PDA

View Full Version : No salary cap in 2007 8 teams have unfair advantage?


KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 08:33 AM
NFL union chief: Eight teams have unfair edge
Story Tools: Print Email
Associated Press
Posted: 16 hours ago



DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) - Gene Upshaw told NFL owners Wednesday he believes eight powerful teams have obtained an unfair advantage over the other 24.

"When we started this process, there were 14 teams above the average and 14 below it, and everyone was close enough to keep things fair," the executive director of the NFL Players Association said. "Now we have eight haves and 24 have-nots and the haves are getting a discount on everything."
Upshaw, who met with a selected group of owners on the first day of the fall league meetings, is hoping the system will change in a new labor deal. The current contract expires after the 2008 draft, but negotiations have begun on an extension through the 2011 season.

Under the current agreement, there will be no salary cap for the 2007 season.

"We don't have that much time, because if we actually get to that uncapped year, it's over," Upshaw said. "We'll never get the cap back once it goes away."

Since the first contract with free agency and the salary cap took effect in 1994, it always has been extended before it expired to avoid the uncapped year. It was last extended in 2001.

Upshaw noted that the high-revenue teams such as Washington and Dallas get more local money, which is not part of the league's revenue sharing. The union is asking that high-revenue teams contribute more money to the shared pool, a move that would also increase the salary cap and provide more money for players.

"The money that isn't shared has gone from 30 percent (of total revenues) in 1994 to 37 percent today, and with revenues at almost $6 billion, that's a significant amount of money," he said. "We've had a good deal for 10 years now, and we want that to go forward, but the model has to change."

Upshaw's presentation impressed Pittsburgh's Dan Rooney, one of the small-market owners who is a proponent of sharing more revenue.

"I thought he handled it very well," said Rooney, who in past labor disputes often has been the moderating voice among owners. "He heard the objections and he answered them. I think he's got the makings of something we can work with."

High-revenue owners don't agree.

"The union is using published information on gross revenues, and we are looking at net income," Houston's Bob McNair said. "The high-revenue teams are also the ones that have invested heavily in their franchises, so when you look at what money we have at the end of the day, the disparity isn't of the significance that some people would have you believe."

Harold Henderson, the league's executive vice president for labor relations, viewed the meeting as another step in the negotiating process.

"In my view, this is a matter of Gene wanting more money for the players, and coming with this idea as a way to do that," he said. "I think their expectations are excessive and probably are going to be difficult to reach, but that's what a negotiation is all about."

The meetings will continue through Thursday, with topics including the TV contract that expires after 2005; a possible NFL return to Los Angeles; and an update on progress toward Super Bowl 40, which will be played in Detroit in February 2006.

ROYC75
10-28-2004, 08:35 AM
They will impose something by then, they don't want the NFL to tun into a MLB type thing.

BigRedChief
10-28-2004, 08:39 AM
2007 will have a salary cap. They are not stupid enough to say hey look at Baseball owners..they got it good....or are they?

But, the players do have a point. They are suppose to be getting a certain % on the total gross revenue. The way that the current financial struture is if you take out the suite money, the personal seat licenses thats a lot of money. thats not chump change and I can see them fighting about that revenue.

KCTitus
10-28-2004, 08:42 AM
Ok, so who are the 8 teams? We all know KC is one of them, with that greedy bastard Lamar not spending all of his cap money and poketing hundreds of millions in profits every year...

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 08:43 AM
Ok, so who are the 8 teams? We all know KC is one of them, with that greedy bastard Lamar not spending all of his cap money and poketing hundreds of millions in profits every year...


KC is a small market team so they are not one of them

htismaqe
10-28-2004, 08:44 AM
There's no way they let it go back to what it was...

Even the "have" owners like Snyder and Jones surely realize that there's a good reason their sport is the king of all sports...

Bob Dole
10-28-2004, 08:45 AM
Ok, so who are the 8 teams? We all know KC is one of them, with that greedy bastard Lamar not spending all of his cap money and poketing hundreds of millions in profits every year...

It all makes sense now.

Lamar is saving money every year for a shopping spree in '07.

KCTitus
10-28-2004, 08:50 AM
KC is a small market team so they are not one of them

I dont think so...all offseason there was a drumbeat of outrage because Lamar didnt spend any money on FA's. It was obvious to everyone that he was just pocketing his profits.

KCTitus
10-28-2004, 08:51 AM
There's no way they let it go back to what it was...

Even the "have" owners like Snyder and Jones surely realize that there's a good reason their sport is the king of all sports...

People like Snyder and Jones dont give a damn about the game...they're in it for the money. If that means destorying the sport, so be it.

jspchief
10-28-2004, 08:59 AM
Pretty poorly written article. Generated more questions than it answered. Who are the eight teams? What advantage is it getting them? Is it a business advantage or actually an advantage in regards to the team they put onthe field?

