QB Salary Cap Is In Play - Are The Dolphins Part Of The Conversation? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

QB Salary Cap Is In Play - Are The Dolphins Part Of The Conversation?

phinsforlife

phinsforlife

Active Roster
Joined
Dec 4, 2022
Messages
5,066
Reaction score
9,144
Age
48
Location
san diego
This issue has been discussed as a theoretical in several threads. It seems it is now more than just a theoretical, as NFL owners are talking about it (article linked below), because some of them at least, believe it is a problem. As to whether or not there is broad support, and they can come up with a solution, hard to know. There are two issues. One is coming up with a solution players and teams can agree to. The other problem is how to solve for the deals already in place that would run afoul of any new rule. I also wonder if Dolphins ownership is part of this conversation and the Dolphins are one of the teams angling for a cap on QB deals, and this is part of what is holding things up with Tua? QB salaries are an issue. On one hand, my gut instinct is capitalism and a free market should solve for the problem. On the other hand, the rules have been stilted so much to favor offense and especially the QB, it is more of a manipulated market than it is a free market.

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Last edited:
phinsforlife said:
This issue has been discussed as a theoretical in several threads. It seems it is now more than just a theoretical, as NFL owners are talking about it (article linked below), because they believe it is a problem. As to whether or not they can come up with a solution, hard to know. There are two issues. One is coming up with a solution players and teams can agree to. The other problem is how to solve for the deals already in place that would run afoul of any new rule. I also wonder if Dolphins ownership is part of this conversation and the Dolphins are one of the teams angling for a cap on QB deals, and this is part of what is holding things up with Tua? QB salaries are an issue. On one hand, my gut instinct is capitalism and a free market should solve for the problem. On the other hand, the rules have been stilted so much to favor offense and especially the QB, it is more of a manipulated market than it is a free market.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...

That capitalism stuff in this scenario will lead you essentially to the MLB and even they have certain restrictions (trying to supposedly keep things 'competitive') and still have hold outs and such.

If you are going to manipulate the market with a cap then you have to manipulate individual positions within the framework like they had to do with the rookie deals.
 
phinsforlife said:
This issue has been discussed as a theoretical in several threads. It seems it is now more than just a theoretical, as NFL owners are talking about it (article linked below), because they believe it is a problem. As to whether or not they can come up with a solution, hard to know. There are two issues. One is coming up with a solution players and teams can agree to. The other problem is how to solve for the deals already in place that would run afoul of any new rule. I also wonder if Dolphins ownership is part of this conversation and the Dolphins are one of the teams angling for a cap on QB deals, and this is part of what is holding things up with Tua? QB salaries are an issue. On one hand, my gut instinct is capitalism and a free market should solve for the problem. On the other hand, the rules have been stilted so much to favor offense and especially the QB, it is more of a manipulated market than it is a free market.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
Meh, I got the impression from the article that support was less than overwhelming.

In any case, the mechanics of changing the system seem very difficult on the surface and then there's the issue of the current collective bargaining agreement not expiring until 2030 (IIRC).

An artificial limit on a specific position group would be a whole can of worms that, if they think it through, owners might not be wise to open.

I would be more inclined to give some cap restraint relief to teams to make it more viable to retain players they drafted and developed, whether that be a QB, Corner or whatever.
 
Mach2 said:
Meh, I got the impression from the article that support was less than overwhelming.

In any case, the mechanics of changing the system seem very difficult on the surface and then there's the issue of the current collective bargaining agreement not expiring until 2030 (IIRC).

An artificial limit on a specific position group would be a whole can of worms that, if they think it through, owners might not be wise to open.

I would be more inclined to give some cap restraint relief to teams to make it more viable to retain players they drafted and developed, whether that be a QB, Corner or whatever.
Click to expand...
You would also possibly see RB's want so much to at least be spent on their position per team after the past couple of seasons. I don't think the league wants to open this up.
:ffic:
 
Fin Fan in Cali said:
You would also possibly see RB's want so much to at least be spent on their position per team after the past couple of seasons. I don't think the league wants to open this up.
:ffic:
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Once a precedent is set, it's nearly impossible to go back, or control the direction it takes.
 
TheMageGandalf said:
That capitalism stuff in this scenario will lead you essentially to the MLB and even they have certain restrictions (trying to supposedly keep things 'competitive') and still have hold outs and such.

If you are going to manipulate the market with a cap then you have to manipulate individual positions within the framework like they had to do with the rookie deals.
Click to expand...

That's step 1. Step 2? LBs, CBs, WRs salaries will rocket
 
Told the league, owners and players association already the answer to this.


Rule 1. No player can take up more than xx% of the cap.

Rule 2. See rule 1. Where is my cheque?
 
Fin Fan in Cali said:
You would also possibly see RB's want so much to at least be spent on their position per team after the past couple of seasons. I don't think the league wants to open this up.
:ffic:
Click to expand...
well by definition, if a deal was worked out that limits QBs, as long as the total cap $ and the growth in the cap stays intact, less money for QBs by definition would mean more money for RBs, and all the other positions. the size of the pie does not change, but the way it is sliced would. you do not have to start mandating minimums for other positions. once the dis-proportionately biggest salary is capped, the free market takes care of the rest. any player not a QB should be in favor of this. my suspicion is some in the NFL like the current system, because it results in more parity. teams with the good QBs have to pay up, which weakens the rest of the roster, and levels the playing field. part of why mahomes had no WRs last year, which resulted in the competition at least having a chance. this is my guess.
 
JamesWsenior said:
Told the league, owners and players association already the answer to this.


Rule 1. No player can take up more than xx% of the cap.

Rule 2. See rule 1. Where is my cheque?
Click to expand...
How do you do that with, for example, technically a five year contract that has some money guaranteed, some not, some conditionally, etc., as well as performance, roster, workout, per game, etc. bonuses, all with outs along the way? Then add the fact that revenues are variable, meaning there's no way to know for sure what the cap will be four years down the road.

Sorry brother, if you want the league to pay you to solve the problem, you're going to have to be far more detailed. Then you have to get the two sides to agree to the plan.

There's no way to even discuss this realistically on a forum.

It would take months and batteries of lawyers just to agree upon the shape and size of the coffee cups for the negotiations.
 
Mach2 said:
How do you do that with, for example, technically a five year contract that has some money guaranteed, some not, some conditionally, etc., as well as performance, roster, workout, per game, etc. bonuses, all with outs along the way? Then add the fact that revenues are variable, meaning there's no way to know for sure what the cap will be four years down the road.

Sorry brother, if you want the league to pay you to solve the problem, you're going to have to be far more detailed. Then you have to get the two sides to agree to the plan.

There's no way to even discuss this realistically on a forum.

It would take months and batteries of lawyers just to agree upon the shape and size of the coffee cups for the negotiations.
Click to expand...
It was worth a shot.
 
spiketex said:
This has the scent of Jerry Jones and the Cowboys all over it.
Click to expand...
oh no doubt jerry is involved. he is thinking to himself, $60mm per year for Dak, and he chokes in the playoffs all the time. the question is which other owners are actually starting to have similar feelings. clearly more than one is on board. not saying it is a majority at this point, we have no real data, beyond the notion that they are talking about the issue. do you think ross might be part of it as well now too?
ps jerry is probably beside himself. he is actually sneaky cheap, and he has dak money, cee dee lamb money, and micah parsons, all in short order. it is going to be interesting how this all plays out too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom