teams. Top tier players who are due to hit free agency are stuck signing a franchise tag with no long term commitment. Teams that made mistakes in drafting cant add the young and extremely talented players because they never hit the market. And teams that dont have the money to spend up to the cap cant always afford the huge franchise tags to keep their best players.

I wouldnt mind seeing teams be forced to forfiet a draft pick or even pick(s) if they tag the same player more than once. I also wouldnt mind seeing teams be able to spend over the cap for a player that they really want but cant afford by forfeiting a pick or pick(s).

I dont want teams to not be able to keep their own because of the cap, but I also dont want them to abuse the franchise tags because they have more money then lots of other teams. If Carolina wanted to keep Peppers, they would have to forfeit a 2nd or maybe even 1st rounder this year because they choose not to resign him and would go over the new lower cap figure.

Something like that.

My point is that its ridiculous for the Pats to be able to get away with franchise tagging a backup QB for 14.6 million, and then trading him and getting more draft picks out of it. The purpose is to level the playing field and that is an abuse of the system.

Right now, all the good players get franchised, and teams cant get better quick. But teams like Carolina are simply franchising their top guy year after year becausethey refuse to pay him what hes worth and wont let anyone else either.

The systems broke, its not good for the game.

[clumping platelets]

The salary cap is a joke!


Dem fightin' wurds :mad:

[LtFinFan66]

:goodpost:

[X-Era]

The salary cap is a joke!


Dem fightin' wurds :mad:
No, people who do the work to figure out what weve spent and how much we have are THE BOMB!!! :clump:

What IS a joke is the current system

[justasportsfan]

My point is that its ridiculous for the Pats to be able to get away with franchise tagging a backup QB for 14.6 million, and then trading him and getting more draft picks out of it. The purpose is to level the playing field and that is an abuse of the system.

Huh? they drafted them, they developed them, they should be able to have the ability to decide what to do with that player. These players aren't complaining because the Pats are the ones responsible for making them superstars and earning huge contracts elsewhere.



I don't have a problem with awarding smart teams. If ralphy was smart about picking good FO's we wouldn't have a problem. It's his fault for getting rid of Polian.You level the playing field by hiring smart people. Hire idiots and you deserve to be where you're at.

[Mr. Pink]

The system is fine.

Every team is on a level playing field, talent wise, the cap is covered by the TV contracts.

If you have a FO and scouting department as inept as ours, you see the results.

Lowering the cap would just put more money into the cheap owners of the league, like Wilson, D. Brown in Cincy for example, pockets.

Raising the cap would allow big market teams to buy whatever players they want year after year.

[X-Era]

On second thought, keep the cap at its current level and get rid of the tag system all together!

Teams that are rich will have to spend top dollar for their top free agents and teams that dont have any top players will get a shot at them every year.

Hell, if you reduce the cap AND get rid of the tags, and make revenue sharing work everyone wins!

poor teams can compete, rich teams are capped, and great free agents hit the market every year!

[Ickybaluky]

This is the last year of the cap, so you don't have to worry much longer.

That said, it is a little silly to make the argument that the salary cap is responsible for the issues the Bills have had in the last decade. Consider the track record of teams turning it around in the NFL in a short period of time (hello, Miami and Atlanta). Consider Pittsburgh, who has managed to be a great team for a long time despite playing in a small market. Arizona was just in the Super Bowl for crying out loud.

[justasportsfan]

On second thought, keep the cap at its current level and get rid of the tag system all together!

Teams that are rich will have to spend top dollar for their top free agents and teams that dont have any top players will get a shot at them every year.

Hell, if you reduce the cap AND get rid of the tags, and make revenue sharing work everyone wins!

poor teams can compete, rich teams are capped, and great free agents hit the market every year!
If poor teams are smart with the tag, it can be their best friend. Again, it's boils down to having a smart FO.

[X-Era]

Huh? they drafted them, they developed them, they should be able to have the ability to decide what to do with that player. These players aren't complaining because the Pats are the ones responsible for making them superstars and earning huge contracts elsewhere.



I don't have a problem with awarding smart teams. If ralphy was smart about picking good FO's we wouldn't have a problem. It's his fault for getting rid of Polian.You level the playing field by hiring smart people. Hire idiots and you deserve to be where you're at.
So you think the NFL can claim we have an actual working cap when the Pats had over 21 million locked up in 2 QB's with one sitting the bench?

No.

I also dont mind rewarding smart teams, but teams should be forced to make tough decisions and everyone should have about the same payroll... thats the purpose of the cap. You also should only be able to franchise tag a player if you have the cap room BEFORE the tag is placed on a player.

Its simply counter productive for teams to have top notch players across many positions and still be able to use the franchise tag.

[X-Era]

This is the last year of the cap, so you don't have to worry much longer.

That said, it is a little silly to make the argument that the salary cap is responsible for the issues the Bills have had in the last decade. Consider the track record of teams turning it around in the NFL in a short period of time (hello, Miami and Atlanta). Consider Pittsburgh, who has managed to be a great team for a long time despite playing in a small market. Arizona was just in the Super Bowl for crying out loud.
I never made that arguement.

I said that its counter-productive to be stacked as far as talent and still be allowed to use the tag, and then have a watered down free agent class year after year.

The purpose is for a level playing field.

Both the teams you mention just used the franchise tag and helped to water down the free agent class. Dansby was the #2 OLb available, and Starks was a top 3 OT.

