Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

I see you and Lurker's points. They're valid, but don't compare 20% over the cap and 80% over the lowest team to baseball where the Yankees are 1000% over the lowest team. 10 times. That's ridiculous. Yeah, I'm going a touch in that direction, but I like that some teams spend a little more. I think it makes you prouder of your regular spending team and makes you relate to them more. It makes you hate teh big boys more and laugh harder when they fail. I think Jones will be much more willing to give a way 100 million dollars if it's in a tax where he's actually getting a competitive advantage. I also think it could keep more fans interested more of the time.

I think you guys are suffering from all or nothing syndrome. You're mistaking one step in the direction for a full change to baseball philosophy. I don't think baseball is a good comparison to what I'm saying. I think basketball is better. You'll see in basketball only a few teams go over the tax threshold and they're not really very good anyway. And then they have the guaranteed contracts. That is bad for basketball. Dumb spenders are dumb spenders. It's just that much sweeter when they loose. When you can spend 1000% of the lowest team, yeah, that means teh Yankees are always in it, but i don't think this idea would do that, not at all. In fact, I think it could make the Cowobys and Redskins suck even more at times. There would likely be longer restricted phases with this type of setup and they'd always be old and overpriced.

---

Again it comes down to basic principals. The better players make more money. A team that spends twice as much as another team (or most of the league) buys twice the talent. Talent translates into wins. Wins translate into popularity, marketing, and profits. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. The rich buy more talent. The poor are forced to trade or let their talent walk.

People watch the NFL because of the any given sunday mentality. Parity. Your theory that economic disparity leads to competitive parity somehow is not only counter-intuitive and logically flawed, but has also been disproven by other leagues.

JH, don't you think that allowing some teams to spend more than others, even if you don't consider the difference large, to be a slippery slope? Why even open pandora's box?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkinBasket

Again it comes down to basic principals. The better players make more money. A team that spends twice as much as another team (or most of the league) buys twice the talent. Talent translates into wins. Wins translate into popularity, marketing, and profits. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. The rich buy more talent. The poor are forced to trade or let their talent walk.

People watch the NFL because of the any given sunday mentality. Parity. Your theory that economic disparity leads to competitive parity somehow is not only counter-intuitive and logically flawed, but has also been disproven by other leagues.

---

There is also a tendency for the poorer teams to overpay mediocre talent when the poorer team finds that it is approaching a level of competitiveness. They have a hole to fill, can't land a top player because they can't afford it, so they go after a so-so player they hope will take a step up. A prime example is the Brewers contract a few years back with Jeff Suppan. They paid him to be the ace of their staff even though he had never shown that type of ability. A few short periods of success, sure, but not enough consistency for the contract he received. But, he was the best the Brewers could afford at the time they signed him, and at that they had to overpay him to get him to come to Milwaukee.

The really bad part is that when the so-so player continues to play that way, his overly generous contract further drags down the team, who then can't afford to keep home-grown talent they otherwise might have been able to for a few years at least.

Very few teams will choose to be at the bottom, and very few teams will be able to spend 20% over the cap. It would still be filled with parity. It's a small carrot for the richest teams, not a key to dominate.

Hey, we agree to disagree. I'm sure it's going to stay the same anyway, but it's discussion.


It would be similar to me cutting teh Yankees and Redsox salaries by 50% Sure they'd still be spending a little more than most teams, but it would be a big step forward for baseball, making it more competitive. I'm not convinced complete financial equality is the best, but a step toward it helps. The way all of baseball hates teh yankees is kind of cool.


As far as sports leagues go, my proposal is very high on financial equality. It's a lot more like the current football setup than it is the baseball setup. Tax thresholds may not be hard caps, but the way I drew them, they pretty much are. It just gives the richest of the rich enough rope to pay the price for 4 players to get one. Taxes suck.


I think people are angry at baseball and can't see how disimilar this is to it. I'd be willing to scale it back by half, but giving the Cowboys and Redskins the chance to pay for one mroe player at a very high tax price. I like it.

I'm with the giant group of people who are against JH on this one. No way would I want that. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't like the idea. Someone back there said that the NFL punishes those who do good and rewards those who do poorly, and I think that's a great way to go about it. Now, if the taxes you collected on the higher payed teams went to the lower payed teams player salary or something like that, we might have something to talk about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurker64

Jets traded #17, #52, and random players to Cleveland to move up to #5 to get Mark Sanchez in 1999. Other than that, it doesn't really happen.

