Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus
Yes. But what we saw decades ago was even worse. Because owners could do whatever they wanted, some chose to be super cheap, even if it meant losing. Those who were truly interested in winning built impregnable dynasties. So there was not much competitive balance, whether one drafted well or not. On Sept. 1 of each year you knew who was going to win and who was going to lose, more or less. Teams rarely went worst to first or the other way around as they do now. As much as football was great even then, it was more boring than the relatively wide open cap era.
It also was, arguably, an assault on the democratic free market. If I am a plumbing assistant, I can sell my services to whatever plumbing company will pay me the most. But without free agency, players have no opportunity to sell their services to the highest bidder. They are shut out from finding a market-based wage.
|
I have no problem with free agency, it's the American way and people should be allowed to freely make the most they can get. It's free agency combined with the salary cap that bothers me. You may want a player and would like to sign him to a large amount but the cap restricts what you can offer him. You could cut a player to get under the cap and sign the other player, but it may be a player you would like to keep and once he's cut he may not make from another team what you were paying him. It does give an advantage I suppose to those who are able and
willing to spend more, but isn't that the way life is outside of the NFL?