too much parity, too few players

[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.

[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]

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?

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.