FAULK28MVP
UDFA
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
- Messages
- 87
- Name
- Randy Pottle
The minimum salary has to go way up. That's the only way. And fairest way.
How much money do the superstars have to get to be happy the greedy fucks. There's still 50 other players on the team that have to go through all the same shit as them, only worse for the bottom feeders because they can't take a week off if they're banged up. The pressure for them to stay on the team overrides everything else.
.
Going rate, is what it isTerrible contract to begin with.
Maybe the solution would be in allowing an offset to the cap based on service time & time with a team. For instance, take a Whitworth, say they had some sort of calculation of service time (14 seasons) and time with Rams (3 seasons) allows the Rams to only have to account for (14x3) 42% of his cap hit. He signs a deal elsewhere, its only the 14% service time "discount". In theory, teams would be able to keep the aging veteran who would normally be a cap casualty but leave the player in a position to gamble on himself by going elsewhere
Therein lies the issue. The players association acts in the best interests of the players as a whole. The revenue share increase and subsequent cap increase was to be passed on to the players, and it did. Problem is that it mostly is spent on the top 10% and where it was supposed to provide some income protection for the mid level veteran, it basically made them cost obsolete.
I've always thought that the NBA was on the right track with the Larry Bird rule, allowing teams to go over the cap to re-sign their vet, but we've seen how they learned to circumnavigate that.
Maybe the solution would be in allowing an offset to the cap based on service time & time with a team. For instance, take a Whitworth, say they had some sort of calculation of service time (14 seasons) and time with Rams (3 seasons) allows the Rams to only have to account for (14x3) 42% of his cap hit. He signs a deal elsewhere, its only the 14% service time "discount". In theory, teams would be able to keep the aging veteran who would normally be a cap casualty but leave the player in a position to gamble on himself by going elsewhere
Yes, some version of your proposed solution is what's needed. I personally feel the QB (who is treated differently from his red shirt during practice to the way he can avoid contact during games), can just not count against the salary cap. Period. Let the owners pay 100M to their QB, free market, meanwhile every other player counts against the cap.
Alternatively, you can set a cap per position (similar to what they already have for franchise tagging) with a 10% increase on top of highest paid player by position.
A million ways to do it, but they better do something. The way it works now is just FUBAR.
his deal is bad ...... but not half as bad as choker Brandin Cooks. I think getting out from under his contract and / or TG3 will be the real key
his deal is bad ...... but not half as bad as choker Brandin Cooks. I think getting out from under his contract and / or TG3 will be the real key
Not accurate imo to say he is a choker. Cooks has had several outstanding playoff performances where he really stepped up and consistent performances over regular seasons where he racked up lots of catches and yards. This year he was held back by concussions.Only reason why I gave you a "chill" rating is because of insulting a player. I get that Cooks is the new scapegoat, but that's still harsh. If you merely didn't include "choker", I'd be fine with your comment.