Salary cap

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,895
Liked Posts:
43,086
I like having a salary cap because the parity is good for the league. It sucks when the wealthiest teams can just sign anyone they want.

Having said that, I do think there's something less than ideal when teams have to lose their own players due to cap issues.

That's why I think there should be a rule set up where free agent signings have a different cap hit to players a team has drafted. I think if you draft and develop your own players, they should carry a lesser hit when their time for an extension comes around.

So Mack and Hicks should both be heavy hits, but Trubisky, Fuller and Jackson should not, for example.

Teams shouldn't be punished for drafting well, but nor should the richest owners be able to use free agency to acquire everyone they want.

Thoughts?
 

darkvirage

Member
Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
Posts:
268
Liked Posts:
63
They have something similar in the NHL where a player can sign a longer contract with the team that drafted them (thus spreading money over an extra year) versus getting a shorter deal in FA. I believe that is for RFAs, not UFAs. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but it sounds similar to what you are suggesting.

It's a good idea, and a way to keep a young drafted team together longer for the ominous "window" we all talk about. Maybe instead of cap hit numbers (which could make an already confusing thing even more confusing) they simply limit the number of years you can sign FAs, like a max deal of 4 years, vs a drafted player being able to sign for 5? Not sure the NFLPA would go for that though.
 

dennehy

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 29, 2015
Posts:
11,027
Liked Posts:
12,343
Location:
Jewels to get a case of Squirt
Yep, reward good drafting.
 

Leomaz

Pissing people off the right way!
Donator
Joined:
Jul 15, 2012
Posts:
14,948
Liked Posts:
5,696
Location:
In the stratosphere
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
  2. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
The NFLPA would probably be against anything that hinders free agency. Do you think the Bears or any other team would have looked the other way at Mack knowing they would take an even bigger cap hit if the signed him?
 

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,760
Liked Posts:
29,472
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
Slightly different angle, but I think it would be cool to have a rule along the lines of a franchise tag but it would be a cap hit tag. The point would be to allow teams to retain it's own players, taking things back to when teams kept their stars for their whole career. The cap tag would allow a team to sign their own player( maybe even restrict it to players that started their career with the team) but only having to count 80-90% of the contract towards the cap. Max it out to 1 or 2 of these tags a year.

The player would still be able to sign elsewhere, just the "home" team would have a negotiating advantage over the other 31 clubs.

Thoughts?
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,831
Liked Posts:
11,966
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
I kind of like it but could get to the point where it’s like baseball and the only way to rebuild a roster is with the draft where rebuilds can literally take a decade. Imagine having to march Mitch out there without the targets he has now (most of them are from free agency).
 

darkvirage

Member
Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
Posts:
268
Liked Posts:
63
I agree the NFLPA would be against the idea from the get-go. I think the Bears still would have swung at Mack, they seem(ed) pretty convinced that the "window" is now.
 

Rise

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
8,098
Liked Posts:
8,147
Location:
Mom's Basement
The NFLPA would probably be against anything that hinders free agency. Do you think the Bears or any other team would have looked the other way at Mack knowing they would take an even bigger cap hit if the signed him?


No a player like Mack you get regardless. You’re on the right track though it would hurt the average free agent, and thus won’t happen.
 

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,760
Liked Posts:
29,472
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
The NFLPA would probably be against anything that hinders free agency. Do you think the Bears or any other team would have looked the other way at Mack knowing they would take an even bigger cap hit if the signed him?
It wouldn't hinder FA it would allow the home team to exceed the cap for it's own player. Just more money for the players. Don't think the NFLPA would mind that. The cap tag would not allow exclusive rights, just allow a negotiating advantage for the home team.
 

Rise

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
8,098
Liked Posts:
8,147
Location:
Mom's Basement
The other reason this won’t happen is the league loves parity. One of the reasons the nfl is so popular is that right now just about every fan base has reason for hope that their team could rise up this year. You don’t get that in leagues like the nba.
 
Last edited:

BaBaBlacksheep

Half Mod.
Staff member
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
38,682
Liked Posts:
51,585
I like having a salary cap because the parity is good for the league. It sucks when the wealthiest teams can just sign anyone they want.

Having said that, I do think there's something less than ideal when teams have to lose their own players due to cap issues.

That's why I think there should be a rule set up where free agent signings have a different cap hit to players a team has drafted. I think if you draft and develop your own players, they should carry a lesser hit when their time for an extension comes around.

So Mack and Hicks should both be heavy hits, but Trubisky, Fuller and Jackson should not, for example.

Teams shouldn't be punished for drafting well, but nor should the richest owners be able to use free agency to acquire everyone they want.

