too much parity, too few players

[Harlan Huckleby]

Every season is the same, the GMs around the league are scrambling to fill holes from injuries. 53 players is clearly not enough. Teams need 60-man rosters to have enough players who know the system and can fill in.

On a related issue, there is no competitive reason to have a salary cap for all players. Exempt all players drafted by a team from the cap. Exempt all new contracts signed after a player have been with a team for five years from the cap. Just cap free agent signings.

Small market teams will scream "bloody murder!" at first, but when you think it through, there are no free market forces that are going to drive up prices for players. In order for free agents to get big, uncapped money from Jerry Jones, they'd be ten years into their careers, well past their prime.

The results of these changes will be a little less parity, but advantage will be gained by drafting, not free agency. Older players like Ryan Grant, maybe Chad Clifton, will hang on longer with same team. Quality of play will improve without the constant in-season merry-go-round of players. Team success will be less dependent on luck of injuries. Fans will like beng able to follow players with longer careers on their home team.

[mraynrand]

How would having more players help when the 53 they already have are littered with players who can't fill in? What if they just allowed all 53 to be active?

How much longer could Chad Clifton hang on?

[Harlan Huckleby]

That's a good point. Teams already have about 6 not-ready-for-prime-time guys on the roster as it is. But those guys end up seeing the field, and street free agents end up playing too. A bigger roster, and change in cap allows playable vets to hang-on. A bigger roster keeps more guys who know the system, and a lot of them are going to be needed.

The 6 game-day inactives is a good rule because it helps teams with injuries stay competitive.

[pbmax]

Well, yes, I can see how the NFLPA would agree to this system. :roll:

And Rand is correct, it wouldn't increase available talent. Even if Clifton could hang on (or be active), he's still a shell of his former shelf.

Players just need to stop getting injured.

[Smidgeon]

Cliffy was already the oldest starting left tackle last year. Not sure a different system would have prevented his body from giving out.

[mraynrand]

Players just need to stop getting injured.

Now that you've IDed the problem, I expect some solutions. Results, I WANT RESULTS!!!!

[pbmax]

Now that you've IDed the problem, I expect some solutions. Results, I WANT RESULTS!!!!

First suggestion: Good tackling is overrated and risky. Lots of contact involved with that. I think we should have a system of rewards, payments even, for tackles that occur with minimum contact. Such as a Chuck Cecil missile shot (only contact is shoulder, top of head and bridge of nose) or Al Harris duck and cover (like the diving, rolling "tackle" of Adrian Peterson's knee). To encourage success, if such a tackle were to result in an opponent being unable to return to the game, and even larger reward could be presented.

[mraynrand]

Maybe we should just push to have the Deion Sanders Tackling Technique™ instituted league-wide.

[KYPack]

Jeezus Harlan.

You've really been burning the midnite oil in the 'ol doghouse, eh?

There is no chance of this. You'd be better off suggesting we go back to the days of the players buying their shoes from the team and paying for the tape they use.

The CBA precludes all of this & it ain't going away lately.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, yes, I can see how the NFLPA would agree to this system. :roll:

What possible objection would they have?

Free agency continues. There is a cap on free agency, but there is a cap there now.

It allows players to have longer careers. It opens up more jobs for players.

I think you misunderstand the proposal. The only party that will object are the teams. Their budgets are not going to blow up, but they lose that absolute certainty of the hard cap.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cliffy was already the oldest starting left tackle last year. Not sure a different system would have prevented his body from giving out.

Right. That's why I put a "maybe" around his continuing a career. But if you take him off the salary cap, there is a greater chance that the Packers take a chance on bringing him back. Same thing with Ryan Grant.

My proposal really is not as that radical. It nudges things in a positive direction.

[pbmax]

What possible objection would they have?

Free agency continues. There is a cap on free agency, but there is a cap there now.

It allows players to have longer careers. It opens up more jobs for players.

I think you misunderstand the proposal. The only party that will object are the teams. Their budgets are not going to blow up, but they lose that absolute certainty of the hard cap.

You cannot have free market bidding if the only one team can open the tap. Being able to sign homegrown players without cap consequence will inflate that market, I would guess slightly. But with a limit on free agent spending, it will depress outside offers to Free Agents. And this gives leverage to the homegrown team, or perhaps more clearly, will lessen the upward pressure homegrown teams face when resigning their own potential FAs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is no chance of this. You'd be better off suggesting we go back to the days of the players buying their shoes from the team and paying for the tape they use.

The CBA precludes all of this & it ain't going away lately.
All you are saying is it's not how they do things now. So therefore it is an impossibility.

