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

[Lurker64]

Damn that's a funny article about Snyder. But that's not really Davis, is it? Cripes, I recognize him from the Plants Vs Zombies game!

That's really Al, that was a picture from January of this year, I believe.

Some might disagree with that over the last decade. A top 5 draft pick, and the top overall in particular has been an albatross as often as not. Bloody sea bloody bird bloody Albatross (flavour)

Well, the "high picks are a penalty" thing has really developed recently, which is why the owners went after a rookie salary structure this offseason (and they'll still probably get what they want). But that being said, the penalty is really only for *missing* on high draft picks. I'm pretty sure the Lions are happy with Suh, the Falcons are happy with Ryan, the Browns are happy with Thomas etc. despite what those guys are getting paid.

[Guiness]

Well, the "high picks are a penalty" thing has really developed recently, which is why the owners went after a rookie salary structure this offseason (and they'll still probably get what they want). But that being said, the penalty is really only for *missing* on high draft picks. I'm pretty sure the Lions are happy with Suh, the Falcons are happy with Ryan, the Browns are happy with Thomas etc. despite what those guys are getting paid.

reasonably happy with them...and they'd be happier if they were being paid a reasonable amount. I'm sure St-Louis is pleased with Bradford's play - but he was the highest paid player in the league this year. He wasn't that good!

We haven't seen a trade out of the top 5...even the top 10 positions in how long? Other than Manning for Rivers, which was only a couple of spots, teams have picked in their spots. I think it's because the teams picking have no choice - no one wants those. Thompson put on a good game day face, but given his style, do you not think he would've traded away the pick that got us Hawk?

[Lurker64]

We haven't seen a trade out of the top 5...even the top 10 positions in how long?

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).

[SkinBasket]

go away skinbasket, your opinion has been noted and is no longer needed.

Excellent way to defend your "proposal." God forbid someone point out your idea doesn't work on both a fundamental and a practical level.

But really, giving the teams with the richest owners a 2-1 advantage on the field is a wonderful idea. I'm sure it would promote "parity." Just like baseball.

[RashanGary]

Excellent way to defend your "proposal." God forbid someone point out your idea doesn't work on both a fundamental and a practical level.

But really, giving the teams with the richest owners a 2-1 advantage on the field is a wonderful idea. I'm sure it would promote "parity." Just like baseball.

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.

[SkinBasket]

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.

[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?

[Patler]

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.

[RashanGary]

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.

[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.

[Smidgeon]

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?

[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.

[RashanGary]

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

[Pugger]

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.

[RashanGary]

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.)