Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
I don't think it's as simple as "there's no cap, go spend freely." There are a lot of triggers in place that really limit team's ability to spend in an uncapped year, for one thing the number of unrestricted free agents will be greatly reduced. Also, I'm pretty certain there are other owners out there who will spend as much, if not more than, as Snyder with no cap.
|
But isn't that a good thing? Player movement is one of my, and other fans I believe, biggest gripes. I hate to see the constant rotation of players from team to team. A player gets developed and then gets lost to another team. Oh well, time to mothball another jersey. Every year we see "salary cap casualties". I'm not looking for us to go and try to buy a championship like the Yankees, but I would like to see us be able to spend freely to keep our own players. To me, the salary cap and unrestricted free agents have led to impatience and lack of development of players. Hell if things don't work out we can always sign a FA. As has been mentioned before, some teams don't even spend what they're allowed. Some only spend what they HAVE to because there is a floor. I personally don't care what they spend or what their motivation is, but an owner who wants to win championships shouldn't be financially restricted from doing so. You should be able to pay your players what you want, and without so many UFA's there would be less movement and players holding your team hostage because someone else is now offering you more money and you're free to go with no obligation to the team that drafted and developed you. Rozelle wanted parity and now we've got one of the cheapest owners in the NFL with his team in the Super Bowl (Cardinals). Fine. The players and coaches earned it. But I don't want my owner restricted in what he can spend so we can be on an even keel with the Bidwells of the NFL. Why should the weakest link set the standard that we should go by?