Obviously, we need to keep the cap. I don't see this being a problem, since it's already in place. But how does the cap relate to profit sharing? If these teams have found ways to generate income outside of the criteria for profit sharing, I don't automatically think they should be forced to share it. However, if this additional income translates into an advantage in signing players, it's time to spread the wealth per the "spirit" of profit sharing. The article seems to insinuate that it affects player salaries for these teams, but never explains how, or comes right out and says it. It may just be a tactic by the union to accelerate cap growth in an effort to fatten player wallets.

KCTitus
10-28-2004, 09:03 AM
Obviously, we need to keep the cap. I don't see this being a problem, since it's already in place. But how does the cap relate to profit sharing? If these teams have found ways to generate income outside of the criteria for profit sharing, I don't automatically think they should be forced to share it. However, if this additional income translates into an advantage in signing players, it's time to spread the wealth per the "spirit" of profit sharing. The article seems to insinuate that it affects player salaries for these teams, but never explains how, or comes right out and says it. It may just be a tactic by the union to accelerate cap growth in an effort to fatten player wallets.

I read an article, may have been posted here, about how Snyder had gotten around the revenue sharing much like Jones had. Those two allways come up as the biggest culprit. It gave some examples of things that Snyder had done locally to generate marketing revenue that was untouchable by the league -- and it wasnt chump change.

One of the things I know that is exempt is the luxury box revenue...this revenue, unfortunately, is tied more to market size than anything else. Another thing is stadium naming rights...I dont believe that money has to be shared--and I'm not sure if it should be.

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 09:04 AM
I think Upshaw has a good point.

I'd guess the 8 high revenue teams are (no particular order):

1. Redskins
2. Giants
3. Jets
4. Patriots
5. Iggles
6. Dallas
8. 2 of these: Raiders, Houston or Miami

It's based on revenues which are not included in the calculation of salary cap revenues, which means marketing dollars, luxury box revenues (I'm 90% sure these are excluded), etc.

jspchief
10-28-2004, 09:16 AM
I read an article, may have been posted here, about how Snyder had gotten around the revenue sharing much like Jones had. Those two allways come up as the biggest culprit. It gave some examples of things that Snyder had done locally to generate marketing revenue that was untouchable by the league -- and it wasnt chump change.

One of the things I know that is exempt is the luxury box revenue...this revenue, unfortunately, is tied more to market size than anything else. Another thing is stadium naming rights...I dont believe that money has to be shared--and I'm not sure if it should be.

I don't have a problem with this...as long as it doesn't translate to the team they are able to put on the field. If these guys are smart enough businessmen to work the system in their favor, more power to them. The only reason I support profit sharing at all is because the money is used to build league parity. With a cap in place, I don't see how this could give these teams a competitive advantage.

Again, you have to wonder why the union head is getting involved in this. The only reason he would lobby for more money in the profit pool is so that he can lobby for larger cap increases, resulting in more money to the players. Until there is a link to these teams getting an unfair advantage, I think he's out of line. Right now it sounds like the owners have an advantage in regards to their profit margin, not the actual team.

King_Chief_Fan
10-28-2004, 09:23 AM
I think this proves to be the typical union ploy.
The company finds ways outside of the "work" / "production" environment to increase revenues and profits and the unions think they should get a piece of the pie. What BS

Players do not need more money.

KCTitus
10-28-2004, 09:24 AM
The only reason I support profit sharing at all is because the money is used to build league parity. With a cap in place, I don't see how this could give these teams a competitive advantage.

The advantage comes in the form of the ability to pay the big signing bonuses. The only guranteed money in the contract it gives them the advantage to lure FA's and drive up the contract prices of other players namely in the draft.

King_Chief_Fan
10-28-2004, 09:24 AM
I don't have a problem with this...as long as it doesn't translate to the team they are able to put on the field. If these guys are smart enough businessmen to work the system in their favor, more power to them. The only reason I support profit sharing at all is because the money is used to build league parity. With a cap in place, I don't see how this could give these teams a competitive advantage.

Again, you have to wonder why the union head is getting involved in this. The only reason he would lobby for more money in the profit pool is so that he can lobby for larger cap increases, resulting in more money to the players. Until there is a link to these teams getting an unfair advantage, I think he's out of line. Right now it sounds like the owners have an advantage in regards to their profit margin, not the actual team.

very well said

morphius
10-28-2004, 09:27 AM
jsp - What it means is that those teams have more cash, which can be turned into larger bonuses. That would be the main competitive advantage, IMHO.

Phobia
10-28-2004, 09:35 AM
That's stupid. Upshaw just wants his name in the paper, IMO.

The Collective Bargaining agreement has been scheduled for expirations at least 3 times since it was instituted. In every case, it was extended long before it expired. IIRC, 2000 was supposed to have been another uncapped year.

Nightfyre
10-28-2004, 09:47 AM
The salary cap makes madden more interesting.
No, but seriously, the cap is a great feature. No dynasty buying here.

