1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New twist on Goodell's Salary Cap

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by PMZQ, Jul 2, 2008.

  1. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Divide and conquer were the words from Robert Smith on this morning's Mike & Mike Show.

    Mort said earlier in the show there is about $ 400 million left collectively between the 32 teams on unused salary cap money. Robert Smith said later that the the reason the Union will not go for the rookie salary cap is because there is still unused monies out there for most, if not all the teams. By capping its only going to put that money in the pockets of the owners. He said that Goodell is sending his message out to the fans, and the players as a "Divide and Conquer" tactic to try and force the Union to comply or at least force them to the negotiating table.

    Anyone else with a slant on this, and could this be the real motivation for Goodell to say what he did the other day ?
     
    Kanye West and alen1 like this.
  2. PhinsRock

    PhinsRock Premium Member Luxury Box

    I think you've got a solid idea there, but as for any ideas why GoodHell said what he said, how about simply the rookie salaries are out of control and its not fair to the teams or to the veteran players who have shown they've earned it and are worth the big money? Seems simple enough to me, but you've got an interesting theory there, definitely worth exploring a little.
     
    DOLPHAN1 likes this.
  3. TheAnswer385

    TheAnswer385 Stay Low Run Free

    5,474
    962
    113
    Jan 7, 2008
    PA
    Im all for the rookie salary cut or whatever he has in mind for it. I would like to see the numbers for all the money that was wasted on first round talent that just came up total busts the past 10 years.
     
  4. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    The amount of unused salary cap is a meaningless number. The question is, did they pay the players 59 cents for every dollar made.
     
    gafinfan and PMZQ like this.
  5. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    First, that's a boat load of money! Second, I think Goodell has a point here. He doesn't want the owners to take in all the left-over money. Hopefully, the Union complies but that doesn't sound likely.

    Thanks for the write-up.
     
  6. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Well their take on it was interesting. I think it was Eric Beselius (not sure of the spelling he is sitting in for Greeny) said what he thinks should happen is if you have a salary cap for the 1st and 2nd rounders you need to also make sure there is more money given to the 3-5th rounders too. That would make sure the guys in that 3rd to 5th aren't the ones that end up vastly underpaid their whole careers

    Say you are a 4th round guy, and sign a 6 year contract for $ 700,000 a year, and by year 2 are a Pro Bowler. You then are waaaay underpaid and only have one option and that is to sit out.

    However if you did this, limit the length of 3rd or lower draft picks contracts to 3 years, and then they can become FA's, they could then make their money if they play hard and deserve it. Since most guys peak of their career is around 4th to 7th years (I am guessing) that would allow them to make their money and not be caught in the contract trap they are in now.

    Any of that make sense ?
     
    xer0 likes this.
  7. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Just add incentives (to the original given contract) in for the lower rounded draftees.
     
    Themole and xer0 like this.
  8. xer0

    xer0 xD

    485
    140
    43
    May 24, 2008
    Ohio
    Makes sense to me...as a matter of fact I'd be all for a 3-4 year cap for any rookie contract.
     
  9. PhinGeneral

    PhinGeneral PC Texas A&M, Bro Club Member

    9,802
    7,239
    113
    Jan 4, 2008
    Swamps of Jersey
    That's basically the structure that already is in place. I've never seen a 4th round pick sign for 6 years. It's hard enough to get a 1st round pick signed for that long. Practically all contracts past the 2nd round are 3-4 years tops.
     
    PMZQ likes this.
  10. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    I think he was throwing it out as an example.
     
    PMZQ likes this.
  11. Firesole

    Firesole Season Ticket Holder

    4,634
    1,660
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    what exactly does that mean? $400 million left in collective cap space for all the teams? I don't think it necessarily means there are literally $400 million dollars out there not being used.

    To me it sounds like there is $400 million in cap space by the teams, which is only $12.5 million per team on the average. If that is the case I'm all for the owners keeping that and not being forced to pay. They own the team, it is a business, and they have all the right to profit as much as they possibly can.
     
    Themole and DOLPHAN1 like this.
  12. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007

    I think they should solve this problem as well.
     
  13. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Thanks General,

    Then I am stumped. Any of the Mods or Luxers want to jump in on this, a lot of them know a lot more about the way the cap and all that stuff works.
     
  14. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Here is some Salary Cap FAQ's for those interested.

     
    PMZQ likes this.
  15. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Thats what they meant, collectively, with all teams included there is right now about $ 400 million left over in cap money, and this is not talking about the rookie money, but what I understood was teams (some more, some less) are a total of $ 400 million below the total player cap and that money goes into the owners pockets if they don't use it on players. I believe the Union wants that to make sure its used on players every year. This is what makes the Players Union mad, is the owners are complaining (through Goodell, he is their mouthpiece) about the Jake Long and Jamarcus Russell contracts, yet they are falling short every year on paying as much as they can.
     
