Salary Cap Sucks For Fans

[rockywoj]

I get that a salary cap is necessary to rein in crazy free spending owners that simply want to buy a team of stars. I get that it is necessary to level the playing field between have and have not teams.

But for us fans, the salary cap really stinks! It handcuffs teams in their ability to hold on to their emerging stars. It handcuffs teams in their ability to hold on to their fading, but still productive stars. It handcuffs teams in trying to make a smooth transition from one generation of players to another.

Bottom line, imho, the salary cap sucks!

There has to be a way to better tweak the cap structure to accomplish the leveling of the playing field between teams, but still allow teams to spend to retain current players. Some kind of system that exempts a certain amount of existing "franchise" players from the hard cap. There has to be a better way!

[UndecidedFrog]

I get that a salary cap is necessary to rein in crazy free spending owners that simply want to buy a team of stars. That it is necessary to level the playing field of have and have not teams.

But for us fans, the salary cap really stinks! It handcuffs teams in their ability to hold on to their emerging stars. It handcuffs teams in their ability to hold on to their fading, but still productive stars. It handcuffs teams in trying to make a smooth transition from one generation of players to another.

Bottom line, imho, the salary cap sucks!

Imagine the alternative...no salary cap.

That would suck even worse for a small market team like the Colts.

I choose the better of 2 evils.

[rockywoj]

Imagine the alternative...no salary cap.

That would suck even worse for a small market team like the Colts.

I choose the better of 2 evils.

Like I said in my amended opening statement, I see no reason why there cannot be an existing player exemption for the retention of veteran players already on the team. A system that somehow has this would still level the playing field by limiting the ability of rich teams to go out and buy players, but it would still allow teams to spend as they see fit to retain Their Own key veteran players.

There has to be a better way.

[Larry Horseman]

Like I said in my amended opening statement, I see no reason why there cannot be an existing player exemption for the retention of veteran players already on the team. A system that somehow has this would still level the playing field by limiting the ability of rich teams to go out and buy players, but it would still allow teams to spend as they see fit to retain Their Own key veteran players.

There has to be a better way.

So you want to essentially do away with free agency? Or maybe I misunderstand...it's more you think some players shouldn't count towards the cap?

[MAC]

To expand on what Undecided Frog said, imagine if football were like baseball. The Giants would be the Yankees, and the Colts would be the Pittsburgh Pirates. How would that be an improvement? I've lived my entire life in the NY area, and I LOVE the salary cap. Football is darn near perfect the way that it is.

[rockywoj]

So you want to essentially do away with free agency?

Not really, no ... I would not do away with free agency.

Under a somehow amended cap system, players would still have free agency as they do now, but their existing teams would not be handcuffed to spend to keep them, if that team so desires. Conversely, if the player wants to leave, then so be it.

Under what I am thinking, other teams could still try to attract that player in free agency, as they can do now, but the ramification of what they spend would count toward a hard salary cap, as it does now. However, if the existing team ponies up to be able to retain that player, a certain portion (to be determined) of that salary would NOT count toward the hard cap, as it would fall under an existing player retention / continuity exemption from the hard cap.

I think that in theory, such a system would actually serve to HELP small market teams, not hinder them, while at the same time, rewarding fans committed to a particular team and its star players. Everybody is happy!

[Thewholefnshow28]

In the long run it is good for the fans. Yes, it sucks losing a guy like Freeney because of the cap, but in the grand scheme of things the cap is the best thing for the fans. It does not allow teams with huge pockets like Dallas or Washington to just spend whatever they want to get guys.

No, just spending the most money does not guarantee a title, but it really helps to attach free agents to your team. Teams like Minnesota have to compete with teams like Miami who all ready have a leg up because they are in freaking Miami. No cap or a soft cap really creates an unlevel playing field.

Part of the reason I cannot stand baseball is because teams like Boston and New York can spend whatever they want to get guys. While teams like the Rays can compete for a few years because of an amazing front office, but eventually the go back down to the celler.