Arizona was able to tag Dansby BEFORE spending top dollar on their franchise QB. They should have been forced to make a choice. How many sub-500 teams have a franchise QB AND a top tier OLB? Can you name one?

[X-Era]

The system is fine.

Every team is on a level playing field, talent wise, the cap is covered by the TV contracts.

If you have a FO and scouting department as inept as ours, you see the results.

Lowering the cap would just put more money into the cheap owners of the league, like Wilson, D. Brown in Cincy for example, pockets.

Raising the cap would allow big market teams to buy whatever players they want year after year.

I missed the downside.

Putting more money back into cheap owners is bad? If the FO sucks, the Bills would still screw it up and it wouldnt matter. Yet Dallas, Wash, and the Pats would also be forced to make tough decisions.

Cheap owners would be right back on the same playing field with the rich owners.

How is that bad for the on field product?

[MikeInRoch]

So you think the NFL can claim we have an actual working cap when the Pats had over 21 million locked up in 2 QB's with one sitting the bench?

No.

I also dont mind rewarding smart teams, but teams should be forced to make tough decisions and everyone should have about the same payroll... thats the purpose of the cap. You also should only be able to franchise tag a player if you have the cap room BEFORE the tag is placed on a player.

Its simply counter productive for teams to have top notch players across many positions and still be able to use the franchise tag.

The reason they were able to do that is because they were so smart they could field a competitive team while still being well under the cap.

You are really off base here.

[X-Era]

The reason they were able to do that is because they were so smart they could field a competitive team while still being well under the cap.

You are really off base here.
And that is why I said the cap is way too high.

A starting and backup QB with an annual salary of 21+ mill combined while having so many other great players too is not good for the league. The salary cap should not allow that.

You simply made the arguemeht that the cap is set way too high. Besides, you assumed that the Pats were able to tag Cassel because they had the cap space at the time they gave him the tag, Im not sure thats true.

[Akhippo]

NE is just smarter. They flip late round picks, they dont overpay for inferior talent. They succeed in drafting first rounders, buffalo has failed miserably. If we drafted first round talent with our first rounders just this decade we would not be were we are right now. Mike Williams/JP/McGahee/Flowers/Clements/McCargo. That is our problem. Period, point blank. You turn those 6 picks into starters and we have very few holes to fill. Turn a couple of late round QBs into starters and you win superbowls.

[MikeInRoch]

And that is why I said the cap is way too high.

A starting and backup QB with an annual salary of 21+ mill combined while having so many other great players too is not good for the league. The salary cap should not allow that.

You simply made the arguemeht that the cap is set way too high. Besides, you assumed that the Pats were able to tag Cassel because they had the cap space at the time they gave him the tag, Im not sure thats true.

No, I made the argument that New England is a lot smarter than other teams. They get better talent at lower prices than most teams. It does not logically follow that the salary cap is 'too high'.

[Nighthawk]

Umm, lets not forget the Bills have done this in the past...remember Peerless Price? He was tagged and then traded for a 1st round draft pick. The system is fine. However, these guys are WAAAAYYYY over paid.

[X-Era]

No, I made the argument that New England is a lot smarter than other teams. They get better talent at lower prices than most teams. It does not logically follow that the salary cap is 'too high'.

It doesnt if you never answer the question...

Should ANY team be able to franchise a backup QB and then have over 21 mill locked up in 2 QB's when one will sit the bench?

If so, is there any need for a salary cap?

[X-Era]

We dont want to pay (or maybe cant afford) 6 mill per year for a #2 WR who will take the field every single offensive play, but the Pats should be able to spend 14.6 per year on a backup QB who will never see the field barring injury? On a team thats perpetually in the playoffs or SB?

And the salary cap works?

Absolutley NOT!

This is not the point of the cap... we are getting into MLB territory at this point.

[MikeInRoch]

It doesnt if you never answer the question...

Should ANY team be able to franchise a backup QB and then have over 21 mill locked up in 2 QB's when one will sit the bench?

If so, is there any need for a salary cap?

Answer: YES. Because there are 53 people on the team. If you are so good at managing money that you can afford to do that, then yes.

[MikeInRoch]

We dont want to pay (or maybe cant afford) 6 mill per year for a #2 WR who will take the field every single offensive play, but the Pats should be able to spend 14.6 per year on a backup QB who will never see the field barring injury? On a team thats perpetually in the playoffs or SB?

And the salary cap works?

Absolutley NOT!

This is not the point of the cap... we are getting into MLB territory at this point.

I'm sorry that you don't understand just how different this is from MLB.

[X-Era]

I'm sorry that you don't understand just how different this is from MLB.

Interesting opinion, but Im failing to see any argument against my claim.

Again 21+ mill per for 2 QB's and one sits the bench... thats not a working salary cap.

[X-Era]

Answer: YES. Because there are 53 people on the team. If you are so good at managing money that you can afford to do that, then yes.
Or you could skip the obvious solution which is that the cap should not allow for ANY team to be able to do that... and especially not a team that has a top 5 WR, DT, DE, QB, and probably LT.

Thats not the spirit of the cap.

[MikeInRoch]

Or you could skip the obvious solution which is that the cap should not allow for ANY team to be able to do that... and especially not a team that has a top 5 WR, DT, DE, QB, and probably LT.

Thats not the spirit of the cap.

That has NOTHING to do with the spirit of the cap. The spirit of the cap is that you don't have someone who is PAID in the top 5 of every position.