Wile_E_Coyote
10-28-2004, 09:48 AM
Denver is driving insurance premiums up, need more $$$

Nightfyre
10-28-2004, 09:49 AM
Denver is driving insurance premiums up, need more $$$
Its so they can cheat the cap again isnt it? Damn them.

jspchief
10-28-2004, 09:49 AM
jsp - What it means is that those teams have more cash, which can be turned into larger bonuses. That would be the main competitive advantage, IMHO.

"Cash" has to fall under the salary cap just like any other money paid to players. Every team in the NFL is allowed to spend X number of dollars every year on salary, including signing bonuses. These teams that make more money aren't getting a competitive advantage as much as owners like Hunt are putting the Chiefs at a competitive disadvantage by choosing profit margin over using the cap to it's fullest potential. Nothing says every owner is guaranteed the same profit margin, it only says that the richer owners can't outspend the poorer ones, guaranteed by limiting every team to the cap number.

I'll say it again. Why is the Head of the union looking out for owners' interests? Anyone that has any clue how unions work, would understand that he's merely trying to generate larger player salaries. It has nothing to do with competitive adavntages. You could just as easily level the allegedly unfair playing field by stalling the increases in the salary cap to let the "have nots" catch up. But somehow I doubt the union head will entertain that idea. God forbid a business owner make money off of his wise business decisions.

shaneo69
10-28-2004, 09:49 AM
Poor Lamar Hunt. So he doesn't make as much money off of luxury suites as Snyder or J. Jones. That's his excuse for being "cashed out?" Uh, the guy inherited a buttload of money from his family's oil fortune. I'm pretty sure he has enough cash from other sources to spend as much as Snyder or Jones if he wanted to. What was that quote I've read from his father......"Lamar could spend a $1 mil every day of his life, and he wouldn't run out until he was 150 years old." Something ridiculous like that.

It's not the fans' fault that Hunt's not as good a businessman as some of these other owners who are able to cut deals that circumvent the shared revenue. If Hunt needs more luxury suites to make a better profit, then he should build the damn suites himself. If he's having trouble with his cash flow, I have an idea.....how about cutting your losses in that money sucking venture called MLS?

One more thing.....if Hunt can't afford to spend his own money on the Chiefs, then sell the damn team for a huge profit and get the fug out.

Nightfyre
10-28-2004, 09:51 AM
Poor Lamar Hunt. So he doesn't make as much money off of luxury suites as Snyder or J. Jones. That's his excuse for being "cashed out?" Uh, the guy inherited a buttload of money from his family's oil fortune. I'm pretty sure he has enough cash from other sources to spend as much as Snyder or Jones if he wanted to. What was that quote I've read from his father......"Lamar could spend a $1 mil every day of his life, and he wouldn't run out until he was 150 years old." Something ridiculous like that.

It's not the fans' fault that Hunt's not as good a businessman as some of these other owners who are able to cut deals that circumvent the shared revenue. If Hunt needs more luxury suites to make a better profit, then he should build the damn suites himself. If he's having trouble with his cash flow, I have an idea.....how about cutting your losses in that money sucking venture called MLS?

One more thing.....if Hunt can't afford to spend his own money on the Chiefs, then sell the damn team for a huge profit and get the fug out.
/me doesnt want to see the chiefs without lamar hunt. It could be a lot worse.

cdcox
10-28-2004, 09:54 AM
I think Upshaw has a good point.

I'd guess the 8 high revenue teams are (no particular order):

1. Redskins
2. Giants
3. Jets
4. Patriots
5. Iggles
6. Dallas
8. 2 of these: Raiders, Houston or Miami

It's based on revenues which are not included in the calculation of salary cap revenues, which means marketing dollars, luxury box revenues (I'm 90% sure these are excluded), etc.

I think the high income teams are those with a national following (i.e. Dallas, Raiders), in huge markets (NY teams), or new stadiums. These generate lost of money through luxury boxes. Another way to identify them is the teams that regularly give large signing bonuses.

Of the 6 you listed, I agree will all except maybe the Pats. But since you follow them, I'll trust you on that one. I would think that Denver (new stadium, lots of spending) and Chicago (new stadium, huge market) would also fit the profile. But now we are up to 11 teams to fill 8 slots. :shrug:

shaneo69
10-28-2004, 10:21 AM
/me doesnt want to see the chiefs without lamar hunt. It could be a lot worse.

Yes, that's possible, but most of the current crappy owners in the league have inherited their teams from their families (Mike Brown, Bill Bidwell, the Ford family in Detroit, McCaskey, Spanos, DeBartolo's sister, etc.) and are just sticking it out for the easy profits that come with owning an NFL team.

Most of the guys who have recently bought teams (Snyder, J. Jones, McNair, Glazer, Lurie, Blank, Bowlen, Kraft) try to do whatever it takes (even if it's illegal) to win. Hunt doesn't realize how good he has it when he gets consecutive sellouts since '91 even when the team hasn't won a playoff game in 11 years.

Move to LA and get crowds of 30,000 after a couple years of not having playoff success.