A small market like Indy could not have sustained its success like it did for over a decade in a world like baseball. A team like Dallas would have just paid whatever to take Manning, Wayne, or Freeney.

Yes, in the short term it sucks, but in the long term it is best for the fans.

Heck just look at the NBA as another example of why the lack of a cap sucks.

[Dan]

Salary cap is definitely necessary - I'm a huge football (soccer) fan and smaller teams get >>>ed over by big teams who can throw 10x the money around all the time. Thankfully the NFL has no international competition - if the English football leagues brought in a salary cap players would run abroad for more money, however with American Football what are they gonna do - join the arena league?

[rockywoj]

Well, like I said, I understand, and in fact I agree with, the purpose in leveling the playing field via a cap, so as not to allow other teams with open wallets to simply steal away all the star players in an attempt to buy a star studded, winning team. The soft cap / exemption I propose would only apply to a team's own players of x number of years, originally drafted by and developed by that team.

The goal of such a cap exemption would be to FURTHER level the playing field, to prevent teams from stealing away players in free agency, that if money were not the issue, would want to continue to play for their current team.

As fans, to have to cut or trade key players because of a hard cap is a disservice to fans. I think there can be some sort of middle ground cap rule modifications that can solve both the leveling of the playing field goals with the goals for teams to be able to afford to retain their own players.

[Superman]

To expand on what Undecided Frog said, imagine if football were like baseball. The Giants would be the Yankees, and the Colts would be the Pittsburgh Pirates. How would that be an improvement? I've lived my entire life in the NY area, and I LOVE the salary cap. Football is darn near perfect the way that it is.

Based on what rockywoj is saying, it would be more like basketball. Using "Bird rights" an NBA team can retain their own players no matter what, even going over the salary cap to do so. But they can't spend beyond the cap to add new players in free agency or via trade. So really, the Colts would be like the Milwaukee Bucks, and the Giants would be like the Lakers. Still not good for football, I don't think.

What's so different about football from baseball and basketball is that the average player takes up a much smaller slice of the payroll, and the player's ability to contribute at a high level usually lasts for a much smaller period of time.

[Larry Horseman]

Not really, no ... I would not do away with free agency.

Under a somehow amended cap system, players would still have free agency as they do now, but their existing teams would not be handcuffed to spend to keep them, if that team so desires. Conversely, if the player wants to leave, then so be it.

Under what I am thinking, other teams could still try to attract that player in free agency, as they can do now, but the ramification of what they spend would count toward a hard salary cap, as it does now. However, if the existing team ponies up to be able to retain that player, a certain portion (to be determined) of that salary would NOT count toward the hard cap, as it would fall under an existing player retention / continuity exemption from the hard cap.

I think that in theory, such a system would actually serve to HELP small market teams, not hinder them, while at the same time, rewarding fans committed to a particular team and its star players. Everybody is happy!

OK...I get what you are saying. As some others have pointed out, this resembles the NBA (or at least old NBA system...I'm not sure what the new CBA is like). I really don't have a problem with the way the NFL is now. After the new TV money comes in the cap is going to increase. It is so tight now because in 2009, it was $128 mill and it is going to be about $120 mill now. That drop makes a lot of difference when a team created contracts in '09 under the auspice that the cap would increase by $8 mill by 2012 instead of decrease by $8 mill.

[rockywoj]

Admittedly, I have no familiarity with how the NBA salary cap / free agency works.

[UMLBB10]

the salary cap is a mirage. if a team really wants a player they find ways to make it work. there are so many loopholes in the cap. every time we see team going after someone we all say.... oh man they are gonna be in cap jail..... then they move money around and restructure a guy here and there and presto. thr cap does its job and prevents teams from going all NY Yankees on the league but in general if a team wants to get or keep a guy the money is not an issue

[MLawRunner]

Admittedly, the salary cap does really suck and causes things like this Peyton situation. But I agree, we do not want this to become baseball and turn the NFL into the New York Yankees type of situation. One thing that is great about the NFL is that there are surprises every year, in baseball, while there are mild surprises, the predominant contenders never change because they have the $$$$$.