Thoughts?
I’ve said this for years. ? agree
 

darkvirage

Member
Joined:
Aug 24, 2012
Posts:
268
Liked Posts:
63
I think this might be the only way to keep the franchise tag in the next CBA. The players definitely want that tag gone.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
It would be tough to set up rules, especially when it comes to value of said player. Say that the extra pay is set to be over and above the franchise or eventually even transition tag #s. The higher contract amount would count the next year it gets calculated and it only takes 3 super high priced guys under those circumstances to raise the tag for the next guy to count a normal amount anyway. Maybe he makes a few $m more that the number counted against the cap but really it's only 2% of your space at that point. Kinda what the franchise tag already does.
 

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,407
Liked Posts:
3,618
I think this might be the only way to keep the franchise tag in the next CBA. The players definitely want that tag gone.
It actually would be an option that might happen if they do away with the tag.
 

bearmick

Captain Objectivity
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
37,895
Liked Posts:
43,086
Slightly different angle, but I think it would be cool to have a rule along the lines of a franchise tag but it would be a cap hit tag. The point would be to allow teams to retain it's own players, taking things back to when teams kept their stars for their whole career. The cap tag would allow a team to sign their own player( maybe even restrict it to players that started their career with the team) but only having to count 80-90% of the contract towards the cap. Max it out to 1 or 2 of these tags a year.

The player would still be able to sign elsewhere, just the "home" team would have a negotiating advantage over the other 31 clubs.

Thoughts?

That's the thing with you and I, doc, we're always on the same page.
 

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,760
Liked Posts:
29,472
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
It would be tough to set up rules, especially when it comes to value of said player. Say that the extra pay is set to be over and above the franchise or eventually even transition tag #s. The higher contract amount would count the next year it gets calculated and it only takes 3 super high priced guys under those circumstances to raise the tag for the next guy to count a normal amount anyway. Maybe he makes a few $m more that the number counted against the cap but really it's only 2% of your space at that point. Kinda what the franchise tag already does.
I called it a tag in name only, or change the name to retention designation. It need do nothing more than reduce the cap number by a % for the home team, not set an $$ amount or require compensation by another team, and not for just superstar players. Just allow the home team to exceed the cap for 1-2 home grown players a yr if they choose.
An example would be that the Bears could have offered Amos the same 4yr/36M contract as the Packers but only had, say a $30-33M cap hit.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
But how much does he count against the actual cap? How does his new value affect the new system. It wasn't about it necessarily being a bad idea, more that it will be very difficult to set up a satisfactorily enough system to vote on for either side of the table. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic because I don't think the current system is broken more than any would be and there's an opportunity to make it worse.
 

JoJoBoxer

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
11,577
Liked Posts:
8,008
I like having a salary cap because the parity is good for the league. It sucks when the wealthiest teams can just sign anyone they want.

Having said that, I do think there's something less than ideal when teams have to lose their own players due to cap issues.

That's why I think there should be a rule set up where free agent signings have a different cap hit to players a team has drafted. I think if you draft and develop your own players, they should carry a lesser hit when their time for an extension comes around.

So Mack and Hicks should both be heavy hits, but Trubisky, Fuller and Jackson should not, for example.

Teams shouldn't be punished for drafting well, but nor should the richest owners be able to use free agency to acquire everyone they want.

Thoughts?
How about start with this idea?

A team can pay for a player's state taxes but the state taxes do not count against the cap.

Let's start with a level playing field. No advantages to teams that have no state taxes. There is no advantage to a player going to a Florida team where there is zero state tax than him staying in, let's say, Chicago because there is no effective state tax to that player because the Bears are going to pay for the state tax.
 

MDB111™

O Doyle Rules
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Oct 7, 2011
Posts:
20,545
Liked Posts:
19,477
Location:
Dongbears is thee worst!
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Maryland Terrapins
I like having a salary cap because the parity is good for the league. It sucks when the wealthiest teams can just sign anyone they want.

Having said that, I do think there's something less than ideal when teams have to lose their own players due to cap issues.

That's why I think there should be a rule set up where free agent signings have a different cap hit to players a team has drafted. I think if you draft and develop your own players, they should carry a lesser hit when their time for an extension comes around.

So Mack and Hicks should both be heavy hits, but Trubisky, Fuller and Jackson should not, for example.

Teams shouldn't be punished for drafting well, but nor should the richest owners be able to use free agency to acquire everyone they want.

Thoughts?
I'd be open to this. It is a great idea IMO.
Maybe the homegrown drafted players can have one uncapped season to pay them whatever they need to keep them and give them an extra season to figure things out. Like a franchise tag but to not have it count against the cap.
 

Top