KC Jones
10-28-2004, 10:23 AM
I'll say it again. Why is the Head of the union looking out for owners' interests?

Well, I think it's pretty obvious the overall revenues are increasing and the percentage going to player salaries is going down. In other words the head of the union sees the overall pie getting bigger at a rate greater than his clients slice is growing. So, he's pretty much doing his job.

I give Upshaw and the union plenty of slack. If any union on earth can say it has shown a genuine interest in taking care of its members balanced with the health of its overall industry it's the NFL players union IMO.

htismaqe
10-28-2004, 10:33 AM
I think the high income teams are those with a national following (i.e. Dallas, Raiders), in huge markets (NY teams), or new stadiums. These generate lost of money through luxury boxes. Another way to identify them is the teams that regularly give large signing bonuses.

Of the 6 you listed, I agree will all except maybe the Pats. But since you follow them, I'll trust you on that one. I would think that Denver (new stadium, lots of spending) and Chicago (new stadium, huge market) would also fit the profile. But now we are up to 11 teams to fill 8 slots. :shrug:

The Pats have a brand new stadium, complete with luxury suites and naming rights (Gillette)...that's why they're on the list.

I'd take the Raiders off the list and add Denver.

jspchief
10-28-2004, 10:35 AM
Well, I think it's pretty obvious the overall revenues are increasing and the percentage going to player salaries is going down. In other words the head of the union sees the overall pie getting bigger at a rate greater than his clients slice is growing. So, he's pretty much doing his job.

I give Upshaw and the union plenty of slack. If any union on earth can say it has shown a genuine interest in taking care of its members balanced with the health of its overall industry it's the NFL players union IMO.

Very true. But should we as fans be more pissed about the owners that are making more money, or the owners that are pocketing cap money rather than putting it into their teams. If I'm one of the "have" owners, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing me that Lamar Hunt needs more of my money, when he isn't even spending the money I already gave him.

It's hardto justify that these "have nots" need more money (in the interest of keeping the league competitive) when they don't even spend what they have.

Chiefnj
10-28-2004, 10:35 AM
As of 2003:
1. Skins.
2. Cowboys
3. Texans
4. Pats.
5. Browns.
6. Broncos.
7. Bucs
8. Ravens

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 10:41 AM
That's stupid. Upshaw just wants his name in the paper, IMO.

The Collective Bargaining agreement has been scheduled for expirations at least 3 times since it was instituted. In every case, it was extended long before it expired. IIRC, 2000 was supposed to have been another uncapped year.


You are right about it being renewed 3 times before. But I don't know about you but I heard there might be some trouble ahead. I hope it is not true.

KC Jones
10-28-2004, 10:42 AM
As of 2003:
1. Skins.
2. Cowboys
3. Texans
4. Pats.
5. Browns.
6. Broncos.
7. Bucs
8. Ravens

Are those the top revenue earners?

If so I wouldn't say they are exactly the best teams in the league or have an unfair competitive advantage. I mean other than the Pats most of those teams are middle of the road or worse.

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 10:49 AM
It has been awhile since I have heard this but they do want to lower the rookie salaries and signing bonuses. They are getting outrageous even with the salary cap in place. Even FA signing bonuses are gettig outrageous.

DaWolf
10-28-2004, 10:58 AM
Are those the top revenue earners?

If so I wouldn't say they are exactly the best teams in the league or have an unfair competitive advantage. I mean other than the Pats most of those teams are middle of the road or worse.

Thanks to the cap and dumbass front office moves by some of those teams.

One thing they all have in common, outside of Dallas, is a new stadium. And Dallas is about to get one.

Take the cap away and Jerry Jones can do what the 49ers and Eddie D did back in the day: buy a bunch of good players and have the deepest team in the league. If one of your players sucks, now your backup won't be as bad as it currently is due to the cap. The dynasty returns. But we lose the fun of teams coming out of nowhere to win...

TEX
10-28-2004, 10:58 AM
The Broncos would just violate the cap anyway... :shake:

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 12:36 PM
According to Big Sexy there is no cap.

Calcountry
10-28-2004, 01:01 PM
It all makes sense now.

Lamar is saving money every year for a shopping spree in '07.
:bong:

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 02:21 PM
Of the 6 you listed, I agree will all except maybe the Pats. But since you follow them, I'll trust you on that one. I would think that Denver (new stadium, lots of spending) and Chicago (new stadium, huge market) would also fit the profile. But now we are up to 11 teams to fill 8 slots. :shrug:

Pats have a new stadium with plenty of luxury boxes, have sold out their stadium (both old and new) ever since Bill Parcells first game (now 10+ years), and were #2 in marketing sales behind only the Raiders last year.

Boston is the #6 media market in the US. I'm not sure if that includes Providence and the rest of New England, which are Pats fans at least until you get halfway through Connecticut.

They have to be a top 8 revenue producer. :shrug:

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 02:28 PM
It has been awhile since I have heard this but they do want to lower the rookie salaries and signing bonuses. They are getting outrageous even with the salary cap in place. Even FA signing bonuses are gettig outrageous.