[rockywoj]

Well, I think we can all agree we do not want things to become like baseball with the Yankees.

I still think that via some serious brainstorming, an altered system that can serve the need of a level playing field for teams can co-exist with tweaks to allow for the retention of a team's own legacy players. I suppose this is what this thread is really all about, hashing out a system that serves both goals.

[UndecidedFrog]

Well, I think we can all agree we do not want things to become like baseball with the Yankees.

I still think that via some serious brainstorming, an altered system that can serve the need of a level playing field for teams can co-exist with tweaks to allow for the retention of a team's own legacy players. I suppose this is what this thread is really all about, hashing out a system that serves both goals.

If you allow tweaks, all 32 teams will find ways to maximize how to take advantage of those tweaks.

If your tweaks threaten the ability of a player to realize maximum value, then the NFLPA will be against it.

If you have something specific for us to consider I would like to see it.

[dynasty13]

I get that a salary cap is necessary to rein in crazy free spending owners that simply want to buy a team of stars. I get that it is necessary to level the playing field between have and have not teams.

But for us fans, the salary cap really stinks! It handcuffs teams in their ability to hold on to their emerging stars. It handcuffs teams in their ability to hold on to their fading, but still productive stars. It handcuffs teams in trying to make a smooth transition from one generation of players to another.

Bottom line, imho, the salary cap sucks!

There has to be a way to better tweak the cap structure to accomplish the leveling of the playing field between teams, but still allow teams to spend to retain current players. Some kind of system that exempts a certain amount of existing "franchise" players from the hard cap. There has to be a better way!

With all due respect, the Colts have had no trouble over the last decade holding on to its stars. They placed a priority on resigning their own free agents instead of signing others, and they made a habit of making every single one the highest paid player at their position. Only now, after 14 years, when the quarterback gets cut due to other issues, is the salary cap a problem in Indianapolis?

[oldunclemark]

With all due respect, the Colts have had no trouble over the last decade holding on to its stars. They placed a priority on resigning their own free agents instead of signing others, and they made a habit of making every single one the highest paid player at their position. Only now, after 14 years, when the quarterback gets cut due to other issues, is the salary cap a problem in Indianapolis?

no trouble's an exagerration....

Marshall Faulk..Jake Scott...right?

But FROG is right.....

without a salarty cap...Somebody like Dallas might have just bought guys like Marvin Harrison and Dwight Freeney years ago..

Irsay and Polian mishandled the cap a little because he wanted Manning to be the highest paid player...

..and with the Freeney deal

[UMLBB10]

no trouble's an exagerration.... Marshall Faulk..Jake Scott...right?

it wasnt necessarily the salary cap that stopped the colts from signing faulk, they knew they could get a younger back in james so they made the decision that Faulk was not worth xyz while james was worth the money. its a value system. if irsay thought manning's value was equal to the price tag he would have paid him. correct me if i'm wrong but there was not a big cap difference between cutting manning vs keeping him this year? 1 mil i think in savings?

[UndecidedFrog]

it wasnt necessarily the salary cap that stopped the colts from signing faulk, they knew they could get a younger back in james so they made the decision that Faulk was not worth xyz while james was worth the money. its a value system. if irsay thought manning's value was equal to the price tag he would have paid him. correct me if i'm wrong but there was not a big cap difference between cutting manning vs keeping him this year? 1 mil i think in savings?

There is a big cap difference between keeping PM and cutting him.

Here is the difference:

2012: $6.6MM savings to the cap if you cut him

2013: $18MM savings to the cap if you cut him

2014: $19MM savings to the cap if you cut him

2015: $20MM savings to the cap if you cut him

[IndyTrav]

So under Rockys proposition, a team that has drafted well over the past several years would easily be the most superior?

IE the Texans would be able to keep ALL of the guys they drafted, as well as having money to spend on FAs?