The Patriots have the number 2 QB. No WR in the top 10. No DT, DE, or LT in the top 10. Get some facts.

[X-Era]

That has NOTHING to do with the spirit of the cap. The spirit of the cap is that you don't have someone who is PAID in the top 5 of every position.

The Patriots have the number 2 QB. No WR in the top 10. No DT, DE, or LT in the top 10. Get some facts.

Wait, hold up....

I just want to re-read this...

Randy Moss is not in the top 10? Wilfork is not in the top 10? And Seymour is not in the top 10?

I now want to thank you for making it easy for me to completely disregard your opinion.

[MikeInRoch]

I was speaking in terms of their salaries. I thought maybe you would understand that from the context given by the first paragraph.

[Ickybaluky]

First of all, the franchise tag has nothing to do with the cap. It is part of the CBA, it is a collectively bargained part of the game both the owners and players agreed to. Lowering the cap wouldn't keep teams from being able to do that, because then players would just make less and the franchise number would be less, since it is calculated based off the top-5 salaries at the position. It is relative.

You know who fought for the franchise tag? The small markets. They wanted a way to keep their best players and not have the big-money clubs just sign them away.

Secondly, the cap isn't some arbitrary number. It is a function of total revenues, a percentage of money brought in. That money is for all teams, as they share the revenue. In other words, every team in the NFL brings in more money than they are allotted towards the cap. Lowering the cap would just put more money back in the owners pockets and have less go to the players. It wouldn't keep teams from being able to sign guys.

Thirdly, why you are signling out the Patriots is uncertain. Carolina is hardly a big market, but they just Franchised Julius Peppers for over $17M. How about Indy? Peyton Manning's cap number is 21.2M, yet they hardly qualify as a big market.

What exactly is your argument? That small markets are hurt by the cap? How come Indy and Pittsburgh have been 2 of the more successful franchises of the last decade then? What kind of long-term success have the Jets and Bears enjoyed, both big market Titans.

You really are all over the place here. First of all, you don't seem to have great knowledge of what you are talking about. Secondly, you aren't really making a lot of sense.

[X-Era]

I was speaking in terms of their salaries. I thought maybe you would understand that from the context given by the first paragraph.

3 years for 27 million isnt top 10?

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/03/04/moss_patriots_hook_up_again/

Wilfork is on his rookie contract but its about to end... he will be franchised because the salary cap is setup correctly :rolleyes:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2009/03/salary_cap_chec_1.html

Seymour was resigned to 4 years for 30 mill, thats not top 10?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2406619

Be smart, dont question me on facts unless you have your own to back it up.

[Ickybaluky]

You don't get in cap trouble paying big money to good players. You get in cap trouble paying big money to players who aren't worth it.

Those players you mentioned getting big money are good players. Indy investing big money in Manning, Wayne and Freeney hasn't hurt them becuase they are good. Pittsburgh paying big money to Roethlisberger, Ward and Polamalu hasn't hurt them because they are good players.

Those players all make real good money, but they are good values because they produce.

Who has Buffalo invested big money in? Derrick Dockery, Mike Williams, Aaron Schoebel, Drew Bledsoe and Chris Kelsey.

Those guys didn't live up to the value of their contracts. That has nothing to do with the salary cap.

[X-Era]

First of all, the franchise tag has nothing to do with the cap. It is part of the CBA, it is a collectively bargained part of the game both the owners and players agreed to. Lowering the cap wouldn't keep teams from being able to do that, because then players would just make less and the franchise number would be less, since it is calculated based off the top-5 salaries at the position. It is relative.

You know who fought for the franchise tag? The small markets. They wanted a way to keep their best players and not have the big-money clubs just sign them away.

Secondly, the cap isn't some arbitrary number. It is a function of total revenues, a percentage of money brought in. That money is for all teams, as they share the revenue. In other words, every team in the NFL brings in more money than they are allotted towards the cap. Lowering the cap would just put more money back in the owners pockets and have less go to the players. It wouldn't keep teams from being able to sign guys.

Thirdly, why you are signling out the Patriots is uncertain. Carolina is hardly a big market, but they just Franchised Julius Peppers for over $17M. How about Indy? Peyton Manning's cap number is 21.2M, yet they hardly qualify as a big market.

What exactly is your argument? That small markets are hurt by the cap? How come Indy and Pittsburgh have been 2 of the more successful franchises of the last decade then? What kind of long-term success have the Jets and Bears enjoyed, both big market Titans.

You really are all over the place here. First of all, you don't seem to have great knowledge of what you are talking about. Secondly, you aren't really making a lot of sense.

No.

The franchise tag counts against the cap, therefore it has alot to do with the cap. That would be a big reason that the Pats could actually be able to pull of a move that would have them at 21+ per year against the cap for 2 QB's with one sitting the bench... thats in fact my point. The cap is large enough that teams with many top 5 players can abuse it by using the franchise tag on a backuo QB.

Secondly, I agree that the principle of the franchise tag is a good one. But it becomes useless the day the cap becomes large enough for teams with money to abuse.

Yes, I agree their are teams that have been successfull like Indy and Pittsburgh. Want to take a look at the top QB salaries? Indy and Pitt both are top 5. Indy as a matter of fact abused the franchise tag for years to keep their pro-bowl LT Tarik Glenn... thats a bad argument. Pitt however has been an overachieving team year in and year out. Out of all the teams in the league, Pitt probably makes the best case for the best front office in the league... they have done it all right. The onus is still on the front offices, but the current CBA doesnt help.

