For a decade, free agency has been very good for the NFL

[The_Philster]

Smart money
It's a pretty dead time in pro football right now. The other day, for instance, Giants coach Jim Fassel dismissed his players for most of the next month, and the majority of his colleagues are doing the same with their teams (with some exceptions, such the hard-working Falcons), giving them a final break before training camp begins.

Given that there's not much happening on the field, I thought this might be a good week to opine on the 10-year anniversary of NFL free agency, which was born in 1993. I think free agency is a great thing for the league. It gives teams anti-Steinbrenner insurance and protects a Daniel Snyder from going wild with signing bonuses one year without it eventually -- and hugely -- affecting his team's salary cap. At the same time, free agency allows every team, every year to have some sort of hope during the offseason. I've often said that, as a Giants' fan growing up in Connecticut in the late-'60s and early '70s, "hope" was often a four-letter word when it came to my favorite team. From the time I was 9, in 1966, to 1975, when I graduated from high school, the Giants got over .500 only twice and never made the playoffs. Us Giants fans learned to never hope for the playoffs. Granted, a bad front office helped keep the franchise down, but the "old days" in pro football aren't days to long for, in my opinion....

more (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/peter_king/news/2003/06/23/mmqb/)

[Jan Reimers]

While I don't really like the constant churn in personnel (although this offseason has been a lot of fun for Bills fans), the salary cap/free agent process allows small market teams like us to be competitive.

[Turf]

Does this guy now what he's talking about? The salary cap keeps the signing bonuses down, not free agency.

[Jan Reimers]

Actually, I think the salary cap to some extent promotes higher signing bonuses and lower base salaries. But they, too, catch up with you eventually. TD does a nice job of balancing the cap elements, and should keep us out of cap Hell.

[Pride]

I like the salary cap, but there needs to be something changed that allows veterans on a team to count less towards the cap. For instance... if Spikes plays with us for 6 years (as is hoped), and does well... his new 10 million over 5 years contract should only count (for example) 6 million against the cap.

I am not saying this properly, but you get the gist. Make it easier to keep veterans on the team.

[WG]

Originally posted by Jan Reimers
Actually, I think the salary cap to some extent promotes higher signing bonuses and lower base salaries. But they, too, catch up with you eventually. TD does a nice job of balancing the cap elements, and should keep us out of cap Hell.

Agreed. In fact, I think that's TD's biggest strength, managing the cap. We are sitting so pretty w/ respect to the cap that it's almost unbelieveable. The contrast between Butler and TD in that department is remarkable.

[Turf]

I've always agreed with that Pride.
My idea would be something like letting you resign veteran players to whatever dollar amount you want, but have a ceiling against how much it counts against the cap. Say you resign a Joe Montana or Jerry Rice to an 8 million a year contract, but the count against the cap is a ceiling of 5 million.
At least it allows the team the option to keep fan favorite players around and have them end their careers with their own team without destroying their cap situation.
But if another team were to offer as much, the full amount would count aganst the cap.
Player recongniton and fan familiarity among teams is what the NFL is missing right now. And the lack of group cohesiveness is creating an inferior product.
I still think dynasties are a good thing.

[WG]

Well, if that happened, dynasties you'd have. Teams like the Bills wouldn't be able to keep up.

It'd be like "keeper FFL" leagues where only the richest teams/owners, could afford to hang onto their big names each year. Meanwhile, they'd be building those dynasties that you miss. Every year they'd be able to sign new ones and then keep them for higher dollars after their contracts were up. Players would sign only 1 or 2 year contracts to get higher ones the year after by the same team.

I think some sort of hybrid should be considered. Right now, the way that you draft is almost penalized. If you get a great crop such as we did in '01, 3 or 4 years later you won't be able to keep them all. IMO if you draft a player, there should be a rule to assist you in keeping former draftees, but no one else, no FAs. That would only permit "stockpiling" of players that you draft through your efforts there.