  16. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    So basically, this whole situation is because Goodell doesn't want to see the owners get their money from the left-overs.

    Since the cap approximately gone up 7-9 million over the last few years, they could settle on one number and they wouldn't have that problem. Settle on a cap that is the same ever year and lets say that there is an X amount of million left over after the first season under that new cap, they could adjust the rookie salaries for the second year so they don't have the left-overs. In that sense, you would have no left-overs for the owners like Goodell wants and the cap would be somewhat fair.

    Does that make any sense?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2008
  17. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Well the divide and conquer theory to me is the interesting slant on the idea. The owners are using Goodell to try to drive a wedge between the established players and the rookies, and that way weaken the Union.

    Is this, in the long run a strategy that could work, or could it lead to a messy and long drawn out work stoppage by strengthening the unions resolve ?
     
  18. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    There is a flipside to this though. What if you say the unused cap space is insurance. If you're at the redline for cap space each year you get burnt. The players union (or whoever made this statement) is advocating bad management. There is no maneuvering. An owner can even argue that because they are forced to give an unproven player $60M contracts, they need room just in case it doens't pan out ...
     
  19. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Not exactly, what Goodell is doing, is supposedly on the owners orders to speak out, and get the veterans P.O'd at the 1st rounders and rookies, and cause dissension within the Union itself, and that was divide and conquer the Union, by making their coming together to fight harder. That way the owners may be able to get what they want easier.
     
    alen1 likes this.
  20. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Implement a rookie scale, raise up the min salary floor, problem solved. Veterans get their money, teams have to spend some money, rookies don't get unfairly rewarded. See, the NFL should hire me.
     
    PMZQ and alen1 like this.
  21. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Exactly. That works. And if the rookies are upset about being underpaid two years from now, add incentives into the contract.
     
    PMZQ likes this.
  22. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Bingo, this is what the owners want. And by using Goodell, the owners using him to do their bidding, (remember ultimately he works for THEM, not as an independant contractor or arbitrator between them and the union) will fracture the union into different camps and then make it easier for the owners to get what they want.
     
  23. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    i would think that it never leaves their pockets. unless the owners actually "pony-up" the CAP to a seperat fund each year, then i think $400 mill is a non point. it would be foolish for teams to load right up to the limit anyway, especially with injuries the way they are. you'd have no room to adjust.

    NFLN was talking about this and the group all thought that the issues were in the top 7-10 players drafted and that that is were the league should impose some kind of cap.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2008
    PMZQ likes this.
  24. PMZQ

    PMZQ Banned

    11,575
    2,518
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    Miami, FL
    Thanks Dolphan1, I think they can get some kind of agreement if they limit it to that range. Lets hope so, and that this doesn't become the "boogeyman" and catalyst for a work stoppage.
     
  25. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    There are different camps though. There are those who put in a lot of work yet get paid less than someone who hasn't proven squat. Time and time again, draft picks have not panned out.

    We're not advocating taking food out of their mouths. They can still get tens of millions of dollars. Lets just get it under control. Rookies at the top will still get their millions. More money left for veterans. Teams aren't hampered by bad or unlucky draft choices. Everyone wins.

    What's wrong with that? Give me one reason that this isn't a good goal? Again, If you say the #1 rookie can only get $45M over 6 years instead of the $60M Jake just got, and have it indexed slightly up, would anyone argue that the rookie just got his livelihood taken away from him? I don't think so. Then if someone argues that owners will get cheap and not spend any money, well that is somewhat the owners prerogative in my opinion (Baseball has this problem, but they are having one of the greatest years despite steroids scandal) but all you need is a couple owners who will spend, and all the good FA's will flock to those teams. I digress, anyways one way to take care of that is to concede a higher salary floor.
     
  26. ATLFINFAN

    ATLFINFAN Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,059
    3,514
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    When this was first brought up by Goodell, Upshaw said he liked it the way it was. I think he is saying that to get something in return during negotiations. THe union could be completely in favor of doing this, behind closed doors, which I believe to be the case, but they are not going to give the owners ANYTHING for free. It is just a bargaining tool/ ploy. This can be used by the union, during contract negotiations, to get something like higher pensions, or a higher % going to the players from the owners, or whatever. IMHO, this is nothing but posturing. It is what BOTH sides do. Goodell is just making waves to get the public involved. That almost never helps or works. One side wants to fix it now, the other side is willing to wait until thely can get something in exchange. It is nothing new
     
  27. gunn34

    gunn34 I miss Don & Dan

    21,755
    3,475
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Oviedo FL
    The players will have the bigger vote. I'm sure the vets hate it when a rookie makes more then them and they have been to 5 pro bowls.
     
  28. Samphin

    Samphin Κακό σκυλί ψόφο δεν έχει

    I would like to see there whole system overhauled. Guarentee the salaries and the ridiculous signing/roster bonuses will go away. Plus, it will make it easier to have trades occur, which will add an element that is missing in the NFL. I would also move the trade deadline back to at least mid-season.

