HoosierCat Posted December 11, 2004 Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 Part of a piece on profootballtalk.com:TEAMS ANTICIPATE NINE-FIGURE CAP In response to the big-money deal given to Colts receiver Marvin Harrison (which as we've explained isn't as great as reported but nevertheless represents more money than the team arguably should have paid to a 32-year-old receiver whose best days arguably are flickering in the rear-view mirror), a league front-office type tells us that, moving forward, new player contracts will reflect the expectation that the new television deals will push the salary cap over $100 million. The 2004 salary cap is $80.582 million. But with an average 27-percent increase in Sunday afternoon TV deals with Fox and CBS, a hefty increase for the DirecTV package (some reports peg it as high as 75 percent), and an expectation that the Sunday night and Monday night packages will yield at least a 25 percent increase, the trek from $80 million to $100 million in maximum per team annual player compensation will be a no-brainer.The story goes on to note that there are still a lot of questions about what happens to MNF and how much is eventually paid for that, but it seems clear that some hefty cap hikes are on the way in the next few years. For the Bengals, that has a couple implications, not the least of which is that it would be possible to keep improving the team and still retain guys like Rudi and Jon Kitna without using up all the cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jditty47 Posted December 11, 2004 Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 wow. that is huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted December 11, 2004 Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 That would be great for the bengals but would also be great for other teams as well. As supportive as I am of the Bengals getting better players I don't think this is such a good idea. Even though it's much worse in baseball, how much is enough for these guys. We all know how huge contracts have hurt both the NBA and MLB. I don't want to get to the point where I rooting for players (ala fantasy football) and not for the teams themselves. MLB and NBA has gotten so bad you almost cant name the starting lineups anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted December 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 I can think of a couple really interesting consequence of a big increase in the cap. One is that we may see an at least temporary spike in underachieving high draft picks and FAs being let go. With all that space teams could afford to take a big hit in dead money. In the same vein, it would open up a short window for blockbuster trades. The problem with big NFL trades has always been that teams have to take a big hit from accelerated bonus if they trade a guy. But now they could afford that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted December 11, 2004 Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 This would completely change how NFL teams work(hopefully it won't take us 15 years to figure it out) With the way you put it Joisey, this might actuallly give the owners/GM's some more leverage in negoiating deals for role players but problably give less wiggle room and create huge salaries for franchise players. I will have to think on this for awhile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted December 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 I'm not sure it would change things long-term; eventually you just get back to a point with similar cap crunch issues as now, except with the higher salaries you mentioned earlier. What I think it would do would be to open up a short window of opportunity for teams to purge their rosters of high-priced underachievers, either by trade or outright release. It would also be a huge boon to guys like Dan Snyder, whose profligate ways have cap hell bearing down on them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted December 11, 2004 Report Share Posted December 11, 2004 Just think about what it could do to the salaries of older vets. A lot of 30 somethings are overpaid anyway but think what people(Dan Snyder, good example) will pay in free agency to veteran players. I agree it won't make too many changes other than salaries across the board will increase Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishcovga Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 100 million or Not doesn't even matter if you can't play all 53 men on the roster.- It's insane to pay players that don't even get to suit up. You want to know why more starters are having more serious injuries, it's because of stupid NFL rules that state ...1. A active roster can only have 53 players on it.2. Practice squad players are not under contract and can be signed away by other teams !3. Active Game rosters can only exist of 46 players. Which means only 46 players can suit up to play on sundays while 7 players have to be exempt. The only exception to the rule is , all teams may have an emergency quarterback to be activated in the case of injury!**** That's the stupidest sh*t I've ever heard *****The Salary cap should have helped Free Agency, but it's hurting it as long as stupid rules keep players from playing ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted December 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 I agree completely. They could go a long way toward fixing it quickly and without huge disruptions just by following this simple rule: a roster spot is a roster spot is a roster spot. Merge the 53-man roster and the 8-man PS into a single 61-man roster, and drop the rule about only allowing X number to be active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 100 million or Not doesn't even matter if you can't play all 53 men on the roster.- It's insane to pay players that don't even get to suit up. You want to know why more starters are having more serious injuries, it's because of stupid NFL rules that state ...1. A active roster can only have 53 players on it.2. Practice squad players are not under contract and can be signed away by other teams !3. Active Game rosters can only exist of 46 players. Which means only 46 players can suit up to play on sundays while 7 players have to be exempt. The only exception to the rule is , all teams may have an emergency quarterback to be activated in the case of injury!**** That's the stupidest sh*t I've ever heard *****The Salary cap should have helped Free Agency, but it's hurting it as long as stupid rules keep players from playing ! There is some talk that the league's competition committee will be changing the practice squad/active squad rules for next season as well. I think that when you combine this with the salary cap change, things should get interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jditty47 Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 talking to my friend today and i just realized that with this bump in the salary cap, i gaurantee we resign rudi now. god that just ruined my day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 One thing to note about the TV contract, is that it doesn't start until 2006 so there will probably not be that big of a jump in cap space this offseason. Plus the worst thing about that kind of bump is that you'd get some dumb owners throw the payscale off by over paying for some marginal talent (an example (besides Washington) is Detroit over paying for D Bly, and then watching the corner market skyrocket the next year cause if a decent db got payed good corners are gonna want more) So if an owner has an extra 20 million to spend then he may throw it at a decent player just to make sure they sign, and then it throws the payscale out of whack for that postition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted December 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 One thing to note about the TV contract, is that it doesn't start until 2006 so there will probably not be that big of a jump in cap space this offseason. True...but if everyone is expecting the cap to go up $20 million (or however much it turns out to be) in 2006 then the pressure will start this offseason. Agents will say, hey, come '06 you're going to have a boatload more space so let's just tuck a $5 million roster bonus in there, huh?And yeah, I'll bet you're right, some dingbat owner will throw huge bucks at someone who deosn't deserve it and screw everything up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevnz Posted December 14, 2004 Report Share Posted December 14, 2004 True...but if everyone is expecting the cap to go up $20 million (or however much it turns out to be) in 2006 then the pressure will start this offseason. Agents will say, hey, come '06 you're going to have a boatload more space so let's just tuck a $5 million roster bonus in there, huh?And yeah, I'll bet you're right, some dingbat owner will throw huge bucks at someone who deosn't deserve it and screw everything up. That would be a helluva risk if the cap doesn't go up. Talking about hamstringing a team. Put a 5 mill roster bonus only to find out it only goes up another 5 million. I can't see an owner taking that kind of chance, even the ones with more money than sense *cough*Snyder*cough*The biggest thing that worries me is what it's gonna do to the top pay scale for players. I worry the rich will get richer, while the guys in the trenches get the shaft and get cycled out cause of rising cost of top players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.