[rockywoj]

Not entirely, no, but I think there should be some sort of partial exemption for legacy players drafted by and developed by a team. I cannot help but think it's a travesty when teams end up losing players simply because of cap issues. I am putting out there that surely there can be some sort of tweak to the system that would better enable teams to retain their own, without utterly handcuffing them from a cap perspective.

I agree that the current cap is a better alternative than no cap, but is the current system truly BETTER than any sort of hybrid cap system that might be able to be created?

There's a franchise tag allowance that allows a team to restrict a player's ability to become a free agent. Perhaps similarly, there could be some sort of legacy franchise tag designation that a team can use to exempt that player from counting toward a salary cap. I don't think that advocating something like this has to translate into complete cap anarchy. This is meant to be an exploration into whether or not there can actually be a better cap way.

[Coltsarerich]

the colts kind of owed him that money, lol, watch what happens when they start sucking again.

no monday night foootball, no media exposure. get ready

[UndecidedFrog]

I agree that the current cap is a better alternative than no cap, but is the current system truly BETTER than any sort of hybrid cap system that might be able to be created?

I cannot answer that question until you forward some specifics for comparison.

[MSColtsFan]

no trouble's an exagerration....

Marshall Faulk..Jake Scott...right?

But FROG is right.....

without a salarty cap...Somebody like Dallas might have just bought guys like Marvin Harrison and Dwight Freeney years ago..

Irsay and Polian mishandled the cap a little because he wanted Manning to be the highest paid player...

..and with the Freeney deal

I agree -

Doesn't everyone remember what football was like in the 80s? Cowboys and Niners and Giants were it. Some other minor miracles occurred, like the Redskins finding a way to win titles with three different QBs, but football was like baseball is today. Those with money won, those without (or unwilling to spend) had almost no chance. It took home playoff games in January in places like Buffalo to buck the trend, and they never won it all.

I actually think Colts fans should be thrilled with the salary cap, because what that means is parity, it allows a team that went 2-14 a chance at immediate redemption and success. Perhaps nowhere else in sports can a team go from last to first quicker than in the NFL. Won't happen in baseball. Won't happen in basketball. Doesn't happen in hockey. The Colts will have to cut players we would prefer stayed, but we had a run of excellence getting to this point. Imagine being a Raiders fan, $25 million over the cap or something, and they haven't won in a decade. At least we enjoyed the ride to the breaking point. And this breaking point will be for 2012 only. The Colts will get through the money issues in one year. It is already a painful year, but it will not be an issue soon.

[UMLBB10]

I cannot help but think it's a travesty when teams end up losing players simply because of cap issues. I am putting out there that surely there can be some sort of tweak to the system that would better enable teams to retain their own, without utterly handcuffing them from a cap perspective.

dont mean to put words in your mouth but assuming you are relating this to the colts current predicament cutting manning and some overall roster turnover this year..... none of these moves are done simply because of cap issues. the colts could have kept manning, keep freeney and reggie. its not just that they cant fit them under the cap. irsay made an orginational decision that it's tiem to rebuild. and here is where the cap is doing what it was meant to do, it stops teams from having their cake and eating it too. you dont get to spend money on the players you are trying to replace and also spend money on their replacements at the same time.

[rockywoj]

I cannot answer that question until you forward some specifics for comparison.

I did not claim to have a specific solution to propose, but I did make a proposal in a prior post of mine.

Also, I offered up the top to spur discussion, to explore if anybody CAN come up with some viable solutions.

... There's a franchise tag allowance that allows a team to restrict a player's ability to become a free agent. Perhaps similarly, there could be some sort of legacy franchise tag designation that a team can use to exempt that player from counting toward a salary cap. I don't think that advocating something like this has to translate into complete cap anarchy. This is meant to be an exploration into whether or not there can actually be a better cap way.

[rockywoj]

dont mean to put words in your mouth but assuming you are relating this to the colts current predicament cutting manning and some overall roster turnover this year..... none of these moves are done simply because of cap issues. the colts could have kept manning, keep freeney and reggie. its not just that they cant fit them under the cap. irsay made an orginational decision that it's tiem to rebuild. and here is where the cap is doing what it was meant to do, it stops teams from having their cake and eating it too. you dont get to spend money on the players you are trying to replace and also spend money on their replacements at the same time.