Another example of incentivising teams to keep there own players: chances are better that Jeff Saturday would be with the Colts and Scott Wells stays with the Packers. What fun is there in fan favorites (a bit of stretch with Wells, but he was a consistent, hard-working performer) moving to new teams?
As Jerry Seinfeld famously noted, when players are moving all around, all that remains are the team uniforms, and you essentially are rooting for laundry.

Another example: Daniel Muir. He is one of so many just-a-guys who float around the league. Who replaced Daniel Muir when he left the Packers? More just-a-guys whose names we forget. Now maybe he's back. I think it would have been more interesting to see him stay and develop for 5 years, even if he is a so-so player. You get to "know" the player, hope springs eternal. The player shows some flash, and you keep hoping it comes back.

The point of my proposal is not to end player movement. Just add some modest incentive for players to stay with one team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You cannot have free market bidding if the only one team can open the tap. Being able to sign homegrown players without cap consequence will inflate that market, I would guess slightly.
The team has no particular incentive to overpay their homegrowners. Remember they are competing with the free agency market.


But with a limit on free agent spending, it will depress outside offers to Free Agents. And this gives leverage to the homegrown team, or perhaps more clearly, will lessen the upward pressure homegrown teams face when resigning their own potential FAs.
OK, you've done the whole loop. If you think it through, it's a reasonable system, it's self-balancing. It is a modest proposal that encourages players to have longer careers with the same team. The cap can be set at level that keeps free agency alive and well.

[pbmax]

The team has no particular incentive to overpay their homegrowners. Remember they are competing with the free agency market.


OK, you've done the whole loop. If you think it through, it's a reasonable system, it's self-balancing. It is a modest proposal that encourages players to have longer careers with the same team. The cap can be set at level that keeps free agency alive and well.

Not exactly a closed loop. Right now, a single determined team can elevate the contract market for a player and a position. Your system divides that group in two. Own group has a small advantage, to stay at home does not impact the cap.

But another group has a large disincentive, their own cap for all but their original team. It would encourage less FA and would depress the effect that bidding on players have in elevating their contracts. The FA cap would push down contract offers, instead of the current system elevating them. A home team would then have less competition and in aggregate, be able to sign players for less.

Just think about a team with a desperate position need. Right now that team is the FA players best friend. In your cap modified system, that team is restrained.

Baseball has shown the way this works to the players advantage. FA to ratchet up the target. Then arbitration to get everyone else closer to the new target.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It would encourage less FA and would depress the effect that bidding on players have in elevating their contracts. The FA cap would push down contract offers, instead of the current system elevating them.

I want to discourage free agency. Having fewer players on the free agency market raises the players value!

Any effect of the FA cap could be adjusted by setting a level that works. Same way as the cap works today.



Just think about a team with a desperate position need. Right now that team is the FA players best friend. In your cap modified system, that team is restrained.
Ya, it is a little harder to build teams through FA. On other hand, it is easier to build through draft, and I expand roster slightly so they can develop and keep their own. It works. Teams should not find themselves in desperate need so much, and if they do, they fucked up bad.

[KYPack]

All you are saying is it's not how they do things now. So therefore it is an impossibility.

Another example of incentivising teams to keep there own players: chances are better that Jeff Saturday would be with the Colts and Scott Wells stays with the Packers. What fun is there in fan favorites (a bit of stretch with Wells, but he was a consistent, hard-working performer) moving to new teams?
As Jerry Seinfeld famously noted, when players are moving all around, all that remains are the team uniforms, and you essentially are rooting for laundry.

Another example: Daniel Muir. He is one of so many just-a-guys who float around the league. Who replaced Daniel Muir when he left the Packers? More just-a-guys whose names we forget. Now maybe he's back. I think it would have been more interesting to see him stay and develop for 5 years, even if he is a so-so player. You get to "know" the player, hope springs eternal. The player shows some flash, and you keep hoping it comes back.

The point of my proposal is not to end player movement. Just add some modest incentive for players to stay with one team.

You cannot wind FA backwards.

The NFLPA would shoot this down so fast, it wouldn't be funny.

It's a nice, fun notion, but it's chances of becoming real are 0.0%

[RashanGary]

Increase the practice squad to 12, and allow veteran on it. That's a good way to keep quality depth without having to pay much for it.

[pbmax]

Adjusting the cap up doesn't make teams spend it. Just look at the cash below cap numbers prior to the last CBA expiring. The cap is theoretically designed to keep small market teams competitive, but what it really does is keep poorly managed teams from killing themselves long term.

For the best example ever, look at the Tigers signing Prince in baseball. Without a thought to salary ramifications, the Tigers gave a huge contract and bumped all the rest of the power hitter/corner infield salaries. That happens much more slowly in football and capping only the FA will make it slower.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You cannot wind FA backwards.

