Is This True?

[The Peytonator]

So I read somewhere today that with the new CBA, every team has to cover at least 95% of the league salary cap. Obviously you can't be more than 100% right? I just don't get how this is supposed to work. On one hand, it would prevent teams like the Bucs from just letting people walk all the time, and rarely field a competitive team. But spending money does not guarantee success in this league.

Plus, at least in my head, what if you have your 53 man roster set. All your guys are accounted for, you've got your fair share of heavily contracted players, as well as your mix of small-money, vet minimum deals. But what if you're at 93% of the salary cap? What do you do then? I mean it's not like you're just going to cut somebody, so you can resign someone that costs more, when you already had your guy.

I just don't see how this is supposed to work. I could understand it more if teams had to spend 85% of the cap, but 95% just seems like it would be hard to navigate around.

[Superman]

So I read somewhere today that with the new CBA, every team has to cover at least 95% of the league salary cap. Obviously you can't be more than 100% right? I just don't get how this is supposed to work. On one hand, it would prevent teams like the Bucs from just letting people walk all the time, and rarely field a competitive team. But spending money does not guarantee success in this league.

Plus, at least in my head, what if you have your 53 man roster set. All your guys are accounted for, you've got your fair share of heavily contracted players, as well as your mix of small-money, vet minimum deals. But what if you're at 93% of the salary cap? What do you do then? I mean it's not like you're just going to cut somebody, so you can resign someone that costs more, when you already had your guy.

I just don't see how this is supposed to work. I could understand it more if teams had to spend 85% of the cap, but 95% just seems like it would be hard to navigate around.

That doesn't kick in until 2013. And I think you might see the values of one-year contract for veteran free agents be a little bit higher for a couple of years, which will inflate the yearly averages of all players over time.

But one thing's for sure: there's gonna be a lot of money spent these next two offseasons.

[The Peytonator]

That doesn't kick in until 2013. And I think you might see the values of one-year contract for veteran free agents be a little bit higher for a couple of years, which will inflate the yearly averages of all players over time.

But one thing's for sure: there's gonna be a lot of money spent these next two offseasons.

Ahhh

Does that rule go away eventually or is it in place indefinitely?

[Superman]

Ahhh

Does that rule go away eventually or is it in place indefinitely?

For at least 8 years, until the CBA expires in 2021.

[chad72]

It is 89% in 2012, I think, so it is not far off. So, a team like the Bucs or Chiefs with the cap room, HAVE TO spend at least 89% of the annual salary cap in cash.

Why do you think the Jags spent so much money on Session and Posluzny last year? It was getting them on their way to that 89%.

Small and mid market teams that could stay competitive without spending close to 89% like the Bucs, Panthers, Chiefs etc. are the ones that can be hurt.

But then, this does raise the market value for players and several positions since more mid and small market teams will enter the bidding war because they have to get their cap spending higher.

Here is an article, that talks about the 89% cash minimum payroll, by John Clayton

http://espn.go.com/n...-football-terms

Also, read this National Football Post's article, focus on the section ECONOMICS:

http://www.nationalf...-agreement.html

[JoKeR]

Just sign some PS/ ST players to fill the gap.