This is a fair point.

[Jaric]

Even if you limit it to resigning your own players it still gives big market teams a competetive advantage. You'll start see bigger and bigger salaries. Previous player contracts drive the market on what future contracts are signed for. Eventually small market teams will get priced out and it's going to be New York and Boston versus everyone else.

[dgambill]

The NBA has their Bird rights but that is because the NBA only has 5 starters. A team HAS to keep their star or they suck. Look at Cleveland. The NFL has a sort of rule for this....its called the franchise tag. We aren't in this mess because we can't afford to keep our players. Our issue is we held on to them too long. Look at New England. They pay Brady just as much as Peyton and constantly surround him with good teams. We pay for a having superstars at high price positions. No one made us give Dwight that crazy contract...or Bob Sanders a few years back or Hayden or Addai. We could have traded them for draft picks like New England does and get extra draft picks and find new cheap talent...or talk veterens in to coming on the cheap and having them get a recharge on their career. Our issue is for every great draft pick we have made...we have made 5 or 6 poor ones...and all the other contracts outside of Mannings we have typically overpaid. The salary cap isn't the problem...we just handled it poorly. Heck...it wouldn't be popular but I guarantee we could have Manning and Freeney and Saturday and probably Garcon back this year if we traded our 1st pick in the draft if we wanted to and still found cap space but that wasn't going to happen. We could borrow against future years and with Freeney coming off the books next year we would have saw some relief in the future. The team wouldn't be super bowl caliber but certainly entertaining. Now..well we can build for the future...be not very entertaining and hope it works out. Good luck!

[dynasty13]

I actually think Colts fans should be thrilled with the salary cap, because what that means is parity, it allows a team that went 2-14 a chance at immediate redemption and success. Perhaps nowhere else in sports can a team go from last to first quicker than in the NFL. Won't happen in baseball. Won't happen in basketball. Doesn't happen in hockey. The Colts will have to cut players we would prefer stayed, but we had a run of excellence getting to this point. Imagine being a Raiders fan, $25 million over the cap or something, and they haven't won in a decade. At least we enjoyed the ride to the breaking point. And this breaking point will be for 2012 only. The Colts will get through the money issues in one year. It is already a painful year, but it will not be an issue soon.

Parity is an interesting thing. We all say it, the NFL touts it...but its really only been true in the NFC. Sure...bad teams have a chance the following season, which is great. But if you look back at the last decade, only 3 teams have represented the AFC in the Superbowl...New England, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis. In the NFC, its been a different team every year (other than the Giants who have been twice). The interesting thing is that people now say that the NFC is stronger, but they dont have any teams that have perennial contender over the last decade the way the AFC does.

[MSColtsFan]

Parity is an interesting thing. We all say it, the NFL touts it...but its really only been true in the NFC. Sure...bad teams have a chance the following season, which is great. But if you look back at the last decade, only 3 teams have represented the AFC in the Superbowl...New England, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis. In the NFC, its been a different team every year (other than the Giants who have been twice). The interesting thing is that people now say that the NFC is stronger, but they dont have any teams that have perennial contender over the last decade the way the AFC does.

True, but the Bengals, Texans, and Broncos all got to the dance last year, and most years the NFL has newcomers to the playoffs. As the Colts found out, and is usually the case, winning a title generally means learning how to get there first, which means multiple playoff runs, winning on the road in the playoffs, etc.

Steelers D and Brady and Manning. You are right. They have been dominant. We need to hope Luck can climb up like Ben, Tom, or Peyton, plus we hope Pagano brings some of the Ravens defensive swagger.

Parity allows the Bengals to have a chance at all. A rookie QB to rookie WR tandem helped get them to the dance in one year. I hope a Colts rookie QB to rookie WR tandem allows immediate improvement too.