Are you trying to tell me that this years free agency is full of studs? No, all the best players got franchised. The only reason the Ravens didnt resign Scott, and Brown is because they simply didnt have the revenue... not because they didnt want to.

And that brings me to the notion that the league shares revenue and everyone has an equal payroll... thats a joke an you know it.

Look, this isnt about the Pats. This is about making the playing field the most equal. And having teams spend franchise money on a backup QB is NOT showing me that we have a level playing field.

[X-Era]

You don't get in cap trouble paying big money to good players. You get in cap trouble paying big money to players who aren't worth it.

Those players you mentioned getting big money are good players. Indy investing big money in Manning, Wayne and Freeney hasn't hurt them becuase they are good. Pittsburgh paying big money to Roethlisberger, Ward and Polamalu hasn't hurt them because they are good players.

Those players all make real good money, but they are good values because they produce.

Who has Buffalo invested big money in? Derrick Dockery, Mike Williams, Aaron Schoebel, Drew Bledsoe and Chris Kelsey.

Those guys didn't live up to the value of their contracts. That has nothing to do with the salary cap.
I actually completely agree with the premise of your post.

However, NO team out of those placed the franchise tag on a backup QB to the tune of 14.6 mill.

The Pats did that with every intention of getting a draft pick or pick(s) to keep their dominance going... thats NOT the purpose of the tag, and the cap is allowing this to happen.

The only reason they were able to do this is because the cap is too big.

[MikeInRoch]

3 years for 27 million isnt top 10?

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/03/04/moss_patriots_hook_up_again/

No, it's not. Top 10 2008 Wide Receiver salaries:


Marvin Harrison $12,000,000
Lee Evans $10,374,585
Bernard Berrian $9,438,333
Torry Holt $9,104,714
Andre Johnson $8,504,848
Braylon Edwards $7,393,750
Larry Fitzgerald $6,993,334
Deion Branch $6,760,000
Hines Ward $6,700,000
Reggie Wayne $6,660,000

Source: NFLPA
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806a24a3&template=without-video&confirm=true




Seymour was resigned to 4 years for 30 mill, thats not top 10?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2406619

No, it's not. Same link. Look for yourself.


Be smart, dont question me on facts unless you have your own to back it up.

I'll question you on facts if yours are WRONG, which they clearly are.

[X-Era]

Look, the Pats didnt franchise Cassell because they desperately needed him and couldnt afford to lose him. The Pats tagged him so that they could get something for him and not let him hit free agency.

The point of the tag was to let teams keep players they desperately needed. The Pats didnt desperately need him, thats why they traded him. And you know it.

The huge salary cap simply afforded them this luxury.

[MikeInRoch]

Again, it's not a cap issue. You want to argue that the franchise tag is being abused? I'll agree. Perhaps there should be a rule that you cannot trade someone you tag. That would be more in line with the intent of the tag.

You have to keep in mind that one reason the Pats were able to have two high priced QBs on the roster is that they MUST have a gap at this point of the season (as all teams do) to sign rookies.

[X-Era]

No, it's not. Top 10 2008 Wide Receiver salaries:


Marvin Harrison $12,000,000
Lee Evans $10,374,585
Bernard Berrian $9,438,333
Torry Holt $9,104,714
Andre Johnson $8,504,848
Braylon Edwards $7,393,750
Larry Fitzgerald $6,993,334
Deion Branch $6,760,000
Hines Ward $6,700,000
Reggie Wayne $6,660,000

Source: NFLPA
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d806a24a3&template=without-video&confirm=true





No, it's not. Same link. Look for yourself.



I'll question you on facts if yours are WRONG, which they clearly are.


Hmmm, maybe I cant do math. 3 for 27 and that doesnt crack 6.6 mill per? No, its because it was heavily front loaded probably. Regardless, even if he isnt being paid top 10, everyone knows he is a top 10 WR... thats a fact.

Look, there is no doubt that players will hook the Pats FO up in their contracts just to play for the Pats. Thats not the point. The point, again, is that its counter-productive to setup a cap system only to have a team pay top 5 in the league to a backup. Thats a clear indication that something is broke.

[Ickybaluky]

The franchise tag counts against the cap, therefore it has alot to do with the cap. That would be a big reason that the Pats could actually be able to pull of a move that would have them at 21+ per year against the cap for 2 QB's with one sitting the bench... thats in fact my point. The cap is large enough that teams with many top 5 players can abuse it by using the franchise tag on a backuo QB.

The reason the Pats were able to franchise Cassel, along with the other teams, is because they managed the cap well. They have invested their money in good players. They have chosen to let other players go because it would have cost them more cap space in the long-term.

Do you remember Asante Samuel? Lawyer Milloy? Ty Law? Willie McGinest? Daniel Graham? Adam Vinatieri? Deion Branch? Ted Washington? Damien Woody? You act like good teams have never lost players to FA. They have, plenty. However, the good teams manage it so they invest in the right guys.

The cap levels the playing field. Teams all have the same amount of room to work with. Some have done better jobs than other deciding to to sign and let go.


Are you trying totell me that this years free agency is full of studs? No, all the best players got franchised. The only reason the Ravens didnt resign Scott, and Brown is because they simply didnt have the revenue... not because they didnt want to.