Actually, IIRC, what they want for rookies is a structured or tier salary/bonus system for them. What's happening now is that draft picks at the top of the first round are becoming LESS desirable because the cap implications are huge, without any guarantee that the player won't suck. The failure rate (or "mediocrity rate", if you know what I mean) of even high first round draft picks is absolutely amazing.

Look at 2000, which is long ago enough that these players have more or less determined whether they're going to reach their potential:

1. Browns -- Courtney Brown -- decent, not awesome, DL

2. Redskins -- Lavar Arrington -- outstanding LB

3. Redskins -- Chris Samuels OT -- nothing great

4. Bengals -- Peter Warrick WR -- nothing great

5. Ravens -- Jamal Lewis RB -- pretty damn great

6. Eagles -- Corey Simon DT -- pretty good, not great

7. Cardinals -- Thomas Jones RB -- bust

8. Steelers -- Plaxico Burress WR -- pretty damn good, but not great

9. Bears -- Brian Urlacher LB -- flash in the pan?

10. Ravens -- Travis Taylor WR -- not worth the pick

So basically the top 10 in '00 had maybe TWO players who were worth a top 10 pick (Arrington and Lewis). You could argue for some other guys, but basically, suffice to say that at least 50% of these picks are now regretted by the teams that made them.

cdcox
10-28-2004, 02:28 PM
Pats have a new stadium with plenty of luxury boxes, have sold out their stadium (both old and new) ever since Bill Parcells first game (now 10+ years), and were #2 in marketing sales behind only the Raiders last year.

Boston is the #6 media market in the US. I'm not sure if that includes Providence and the rest of New England, which are Pats fans at least until you get halfway through Connecticut.

They have to be a top 8 revenue producer. :shrug:

No doubt. I think their sane approach to free agency must have thrown me off. You guys just didn't fit the profile.

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 02:31 PM
Are those the top revenue earners?

If so I wouldn't say they are exactly the best teams in the league or have an unfair competitive advantage. I mean other than the Pats most of those teams are middle of the road or worse.

The cap keeps the competition on the field fair. I think what Upshaw is saying is that the players are getting the shaft because an increasing percentage of NFL *total* revenues are not counted in calculating the salary cap.

The point of the salary cap, from PLAYERS point of view, was to guarantee them a fair share of the NFL's take. What's happening is that the owners are exerting alot of effort to increase revenues in the areas that aren't calculated as part of the cap.

Believe me, I understand the counter arguments espoused by Jerry Jones and others. But I think that's what Upshaw and the union are saying, at any rate.

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 02:31 PM
Actually, IIRC, what they want for rookies is a structured or tier salary/bonus system for them. What's happening now is that draft picks at the top of the first round are becoming LESS desirable because the cap implications are huge, without any guarantee that the player won't suck. The failure rate (or "mediocrity rate", if you know what I mean) of even high first round draft picks is absolutely amazing.

Look at 2000, which is long ago enough that these players have more or less determined whether they're going to reach their potential:

1. Browns -- Courtney Brown -- decent, not awesome, DL

2. Redskins -- Lavar Arrington -- outstanding LB

3. Redskins -- Chris Samuels OT -- nothing great

4. Bengals -- Peter Warrick WR -- nothing great

5. Ravens -- Jamal Lewis RB -- pretty damn great

6. Eagles -- Corey Simon DT -- pretty good, not great

7. Cardinals -- Thomas Jones RB -- bust

8. Steelers -- Plaxico Burress WR -- pretty damn good, but not great

9. Bears -- Brian Urlacher LB -- flash in the pan?

10. Ravens -- Travis Taylor WR -- not worth the pick

So basically the top 10 in '00 had maybe TWO players who were worth a top 10 pick (Arrington and Lewis). You could argue for some other guys, but basically, suffice to say that at least 50% of these picks are now regretted by the teams that made them.



Hey thanks for clearing that up!

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 02:32 PM
No doubt. I think their sane approach to free agency must have thrown me off. You guys just didn't fit the profile.

In case you didn't know it, Bill Belichick graduated from Wesleyan with....an ECONOMICS degree. Tell me that isn't helpful for managing the cap and understandign how to allocate precious cap dollars! :thumb::thumb:

DefntlyDiffrnt
10-28-2004, 02:36 PM
Most Valuable NFL Teams

1. Washington Redskins $952 (mil)
2. Dallas Cowboys $851
3. Houston Texans $791
4. New England Patriots $756
5. Cleveland Browns $695
6. Denver Broncos $683
7. Tampa Bay Buccaneers $671
8. Baltimore Ravens $649

http://football.about.com/cs/news/a/bl_2003values.htm

I normally read around here but thought this was an interesting read and went and found some information...



NFL vs MLB (http://www.uwsp.edu/business/CWERB/1stQtr01/SpecialReportQtr1_01.htm)

If you overlook them singling out the 2 individual teams and think in a broader scope you can see an interesting comparison of the NFL and MLB IMO.