    Have the rookies make money like the MLB rookies or NBA rookies. Good money, just not surperstar money that they have no right to have. There is no reason why Matt Ryan should have more money right now than someone like Trent Green or Jeff Garcia.
     
    Themole, PMZQ, gafinfan and 1 other person like this.
  29. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    Have said this before and still believe that All rookie contracts should be for 3 years with the 3rd year being the RFA year. The cream always rises to the top and then that 6th or 7th rounder that turns out to be great can get his money also. It won't hurt the guys at the top of the draft as long as they turn out to be the stars they are expected to become. If not you just let them go or at least pay them what they are truly worth. The pressure would then be where it should be, on the player. I'm not saying they shouldn't get an ok salary but nothing like what the top guys are getting now.

    I also think it would make coaches look at players more evenly. Guys that now fall thru the cracks and really don't get a chance until their 3rd or 4th year might get noticed sooner.
     
    Themole likes this.
  30. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    The NFLPA is the biggest obstacle to getting the rookie pay system redone. Ironically, the NFLPA doesn't represent rookies until they sign, so why do they care what non-employees are trying to get paid?

    Also, I like the lack of trades in the NFL. I want to root for players, not jerseys.
     
  31. cnc66

    cnc66 wiley veteran, bad spelur Luxury Box

    31,582
    17,137
    0
    Nov 23, 2007

    Chris went into that earlier in this thread. Until I read his discourse, "I" had always said what you did here.. it made no sense to "me" whatsoever. He made sense to me, but I am still resisting...
     
  32. UCF FINatic

    UCF FINatic The Miami Dolphins select

    5,783
    1,931
    113
    Apr 17, 2008
    Bottom Line
    Cheaper Salaries=slightly cheaper tickets,
    slightly higher salaries= Much higher ticket costs
     
  33. DolfanCole

    DolfanCole Season Ticket Holder

    1,819
    377
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    Hampton, VA
    I don't think it's a "Divide and Conquer" approach. It's not like players don't already know what everyone is making. So, telling veterans that the rookie pay is too high is of absolutely no surprise to them and IMO does nothing to alter how they already feel about it.

    Also, it's not like the $400M is going into the owner's pockets either. Just because there's that much left in cap space doesn't mean that it actually exists. Meaning, just because the owners aren't paying it doesn't mean they're keeping it. It just means that they don't have to pay it. If they did, then they'd have to find a means to pay it, probably resulting in increasing ticket prices, etc.
     
  34. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    The owners know they lost the last round of negotiations and they are just trying to win the next round. The owners dont want to cap rookie salaries to pay veterans more, they want to cap rookie salaries to drive down overall salaries. They dont want to pay the players 59% of all revenue.

    Lets not forget the owners were the ones who starting paying these outrageous salaries. Just look at how much the Falcons threw at Matt Ryan this year.
     
  35. DolfanCole

    DolfanCole Season Ticket Holder

    1,819
    377
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    Hampton, VA
    C'mon now. This is very much a two-way street. If they had offered him "2nd round" money, do you think he would have signed? No way, he would have held out. The agent tries to get as much money as he can and the owner tries to pay as little as he can. That's just business.
     
    PMZQ likes this.
  36. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Arthur Blank didnt seem to have any issues giving Matt Ryan the money he got.
     
  37. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You know this how? They system as it is, set the stage for a huge salary (top pick, QB). For now, they are forced to roll with the system. They are hoping the system is changed.

    I mean, slot the rookies, and rookie holdouts are eliminated forever.
     
  38. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    But who started the system? Yes, rookies get paid big money, but only because they were paid big money the year before. It started somewhere, and it started with the owners.
     
  39. Themole

    Themole Season Ticket Holder

    7,873
    1,594
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    Palatka Fl.

    I'm in agreement with what you say 100%. Yet, I'm not a big fan of the NFL business structure. Congress gives them a pass on Anti Trust laws. We the fan, fall victim to them through the NFL dictating to us what teams we are allowed to watch on TV through the franchising of viewing area.(the NFL, nor any other business has the right to force the public to follow a certain team or business, just because THEY have invested in a certain area) I say let the free market determine the success of a team . Not only do they hold hostage TV viewers, but now they want us to pay to listen to games on the radio. No, I have run out of sympathy for players and owners. I remember a much better (tv) game back in the 60s & 70s when there wasn't a commercial everytime the game clock stopped. I remember when the press actually visited the locker rooms after the games for interviews with players and coaches. We the people are the ones getting screwed in this deal.
     
  40. DolfanCole

    DolfanCole Season Ticket Holder

    1,819
    377
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    Hampton, VA
    I agree that it only builds from the year before and that it started somewhere. But, how do you know that it started with the owners? Just because an owner paid a contract? Why couldn't it be that the player was going to hold out for a certain amount, thereby forcing the owner to pay? I just don't see how it's the owner started this ordeal.
     

Share This Page