I agree with your basic argument. The NFL should not be punishing bad teams, and that's why we really need a rollback in top draft pick salaries either from a rookie wage scale (likely) or teams standing up to players' agents (significantly less likely).

---

Sanchez has been around for a decade? ;)

While I don't like JH's idea, I can see it coming true.

There is a vocal, powerful minority of owners who do not want to share all the revenue, and want to allowed to spend the money they make themselves. Something like this might be their compromise solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smeefers

I'm with the giant group of people who are against JH on this one. No way would I want that. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't like the idea. Someone back there said that the NFL punishes those who do good and rewards those who do poorly, and I think that's a great way to go about it. Now, if the taxes you collected on the higher payed teams went to the lower payed teams player salary or something like that, we might have something to talk about.

---

That's exactly what it does. It pays gets divvied up to the teams below the cap (tax threshhold) It's a way for Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder to part with more money. Just plain sharing it is hard for them to do, but give them one player, even if the tax is 5X the amount, they're still giving it away, but at least they feel like they have a slight advantage.

The key is to keep the advantage slight, just enough where the rich teams can buy one mroe guy or something like that.


You keep the rich owners willing to pay into the system far more than their fair share by giving them a small edge.
You keep the players happy because teams can choose to go over the cap
You keep the fans happy because there is still more parity than any major sports league beside Hockey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patler

There is also a tendency for the poorer teams to overpay mediocre talent when the poorer team finds that it is approaching a level of competitiveness. They have a hole to fill, can't land a top player because they can't afford it, so they go after a so-so player they hope will take a step up. A prime example is the Brewers contract a few years back with Jeff Suppan. They paid him to be the ace of their staff even though he had never shown that type of ability. A few short periods of success, sure, but not enough consistency for the contract he received. But, he was the best the Brewers could afford at the time they signed him, and at that they had to overpay him to get him to come to Milwaukee.

The really bad part is that when the so-so player continues to play that way, his overly generous contract further drags down the team, who then can't afford to keep home-grown talent they otherwise might have been able to for a few years at least.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guiness

While I don't like JH's idea, I can see it coming true.

There is a vocal, powerful minority of owners who do not want to share all the revenue, and want to allowed to spend the money they make themselves. Something like this might be their compromise solution.

---

Thanks for seeing hwo it could make sense. I actually think it would make teh league stronger (more money.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugger

This.

---

This is what you should not be looking at. It's nothing like baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

The NFL has grown in large part because they have a good product that people love. The current system is part of it, but I'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

The way those teams spend, they'd screw it up with a few more dollars anyway. Ted could beat Jerry Jones with 20% tied behind his back and it would feel that much sweeter.

I see your point too. It might be better the way it is. It might be better with a small financial tilt toward the teams with the large fan bases. Hard to say until it's done. My vision says the new way would be better. Yours says otherwise. I'll stand by my hunch, but I could be wrong too.

I know skinbasket doesn't understand what I'm saying, but I hope you can see it's a small difference, nothing like baseball. Just a little more rope for the idiot cowboys (and teams like them), that's it. The operative words are small(tile) and little(more rope). Don't mistake those for, "just like baseball"

Baseball is horrible, but that doesn't mean there aren't small things they have right, or at least in the right direction. Things aren't either all right or all wrong.

---

Baseball is horrible because of a lack of parity. I can't understand any Packer fan that would be open to a system like MLB. The ONLY reason why the Packers have been so successful is because of the cap and revenue sharing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bossman641

JH, don't you think that allowing some teams to spend more than others, even if you don't consider the difference large, to be a slippery slope? Why even open pandora's box?

---

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large. It's a way to get the big owners to open up their pocket books, an incentive. It would suck if it ever got anything like baseball. I agree to that. I won't even watch the Brewers because they can't truly compete.

a soft cap would be a bad idea. the hard cap, and revenue sharing, is what's made the nfl the greatness that it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pugger

Baseball is horrible because of a lack of parity. I can't understand any Packer fan that would be open to a system like MLB. The ONLY reason why the Packers have been so successful is because of the cap and revenue sharing.

---

That's why what I proposed was nothing liek baseball. Compare it to basketball if you want a comparison, but even then, a 5 man game and guaranteed contracts make that very different too. Block out the baseball thing. Think of Jerry Jones getting teh chance to buy one more player at the expense of millions and millions of dollars being given to the other teams. One guy won't help Jones. We'll still destroy them as long as we have Ted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbgary

a soft cap would be a bad idea. the hard cap, and revenue sharing, is what's made the nfl the greatness that it is.

