Cap change that should happen (1 Viewer)

[SaintSausagehead]

I was talkin to a buddy of mine and we had an idea . Dont you think it would be a good idea if they could work out a system to where a team thats signing their own players it would not be such a huge cap hit? This should really hold true if the player was orginally drafted by the team tryin to sign them. What are my fellow S.R. members thoughts on this ?

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

I like it, but that would have to be agreed to in the next CBA in 2020.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I was talkin to a buddy of mine and we had an idea . Dont you think it would be a good idea if they could work out a system to where a team thats signing their own players it would not be such a huge cap hit? This should really hold true if the player was orginally drafted by the team tryin to sign them. What are my fellow S.R. members thoughts on this ?

I think there is too much potential for abuse, that it could disrupt Free Agency and thus players will lose what they've fought very hard for.

 

[duhonmark551]

From a free agent players perspective that is not going to give them the opportunity to get the best contract terms.

Many players don't want to be with their original teams and their choice is what free agency is all about. After paying their dues with the 4 year rookie contracts, the competing teams are currently on equal footing for their services, and that makes for the best chance of players getting a fair contract when they do reach free agency.

There are now compensatory draft picks which normalizes the leagues flow of free agents, but this system just rewards the lackluster teams that have free agents move on to other teams.

 

[SaintSausagehead]

No they dont have to sign with their current team if they are free agents but it would allow the home team so to speak a discount on the cap hit only. It would be no different than what happens now other then the cap.It kinda rewards a team for draftin well Plus it might keep icons from having to leave a team because of cap room.

 

[Frank The Rat]

I don't think the idea would restrict players from free agency. I think all he is saying is something along the lines of what they have for signing a vet over 10 years that the entire amount doesn't count toward the cap. In other words, they would still be able to get their contracts, but the benefit for the team is that they could potentially offer the player more because some of it wouldn't count toward the cap. The drawback is over it would drive up contracts because other teams would have to offer the same things to lure the player away. It would be a benefit to the player and their orignal team. If I am understanding him correctly

 

[RockyMtnSaint]

I don't think the idea would restrict players from free agency. I think all he is saying is something along the lines of what they have for signing a vet over 10 years that the entire amount doesn't count toward the cap. In other words, they would still be able to get their contracts, but the benefit for the team is that they could potentially offer the player more because some of it wouldn't count toward the cap. The drawback is over it would drive up contracts because other teams would have to offer the same things to lure the player away. It would be a benefit to the player and their orignal team. If I am understanding him correctly

That's how I understand the idea too Frank. So if the player re-signs with the same team, they get an 80% discount on the cap (just throwing out that number as an example). One thing it would do is put a premium on drafting. If you draft well, you can keep the player in-house and make out better cap-wise than a team that drafted poorly and needs to fill holes by attracting FAs from other teams.

Unfortunately this can't happen until a new CBA comes along.

 

[NYCsaint]

I don't think the idea would restrict players from free agency. I think all he is saying is something along the lines of what they have for signing a vet over 10 years that the entire amount doesn't count toward the cap. In other words, they would still be able to get their contracts, but the benefit for the team is that they could potentially offer the player more because some of it wouldn't count toward the cap. The drawback is over it would drive up contracts because other teams would have to offer the same things to lure the player away. It would be a benefit to the player and their orignal team. If I am understanding him correctly

right but if team X has to choose between hometown Joe at a discounted rate, or free agent fred at full price... freds options have been restricted.

 

[Euphonetiks]

right but if team X has to choose between hometown Joe at a discounted rate, or free agent fred at full price... freds options have been restricted.

Yes, but if a team's draft picks do not count against the cap, then player's pay will actually go up. You are adding salary above and beyond the cap. I think the players would go for it, but the owners would not.

 

[RockyMtnSaint]

right but if team X has to choose between hometown Joe at a discounted rate, or free agent fred at full price... freds options have been restricted.

Fred can still sign with his hometown team for a higher rate if they're willing to pay it.

 

[SaintSausagehead]

Right Frank N Rocky .

 

[ASaintFerLife]

I like it, but that would have to be agreed to in the next CBA in 2020.

I am sure the NFL will be shutdown for a year or 2 just figuring that mess out, aka a new CBA.

 

[NYCsaint]

Fred can still sign with his hometown team for a higher rate if they're willing to pay it.

he can, but it made his options to move around more restrictive, thats all i was saying. it created a tougher market to break into a new team. its a bit like putting a tariff on foreign goods (free agent) to encourage domestic consumption (own draft picks).

not arguing whether or not i care or think its good

 

[NYCsaint]

Yes, but if a team's draft picks do not count against the cap, then player's pay will actually go up. You are adding salary above and beyond the cap. I think the players would go for it, but the owners would not.

that is a valid point that somehow went right over, under, or around my head, based on the framing of the discussion thus far.

it would essentially raise the cap as well, which owners do not particularly want i imagine.

could also cause issues with trades (would we get the sign and trade to get a cheap contract, or does it escalate on other rosters), or even if you cut a guy how will it count - just other things to discuss.


it its own way the NBA does this by allowing home teams to offer bigger deals, no? (i havent followed basketball in years)

 

[SaintSausagehead]

It wouldnt raise the cap it would kinda alter it like a signing bonus does now. I just though it might help a team keep the face of the Franchise in some cases.

 

[NYCsaint]

It wouldnt raise the cap it would kinda alter it like a signing bonus does now. I just though it might help a team keep the face of the Franchise in some cases.

it would certainly raise the cap.

teams would:
A) have more available to spend if they spent on their own guys
B) have to spend more to get to the cap floor if they signed their own guys.

its actually got little in common with amortizing a bonus. thats shifting money, where this is increasing the players slice of the NFL revenue pie if they stay at home.