View Full Version : Regressing Packers and what it means with no salary cap
outflow
11-09-2009, 11:48 AM
I have no idea! Is this team going to back to the '80s abyss? Just wanted to throw this out there and see what kind of discussion it starts.
I will say one thing, the media, both nationally and locally, has really avoided the topic. Who wants to tarnish the NFL when its bad for business?
well, the good news is, even though the packers are the smallest market team, they have one of the larger fan bases. and we are in the top half of revenue
will that fan base continue to be there though is the big question. there is no doubt that favre brought a ton of new fans, those are already starting to go away. we also were riding high from the super bowl and from being one of the better teams for over a decade. now that we're not one of the top dogs every year, the fans might start to go away
it'll be interesting to see
IMO, winnings breeds winning. if the cap goes away we need to be winning, winning will bring money and continue to keep us competitive.
if we continue to lose and dig a hole, then its just gonna get tougher and tougher to get back out and we might turn back into siberia
Scott Campbell
11-09-2009, 12:03 PM
It means you can cut under performers without regard to what the hit would be to your cap number.
mraynrand
11-09-2009, 12:05 PM
It means you can cut under performers without regard to what the hit would be to your cap number.
what cap #?
Scott Campbell
11-09-2009, 12:10 PM
It means you can cut under performers without regard to what the hit would be to your cap number.
what cap #?
Exactly.
outflow
11-09-2009, 12:29 PM
Ok yeah you can trim the fat. The problem is you will need to backfill those positions. Who will want to come to Green Bay on a mediocre squad?
Scott Campbell
11-09-2009, 12:32 PM
Ok yeah you can trim the fat. The problem is you will need to backfill those positions. Who will want to come to Green Bay on a mediocre squad?
There aren't going to be that many free agents next year without a new CBA. If I recall correctly, you'll have to have 6 years service to become an UFA. And teams get more tags too.
Ok yeah you can trim the fat. The problem is you will need to backfill those positions. Who will want to come to Green Bay on a mediocre squad?
There aren't going to be that many free agents next year without a new CBA. If I recall correctly, you'll have to have 6 years service to become an UFA. And teams get more tags too.
i disagree
i think theres gonna be a ton of free agents once teams dumb all the players that teams don't think are worth their contracts
pbmax
11-09-2009, 12:50 PM
I am not sure the biggest changes will come in 2010. There will be some 4 year players moaning about not having FA. Some will dump salary.
But in 2011 there will be no more local revenue sharing. Then low revenue teams will hit the fan.
Smidgeon
11-09-2009, 12:52 PM
i think theres gonna be a ton of free agents once teams dumb all the players that teams don't think are worth their contracts
You mean teams don't currently "dum[p] all the players [they] don't think are worth their contracts"?
i think theres gonna be a ton of free agents once teams dumb all the players that teams don't think are worth their contracts
You mean teams don't currently "dum[p] all the players [they] don't think are worth their contracts"?
not like they will
right now you have to worry about a cap penalty, if you release a guy
not once the cap is gone
Smidgeon
11-09-2009, 01:13 PM
right now you have to worry about a cap penalty, if you release a guy
not once the cap is gone
To an extent, I agree if you're talking about the 1st round draft picks that are arguably "busts" or the big money free agents who didn't pan out. If you're talking about everyone else, none of them got large enough signing bonuses to do any damage to the cap. Most of the 1st rounders don't either.
Without a salary cap, those bonuses are economic "sunk costs". The money's already been spent, so the question simply becomes "is the player on our team now better than what we can find" if the team in question's sole goal is to win the Super Bowl. So if a team's goal is to simply save money, then they would cut more players while downgrading talent and basically admitting that they aren't going to be winning anytime soon.
Scott Campbell
11-09-2009, 02:17 PM
Ok yeah you can trim the fat. The problem is you will need to backfill those positions. Who will want to come to Green Bay on a mediocre squad?