The NFLPA would shoot this down so fast, it wouldn't be funny.
I have to stubbornly insist that the players have the same FA opportunity as they had before. Good players remain as much in demand as always. There will be less player movement because players more frequently have option of staying with their team, but market for the services is same as always.
Uncapping more players, expanding rosters, it's all good from players perspective.

We have come to accept the TT way - all but the key players move to new teams after their first contracts - but is this really the best for fans and players? I hate all the player movement. I wish Paris Lenon had finished his career with GB instead of the Lions.

The other factor is parity. Too much parity in the NFL. I'd rather see teams get good and stick together, really develop a personality. We still have a FA cap and the draft to keep things balanced enough.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Increase the practice squad to 12, and allow veteran on it. That's a good way to keep quality depth without having to pay much for it.

I don't have the stats, but I imagine 90% of salary money goes to top 20 players. Adding a few salary minimum guys at end of roster won't matter.

What could raise payroll is adding uncapped veterans like Chad Clifton and Ryan Grant. But teams aren't going to go crazy, the goal is to move the incentives a notch

[Harlan Huckleby]

For the best example ever, look at the Tigers signing Prince in baseball. Without a thought to salary ramifications, the Tigers gave a huge contract and bumped all the rest of the power hitter/corner infield salaries.

Paying your own uncapped players big salaries would have no impact on other salaries around the league, as I see it.

[mraynrand]

I wish Paris Lenon had finished his career with GB instead of the Lions.
:lol:

[pbmax]

Paying your own uncapped players big salaries would have no impact on other salaries around the league, as I see it.

And you just convinced the NFLPA why they should not accept such a program.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And you just convinced the NFLPA why they should not accept such a program.
The FA market is what sets salaries. Same as today.

[Harlan Huckleby]

:lol:
Paris Lenon was a solid, under-rated player for GB, a good player for Detroit. He is still in the NFL, his 12th season.

The guys who replaced him in GB were worse: Brady Popinga, Abdul Hodge, Tracy White. I don't believe the Packers have put a set of starting linebackers on the field since Lenon left where one guy wasn't a weaker player than Lenon.

[Smidgeon]

I have to stubbornly insist that the players have the same FA opportunity as they had before. Good players remain as much in demand as always. There will be less player movement because players more frequently have option of staying with their team, but market for the services is same as always.
Uncapping more players, expanding rosters, it's all good from players perspective.

We have come to accept the TT way - all but the key players move to new teams after their first contracts - but is this really the best for fans and players? I hate all the player movement. I wish Paris Lenon had finished his career with GB instead of the Lions.

The other factor is parity. Too much parity in the NFL. I'd rather see teams get good and stick together, really develop a personality. We still have a FA cap and the draft to keep things balanced enough.

You're starting to convince me. A little bit at least. There's something to be said about the storied franchises that are almost non-existent in today's game. I want to see GB run the table three seasons in a row. Again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

PBmax, think of it this way:
Free agency remains exactly the same as it was before. Except the only difference is teams have an option to bid higher for free agents that come from their own teams because they don't have to worry about busting their cap.

It is 100% good for fans and players, no downside whatsoever. The teams won't like it because it adds some uncertainty into their budgets, and richer teams are somewhat advantaged in retaining their own players. But richer teams have no advantage for most free agents. Parity will be broken by smart drafting and coaching, not money.

[pbmax]

But WHY would teams bid more for their own free agents if other teams are restricted from making big, bold offers? You are depressing the source of the greatest leverage. Would the Packers have given Bush a $1 million dollar a year deal if the Titans hadn't offered it?

You seem to think you are creating a Larry Bird exemption here. But there are no max contracts for UFAs in the NFL and the largest contracts are what lever other deals higher.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But WHY would teams bid more for their own free agents if other teams are restricted from making big, bold offers?
:cnf: Other teams are NOT restricted from making big, bold offers. There is free agency unchanged from today.

What I am proposing will have modest impact, you are looking for something that is not there.
I'm giving the home team an edge in competing to keep there own players, the ability to bid with uncapped money. It doesn't mean teams will go wild, GMs will still look to find the best players, but it makes it easier for them to keep their own vets.


You are depressing the source of the greatest leverage. Would the Packers have given Bush a $1 million dollar a year deal if the Titans hadn't offered it? What I proposed would not interfere in this dynamic in any way.