I see no reason why richer teams/markets should be able to grab up talent "ex post facto." It's a cheesy way of building a contender.

[WG]

Maybe each team should have say $10 or $15M over the cap to spend on players that they drafted.

That would also force teams w/ players like Minnesota (Moss) or Houston (Carr), to consider how much they're gonna pay those players as well. They'd have to meet the overall cap, but then they'd have the "nested cap" that they'd have to consider for all of their former draftees.

I.e., you couldn't simply sign a dozen Moss's. You'd have to budget, but your draft efforts would be rewarded nonetheless. To an extent, a very reasonable extent.

[Turf]

If you think about it though Wys, not many teams would use it for more than 1-2 players, and the cap penalty would still be substantial enough to make its use limited.
Having money to spend on players they drafted is an intriguing angle. I never thought of that one. I like it.

[WG]

Well, if a team has only one or two players that they drafted that are worth a turd, then too bad for them. The "bonus cap" goes unused in that case. Heck, teams like Minnesota would need most of it simply for a highly paid prima donna like Moss. Again, that's where good management would come in. It's a zero-sum-game within a zero-sum-game.

But this way, it rewards the FO/GM w/ their savvy in the draft. We built our 90s dynasty team via the draft and now teams are penalized for good drafts. The better the draft, the fewer players you can afford to keep over time.

That's also why rookies are getting thrown right into the fire. Teams can no longer wait 2-3 years to get them involved otherwise they won't get any utility out of many of them before they come up FAs and then go elsewhere.

I actually like that, b/c I've very often wondered, especially under the Levy years, why some very good rookies and 2nd year guys didn't get more playing time. So I'm all in favor of throwing the rooks in immediately.

Obviously the QB, OL, and WR positions are very, very difficult to play well in for rookies and very contingent on many factors and techniques more than other positions, but other than that, start the rest if they show they can play.

[Turf]

My first sentence was in reference to my idea Wys, not yours.

[WG]

Ahhh...

:scared:

:scratch:

LOL

[Turf]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Ahhh...

:scared:

:scratch:

LOL

:rolleyes: :laughter:

[HenryRules]

I still don't like the cap ... but I do like free agency.

Outside of the Yankees, I can't think of any team in professional sports that has really bought its way to a dynasty (and even the Yankees got a lot of their players - Clemens, Jeter, Pettitte, Johnson, Soriano, etc. - from solid drafting/good trades - Clemens deal was not a salary dump by Toronto, although he did want out). Hockey has constant turnover at the top with the Red Wings and Devils being the most consistent winners in recent memory (the Devils are almost entirely home-grown) and there's no cap there (I know there probably will be one, and that's going to be the downfall of the league in a few years (a cap at a low enough $ amount to be effective in the NHL will be just as destructive to the league as the overexpansion of the 90s).

I don't think that its bad for sports if its possible for a team to buy its way to a championship, as long as that's not the only way to win a championship. People forget that as long as sports have been around (Babe Ruth being an example), teams have made trades/won championships due to having a financial benefit. It wasn't bad for sports at all IMO (otherwise, why are those days constantly referred to as the golden days).

The main reason that I feel that free agency without the cap would work is European soccer. In this instance, I'm thinking of the top club teams in each league as being in sort of their own league (with UEFA and other cups, they basically do have their own league). While teams like Ajax constantly lose players to the other big teams, they still end up being capable of moving up to the top and winning a championship once in a while (I think they won in '94 and made it to the finals in '93 or something like that) while still being financially sound. Of course, one of the advantages in European soccer is the lack of a draft and I also think eliminating the draft would be beneficial as well (esp. in hockey, not so much in football, bc the colleges are so strongly entrenched).

The main requirement of course, is that you have to have a reasonably-sized supply of talent to accomodate the number of teams - for football and basketball, this supply exists - for baseball, it does in players but not in pitchers - and for hockey, there isn't close to the talent necessary for more than 22 teams or so (aside from goalies).