Let’s talk about the Salary Cap, and teams uses of it

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by crayzkirk

From my limited understanding, these void years allow cap/salary to be turned into cash/singing bonus. The signing bonus can be split over the years of the contract. What I don't understand is how you can write a contract for 5 years and have it void after 3 years. This leaves the cash on the books however the player is free to go elsewhere.

My research indicates that this was allowed during covid because of the reduction in the salary cap. The Saints were in deep trouble so they allowed this. When Brady went to the Bucs, they did something similar: pushed his signing bonus over a longer period. However because Brady retired, everything including the signing bonus was voided.

Seems like this is something that really shouldn't be allowed as it's being leveraged in a way that was not intended. Leave it up to the lawyers to find a way to take advantage of this.

You can say it shouldn't be allowed, but it benefits the teams, because they get cap flexibility, and it benefits the players because they get bigger contracts and more money. Who do you think is going to put a stop to this?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chargem

You can say it shouldn't be allowed, but it benefits the teams, because they get cap flexibility, and it benefits the players because they get bigger contracts and more money. Who do you think is going to put a stop to this?

It violates the spirit of the league's sacred cow - parity. Eventually they will crack down on it.

Or the cap will stop going up and these teams' bill will come due all at once.

[crayzkirk]

Originally Posted by Chargem

You can say it shouldn't be allowed, but it benefits the teams, because they get cap flexibility, and it benefits the players because they get bigger contracts and more money. Who do you think is going to put a stop to this?

I said that it seems like it shouldn't be allowed because it, IMO, is against the intent of the cap. Allowing teams to overspend and then, like in 2020 when Covid hit, the league gave the Saints a way out of it and remain competitive despite their mistakes. Since the cap goes up every year, it doesn't seem to be the risk that it used to be.

IMO, this affects the competitive balance by forcing other teams to do the same and again, IMO, it's similar to what teams in other sports do which allow them a competitive advantage over teams that choose not to do this.

Do we want the NFL to return to the pre-salary cap era where certain teams bought up the talent? Shall we turn the NFL into MLB where teams that spend the most win the most?

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It violates the spirit of the league's sacred cow - parity. Eventually they will crack down on it.

Or the cap will stop going up and these teams' bill will come due all at once.

Originally Posted by crayzkirk

I said that it seems like it shouldn't be allowed because it, IMO, is against the intent of the cap. Allowing teams to overspend and then, like in 2020 when Covid hit, the league gave the Saints a way out of it and remain competitive despite their mistakes. Since the cap goes up every year, it doesn't seem to be the risk that it used to be.

IMO, this affects the competitive balance by forcing other teams to do the same and again, IMO, it's similar to what teams in other sports do which allow them a competitive advantage over teams that choose not to do this.

Do we want the NFL to return to the pre-salary cap era where certain teams bought up the talent? Shall we turn the NFL into MLB where teams that spend the most win the most?

I don't see how it's against parity or competitive balance if all teams have access to it.

Should we ban trading draft picks just in case some teams are too good at valuing picks and end up finding a competitive edge from it?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I don't see how it's against parity or competitive balance if all teams have access to it.

Should we ban trading draft picks just in case some teams are too good at valuing picks and end up finding a competitive edge from it?

All teams don't have access to it. It's basically a high interest credit card and only teams that are cash flush can pay the monthly payments. It flies in the face of competitive parity.

[Okchief80]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

All teams don't have access to it. It's basically a high interest credit card and only teams that are cash flush can pay the monthly payments. It flies in the face of competitive parity.

There aren’t broke owners. All teams could afford this. There are cheap owners who refuse to pay up.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Okchief80

There aren’t broke owners. All teams could afford this. There are cheap owners who refuse to pay up.

There are owners that would have to borrow to pay these guarantees. Yes, there are owners that can't subsidize spending the way the Eagles do.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

There are owners that would have to borrow to pay these guarantees. Yes, there are owners that can't subsidize spending the way the Eagles do.

The Bangles, for instance.

[crayzkirk]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I don't see how it's against parity or competitive balance if all teams have access to it.

Should we ban trading draft picks just in case some teams are too good at valuing picks and end up finding a competitive edge from it?

Some teams have access to more money than others. Baseball has a salary cap and a penalty for teams that violate it. However, there are a number of teams that make so much more in revenue that it doesn't matter.

Being better at evaluating players and making deals isn't really bypassing anything so I don't really see your argument as comparable. It's not our fault that Buffalo let the Chiefs grab Mahomes and Worthy. The Bills got fair compensation for the trade.

It seems the kicking the can down the road is worthwhile unless your team really screws things up and then, like what happened with too big to fail, the people making the rules simply change them. Not turning it into a political discussion, just noting how people with money always seem to escape accountability.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by Chargem

I don't see how it's against parity or competitive balance if all teams have access to it.

Should we ban trading draft picks just in case some teams are too good at valuing picks and end up finding a competitive edge from it?

Yeah it's available to every team., but not every team has an owner that can afford to pay all of that money out.