[dynasty13]

True, but the Bengals, Texans, and Broncos all got to the dance last year, and most years the NFL has newcomers to the playoffs. As the Colts found out, and is usually the case, winning a title generally means learning how to get there first, which means multiple playoff runs, winning on the road in the playoffs, etc.

Steelers D and Brady and Manning. You are right. They have been dominant. We need to hope Luck can climb up like Ben, Tom, or Peyton, plus we hope Pagano brings some of the Ravens defensive swagger.

Parity allows the Bengals to have a chance at all. A rookie QB to rookie WR tandem helped get them to the dance in one year. I hope a Colts rookie QB to rookie WR tandem allows immediate improvement too.

Agreed. As we all know, all you need to do is get there, after that anything is possible. I just found it interesting when I actually looked back and realized...

[MAC]

Well, I think we can all agree we do not want things to become like baseball with the Yankees.

I still think that via some serious brainstorming, an altered system that can serve the need of a level playing field for teams can co-exist with tweaks to allow for the retention of a team's own legacy players. I suppose this is what this thread is really all about, hashing out a system that serves both goals.

There is no such creature - you can brainstorm as much as you want. Essentially you are seeking magic. There is simply no solution that can reconcile the simultaneous necessities of: a) allowing the players the freedom to sell their services for the maximum that the market will bear, b) allowing teams to make a fair profit c) allowing all teams to compete on a level playing field AND your goal of allowing teams to hang onto their own players if they chose to regardless of any other circumstances. Your desire is philosophically and mathematically incompatible with the others, and considerably less beneficial in comparison.

The NBA system was a horrific compromise which had the net effect of allowing the wealthy teams to ignore the salary cap when it was convenient to them, while simultaneously handicapping them for YEARS when they made mistakes (IE: the Knicks - proudly boasting the worst front office in professional sports for well over a decade now). But make no mistake about it, those compromises - with essentially the exact goal in mind that you are talking about - were of little use to teams that had limited cash. In that world, Indianapolis wouldn't be able to take advantages of the loopholes anyway, so what would be the point again exactly?

The NFL works purely by the graces of the NY Giants (and other big market teams) being willing to share revenue equally. The obvious corollary to sharing it equally, is spending it equally. The rules are rigid for valid reasons. The big market teams gambled (correctly) on the idea that a competitive league would increase the marketability of the entire league to the point that everyone would do better than they might under a different system. But that agreement comes with certain logical provisions. The small market teams aren't allowed to pocket the extra money - they need to spend a certain amount and try to compete. The big market teams aren't allowed to just go "ahh, they heck with it, and double their payroll just because they make more money on tickets and concessions. The idea is to be fair to everyone, and that fairness occasionally caries some pain with it.

And none of this changes the fact that the Colts could have easily kept Peyton if they wanted to. They decided to rebuild instead. Even the Giants might well have made the same decision in a "salary cap free" world simply because the alternative is paying Luck to waste his career sitting on the bench, while a so-so roster ages around him. Irsay did what he thought was in the best interests of the franchise. The only time in history that a team might have made a different decision was in the 60s and earlier, when players were essentially property. They could have forced Peyton to backup Luck for about $25,000 per year, and his alternative would have probably been to go coach high school football or something. I don't know about you, but I like things much better they way they are now. I honestly just don't get what you are complaining about.

[dgambill]

True, but the Bengals, Texans, and Broncos all got to the dance last year, and most years the NFL has newcomers to the playoffs. As the Colts found out, and is usually the case, winning a title generally means learning how to get there first, which means multiple playoff runs, winning on the road in the playoffs, etc.

Steelers D and Brady and Manning. You are right. They have been dominant. We need to hope Luck can climb up like Ben, Tom, or Peyton, plus we hope Pagano brings some of the Ravens defensive swagger.

Parity allows the Bengals to have a chance at all. A rookie QB to rookie WR tandem helped get them to the dance in one year. I hope a Colts rookie QB to rookie WR tandem allows immediate improvement too.