They had plenty of revenue. They didn't have the cap space. They could have signed the guys, they couldn't fit them all under the cap, or at least couldn't without mortgaging the future. The cap keeps teams from hoarding guys, not the opposite.


And that brings me to the notion that the league shares revenue and everyone has an equal payroll ... thats a joke an you know it.

Every team in the NFL receives Revenue equal to the amount the cap is calculated off of. It is why such small market teams as Indy can hand out such big contracts. Some teams may have more cash, but that is a different story. They all receive money well in excess of the cap. They have different expenses and cash positions, but that is a different issue.

[X-Era]

Again, it's not a cap issue. You want to argue that the franchise tag is being abused? I'll agree. Perhaps there should be a rule that you cannot trade someone you tag. That would be more in line with the intent of the tag.

You have to keep in mind that one reason the Pats were able to have two high priced QBs on the roster is that they MUST have a gap at this point of the season (as all teams do) to sign rookies.

Now, were headed down the same road.

Thats a plan. I also keep thinking about having to give up a pick if you tag the same guy back to back. Thats just unfair to the player. Sign him or let him go.

[Ickybaluky]

I actually completely agree with the premise of your post.

However, NO team out of those placed the franchise tag on a backup QB to the tune of 14.6 mill.

The Pats did that with every intention of getting a draft pick or pick(s) to keep their dominance going... thats NOT the purpose of the tag, and the cap is allowing this to happen.

The only reason they were able to do this is because the cap is too big.
Other teams have done it. Buffalo did it with Peerless Price. The Chiefs did it with Jared Allen. They were able to do it because they managed the cap well enough to have the room.

Every team is working with the same cap. You realize that, right?

[X-Era]

Other teams have done it. Buffalo did it with Peerless Price. The Chiefs did it with Jared Allen. They were able to do it because they managed the cap well enough to have the room.

Every team is working with the same cap. You realize that, right?

So, Buffalo did it with a guy who will play every offensive down, and the Chiefs did it will a guy who will play most every down on defense.. yet the Pats did it with a guy who will never see the field unless Brady gets injured... and thats the same? Come on man!

You do realize that Cassell was going to make more from the bench then your pro-bowl and probably hall of fame starting QB was right?

This is not the purpose of the tag, and the cap enabled this abuse.

[X-Era]

They had plenty of revenue. They didn't have the cap space. They could have signed the guys, they couldn't fit them all under the cap, or at least couldn't without mortgaging the future. The cap keeps teams from hoarding guys, not the opposite.

They turned around and brought in Randy Moss, Adalius Thomas, etc... I dont think they were as purged as you make them out to be.

[X-Era]

Other teams have done it. Buffalo did it with Peerless Price. The Chiefs did it with Jared Allen. They were able to do it because they managed the cap well enough to have the room.

Every team is working with the same cap. You realize that, right?

Yes, I realize they all could spend the same amount if they want to... the bigger and better question is if its even feasible for most teams to do so.

[Ickybaluky]

The franchise tag counts against the cap, therefore it has alot to do with the cap. That would be a big reason that the Pats could actually be able to pull of a move that would have them at 21+ per year against the cap for 2 QB's with one sitting the bench... thats in fact my point. The cap is large enough that teams with many top 5 players can abuse it by using the franchise tag on a backuo QB.

But tag is a function of salaries. If the cap were lower, salaries would be lower and the tag would be lower, It is relative. The cap has gone up every year, and the franchise tag has gone up right along with it. Nothing has changed.

The salary cap is a function of revenues. Thus, as revenues have gone up so has the cap and player salaries. It is relative. If the cap were lower, than guys like Brady and Manning wouldn't have as big a salaries, and the tag would be cheaper. It is all relative. It wouldn't have any real effect.

Peyton Manning counts over $21M against the cap all by himself. Indy manages it by keeping the cap lower in other places.

The Pats were able to franchise Cassel because they managed their cap well. The have let player leave and invested their money wisely.

Doesn't Philly have a ton of cap room every year? Yet they have been very successful. That is because they get good players and invest the money wisely.

That is what it comes down to. The good teams get good players and invest their money wisely. The bad teams don't, and invest in the wrong guys.

The bottom line is the Bills struggles haven't been because of the salary cap or the franchise tag. They have struggled because they haven't done a good job running their team. If they did, maybe they would have a backup QB to tag and trade.

It isn't like small-market teams haven't done well in the NFL and big-market teams have dominated. In fact, the cap probably has improved competitive balance.

[Ickybaluky]

They turned around and brought in Randy Moss, Adalius Thomas, etc... I dont think they were as purged as you make them out to be.

They have made good decisions on the players who they get and the ones they let go, in general. So has Pittsburgh. So has Indy. So has Philly.

That has nothing to do with the cap or the franchise tag, it has to do with running your team well. Buffalo hasn't done as good a job. Nor has Washington, who spends like a drunken sailor. Nor as Cincy, who doesn't. Nor have a lot of teams.

Nothing to do with the cap. More to do with how well the team made decisions.

[Ickybaluky]

Yes, I realize they all could spend the same amount if they want to... the bigger and better question is if its even feasible for most teams to do so.

Not all good teams are big spenders in FA. NE hasn't signed a lot of big-time FA. Neither has Pittsburgh or Indy. They have acquired good players and kept them. I think that is the point.

Spending hasn't helped the Redskins or Jets. Where is your argument?

