Saints stuff in today's MMQB (1 Viewer)

[Cincy Saint]

A couple of things in King's column caught me eye.

First, the negative. King describes the NO market for football as "struggling". I realize NOLA is still struggling from Katrina but the local support for the Saints has been fantastic.

But with the salary cap $29 million higher than that this year, and rising $7 million next year, struggling markets like Buffalo and Jacksonville and New Orleans are playing in a different league than the haves right now. And it's getting worse each year.

Good news on Meachum's future -- indirectly.

Ran into Cowboys COO and director of player personnel Stephen Jones at the meetings, and he raised a good point about rookie receivers. "I would argue that, other than quarterback, receiver is the toughest position to get players to come in year one and make a real impact,'' Jones said.

LINK

 

[saintfan-n-alex]

salary cap is covered by the tv contract i thought, which is why it went up recently after the new tv deal.

 

[meily]

How is it getting worse for us exactly?

 

[hcajun25]

With the looming threat of a salary cap-free NFL due to complications with the CBA arising from a potential players strike, the top markets would be better able to afford top free agent talent, essentially creating a bidding war that will squeeze out the smaller market organizations.

Think of teams like the NY Yankees and soccer clubs like Chelsea in the English Premier League (don't give me the Yankees still don't win the World Series BS, they've still made the playoffs the last decade). They have ridiculous payrolls because they can better afford the best players out there, and consistently field some of the best teams.

Do you think Tom Benson is going to shell out more money for a star free agent than Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder? New Orleans does not fit in the same category as the larger market franchises in the NFL, hence the reference to Buffalo and Jacksonville. This could cripple our team, since our pockets are not nearly as deep as those of other owners.

 

[4saintspirit]

With the looming threat of a salary cap-free NFL due to complications with the CBA arising from a potential players strike, the top markets would be better able to afford top free agent talent, essentially creating a bidding war that will squeeze out the smaller market organizations.

Think of teams like the NY Yankees and soccer clubs like Chelsea in the English Premier League (don't give me the Yankees still don't win the World Series BS, they've still made the playoffs the last decade). They have ridiculous payrolls because they can better afford the best players out there, and consistently field some of the best teams.

Do you think Tom Benson is going to shell out more money for a star free agent than Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder? New Orleans does not fit in the same category as the larger market franchises in the NFL, hence the reference to Buffalo and Jacksonville. This could cripple our team, since our pockets are not nearly as deep as those of other owners.

i dont see the difference -- we have not shelled out big bucks for a premier free agent lately anyway -- Brees would have had the same deal with or without the salary cap -- Jason David would not have gotten a better deal -- so why is it going to be a big difference in our gameplan or strategy

 

[Rickey57lives]

A couple of things in King's column caught me eye.

First, the negative. King describes the NO market for football as "struggling". I realize NOLA is still struggling from Katrina but the local support for the Saints has been fantastic.

Good news on Meachum's future -- indirectly.

LINK

King described the market - i.e. the local economy and ability of the franchise to generate revenues beyond individual tickets, concessions and parking - as struggling. If you want to argue with that, go ahead. He's talking about big picutre economics. I did not read it at all as an indictment of local support.

 

[Albi]

I agree on both statements, Cincy Saint.

1. We will struggle to against larger markets, especially with the increasing salary cap. The league should strongly consider larger revenue sharing to the smaller markets.

2. It is hard for first year receivers, not even Calvin Johnson made a huge impact last year But, not playing at all is a different story.

 

[Rum]

He was talking about markets like Dallas/DC/NYC having more $$$ available to them--but do you really think JJ or DS will be able to sign Peyton, Brady AND Drew to the same team?

Nah.. at a certain point, the ego of competition will win out.

I go back to the idea of 40 teams in the NFL--the big money owners hate it--it automatically makes them pay more for talent. And weakens their power.

 

[jay1]

The salary cap benefits the players as much as or more than it does the owners. That said, a new CBA is vital for small market clubs...

 

[VVextreme]

NFL MUST HAVE a salary cap. It would be a disaster to eliminate that piece.

First it would cause inflation for even the bad players. Second, under the current salary cap, big money teams can only afford a few star players. However remove the cap, then they will have an ALL-Star at a majority of the positions. Dallas could have gone out and gotten Randy Moss and Javon Walker to line them up with T.O., with having Tony Romo to throw to them, and then signed Samuel and Briggs and whoever else the other star FA's were.

 

[play action]

the saints are in the cfl south now I guess, but seriously,how many teams are really big market,chicago dallas new york maimi,that makes up a small fraction of the NFL I hope this team draws big crowds in 08 lights it up like they did in 06, make king eat his words.