---

I'd disagree with that. It's a part of the success, but football would be as great or greater if Jones and Snyder had one more guy on their teams. If that's what it takes for them to share their revenue, it's a good thing. I still think they'd blow it.

Hockey has had a hard cap and they haven't been a dominant league. That's because pepole like the sport of football better. Let's not call football a success because they have the one and only successful financial model. Football was created a long time ago and has grown into America's favorite sport. The momentum was already there in teh 60's 70's and 80's before they created the current business model. Football is something people like to watch and play. It's a great sport. I don't think it's smart to assume it's perfect. Nascar keeps changing and they keep growing. Change isn't always bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large. It's a way to get the big owners to open up their pocket books, an incentive. It would suck if it ever got anything like baseball. I agree to that. I won't even watch the Brewers because they can't truly compete.

---

The problem is, once you start down a road like that there generally is no turning back, and you go further and further until you get to exactly where you don't want to be. Once you individualize the differences, taking money directly from one team and giving money directly to another you establish a caste system, with the lower ones beholding to the upper ones for their continued existence. The upper ones become even more powerful and get their way even more, so the small difference will be increased with successive changes and the "tax" will become smaller. You will get closer and closer to baseball.

While there are differences now, and some subsidies of the poorer by the richer, the structure tends to equalize the influence of the haves and have nots. The haves are not as capable of bullying through their wishes as they will be when the have nots are beholding and subservient to them.

Nothing good will come from making the NFL more about some owners than about other owners by letting the richer teams use their money to control the poorer teams.

The $$$ has changed dramatically since those decades and for one reason only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large.

---

Which would relegate your system to insignificance.

I think what you're missing JH is that the other major sports want to have a system more like the NFL. Hockey locked their players out for an entire season in order to get a more NFL-like system. Baseball wanted to get a more NFL-like system, which lead to the players strike and the cancellation of a World Series. Basketball is about to lock their players out in order to get a more NFL-like system.

Why would the NFL want to emulate these other, less successful sports, that wish their economic model were more like the NFL's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustinHarrell

Thanks for seeing hwo it could make sense. I actually think it would make teh league stronger (more money.)

---

I didn't say it made sense. I said I can see how it would happen :lol:

I'm with most of the others here thinking it's a horrible idea, and as Patler pointed out, the thin edge of the wedge.

I am Canadian. There is very little football in my blood, it runs cold for hockey. The parity of the football is what attracted me. I was heartily disillusioned to watch my favorite NHL team rip a championship winning squad to shreds, and sell the pieces off to the highest bidder. Toronto and New York had coaching and scouting budgets that would cover the entire player payroll of the have-nots. It just wasn't fun to watch (well, except that Toronto never did win the Stanley Cup).

Sometimes when I look at revenue sharing and the cap, I laugh to think how Un-American it is. It's counter to capitalistic thought, probably closer to pure Marxism than anything else I've seen!

Unless Joe opens up his financials, we're gonna decertify PackerRats.

Then the site will become like the JSO boards which we all want anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurker64

Jets traded #17, #52, and random players to Cleveland to move up to #5 to get Mark Sanchez in 1999.

---

That is a lot to give up for a thirteen-year-old.


(Edit...Smidge beat me to the punch.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swede

That is a lot to give up for a thirteen-year-old.


(Edit...Smidge beat me to the punch.)

---

Should have just written "back in '9"... the last digit is the only one that matters!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guiness

I didn't say it made sense. I said I can see how it would happen :lol:

I'm with most of the others here thinking it's a horrible idea, and as Patler pointed out, the thin edge of the wedge.

I am Canadian. There is very little football in my blood, it runs cold for hockey. The parity of the football is what attracted me. I was heartily disillusioned to watch my favorite NHL team rip a championship winning squad to shreds, and sell the pieces off to the highest bidder. Toronto and New York had coaching and scouting budgets that would cover the entire player payroll of the have-nots. It just wasn't fun to watch (well, except that Toronto never did win the Stanley Cup).

Sometimes when I look at revenue sharing and the cap, I laugh to think how Un-American it is. It's counter to capitalistic thought, probably closer to pure Marxism than anything else I've seen!

---

Isn't this what the Marlins did after they won the world series?