[tat2dmike77]

Whats a joke is Alber Haynesworth signing a 100 mill deal that is a joke

[X-Era]

Not all good teams are big spenders in FA. NE hasn't signed a lot of big-time FA. Neither has Pittsburgh or Indy. They have acquired good players and kept them. I think that is the point.

Spending hasn't helped the Redskins or Jets. Where is your argument?

I feel like your arguing around the issue.

If a perpetual playoff and/or SB team in any year has the ability to franchise tag a backup QB to more than the starter is being paid, for the sole purpose of trading him for picks, there is a problem with the system.

You still avoid that issue.

Do you think thats the way the salary cap and/or franchise tag should operate?

[Michael82]

It doesnt if you never answer the question...

Should ANY team be able to franchise a backup QB and then have over 21 mill locked up in 2 QB's when one will sit the bench?

If so, is there any need for a salary cap?
umm, if you recall...they tagged him just to trade him. They never would have been able to afford both QBs. They traded him for only a 2nd rounder because they needed to free up cap room for the draft class and FAs.

[X-Era]

umm, if you recall...they tagged him just to trade him. They never would have been able to afford both QBs. They traded him for only a 2nd rounder because they needed to free up cap room for the draft class and FAs.
Thats another point I made. You should not be able to use the tag just to get something back for a player that you have no intention of paying. You also should have to have the cap room to place the franchise tag on someone BEFORE you do it... and the cap should be preventing teams from using it as a luxury.

[X-Era]

What if the system were setup like this?

1) Reduce the cap back to a level where everyone has the revenue to spend up to it.
2) Allow teams to go over the cap for a player whos franchise tag amount or resigned cap figure puts the team over the cap... but, that team must forfeit a pick in the next draft to do so. The pick would be a 1st rounder if its a players earning top 5 salary, a 2nd for top 10 salary, and a 3rd for everything else.

What that effectively does is:

1) It allows teams to keep a player even if they dont have cap room, but have the money and will to pay him through the franchise tag or through resigning him.
2) Resets the cap to a level where everyone can actually pay up to it.
3) Keeps teams with huge revenue from spending all the way up to a big cap when many teams simply cant.
4) Discourages teams from the tag and trade... the pick is already gone, even if you just get the pick back in a tag and trade you didnt accomplish anything.
5) Discourages teams from using the tag which will help to make the free agent markets stronger each year.

Note: If you have the room under the cap before placing the tag on someone, you can do so and dont have to pay a pick.

Also, you have to give up a pick for every year that you are over the cap with that player. If you tag him over and over, you give up the pick over and over. If you tag one guy one year, then let him leave then go over with a new player, the new player is what determines the pick in that year.

[X-Era]

umm, if you recall...they tagged him just to trade him. They never would have been able to afford both QBs. They traded him for only a 2nd rounder because they needed to free up cap room for the draft class and FAs.

Using my thoughts on a new system, the new, much lower cap would have prevented the Pats from franchising their backup QB without going over it. And at that point they would have to give up a 1st rounder to tag him. Even if they traded him to someone for a 1st rounder, they didnt accomplish anything.

But if it was Brady, and tagging him would put them over the cap, they could either cut players to reduce their cap and resign or tag him, or maybe say to themselves that its worth the pick to keep the team in tack so they would be willing to pay the pick.

Wouldnt you? If you had a SB team that you really liked, and you had to either cut players to keep your pro-bowl QB or pay a 1st rounder to keep everyone, wouldnt it make sense to pay the pick?

[Ickybaluky]

First of all, every team does have the revenue to spend up to the cap. Not all teams do so, or have players worth signing for that much money. However, revenue is what is used to calculate the cap, every team gets that money.

Secondly, the CBA is collectively bargained. It is an agreement between the players and management. You can't just establish blanket rules. They are what they are.

Finally, what exactly is your argument? You are blaming the salary cap/CBA (you confuse the two) for the Bills woes? There is no evidence that is true. Look around the NFL. There are big-market teams that struggle and small-market teams that don't. Your premise is completely off. The last Super Bowl was between Pittsburgh and Arizona.

Any team could have done what the Pats did, in fact many have in the past. They have managed their team well. You can blame the Bills woes on a lot of things, but the franchise tag and the salary cap have nothing to do with it. That is the bottom line.

This all comes down to you having your panties in a knot over the Pats getting a second round pick for Cassel. What you really want is a rule that the Patriots can't be good anymore.

[X-Era]

First of all, every team does have the revenue to spend up to the cap. Not all teams do so, or have players worth signing for that much money. However, revenue is what is used to calculate the cap, every team gets that money.

Secondly, the CBA is collectively bargained. It is an agreement between the players and management. You can't just establish blanket rules. They are what they are.

Finally, what exactly is your argument? You are blaming the salary cap/CBA (you confuse the two) for the Bills woes? There is no evidence that is true. Look around the NFL. There are big-market teams that struggle and small-market teams that don't. Your premise is completely off. The last Super Bowl was between Pittsburgh and Arizona.

Any team could have done what the Pats did, in fact many have in the past. They have managed their team well. You can blame the Bills woes on a lot of things, but the franchise tag and the salary cap have nothing to do with it. That is the bottom line.

This all comes down to you having your panties in a knot over the Pats getting a second round pick for Cassel. What you really want is a rule that the Patriots can't be good anymore.

We arent effectively communicating here.