 

['79 Saints]

It's been said before, but big market teams line up the corporate sponsors to buy the suites, to buy large blocks of tickets, to fill the stadium with advertising, to pay to have their name associated with the stadium, the field or whatever....

The majority of that revenue is unshared, and that's what fuels the guarenteed contracts, the signing bonuses et al. If one wants to know why there is even talk about the current CBA expiring, it's tied into the debate Bills owner Ralph Wilson was talking about a couple of years ago when he forced JJ and Snyder to share some their unshared revenues.

I would gladly do away with the salary cap if Goddell were able to force the owners to agree to two important issues:

1) a slotting system of pay for draft picks, with a moving cap on the top draft picks, a la the NBA. It takes a lot of power away from agents, but it would limit the money a top 5 pick would cost a franchise and would end holdouts.

2) ANY revenue generated by any team in the NFL must be thrown in a pool and shared equally among all franchises. Yes, it is socialist, however, for the betterment of the game, franchises must be placed on an equal footing financially to ensure an equally competative product. Pete Rozelle had to the foresight to recognize this and make the NFL the most popular sport in America. It dirves me nuts to see owners like JJ and Snyder work to undermine that issue.

 

[Rum]

Not to mention, why should we be penalized for some of the Gulf Coast's biggest money companies being casinos?

Aren't Harrah's, Trump, Hard Rock, etc some of America's biggest and best corps?

Why won't the NFL allow us to use our BIG Dollar Biz to subsidize the Saints?

Just a thought.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

King described the market - i.e. the local economy and ability of the franchise to generate revenues beyond individual tickets, concessions and parking - as struggling. If you want to argue with that, go ahead. He's talking about big picutre economics. I did not read it at all as an indictment of local support.

Yeah, I read it the same way. It's not a statement about filling the stadium but rather about the $$ that comes with that support. For example, Dallas is going to have some PSLs that cost as much as $150,000 -- I find it hard to imagine a PSL one-tenth of that amount in New Orleans.

 

[Complex Kid]

NFL MUST HAVE a salary cap. It would be a disaster to eliminate that piece.

First it would cause inflation for even the bad players. Second, under the current salary cap, big money teams can only afford a few star players. However remove the cap, then they will have an ALL-Star at a majority of the positions. Dallas could have gone out and gotten Randy Moss and Javon Walker to line them up with T.O., with having Tony Romo to throw to them, and then signed Samuel and Briggs and whoever else the other star FA's were.

Actually if you read the article you would know that's not possible the way the uncapped year is currently structured.

From Kings article:

And that's where most of the misinformation has come in. The rules for the 2010 season are significantly more restrictive for players than they currently are, so players and agents waiting out the next two years for a pot of gold in the uncapped year are going to be disappointed. The 2010 rules for player movement:

FREE AGENCY: Currently, players who are unsigned and have finished at least four NFL seasons are free. In the 2010 market, players will be free if they are unsigned after at least their sixth NFL season. In other words, 2009 would have to be a player's sixth season, and he would have to enter 2010 unsigned. Let's use Cleveland wide receiver Braylon Edwards as an example. In his original rookie contract, signed in 2005, the final year is 2009, which would be his fifth NFL season. Ordinarily, he'd be a free-agent in 2010 -- if the team didn't sign him before then or place a franchise tag on him. But under the 2010 rules, he won't be a free-agent.

MORE RESTRICTIONS VIA FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION TAGS: Each team now can use one franchise-player tag and one transition-player tag -- which pay the tagged player, respectively, the average of the top five and top 10 salaries at his position. In 2010, the revised deal would allow each team the use of a second transition tag. If a team chose to use all its tags, it could stop its best three players from hitting the unrestricted free-agent market.

RESTRICTIONS FOR THE TOP EIGHT TEAMS IN FOOTBALL: If the uncapped year is reached, the teams with the best eight records in football in 2009 will be severely restricted from jumping into the pool. It's still not precisely determined how the system would work, but let's say the Patriots are one of the top eight and want to sign a free-agent to a five-year, $20-million contract. They'd have to lose their own player or players to contracts totaling $20 million before they could sign the free-agent they want. Conceptually, that's how this clause in the deal is going to work, but the exact mechanics of it are not clear yet. The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency. And I can tell you from talking to a few traditionally good teams at the league meetings last week, they're not happy about it.
All told, teams would be able to protect more players with tags, and would have fewer free agents because of the six-year rule, and the best eight teams would be playing with one hand tied behind their back. This is a good system for the players?
Five of the eight richest players in free agency this year would not have been unrestricted free-agents in an uncapped system requiring six years of service. Defensive lineman Tommy Kelly (Raiders) had four years of service and would have been restricted, as would five-year vets Jeff Faine (Bucs), Lance Briggs (Bears), Calvin Pace (Jets) and Asante Samuel (Eagles).