Regressing Packers and what it means with no salary cap

[outflow]

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?

[red]

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]

Re: Regressing Packers and what it means with no salary cap

It means you can cut under performers without regard to what the hit would be to your cap number.

[mraynrand]

Re: Regressing Packers and what it means with no salary cap

It means you can cut under performers without regard to what the hit would be to your cap number.

what cap #?

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Regressing Packers and what it means with no salary cap

It means you can cut under performers without regard to what the hit would be to your cap number.

what cap #?

Exactly.

[outflow]

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]

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.

[red]

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]

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]

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"?

[red]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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