1) I do not believe that every team has the revenue to spend up to the cap. The cap is skewed because some teams make WAY more than others. It should be setup so that the lowest grossing team can pay up to it. Its not setup that way. Buffalo is somewhere in the middle and does not have the revenue to pay up to the cap, they just dont. That means the cap, that is supposed to prevent teams with money from having way more talent, is not working.

2) I think the next CBA should include some sort of changes that deter teams from the tag and trade... and certainly when you place a "franchise" tag on a player who sits the bench.

3) I would like to see a new system and/or smaller cap which allows for less tagging and makes the free agent pool stronger each year. The point is to allow teams that arent as good to pay for talent to make them better. Thats one of the supposed benefits of free agency.

4) Get off the Bills. This has little if anything to do with them. The only thing I could see is that we didnt get a shot at some of the leagues top players like Peppers, or Suggs. But then the Bills arent even signing the top of whats left so they have no intentions of spending big money to get better anyways.

This whole post is meant to discuss how the current system isnt optimal and isnt helping to make the competition more even.

[X-Era]

What you really want is a rule that the Patriots can't be good anymore.
No, what I want is for the Patriots to be able to keep their SB team together but not abuse the system.

I want the Patriots to have to make difficult decisions which leave them about equal with the rest of the league talent wise... thats supposed to be the purpose of a cap.

I dont expect you to agree... a Yankees fan probably wont say that MLB needs a cap either.

[Ickybaluky]

Look, you can say thing all you want, that doesn't make it true.

First of all, we can establish some facts:

1) Every NFL shares more revenue than any other sports league. Every team receives revenue well in excess of the cap.

2) The salary cap is a percentage of total football revenues, all of which are shared. Last year, the percentage was 62.24 percent.

3) The cap goes up and down, but because it is percentage based salaries and tag amounts go up and down with it. If the cap were lower the league would still be bringing in tons of revenue, just less would go to the players. I doubt they would go for that, although the owners would be happy. Also, it wouldn't have any effect on a teams ability to keep players, it would just effect how much those players would be paid.

4) The franchise tag is part of the CBA and available for any team to use. The Pats didn't "abuse" the tag, they used it as outlined in the agreement.

Again, there is no evidence that the cap is hurting teams based on market. There is none. Show me any. There is competitive balance in football. The teams that are run well and acquire the right players win. The ones that don't lose. Really, it is that simple.

In terms of NE, how many big FA signings have they made? Adalius Thomas and Rosey Colvin are the only two. They have lost more via the FA process. They have managed to acquire some good players and re-sign them. That is the difference. If the Bills drafted and signed the right players they would be a better team, but they haven't done as good a job. That has nothing to do with the cap, it has to do with management of the team.

Your system is among the dumbest things I have ever read. You want to punish teams that do a good job running their teams and reward teams that don't? That makes no sense. It is downright socialist.

I can't believe I've wasted this much energy arguing over this with someone who has no idea what they are talking about. I guess that makes me as big a fool as you.

[justasportsfan]

So you think the NFL can claim we have an actual working cap when the Pats had over 21 million locked up in 2 QB's with one sitting the bench?

No.

I also dont mind rewarding smart teams, but teams should be forced to make tough decisions and everyone should have about the same payroll... thats the purpose of the cap. You also should only be able to franchise tag a player if you have the cap room BEFORE the tag is placed on a player.

Its simply counter productive for teams to have top notch players across many positions and still be able to use the franchise tag.


the pats were smart with their tag. They knew there was a market for Cassel so they tagged him and they got a 2nd. Just like we got something in return for Winfield. Too bad we weren't smart with the picks. We also weren't smart about Clements.


They are top notch teams because they are smart. Stop blaming them for being smart with what they are allowed by the NFL which the bills are allowed as well to do as well .

[X-Era]

Look, you can say thing all you want, that doesn't make it true.

First of all, we can establish some facts:

1) Every NFL shares more revenue than any other sports league. Every team receives revenue well in excess of the cap.

2) The salary cap is a percentage of total football revenues, all of which are shared. Last year, the percentage was 62.24 percent.

3) The cap goes up and down, but because it is percentage based salaries and tag amounts go up and down with it. If the cap were lower the league would still be bringing in tons of revenue, just less would go to the players. I doubt they would go for that, although the owners would be happy. Also, it wouldn't have any effect on a teams ability to keep players, it would just effect how much those players would be paid.

4) The franchise tag is part of the CBA and available for any team to use. The Pats didn't "abuse" the tag, they used it as outlined in the agreement.

Again, there is no evidence that the cap is hurting teams based on market. There is none. Show me any. There is competitive balance in football. The teams that are run well and acquire the right players win. The ones that don't lose. Really, it is that simple.

In terms of NE, how many big FA signings have they made? Adalius Thomas and Rosey Colvin are the only two. They have lost more via the FA process. They have managed to acquire some good players and re-sign them. That is the difference. If the Bills drafted and signed the right players they would be a better team, but they haven't done as good a job. That has nothing to do with the cap, it has to do with management of the team.

Your system is among the dumbest things I have ever read. You want to punish teams that do a good job running their teams and reward teams that don't? That makes no sense. It is downright socialist.

I can't believe I've wasted this much energy arguing over this with someone who has no idea what they are talking about. I guess that makes me as big a fool as you.
Number one, you are getting borderline nasty and calling names.

You apparently like the system the way it is... OK fine. I respect your opinion.

I think the system is broken.