You seem to think you are creating a Larry Bird exemption here. But there are no max contracts for UFAs in the NFL and the largest contracts are what lever other deals higher. I went to wikipedia to see what Larry Bird exemption means. What I proposed is dumbed-down Larry Bird exemptions everywhere, for every player that has been with a team for 5 years. I don't understand your second point, it just is not relevant. What I have proposed is butt-simple. I don't get the complications you are interjecting.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Look at how many running backs, recievers and tight ends Tom Brady has played with during his hall of fame career.

There have been so many different versions of the NE offense, I hardly have any memories of that team. They keep replacing good players with other good players. The NE teams have little historical character to me. And for what advantage?

Contrast that with Bob Griese playing with Czonka-Kick-Mercury Morris. Throwing passes to Paul Warfield.

Keeping teams more intact builds interest, loyalty, history.

NFL today is interesting in a sense because of the parity, but it has gotten way too mercenary. I'm not expecting to go back to the old days, but the hard cap could be modified slightly to keep teams more intact. My proposal does that, AND players keep full financial benefit of free agency for players.

[pbmax]

Look at how many running backs, recievers and tight ends Tom Brady has played with during his hall of fame career.

There have been so many different versions of the NE offense, I hardly have any memories of that team. They keep replacing good players with other good players. The NE teams have little historical character to me. And for what advantage?

Contrast that with Bob Griese playing with Czonka-Kick-Mercury Morris. Throwing passes to Paul Warfield.

Keeping teams more intact builds interest, loyalty, history.

NFL today is interesting in a sense because of the parity, but it has gotten way too mercenary. I'm not expecting to go back to the old days, but the hard cap could be modified slightly to keep teams more intact. My proposal does that, AND players keep full financial benefit of free agency for players.

Name the Dolphin defense.

[pbmax]

Last word on Harlan cap. Cash spent by teams will change little, though its always far more different for teams than the cap number makes it look. So there is a limit on the amount of cash available. No cap number for home grown products makes them more attractive to drafting team and less attractive to other teams (one team has a decided edge).

That reduces the number of players who have to move or are so good they will receive offers even with disincentive. With cash the same, the number of big ticket deals will decrease. I could be wrong, but there is nothing like a free market for scarce labor resources, especially at the high end.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So there is a limit on the amount of cash available. No cap number for home grown products makes them more attractive to drafting team and less attractive to other teams (one team has a decided edge).
Since teams have a limited budget, the edge the home team has in signing its own players is limited. The home team has an edge, but a modest one. They have no reason to go crazy.


That reduces the number of players who have to move or are so good they will receive offers even with disincentive. With cash the same, the number of big ticket deals will decrease. If I follow you, teams are spending more on their own players, have less for blockbuster free agent deals? Maybe, and that is a good thing. From players association perspective, they are getting same money, its just spread out a little more. Fine.

I appreciate your taking time to think this through. Genius can be very lonely.

Twenty years from now, when the NFL finally adopts my idea, perhaps you'll think back to the time you humored Halan Huckleby. More likely you'll be thinking about ice cream and your first tricycle as the attendent changes your adult diaper.

[NewsBruin]

It will certainly affect trades, as opverpaid players in their second contract will only be swapped for fellow overpaid players in their second contracts.

You know why I don't follow the NBA? Despite having only 15 (or thereabouts) roster spots, their multiple salary-cap exceptions, expiring-contract deals, and the farce that is sign-and-trade makes their offseasons that much more convoluted. If knowing exactly who a guy is, what he can produce, and how he's respected in the lockerroom and with the coaching staff isn't incentive enough to keep him (and respectively for the player to the organization), then I don't know what is.

[pbmax]

It will certainly affect trades, as opverpaid players in their second contract will only be swapped for fellow overpaid players in their second contracts.

You know why I don't follow the NBA? Despite having only 15 (or thereabouts) roster spots, their multiple salary-cap exceptions, expiring-contract deals, and the farce that is sign-and-trade makes their offseasons that much more convoluted. If knowing exactly who a guy is, what he can produce, and how he's respected in the lockerroom and with the coaching staff isn't incentive enough to keep him (and respectively for the player to the organization), then I don't know what is.

The maddening thing about the NBA is that they keep saying they are doing one thing, but accomplishing another.

Stern sold his owners and the public on working to reduce salaries to maintain competitive balance for smaller market teams (such as the Bucks). But the entire max contract concept works against smaller teams keeping superstars. If you cap the money a player can make (even if the home team can offer slightly more) then you make every contract similar in the players view. Then other factors are more strongly put into play: quality of team, size of city, state taxes, etc.

Even the new restrictions to prevent Super Teams (ala Miami) concerning sign and trade, extension versus FA, etc. couldn't stop Dwight Howard from forcing his way to the Lakers.

Basketball players have an advantage here that football players don't, only 1 or 2 football players could really hold a team over the fire per franchise) out of the 53.