PDA

View Full Version : Is the Salary Cap gonna survive?



hermhater
03-31-2008, 06:44 PM
There's quite a bit of info presented here, but I thought the possibility of losing the Cap was intriguing.


CBA on everyone’s mind Goodell addresses media

http://www.jaguars.com/story/images/400x214/story%286833%29400x214.jpg

PALM BEACH, FL—This week’s league meetings don’t formally include a new Collective Bargaining Agreement as a main topic of discussion, but it would seem to be foremost on everyone’s mind.


NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell met with reporters Monday afternoon and most of the questions concerned the current CBA and the possibility of its nullification on Nov. 8. Should owners vote to void the agreement, 2010 would become an uncapped year and ’11 could result in labor unrest.


“We are doing a tremendous amount of analysis to understand the true impact of the deal,” Goodell told reporters of the current CBA, which allows players to share in total football revenue. It’s a model that’s thought to be causing financial distress for several franchises.


“I think we knew the pendulum would swing very much in favor of the players,” Goodell said when asked what the thinking was when owners agreed to the current CBA two years ago. “I don’t know that anyone thought it would swing as much as it has.”


Pursuit of a new labor agreement and nullification of the current CBA will be more intensely debated at the league’s May meetings, and Goodell said, “I anticipate something will happen just before the end of summer or (early in the) fall.”


What exactly does happen will be critical to the Jaguars, one of the league’s small-market, low-revenue teams that has intense interest in the game’s threatening economic landscape.


“We’re dealing in an environment now with a great more risk,” Goodell said, referring to the current CBA and an American economy that teeters on the brink of recession. “I hope it doesn’t come to that,” he added when asked about an uncapped year in 2010. “I hope we can come to an agreement” with the players.


On everyone’s lips is this question: Are we seeing the final years of the salary cap? Goodell clearly favors a salary cap system, but he acknowledged the possibility that it could expire.


“We will continue to look for some system that works,” he said. “There are clubs that believe they can build a winner without paying high-priced contracts.”


In other words, there are teams in the league that believe the salary cap system and its minimum-cap requirement will force them to lose money. Goodell was referring to teams that believe they can operate beneath the minimum and still remain competitive.


“I think the players need to appreciate the risks and the great costs at generating revenues,” Goodell said.


When asked if there’s enough “leaguethink” mentality among owners to allow small-market teams to prosper, Goodell said: “Absolutely; you saw it in the postseason this year.”


On other issues:


• Goodell clearly favors the proposed playoff re-seeding format that would strip division winners of their guaranteed home game in the playoffs and, instead, re-seed division winners according to record.
“We should give incentive to win every game. The fans should expect that,” Goodell said.


The final weekend of last season resulted in several surrender games and there’s a camp of supporters who believe re-seeding is needed for the purpose of eliminating such lackluster efforts. Owners are to vote on the proposal this week.


• Goodell announced that the ’08 season will begin on Thursday, Sept. 4, with the Super Bowl-champion Giants hosting the Redskins. The other prime-time games for that weekend are: Chicago at Indianapolis on Sunday, Sept. 7, and Minnesota at Green Bay and Denver at Oakland in a Monday night, Sept. 8, doubleheader. The league is expected to announce its full schedule next week.


• Troubled Titans cornerback Pacman Jones still has to earn reinstatement, but Goodell has no problem with the Cowboys attempting to trade for Jones, despite his suspension.


“He has to accept responsibility for his actions and, when he does, I will consider him for reinstatement,” Goodell said. “If he doesn’t meet that status, I don’t feel any obligation to reinstate him.”


• “Spygate” apparently is far from over. Goodell said he’s “very anxious” to meet with former Patriots videographer Matt Walsh, who claims to have been ordered by Patriots coach Bill Belichick to spy on the St. Louis Rams prior to the 2001 season’s Super Bowl, which was won by the Patriots in an upset. Goodell said Walsh is seeking some sort of protection for providing his testimony.


“If he has a tape, I would be interested to get it,” said Goodell, adding that the league remains aggressive in its pursuit of “Spygate” and spy-related tactics. “We were the ones who discovered it, disclosed it and disciplined it. I believe in our integrity and we’re going to take steps to reassure our fans of that.”


