NBA-aish Contracts

[saden1]

I can't help but feel that the NFL is headed in the wrong direction with all the big fat contracts that players have been getting recently. I have nothing against the players maximizing their earnings but I'm a bit disgusted with owners and how much they are willing to pay these guys. I mean, what happens when Portis goes down for couple of games or even worse the entire season? Giving guys contracts like these will only hurt the team. This is no longer a team, it is every player for himself.

[Ghost]

In general I agree though I'm envisioning the ramifications of the deal Peyton Manning got, not Portis ... his deal is pocket change comparatively speaking. As I posted elsewhere, the bubble will burst eventually. I mean seriously, what kind of signing bonus will Vick get in a few years? $50 million? $100 million? Ridiculous.

[Daseal]

Well, I think owners are testing the salary cap. See if the NFL will expand the cap. Considering how much 'all-stars' require to sign, it would balance the league out some. You can actually keep your stars and some decent support players!

I'd like to see a system that can support bringing players up through the draft and have them sit on the bench to learn, but I also don't want to see dynastys again. I'm just glad Im not the one making decesions on this.

[BrunellFan]

NFL is becoming more and more a capitalist society. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There is no middle class in the NFL any more.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BrunellFan

NFL is becoming more and more a capitalist society. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There is no middle class in the NFL any more.

Actually, since the salary cap is in place, everybody has equal amounts of money they can spend, and all profits are shared. Every decision that is made is in the interest of the 'common good' -- the NFL.

That is, by definition, Socialism.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Actually, since the salary cap is in place, everybody has equal amounts of money they can spend, and all profits are shared. Every decision that is made is in the interest of the 'common good' -- the NFL.

That is, by definition, Socialism.

That's how it is for the teams, but not for the players. BrunellFan is right, look at any teams salary chart and it's very top heavy. Each team has a handful of millionaires but the majority of the roster is made up of guys making $500-$750K, which isn't too shabby to your or me but compared to the "top" guys on the team it's chump change.

[Phinehas]

Except now, those with the most money can get the best coaches, since coach signings don't count against the cap (and we here in Washington are ever so greatful for this). Anyone think coaches will count against the cap in the future?

--Phin

[sportscurmudgeon]

Daseal:

Owners don't get to "expand the salary cap". This is not a number they pull out of their ass once a year. It is derived from a formula that is contained n the Collective Bargaining Agreement. When revenues go up, the salary cap goes up. If revenues ever went down, the salary cap would go down...

Imagine the panic on some teams if next year's salary cap dropped from $80.5M to $75M. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. In GM offices around the league, only the people doing their laundry would know for sure...



Phinehas:

For the league to impose a "coaching cap" it is going to take a couple of teams going so far overboard that it becomes a cry from about 25 other owners for a cap I don't think we're anywhere near that yet. Even though Gregg Williams will earn 80% more this year as a DC than he did last year as a head coach, I don't think there is any momentum around the league for a "coaching cap".



Ghost:

It was reported that an "owner" told Peyton Manning at the super Bowl that if he became a free agent the owner would give him a $40M signing bonus. Of course that story had to be repudiated by Manning and everyone else or that would have been tampering since he was still under contract to the Colts at the time. 80% of the reorters say that it was Danny Boy who made that remark; the other 20% say it was Jerry Jones. I have no idea if that ever happened because I certainly did not hear anyone say it, but top players are going to be taking much bigger chunks of their contracts in signing bonuses for the foreseeable future.

[IowaSkinsFan]

My chin is still on the floor from hearing about the Manning contract?

I don't understand how the franchise tag would have counted $18 million against the cap for the Colts. The Franchise tag is supposed to be the average, average, of the top five paid players at your position. There's no way that 18 million is the average of the top five paid players. Can anyone shed light on that?

And a $34 million dollar bonus, spread over 7 years? Hell his cap number from bonus money alone will be nearly 5million, and that doesn't include his salaries. 99.2 million over 7 years averages $14million a year in cap charges? How can one team afford that?

I really don't want to hear the media bash Snyder anymore for thoughtless spending after seeing this contract.

[sportscurmudgeon]

The reason Manning's cap number used to be $18.2 M on the franchise tag is that the franchise amount is calculated by a formula.

A. The average SALARY (not cap number) for the top three players at his position (QB) paid last year. There is no amortizing and no averaging.

B. 120% (or maybe it's 112% I don't recall) of whatever he was paid last year.

Take the larger of A or B and that is the number for a franchise player.

His cap number now is reported to be $8.3M (I did not make the calculation, I'm only reporting what they said on ESPN) which means that they "saved" $10M on their salary cap this year by signing him to this monster contract. Go figure.