Cincy should have the chance to be dangerous for the next few years. They have 40 million in cap space and two first round picks. Things are definately changing there. A top running back and a pass rusher would make them dangerous....can we trade them Dwight for one of those first rounders???? They could definately extend his contract. lol

[MSColtsFan]

Agreed. As we all know, all you need to do is get there, after that anything is possible. I just found it interesting when I actually looked back and realized...

How dominant Brady is? Yep. And the Steelers D, and how well Big Ben has played? Yep. And how Manning had to overcome that every year.....

[rockywoj]

So what about a singular Legacy Franchise Player Exemption? A team can tag one player and one player only for the Legacy Exemption. Once exercised, that exemption applies to that player for the rest of that player's current contract term. Once exercised, it cannot be revoked. As an example, the Colts could this year designate Dwight Freeney. His contract has one year remaining, so this designation would apply for only one year. For sake of argument, however, let's say that the Colts did not let Manning go, instead exercising the option and then utilizing the Legacy Exemption on Manning. If they had done this, then the Exemption would have applied to Manning and for the next 4 years of his contract term, it could not be used on any other player. Even if he were to subsequently retire or have been cut, the Legacy Exemption would not be able to again be utilized by the Colts until 4 years down the road.

Just an idea, which I think helps teams in a squeeze with existing players, without upsetting the apple cart of fair playing field between differing teams. Trying to balance current cap limitations and purposes, while creating a of a balance in helping teams deal with legacy issues because of the cap.

[JWF]

Admittedly, I have no familiarity with how the NBA salary cap / free agency works.

Its a horrible system IMO. Its better than MLB but MLB actually has less parity issues when you actually look at the world series wining teams because good pitching is a good equalizer and is also the most difficult part of baseball to build through FA alone (which is why the Yankees pitching routinely are slightly above average to below average). The Redsox have been good at signing key pitching FAs and developing their own while also spending big on hitters in FA.

Basically its a soft cap with another limit beyond the cap limit called the luxury tax. You essentially pay more per dollar if you go over the luxury tax threshold. In a nutshell big market teams could absorb small market teams bad contracts in trades thus lowering the asking price. Its better than the MLB but not by much and because basketball is so star driven, its made it difficult for smaller market teams to win championships. Some teams have pulled it off like the Spurs but it takes really good FO workings and luck (tanking for Tim Duncan and it working).

[UndecidedFrog]

So what about a singular Legacy Franchise Player Exemption? A team can tag one player and one player only for the Legacy Exemption. Once exercised, that exemption applies to that player for the rest of that player's current contract term. Once exercised, it cannot be revoked. As an example, the Colts could this year designate Dwight Freeney. His contract has one year remaining, so this designation would apply for only one year. For sake of argument, however, let's say that the Colts did not let Manning go, instead exercising the option and then utilizing the Legacy Exemption on Manning. If they had done this, then the Exemption would have applied to Manning and for the next 4 years of his contract term, it could not be used on any other player. Even if he were to subsequently retire or have been cut, the Legacy Exemption would not be able to again be utilized by the Colts until 4 years down the road.

Just an idea, which I think helps teams in a squeeze with existing players, without upsetting the apple cart of fair playing field between differing teams. Trying to balance current cap limitations and purposes, while creating a of a balance in helping teams deal with legacy issues because of the cap.

This would incentivize teams to play games with contracts and restructurings to take advantage of their legacy exemption. I can see how a team will back load contracts and extensions and restructurings such that every large dollar player will have a huge back-loaded year of base salary, each expiring one year before the other, so that the legacy contract can be used on a different player every year. Fun times.

[rockywoj]

This would incentivize teams to play games with contracts and restructurings to take advantage of their legacy exemption. I can see how a team will back load contracts and extensions and restructurings such that every large dollar player will have a huge back-loaded year of base salary, each expiring one year before the other, so that the legacy contract can be used on a different player every year. Fun times.

<shrugs> I have no problem with such dancing. I do think, though that fear is easily addressed by simply not allowing contracts to have final years that exceed previous years more than a limiting defined percentage amount. That way teams cannot simply back load contracts.