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 02:37 PM
Further to my prior posts -- I note that some NFL writers have speculated that teams may actually PASS on their high first round draft picks and wait until a few more players go off the board before taking "their" guy.

Example: Let's say you're drafting 3rd and want Player X. You know teams 4 and 5 don't want X, and think that you can at least grab him at 6, and maybe even a little lower. And, hell, you only have player X rated a teeny smidge higher than player Y.

You're on the clock at 3. You try to trade down. Nobody wants to move up. You pass. Team 4 goes. You still work the phones. No action. You pass. Team 5 takes it's pick. You work the phones. Still can't do a deal. Team 6 makes it's pick and takes Player Y. Okay, fine, at #7 you take Player X, saving MILLIONS of both real dollars and cap room dollars and still getting the player you want.

This is VERY possible in future drafts. That's good cap management. The fans may scream, but I guarantee you that if the Patriots had a high #1, Belichick/Pioli wouldn't hesitate to do this if they thought they could still get the guy they wanted. They have absolute power, and a free pass from their fans. Not sure how many other clubs could survive it, but I'm sure there are some.

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 03:08 PM
Further to my prior posts -- I note that some NFL writers have speculated that teams may actually PASS on their high first round draft picks and wait until a few more players go off the board before taking "their" guy.

Example: Let's say you're drafting 3rd and want Player X. You know teams 4 and 5 don't want X, and think that you can at least grab him at 6, and maybe even a little lower. And, hell, you only have player X rated a teeny smidge higher than player Y.

You're on the clock at 3. You try to trade down. Nobody wants to move up. You pass. Team 4 goes. You still work the phones. No action. You pass. Team 5 takes it's pick. You work the phones. Still can't do a deal. Team 6 makes it's pick and takes Player Y. Okay, fine, at #7 you take Player X, saving MILLIONS of both real dollars and cap room dollars and still getting the player you want.

This is VERY possible in future drafts. That's good cap management. The fans may scream, but I guarantee you that if the Patriots had a high #1, Belichick/Pioli wouldn't hesitate to do this if they thought they could still get the guy they wanted. They have absolute power, and a free pass from their fans. Not sure how many other clubs could survive it, but I'm sure there are some.

I think the Vikings did that one year(not the Ryan Sims fiasco) That is a strategy but don't you think if it gets to that, that everyone would pass?

jspchief
10-28-2004, 03:16 PM
I think the Vikings did that one year(not the Ryan Sims fiasco) That is a strategy but don't you think if it gets to that, that everyone would pass?

Agents may be scum, but they're not imbeciles. They already try to get their "soldiers" money for the spot they should have gone in instead of the spot they did go in. And MCKinnie's agent had him holding out for sixth spot money because of the Sims fiasco. The only thing passing on your pick will get you is a rookie-holdout that you end up paying the same as if you'd have taken when you should have. Not to mention you front office being crucified in the media.

If you want to pick later, trade down.

Valiant
10-28-2004, 03:35 PM
these teams deserve the extra money they make...if the players union wants to even the haves and have nots..then quit having there all star players get astronomical amounts of money..that way it can be spread out thru the teams...quit bitching about making 300k a year...

Logical
10-28-2004, 03:44 PM
Very true. But should we as fans be more pissed about the owners that are making more money, or the owners that are pocketing cap money rather than putting it into their teams. If I'm one of the "have" owners, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing me that Lamar Hunt needs more of my money, when he isn't even spending the money I already gave him.

It's hardto justify that these "have nots" need more money (in the interest of keeping the league competitive) when they don't even spend what they have.:clap::clap::clap:

Rausch
10-28-2004, 03:57 PM
Not only is it not broke, it's running better than it ever has been IMO.

Don't "fix" it...

beavis
10-28-2004, 04:04 PM
How ironic is it that the it's the players argueing for a salary cap?

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 04:18 PM
I think the Vikings did that one year(not the Ryan Sims fiasco) That is a strategy but don't you think if it gets to that, that everyone would pass?

They mumbled that as an excuse, but the reality was (and everyone knew it) that the Vikings just screwed up.

Not everyone will pass due to different teams having different needs in terms of players, and different salary cap situations. The Cardinals and other teams who are WAY under cap won't care about doing that. Teams that are up against it may see it as an intriguing possibility.

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 04:19 PM
Agents may be scum, but they're not imbeciles. They already try to get their "soldiers" money for the spot they should have gone in instead of the spot they did go in. And MCKinnie's agent had him holding out for sixth spot money because of the Sims fiasco. The only thing passing on your pick will get you is a rookie-holdout that you end up paying the same as if you'd have taken when you should have. Not to mention you front office being crucified in the media.

If you want to pick later, trade down.


I am not talking about the Sims fiasco. The Vikings did it the year after as well.

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 04:19 PM
How ironic is it that the it's the players argueing for a salary cap?

They're not so much arguing for a cap, as for an extension of the cap that includes dollars that aren't currently counted towards the cap.

