As a Reds fan I would love to see Goddell as the commish. He acts in the best interest of all 32 teams, not a particular small amount of geographic teams.Originally Posted by NJReds
As a Reds fan I would love to see Goddell as the commish. He acts in the best interest of all 32 teams, not a particular small amount of geographic teams.
It means that for everyone who wants a salary cap in baseball, it doesn't keep a team in the largest market in the country from winning it all - again.
That, and the fact that the players in question did get paid, probably more up-front cash than if the contracts had been structured to the NFL's liking. Add that to the other teams' caps being raised to compensate for the hit the Cowboys and Redskins took, and there's nothing to fight over here from the players' perspective.
Okay, there's that collusion thing, but sometimes you have to pick your battles.
Reading comprehension is not just an ability, it's a choice
A cap isn't supposed to be about preventing big-market teams from winning, ever. Just about giving the smaller markets a fair chance to win, too. No one seems to mind New York winning when Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New Orleans and Indianapolis have also won recently.
Reading comprehension is not just an ability, it's a choice
????
First of all the Giants weren't the biggest spenders. Those were the Cowboys and Redskins as we just found out, but if you want to look at markets, fine. The Giants won this year and 4 yrs ago. In between there were championships from the vast markets of Green Bay, Pittsburgh and New Orleans. Before then it was Indianapolis. Clearly market size isn't a common denominator in these championships.
Salcaps shouldn't be in place to prevent a large market fronm ever winning. It should be in place in order to spread out the winning to all sorts of markets and it's done exactly that
Announcing the punishment the day before free agency was a little extra twist of the knife to the sides of Snyder and Jones.
The Skins and Dallas refused to go along with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" agreement (if it were in writing, it would've been clearly illegal). The other owners were mad that the bad boys didn't play ball with their little collusive scheme and demanded satisfaction from Goodell.
Never mind that all contracts were certified by the NFL at the time they were submitted. Wouldn't that have been the time to do something? Just void the contracts. But that couldn't happen, because no official rules were broken.
This whole thing stinks. I bet Mike Brown had something to do with it.
"I can make all the stadiums rock."
-Air Supply
This is how I understand what's going on, and if I'm correct then the Redskins and Cowboys deserved their sanctions.
Since last year was an uncapped year they front loaded a lot of deals and cut players/restructured deals to take the cap hit on a year that it wouldn't hurt them. They were told several times that doing this would be unwise since the next CBA would have provisions allowing the NFL to recoup the cap that was 'cheated'. So essentially the Redskins tried to cheat the cap to gain an advantage over other teams, even after being told it wouldn't be allowed, and now they're paying for it. Sounds fair to me, and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder voted in favor of the latest CBA.
When I look at a team like the Steelers, they could have done the same kind of work last year to get some cap room this year, but instead they played by the rules and are having to make some tough cuts right now as a result.
I could be wrong here, but if my understanding is correct then I don't know how those two teams have any room to complain about this.
Then why weren't the offending contracts voided at the time? There were no official "rules," as I understand it, because such an agreement would've been illegal. Snyder and Jones went rogue and I'm sure that upset the other owners, but I don't see where the punishment is justified.
"I can make all the stadiums rock."
-Air Supply
http://deadspin.com/5892791/in-the-n...and-the-tyrantThe season was uncapped. There was no cap. Teams stayed under a cap the year before, and the year after, but in the year of no cap, they spent what they wanted. There was nothing in the then-extant CBA that could have been used to penalize them for this. Hell, there was nothing in the next CBA, even though that would have been an ex post facto law, and illegal under any constitution worth its salt. So even if the NFL warned Washington and Dallas not to do what they were doing, Snyder's and Jones's lawyers would have pretty quickly concluded that there was to harm in using a loophole, and no risk either.
EDIT: Sorry, there's some NSFW language in the article. Just a heads-up.
Last edited by RichRed; 03-13-2012 at 02:30 PM.
"I can make all the stadiums rock."
-Air Supply
I honestly don't know, I don't understand the NFL salary cap that much to be honest, just going by what I've read.
I guess it wasn't illegal, but they still have to take the cap hit that they tried to avoid?
The uncapped year meant you could spend whatever you wanted for that year, but it didn't give them the right to assign future salaries to the uncapped year. The Cowboys and Redskins attempted to game the system and exploit a perceived loophole to give them a dishonest edge over the rest of the league in future capped seasons.
But as you can see from the little chart in the article, they weren't the only ones who did this. And again, the contracts should've been voided two years ago if they were against the CBA.
"I can make all the stadiums rock."
-Air Supply
Doesn't seem as though this is over.
Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options
Suing over what essentially was a refusal to engage in collusion would confirm that the NFL was indeed engaged in collusion in the months preceding the 2011 lockout.More importantly, the Redskins and Cowboys would be accusing their partners of corrupt, improper business practices. With the intense coverage that the NFL now enjoys, a legal fight featuring two arch rivals coming together and suing the entire league for meting out punishment for refusing to participate in inappropriate business practices against the players would attract much unwanted attention for the NFL.
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
I don't think it's news that they're exploring options. They'd be idiots not to but that doesn't mean it'll go anywhere
It probably won't. Not sure Jones and Snyder want to "pull an Al Davis." As absurd as the penalty is, the league covered its bases pretty well on this one.
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote