King predicts Haynesworth to Redskins

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

OK, why are you still operating under the assumption there will be a salary cap? Certainly nobody can say for sure, but all signs point to there not being one. This will provide further background information.

http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap...tml#post526728

Further, Upshaw was completely serious and truthful when saying that the players would never go back to a salary cap if it expires. The NFL Owners can easily put together a revenue sharing package contingent upon setting a salary floor for the 32 teams. If you don't pay your players at least X, you don't get revenue sharing dollars.

The salary cap limit has gotten so high in recent years that most NFL teams maintain payrolls well below the cap in the interests of turning a profit, and for some, just trying to break even. Not many franchises are currently constrained by the cap. Doing away with it would result in a few teams dropping below the salary floor, but it would also result in the Cowboys and Redskins shooting well above the cap ceiling. There would be no financial incentive for the players to ever agree to going back to a cap, especially if the owners put a salary floor in place with respect to revenue sharing.

Is it worth taking the risk, what if the salary does reemerge? Wouldn't we be screwed then if we throw big bucks?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Is it worth taking the risk, what if the salary does reemerge? Wouldn't we be screwed then if we throw big bucks?

Yes, which is why we have to be careful about acting unilaterally this offseason in terms of spending.

Understand that the speculation about the salary cap has little to do with fear of the large market teams buying up all the talent and a lot to do with the small market teams not wanting to be forced to throw their revenue back at the players when the bottom line is so tight. Having a salary cap and revenue sharing necessitates the salary floor, which means no one can be the Marlins and try to play a season on a $20 million payroll.

Which is likely what Buffalo and Cincinnati will try to do in the future.

A football team can still be very competitive on a minuscule payroll, but they have to be able to draft well, or they have no other way of sustaining winning ball.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Yes, which is why we have to be careful about acting unilaterally this offseason in terms of spending.

Understand that the speculation about the salary cap has little to do with fear of the large market teams buying up all the talent and a lot to do with the small market teams not wanting to be forced to throw their revenue back at the players when the bottom line is so tight. Having a salary cap and revenue sharing necessitates the salary floor, which means no one can be the Marlins and try to play a season on a $20 million payroll.

Which is likely what Buffalo and Cincinnati will try to do in the future.

A football team can still be very competitive on a minuscule payroll, but they have to be able to draft well, or they have no other way of sustaining winning ball.

If the Rays and Marlins can do it, so can the Bills and Bengals. Payroll is not an excuse.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If the Rays and Marlins can do it, so can the Bills and Bengals. Payroll is not an excuse.

Right, I'm not saying they would be excused for losing. I don't think the league would look very different without a salary cap. I'm saying that those teams have incentives to cut payroll and try to win that way than to keep extending contracts in order to meet the salary floor.

Unlike in baseball, I actually think a football team could sustain winning without increasing payroll because the draft in football is far more predictable than the one in baseball.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Which is likely what Buffalo and Cincinnati will try to do in the future.

A football team can still be very competitive on a minuscule payroll, but they have to be able to draft well, or they have no other way of sustaining winning ball.

I apologize for going off-topic, but i'm going to do it anyway...

personally i have no problem with the bengals and bills and other small market teams having less money to spend on players. Like you mentioned, they still do have a chance to win if they are well managed. More importantly, how many people are fans of the bengals and bills? really? small market teams, by definition, have small fan bases. football is entertainment and the purpose of entertainment is to give the most people as possible enjoyment. teams like new england, new york, philly, washington, dallas, etc all have huge fan bases... why not have a system in place that allows teams with a larger number of fans have the chance to win more often? put another way, a capless leage (in theory) rewards fans of teams like the redskins because they will buy more jerseys and merchandise... so in essence, fans can have more of an impact on whether the team they root for wins or not.

small market teams like cincy, minnesota, and buffalo will be horrible. fans will stop buying merchandice. the teams will stop making money. and what will happen then? the owners will be forced to relocate to a market that has a larger fanbase (LA, Canada, Mexico, etc). That, in turn, would create new NFL fans (good for the sport) and increased revenue for those franchises, allowing them to be competitive again. (Assuming onwership wasnt stubborn) And what about the fans whose teams have moved? well, they can start rooting for another team, one that has a greater chance to win more games (thereby making the fans happier).

short-term, the lack of a salary cap would be bad for the players and fans in small market franchises. but long-term, the benefits would be great for the sport as a whole.