They realize full well that the cap will be extended one way or the other in any event.

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 04:21 PM
They mumbled that as an excuse, but the reality was (and everyone knew it) that the Vikings just screwed up.

Not everyone will pass due to different teams having different needs in terms of players, and different salary cap situations. The Cardinals and other teams who are WAY under cap won't care about doing that. Teams that are up against it may see it as an intriguing possibility.


Good Point.

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 04:21 PM
Agents may be scum, but they're not imbeciles. They already try to get their "soldiers" money for the spot they should have gone in instead of the spot they did go in. And MCKinnie's agent had him holding out for sixth spot money because of the Sims fiasco. The only thing passing on your pick will get you is a rookie-holdout that you end up paying the same as if you'd have taken when you should have. Not to mention you front office being crucified in the media.

If you want to pick later, trade down.

Agents can have them hold out if they want, but reality is reality, and if the player is taken later in the draft, after other guys are picked, then it's a hard argument to make with a straight face.

Pats just ignored Ben Watson's agent's demands until Watson fired his agent. :shrug: Unless the player wants to miss a full year and get no money....

tk13
10-28-2004, 04:21 PM
Personally, I think you're all fooling yourselves if you think for two seconds that Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, etc.. care for two seconds about "parity" and the league being equal. The sooner they can become the Red Sox and Yankees of the NFL, the better for them in their minds....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98819

In August, the day before the Redskins played their first home preseason game, Snyder excitedly walked around the stadium, inspecting 5,000 new seats that he added this summer. Three hundred of them are "dream seats," priced at $3,500 each per game and close enough to the action for fans to high-five players after they run off the field.

The new additions also include luxury loge seating, where fans can buy individual seats in catered, climate-controlled areas without springing for an entire corporate suite. Snyder also has added 150 seats to his "owner's club" area, where suites go for up to $200,000 per season and amenities include restrooms with individual TV screens over each urinal. The team's revenue from premium seating is expected to hit $75 million this year, which we estimate will be more than three times the league average.

Although the NFL limits players' salaries to 65% of revenues, Snyder has a big advantage over his rivals because signing bonuses are prorated over the life of a contract for salary cap purposes. The team signed tackle Jon Jansen to a six-year, $25 million contract to start with the coming season. Last year the Redskins had operating income (net before depreciation, interest and taxes) of $69.6 million, the highest in the NFL.

Snyder's profligate spending continues: This season the Redskins will have the highest payroll in the league at $112 million (the team can exceed the salary cap because signing bonuses are prorated over the life of a player's contract). "Dan swings for the fences," says Cerrato, the Skins' operations chief. "He wants to win." But Snyder has changed his approach this year, giving the richest contracts to younger stars who will be around to earn the money, Cerrato says.

HAIL TO THE CHIEF
The Redskins lead the NFL in virtually every revenue category, thanks to a loyal and wealthy fan base.

Average ticket price
$68 ($53 NFL Average)

number of suites
234 (143)

*Attendance
667,000 (529,000)

suite revenue
$35 million ($13 mil)

sponsorship/ad revenue
$32 million ($13 mil)

concessions/parking
$11 million ($4 mil)

All figures are for 2003 season. 1Excludes club seats and luxury-suite seats. Sources: Forbes; Team Marketing Report.

htismaqe
10-28-2004, 04:31 PM
Personally, I think you're all fooling yourselves if you think for two seconds that Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, etc.. care for two seconds about "parity" and the league being equal. The sooner they can become the Red Sox and Yankees of the NFL, the better for them in their minds....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98819

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones don't care about parity directly.

But it's parity that breeds popularity and popularity equals HUGE profits.

Undoing parity undoes the league...neither Snyder nor Jones wants that...

jspchief
10-28-2004, 04:34 PM
Personally, I think you're all fooling yourselves if you think for two seconds that Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, etc.. care for two seconds about "parity" and the league being equal.

And we're supposed to believe that Gene Upshaw does?

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 04:36 PM
Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones don't care about parity directly.

But it's parity that breeds popularity and popularity equals HUGE profits.

Undoing parity undoes the league...neither Snyder nor Jones wants that...

I think I've seen enough quotes from Jones, at least, that I'm reasonably convinced he could give a rat's ass about parity as long as (1) he's winning, and (2) he's making kaboodles of money.

Unfortunately, Jones and Snyder shouldn't be confused with Mara, Rooney and Modell (putting aside the midnight run from Cleveland to Baltimore) who were willing to make sacrifices for the good of the league. Jones and Snyder are in the Steinbrenner mold, where what's good for ME and MY TEAM is more important than what's good for the sport as a whole.

Amnorix
10-28-2004, 04:37 PM
And we're supposed to believe that Gene Upshaw does?

Don't knock Upshaw. For a union president, he has been far more reasonable and amenable to changes that are "for the good of the sport" than any other union organization in professional sports.