I want the league to be as equal as possible. Id like players to get as much money as they can, but I dont want the teams with the most money to be able to horde the highest priced players.

I think the system should be setup that if a team has no intentions of paying top dollar to a player, they have to simply let him leave.

I think the franchise tag should only be used for teams that feel that they simply cant afford to lose a player, not for the purposes of getting value out of someone they have no intentions of keeping.

To me, that is the intent of the salary cap system. To level the playing field.

Ohh wait, I want to clear things up for second. I think the Pats do a masterful job of managing the cap, and using the system the way its currently setup to keep their team dominant. They are following the rules and are ensuring they stay dominant. My issue is with the system, not the Pats.

Thats my opinion.

[X-Era]

Answer: YES. Because there are 53 people on the team. If you are so good at managing money that you can afford to do that, then yes.

I actually agree with that... assuming they intend to actually carry that 21 mill for the whole year.

[Ickybaluky]

I think the system is broken.

I want the league to be as equal as possible. Id like players to get as money as they can, but I dont want the teams with the most money to be able to horde the highest priced players.

To me, that is the intent of the salary cap system. To level the playing field.

Thats my opinion.

Where is the evidence that the teams with the most money are hoarding the highest-priced players?

Look at some of the biggest contracts ever. Green Bay is the smallest market in the NFL, yet they were able to sign Brett Favre to a contract for over $100M.

Indy has managed to give big contracts out to Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeney, etc.

Minnesota gave a huge contract to Jared Allen.

Cincinnati signed Carson Palmer for over $100M.

These aren't big markets. There are no "poor" teams, because they all get a ton of revenue. The big contracts are spread out among teams all around the NFL. Where is the evidence to support your contention. The opposite of what you are saying is true. The cap has leveled the playing field.

Another way the cap has made a difference is the minimum. If there were no salary cap there would be no salary floor, either. That means teams could cut their salaries to the minimum and pocket the cash. That happens in baseball, and it hurts competitiveness.

As for the tag, many teams have used it. The idea that you are going to decide a teams intention of using it is silly. If you want a level playing field, you don't punish the teams that have managed their situations well. Are you saying good teams shouldn't be able to trade their players and make themselves better? That isn't fair competition, that is the opposite.

I understand your point, but the problem is you have no premise. You are basing your opinion on an incorrect assumption.

[Ickybaluky]

Did you know that last year the Patriots actual payroll (cash spent, not cap), was $92,734,120? That was 3rd lowest in the NFL.

You know who spent the most last year? The Oakland Raiders at $152,389,371. Did that help them "hoard all the good players"?

BTW, the Bills spent $ 113,364,927 last year, which was 16th in the NFL.

[Ickybaluky]

Just to drive this point home, here is a list of average team actual payrolls since 2000. I apologize if this doesn't format great, but I'll give it a shot:

Team Years AvgTotalPayroll
---------------------------------------
HOU 7 $93,695,012
WAS 9 $87,294,892
PHI 9 $86,527,966
OAK 9 $86,307,063
PIT 9 $86,261,950
SEA 9 $86,222,109
NO 9 $86,103,298
CHI 9 $85,574,697
DAL 9 $85,419,069
STL 9 $85,378,811
ATL 9 $85,196,569
ARI 9 $84,832,904
MIN 9 $84,225,704
IND 9 $83,970,112
NYJ 9 $83,713,343
DET 9 $83,543,090
CLE 9 $83,533,798
BAL 9 $83,436,447
NYG 9 $83,197,067
CAR 9 $82,782,142
CIN 9 $82,710,666
DEN 9 $82,259,055
NE 9 $81,408,592
SD 9 $81,210,861
TB 9 $80,508,532
MIA 9 $80,260,183
JAX 9 $79,214,865
TEN 9 $78,752,806
KC 9 $78,538,907
BUF 9 $78,154,454
SF 9 $77,263,555
GB 9 $76,410,579

Now, look at that list and tell me how the money spent correlated to wins and losses. It doesn't. In fact, what is shows is that it isn't the amount of money spent, it is how it is spent.

Source: LINK (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx)

[HughC]

Thats another point I made. You should not be able to use the tag just to get something back for a player that you have no intention of paying. You also should have to have the cap room to place the franchise tag on someone BEFORE you do it... and the cap should be preventing teams from using it as a luxury.
Looks to me like you are under the incorrect assumption that a team can go over the cap when they franchise a player. That is absolutely not true. In the NFL a team can never go over the cap, period. New England would not have been allowed to franchise Cassel unless they had the cap space, which they did.

As far as not allowing teams to tag and trade a player, I have to disagree; why shouldn't they be able to get something back in return? And as far as who the franchise tag helps, it was designed and put in to place to benefit teams where free agents were less likely to head for - i.e., small market teams and non-playoff teams. Take it away and those are the teams that will be hurt most.

New England had the cap space and used it to their benefit. No need to rewrite the rules every time they succeed in doing something right. Everybody has the same cap to work with. If it was as simple as spending the most money Dallas or Washington would be in the Super Bowl every year; when was the last time either one of them won a playoff game?


As far as the cap being 'too big', that's exactly why we're headed for an uncapped year. In the last CBA Tagliabue gave Upshaw a gift, with escalating cap numbers. The owners now realize it was a bit high and they want to reduce the number slightly. If they get their way you will get your wish of a reduced cap or a smaller percentage of revenues that determines the cap number.