There aren't going to be that many free agents next year without a new CBA. If I recall correctly, you'll have to have 6 years service to become an UFA. And teams get more tags too.
i disagree
i think theres gonna be a ton of free agents once teams dumb all the players that teams don't think are worth their contracts
I agree, and wasn't very clear above. You'll see other peoples garbage so to speak. But I don't think you'll see many really good players.
bobblehead
11-09-2009, 03:09 PM
Look, the yankees spent 66 million more than any other team and won the world series. In football as things trickle through the system you will have about 6 teams each year that might win a superbowl. All the others will fall by the wayside and become nothing but the royals and brewers...if the stars align right they might peak at the playoffs once every 10 years and get crushed in the first round.
mraynrand
11-09-2009, 03:23 PM
Look, the yankees spent 66 million more than any other team and won the world series. In football as things trickle through the system you will have about 6 teams each year that might win a superbowl. All the others will fall by the wayside and become nothing but the royals and brewers...if the stars align right they might peak at the playoffs once every 10 years and get crushed in the first round.
QFT
Cheesehead Craig
11-09-2009, 03:28 PM
Look, the yankees spent 66 million more than any other team and won the world series. In football as things trickle through the system you will have about 6 teams each year that might win a superbowl. All the others will fall by the wayside and become nothing but the royals and brewers...if the stars align right they might peak at the playoffs once every 10 years and get crushed in the first round.
QFT
That's why the players union doesn't want an uncapped league. Some guys will get paid, and paid a lot. But the rest of the guys who are used to millions of dollars won't get that money again and there will be a huge call to get the cap back for the players. The owners really are sitting in a nice place. They can just stall and make the players union start to sweat it out.
Patler
11-09-2009, 04:17 PM
Uncapped NFL football with continued revenue sharing won't be all that different from what it is today. If revenue sharing goes away, or changes dramatically, the league will be much different.
pbmax
11-09-2009, 05:30 PM
Uncapped NFL football with continued revenue sharing won't be all that different from what it is today. If revenue sharing goes away, or changes dramatically, the league will be much different.
I think television and marketing/licensing revenue are league contracts that will stay in place. Local revenue sharing is a goner if 2011 gets played as its tied to the CBA. If they play, the Owners will try to impose work rules that will not include 59.2 % of Total Revenue and nor (I believe) local revenue sharing.
But I agree with Patler, local revenue, tickets (60/40 split) and local TV/radio deals in the NFL pale in comparison to the TV contracts. So the disparity will not be as great as in MLB, where a significant chuck of revenue is local and not league wide deals.
Scott Campbell
11-09-2009, 05:49 PM
Uncapped NFL football with continued revenue sharing won't be all that different from what it is today. If revenue sharing goes away, or changes dramatically, the league will be much different.
ie - if Jerry Jones gets his way.
sharpe1027
11-09-2009, 05:55 PM
Uncapped NFL football with continued revenue sharing won't be all that different from what it is today. If revenue sharing goes away, or changes dramatically, the league will be much different.
Yes: Revenue sharing >>> Cap.
To play devil's advocate: Without a cap, the incentive to find creative ways around the revenue sharing increases. The disparity between teams increases...reducing the effectiveness of the revenue sharing and increasing the differences in team salaries.
Freak Out
11-09-2009, 05:57 PM
Look, the yankees spent 66 million more than any other team and won the world series. In football as things trickle through the system you will have about 6 teams each year that might win a superbowl. All the others will fall by the wayside and become nothing but the royals and brewers...if the stars align right they might peak at the playoffs once every 10 years and get crushed in the first round.
...and then there was the Cubs. :)
MichiganPackerFan
11-10-2009, 08:01 AM
Look, the yankees spent 66 million more than any other team and won the world series. In football as things trickle through the system you will have about 6 teams each year that might win a superbowl. All the others will fall by the wayside and become nothing but the royals and brewers...if the stars align right they might peak at the playoffs once every 10 years and get crushed in the first round.
Don't you mean every 26 years :evil:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.