Thig Lyfe
10-28-2004, 04:37 PM
No salary cap = death of NFL

tk13
10-28-2004, 04:38 PM
Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones don't care about parity directly.

But it's parity that breeds popularity and popularity equals HUGE profits.

Undoing parity undoes the league...neither Snyder nor Jones wants that...
I just don't believe that... the Yankees and Red Sox still make a truckload of money. As long as they can get rid of parity and continue to spend money and put together teams that are loaded like those 80's Niners, they'll win all the time, make HUGE profits, bring in all the bandwagon jumpers like the 80's Niners and 90's Cowboys did, sell out, increase merchandise sales across the country, etc.

tk13
10-28-2004, 04:43 PM
And we're supposed to believe that Gene Upshaw does?
Well let's not be stupid, everybody's looking out for their best interest. If you were to ask me who had more interest in the success of the league as a whole, I'd take Upshaw over Snyder and Jones... Upshaw is at least looking out for everybody. Is Upshaw not promoting equality here? He could be saying "Let's scrap the cap and let owners spend their money freely". Then teams like the Skins and Cowboys and teams with new stadiums would be annhiling the Chiefs in spending money because the Chiefs don't have PSL's or new suites. The players get richer, the players are happy. It could be a lot worse.

jspchief
10-28-2004, 04:44 PM
Don't knock Upshaw. For a union president, he has been far more reasonable and amenable to changes that are "for the good of the sport" than any other union organization in professional sports.

I'm not knocking him. I'm also not stupid enough to think him bringing this story to light has to do with anything other than building larger salary caps. There's no doubt the NFL players union is a textbook example of how to do it. But Upshaw coming out with an article about how teams are at a disadvantage is simply a ruse to get his players more money. Like I posted earlier, another solution to the disadvantage of the "have nots" would be to slow the growth of the salary cap allowing the lesser teams to financially "catch up". We all know that the union would never allow that to happen. In essence he's trying to get a bigger piece of the pie under the guise of leveling the playing field for all teams.

beavis
10-28-2004, 04:57 PM
They're not so much arguing for a cap, as for an extension of the cap that includes dollars that aren't currently counted towards the cap.

They realize full well that the cap will be extended one way or the other in any event.
I'll admit I know little to nothing about this, I just found it odd as opposed to baseball, the players seem to be somewhat reasonable.

htismaqe
10-28-2004, 04:58 PM
I just don't believe that... the Yankees and Red Sox still make a truckload of money. As long as they can get rid of parity and continue to spend money and put together teams that are loaded like those 80's Niners, they'll win all the time, make HUGE profits, bring in all the bandwagon jumpers like the 80's Niners and 90's Cowboys did, sell out, increase merchandise sales across the country, etc.

Jones, maybe.

But what I've read of Snyder he knows that it's better for him to make $100M a year in a league that stands to continue to feed him money for the next 50 than it is to make $250M a year in a system that will run the entire league into the ground in less than a decade.

Over-Head
10-28-2004, 06:16 PM
And we're supposed to believe that Gene Upshaw does?

Of cource you are damnit!

KingPriest2
10-28-2004, 09:40 PM
Well let's not be stupid, everybody's looking out for their best interest. If you were to ask me who had more interest in the success of the league as a whole, I'd take Upshaw over Snyder and Jones... Upshaw is at least looking out for everybody. Is Upshaw not promoting equality here? He could be saying "Let's scrap the cap and let owners spend their money freely". Then teams like the Skins and Cowboys and teams with new stadiums would be annhiling the Chiefs in spending money because the Chiefs don't have PSL's or new suites. The players get richer, the players are happy. It could be a lot worse.


I totally agree with you

KingPriest2
10-29-2004, 08:13 AM
Actually, IIRC, what they want for rookies is a structured or tier salary/bonus system for them. What's happening now is that draft picks at the top of the first round are becoming LESS desirable because the cap implications are huge, without any guarantee that the player won't suck. The failure rate (or "mediocrity rate", if you know what I mean) of even high first round draft picks is absolutely amazing.

Look at 2000, which is long ago enough that these players have more or less determined whether they're going to reach their potential:

1. Browns -- Courtney Brown -- decent, not awesome, DL

2. Redskins -- Lavar Arrington -- outstanding LB

3. Redskins -- Chris Samuels OT -- nothing great

4. Bengals -- Peter Warrick WR -- nothing great

5. Ravens -- Jamal Lewis RB -- pretty damn great

6. Eagles -- Corey Simon DT -- pretty good, not great

7. Cardinals -- Thomas Jones RB -- bust

8. Steelers -- Plaxico Burress WR -- pretty damn good, but not great

9. Bears -- Brian Urlacher LB -- flash in the pan?

10. Ravens -- Travis Taylor WR -- not worth the pick

So basically the top 10 in '00 had maybe TWO players who were worth a top 10 pick (Arrington and Lewis). You could argue for some other guys, but basically, suffice to say that at least 50% of these picks are now regretted by the teams that made them.

Looking back at this top ten makes you think how much of a crapshoot drafting is.