• The “tuck-in-the-hair” proposal made by the Kansas City Chiefs could be tabled for more discussion and a decision may not be rendered until May’s meetings. “I am aware of the sensitivities. I’d like to hear the players’ sensitivities to it,” Goodell said.



http://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=6833

royalswin100games
03-31-2008, 06:48 PM
I'm in favor of the cap. I'm a Royals fan. :D

hermhater
03-31-2008, 06:51 PM
I'm in favor of the cap. I'm a Royals fan. :D

Goofball.

Seriously, the NFL is considering removing the cap, for various reasons (read the article), in 2010.

That would be terrible for small market teams.

royalswin100games
03-31-2008, 06:55 PM
Goofball.

Seriously, the NFL is considering removing the cap, for various reasons (read the article), in 2010.

That would be terrible for small market teams.

Of course it would. I wouldn't like to see the cap go but the argument for the other side is that it wouldn't change the parity in the NFL. That has been the argument in the MLB.

texaschief
03-31-2008, 07:01 PM
The cap is a good thing. It really does suck that they're considering removing it. You look at the NBA and NFL and to me, there is much more parity than MLB. We all know 2 teams will be coming from the AL east EVERY year. It gets old....and then the BoSox have the audacity to complain about the Yankees' payroll when they themselves have the 2nd highest in baseball....BY FAR. It's just a bunch of B.S.

Hey, maybe this way, the Hunts can BUY themselves a title like the Redsox and Yankees do, since they can't win one on a fair playing level.

rbedgood
03-31-2008, 07:03 PM
The cap is a good thing. It really does suck that they're considering removing it. You look at the NBA and NFL and to me, there is much more parity than MLB. We all know 2 teams will be coming from the AL east EVERY year. It gets old....and then the BoSox have the audacity to complain about the Yankees' payroll when they themselves have the 2nd highest in baseball....BY FAR. It's just a bunch of B.S.

Hey, maybe this way, the Hunts can BUY themselves a title like the Redsox and Yankees do, since they can't win one on a fair playing level.

The problem is when the salary cap goes, so will the team minimum spending. Thus teams that have family ownership that doesn't want to spend money can play on the cheap and likely will struggle to make the playoffs, more or less win a Super Bowl.

hermhater
03-31-2008, 07:04 PM
Of course it would. I wouldn't like to see the cap go but the argument for the other side is that it wouldn't change the parity in the NFL. That has been the argument in the MLB.

And we see how that works out...


The cap is a good thing. It really does suck that they're considering removing it. You look at the NBA and NFL and to me, there is much more parity than MLB. We all know 2 teams will be coming from the AL east EVERY year. It gets old....and then the BoSox have the audacity to complain about the Yankees' payroll when they themselves have the 2nd highest in baseball....BY FAR. It's just a bunch of B.S.

Hey, maybe this way, the Hunts can BUY themselves a title like the Redsox and Yankees do, since they can't win one on a fair playing level.

I doubt the Hunts will spend the money, they don't even spend it now.

hermhater
03-31-2008, 07:05 PM
The problem is when the salary cap goes, so will the team minimum spending. Thus teams that have family ownership that doesn't want to spend money can play on the cheap and likely will struggle to make the playoffs, more or less win a Super Bowl.

And that sucks!

:mob:

royalswin100games
03-31-2008, 07:06 PM
The cap is a good thing. It really does suck that they're considering removing it. You look at the NBA and NFL and to me, there is much more parity than MLB. We all know 2 teams will be coming from the AL east EVERY year. It gets old....and then the BoSox have the audacity to complain about the Yankees' payroll when they themselves have the 2nd highest in baseball....BY FAR. It's just a bunch of B.S.

Hey, maybe this way, the Hunts can BUY themselves a title like the Redsox and Yankees do, since they can't win one on a fair playing level.

Yes and no. The last 5 World Series champs are Bos, StL, ChiSox, Bos, and Fl. There is the MLB argument.

I agree with you though. Once again, I am a fan of small market teams.

texaschief
03-31-2008, 07:09 PM
Yes and no. The last 5 World Series champs are Bos, StL, ChiSox, Bos, and Fl. There is the MLB argument.

I agree with you though. Once again, I am a fan of small market teams.

Yeah, but every year, who are the team with the best records? We all know the playoffs are a different animal. But you get a better chance at winning a title if you know going into each season that you already have a ticket punched for the playoffs.

royalswin100games
03-31-2008, 07:11 PM
Yeah, but every year, who are the team with the best records? We all know the playoffs are a different animal. But you get a better chance at winning a title if you know going into each season that you already have a ticket punched for the playoffs.

