21 replies to this topic

[i82much]

First - let me say that in my opinion the NFL salary cap works very well - the NFL is such a competitive league because of the salary cap. So much better than MLB.

That said, watching Ed Reed go, well, that's tough. Think about how Steelers fans feel about Harrison. I think the NFL should consider a tenure component to the cap equation. You could do it a couple ways, a simple way would be that the team that drafted a player or gave them their first NFL start, first 100 snaps, something along those lines can discount that player's salary against the cap after a certain number of years, say, 8.

In this case, maybe we'd get to discount Reed's cap hit 10%, or the Steelers could do the same with Harrison. Or 20%, or whatever. The percentage could be tied to the number of years a player had been with a team.

I am not saying the Ravens shouldn't get picked apart after winning the Super Bowl, I am not saying we'd have kept Reed even under the system I propose. But I am saying that there comes a point where it is tough to watch a player that has been wearing the same uniform for a decade walk away in favor of a better offer. I think the NFL should consider ways to allow teams to keep certain players, and I think it could be done without affecting how competitive the league is.

Also, as much as I loved Boldin, Mason, those guys, I am not sure whether this system should apply to players that didn't really get their start with the team they are leaving.

[The Raven]

I'd really like it. It'd be a great way to keep legends like Ray and Reed in the city that made them, without compromising the future. They get paid, and the fans get to watch them fade into the sunset. It would be hard to convince Goodell to change that rule though.

[Miami Hurricane]

I would like something similar to the Bird rule instituted in the league.

[The Raven]

I would like something similar to the Bird rule instituted in the league.

I am not familiar with the bird rule. Can you clarify?

[Miami Hurricane]

I am not familiar with the bird rule. Can you clarify?

In basketball if a veteran player is with a team for 3 or more years without being waived or released then the team can go over the salary cap to re-sign them up to 6 years and up to the maximum salary.

[The Raven]

In basketball if a veteran player is with a team for 3 or more years without being waived or released then the team can go over the salary cap to re-sign them up to 6 years and up to the maximum salary.

Ah, right. I have heard of that rule. I like it!

Get on it Goodell!

[Miami Hurricane]

Ah, right. I have heard of that rule. I like it!

Get on it Goodell!

I think it would be great so teams could hold onto franchise guys like reed.. It would probably have to be altered a bit so it isn't abused

[The Raven]

I think it would be great so teams could hold onto franchise guys like reed.. It would probably have to be altered a bit so it isn't abused

Perhaps it can go to a vote among the owners to give a team the right to go over?

[T3hRaven]

I would like something similar to the Bird rule instituted in the league.

I would have brought this up if someone didn't. It's an interesting sort of idea and I can see both sides to this, but given how different NBA contracts are compared to NFL ones I'm not sure how it could be effectively implemented.

[horus13corvineus]

like the new rule with the IR return for one player only, we could have the Bird rule for just that one player only too - let's call it the home legend player rule

[arnie_uk]

It should only be able to be used for one player at a time and a cap on the contract amount. Like say contracts under 8 average per year. Could you imagine the us in 6 years resigning Joe to 25 mil a year ave saving 20 percent. Far too much

[jus'_crAzy]

I would like something similar to the Bird rule instituted in the league.

Exactly. But the NFL operates under a hard cap. Implementing Bird rights means switching over to a soft cap.

[cobrajet]

I say they have to be with the same team from the start and I would go with 10 years then discount the whole salary.

[gabefergy]

Definitely an interesting idea, but it would have to be tightly regulated so it isnt abused.

[Tiz]

I don't mind the idea but then it limits free agency movement and I don't think the nfl wants to limit that.

As for reed specifically its not an issue of cap its an issue of value.
The texans were wiling to pay more than what Baltimore felt he was worth not more than what Baltimore could afford.

[i82much]

I don't mind the idea but then it limits free agency movement and I don't think the nfl wants to limit that.

As for reed specifically its not an issue of cap its an issue of value.
The texans were wiling to pay more than what Baltimore felt he was worth not more than what Baltimore could afford.

Really? I think without a salary cap we definitely would have paid Reed. To say that it is an issue of value instead of the cap doesn't make sense to me, every player on the roster's value is, in part, a function of the cap.

[i82much]

Definitely an interesting idea, but it would have to be tightly regulated so it isnt abused.

I think it's like everything else, the devil is in the details. If Brady only counted $1 to the Patriots cap, I'd be pretty infuriated.

[Tiz]

Really? I think without a salary cap we definitely would have paid Reed. To say that it is an issue of value instead of the cap doesn't make sense to me, every player on the roster's value is, in part, a function of the cap.

Just because it doesn't effect the cap doesn't mean real money isn't involved
Ozzie places value on players and then works tombuildmthem into the cap
If hey don't agree with the value or believe they are worth more than what we will pay
The cap hit portion is irrelevant.

So you ignore cap hit does that mean you would pay reed 10m just because he is a long time raven?

[i82much]

Just because it doesn't effect the cap doesn't mean real money isn't involved
Ozzie places value on players and then works tombuildmthem into the cap
If hey don't agree with the value or believe they are worth more than what we will pay
The cap hit portion is irrelevant.

So you ignore cap hit does that mean you would pay reed 10m just because he is a long time raven?

It is pretty tough to speculate what player salaries would be like without the cap, so I really don't know. I think the Texans were able to pay him because they had the cap space, not because they had more absolute dollars than the Ravens. And I think it only really makes sense to talk about a player's value in light of the cap instead of speculating about their value in a world without the cap.

[Brandon22]

First - let me say that in my opinion the NFL salary cap works very well - the NFL is such a competitive league because of the salary cap. So much better than MLB.

That said, watching Ed Reed go, well, that's tough. Think about how Steelers fans feel about Harrison. I think the NFL should consider a tenure component to the cap equation. You could do it a couple ways, a simple way would be that the team that drafted a player or gave them their first NFL start, first 100 snaps, something along those lines can discount that player's salary against the cap after a certain number of years, say, 8.

In this case, maybe we'd get to discount Reed's cap hit 10%, or the Steelers could do the same with Harrison. Or 20%, or whatever. The percentage could be tied to the number of years a player had been with a team.

I am not saying the Ravens shouldn't get picked apart after winning the Super Bowl, I am not saying we'd have kept Reed even under the system I propose. But I am saying that there comes a point where it is tough to watch a player that has been wearing the same uniform for a decade walk away in favor of a better offer. I think the NFL should consider ways to allow teams to keep certain players, and I think it could be done without affecting how competitive the league is.

Also, as much as I loved Boldin, Mason, those guys, I am not sure whether this system should apply to players that didn't really get their start with the team they are leaving.

Well we will see if ozzie brings this up at the spring annual meeting in may