Agreed.

rbedgood
03-31-2008, 07:16 PM
...and baseball doesn't have a "hard cap" like the NFL. Baseball teams don't have to spend the "revenue sharing" on payroll, and can go over the cap by just paying a luxury tax. Therefore even though the "cap" was designed to even out payrolls, thus competition, it hasn't truly accomplished that goal. Teams like the Royals, A's, Rays, & Twins continue to be caught in a spot between AAA and MLB. They are essentially farm teams for the big market teams like NY, Boston, LA, etc. There are a few small-market owners who use the revenue sharing properly and have built solid teams in small markets now in baseball. Watch the Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Reds this year, both should be solid.

royalswin100games
03-31-2008, 07:25 PM
...and baseball doesn't have a "hard cap" like the NFL. Baseball teams don't have to spend the "revenue sharing" on payroll, and can go over the cap by just paying a luxury tax. Therefore even though the "cap" was designed to even out payrolls, thus competition, it hasn't truly accomplished that goal. Teams like the Royals, A's, Rays, & Twins continue to be caught in a spot between AAA and MLB. They are essentially farm teams for the big market teams like NY, Boston, LA, etc. There are a few small-market owners who use the revenue sharing properly and have built solid teams in small markets now in baseball. Watch the Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Reds this year, both should be solid.

I wouldn't use those two as examples. They've both spent quite a bit.

You mentioned the Twins. There were a few seasons there where they had a lower payroll than us and still made the wildcard.

My problem with the Royals is ownership. I don't think Glass gives a sh!t about the team. Moore was a great hire but I think 1. He wanted the challenge and 2. David Glass wanted to try to get the fans off his back.

Sorry to highjack the thread with my opinion about the Royals.

rbedgood
03-31-2008, 07:29 PM
...and baseball doesn't have a "hard cap" like the NFL. Baseball teams don't have to spend the "revenue sharing" on payroll, and can go over the cap by just paying a luxury tax. Therefore even though the "cap" was designed to even out payrolls, thus competition, it hasn't truly accomplished that goal. Teams like the Royals, A's, Rays, & Twins continue to be caught in a spot between AAA and MLB. They are essentially farm teams for the big market teams like NY, Boston, LA, etc. There are a few small-market owners who use the revenue sharing properly and have built solid teams in small markets now in baseball. Watch the Milwaukee Brewers and Cincinnati Reds this year, both should be solid.


I wouldn't use those two as examples. They've both spent quite a bit.

You mentioned the Twins. There were a few seasons there where they had a lower payroll than us and still made the wildcard.

My problem with the Royals is ownership. I don't think Glass gives a sh!t about the team. Moore was a great hire but I think 1. He wanted the challenge and 2. David Glass wanted to try to get the fans off his back.

Sorry to highjack the thread with my opinion about the Royals.

Read what I wrote again Royals. I used the Brewers and Reds as an example of how the revenue sharing money should be SPENT. I said they spent money as a small market club when the money started getting shared...and they've built solid teams. And yes the Twins have made the playoffs, so have the A's for that matter...but neither team has kept their stars. Think what the Twins could be (David Ortiz, Johan Santana, etc.), the A's (Giambi, Hudson, Tejada, Nick Johnson, etc.)

royalswin100games
03-31-2008, 07:33 PM
Read what I wrote again Royals. I used the Brewers and Reds as an example of how the revenue sharing money should be SPENT. I said they spent money as a small market club when the money started getting shared...and they've built solid teams. And yes the Twins have made the playoffs, so have the A's for that matter...but neither team has kept their stars. Think what the Twins could be (David Ortiz, Johan Santana, etc.), the A's (Giambi, Hudson, Tejada, Nick Johnson, etc.)

Got it.

Neither have the Royals (Beltran, Dye, Damon). So I guess the difference between the Royals and the Twins/A's is scouting? Management?

rbedgood
03-31-2008, 07:37 PM
Got it.

Neither have the Royals (Beltran, Dye, Damon). So I guess the difference between the Royals and the Twins/A's is scouting? Management?

Management is huge...the A's for example had a short window where they actually tried to make a run while they still had Giambi and Tejada. They traded for Damon, but still manage to hold together an incredible group of prospects. They've also given up Eric Byrnes (AZ), Mark Kotsay (ATL?), and a few others I'm not thinking of...while replacing all of them suitably from the farm system.

Chiefster
04-03-2008, 09:27 PM
If the cap goes away then the small market teams like KC and Jacksonville will definitely be left out in the cold and it becomes a vicious cycle.