Salary cap taking a big jump in 2025

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Maybe something like % caps could get by. 

Like no more than 60% spent to one side of the ball than the other. 

Unless individual positions were % capped, don't really see a way to make the rest of it work due to so many teams relying on those early rookie contracts to be competitive. 

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Start capping contracts and having an elite franchise QB becomes an even bigger competitive advantage than it already is.

[Stingray3030]

4 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I do too.  if it were phased in, however, like the rookie cap, maybe.  If it came from the union, it would be a majority vote.  the big salaried  members would lose. SUre there are other legal concerns.

Can you imagine though?  If the lower paid guys did that the QB's would simply sit out and ride out their ridiculous contracts.  These guys won't take a reasonable pay cut now to win championships.  No way they will take a 50% cut without a huge fight.

[Khyber53]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

I guess the salaries for QBs and the other players in the top 5% will be getting richer.  They really need caps for players on the roster. 
2 players earn up to $25m

3 players earn up to 20m

5 players earn up to 10m

etc.  Players union should insist on this.

 

This is a major, major issue, an unintended one, that the league and NFLPA has to deal with. If not, some day you'll see a QB taking 60% of a team's salary cap get matadored by their underpaid linemen to provoke a career ending injury, or worse yet, a Teddy Bridgewater training camp incident done on purpose.

Think it won't happen? Remember that the Saints' bountygate issue was just for a couple of thousand dollars to severely injure an opposing player. Imagine if there were millions to be divvied out amongst a team?

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

This is a major, major issue, an unintended one, that the league and NFLPA has to deal with. If not, some day you'll see a QB taking 60% of a team's salary cap get matadored by their underpaid linemen to provoke a career ending injury, or worse yet, a Teddy Bridgewater training camp incident done on purpose.

Think it won't happen? Remember that the Saints' bountygate issue was just for a couple of thousand dollars to severely injure an opposing player. Imagine if there were millions to be divvied out amongst a team?

Oh well. That's his fault if he wants to eat up all the cap space and have no protection as a result. A big part of why Brady has all those rings is that he generally took team friendly deals. Not that he wasn't making a mega ass ton of money, but he wasn't leaving his team cap strapped due to his contract while Peyton Manning generally tried to negotiate for every dime he could get forcing the Colts to make tough decisions.

[MHS831]

57 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

The players' union is never going to agree to something like that. Putting the cap on rookie deals was something that benefited older players, which is why that got put into place. Restricting vet players though? Not happening.

I don't know--they represent the entire body of players and, if it got to that point, a vote of all veterans and rookies who are part of the union.  The members of the union that are getting less so that QBs and Edges make more.  If the elite players are getting 50% of all cap increases, the non-elite players with shorter careers might want a bigger slice of the pie and vote accordingly.  To say that the Union would not go for it is not something I agree with--it would be the union that proposes it--based on a proposal and a majority vote.  If the veteran players vote for an equal distribution framework, then all 53 on a roster benefit from a cap increase that is applicable to the entire team.  Not sure how labor laws might be impacted...

Edited Wednesday at 09:03 PM by MHS831

[PNW_PantherMan]

So this bump will basically help tank Motons backloaded year in 25?  Works for me.

[MHS831]

I am just spitballing here--let it play out and I will go to bed:

Let's say Mahome's contract comes due and he insists on $100m per season.  Is there a team that would find the money to pay it?  Would KC? It was in 2015 (I think) when Cam was getting $20m and it was hard to grasp.  In the past decade, the price of a franchise QB has tripled.  Then the next QB bases his contract on the Mahomes deal.  The trend has been the last QB contract is the highest.  I see nothing to discourage that trend--Greed can destroy a league.  Personally, I don't watch baseball any more, and the NBA has a small group of about 8 teams that appear on national TV and they have players who make more than some eastern block countries.  Ticket prices go up---and we are headed for pay-per-view very soon across the board-

[SmokinwithWilly]

5 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

I don't know--they represent the entire body of players and, if it got to that point, a vote of all veterans and rookies who are part of the union.  The members of the union that are getting less so that QBs and Edges make more.  If the elite players are getting 50% of all cap increases, the non-elite players with shorter careers might want a bigger slice of the pie and vote accordingly.  To say that the Union would not go for it is not something I agree with--it would be the union that proposes it--based on a proposal and a majority vote.  If the veteran players vote for an equal distribution framework, then all 53 on a roster benefit from a cap increase that is applicable to the entire team.  Not sure how labor laws might be impacted...

At some point I sense it's gonna create some hate and locker room cancer between these cap hogs and the rest of the players. When the top 6 or 7 players take 80% of the cap, the other 40 plus guys are gonna get pissed off, especially when they're still only winning 5 or 6 games. Why put everything on the line to play with guys who are only in it for themselves? 

[LinvilleGorge]

3 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

At some point I sense it's gonna create some hate and locker room cancer between these cap hogs and the rest of the players. When the top 6 or 7 players take 80% of the cap, the other 40 plus guys are gonna get pissed off, especially when they're still only winning 5 or 6 games. Why put everything on the line to play with guys who are only in it for themselves? 

Because being a pauper in the NFL is still making a king's ransom. NFL vet min is roughly 18x the median salary in the U.S.

[Khyber53]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Because being a pauper in the NFL is still making a king's ransom. NFL vet min is roughly 18x the median salary in the U.S.

Hard to argue against this, but then again, sometimes even the lowliest billionaire can't help but look enviously, perhaps slavishly at the biggest ones.

 

[SmokinwithWilly]

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Because being a pauper in the NFL is still making a king's ransom. NFL vet min is roughly 18x the median salary in the U.S.

Doesn't matter. This is getting very similar to what happened with rookie salary caps. One player was making a ridiculous amount while others were getting chump change, comparatively speaking.

[LinvilleGorge]

7 minutes ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Doesn't matter. This is getting very similar to what happened with rookie salary caps. One player was making a ridiculous amount while others were getting chump change, comparatively speaking.

Always been that way. Same thing is probably true at the company you work at. The folks in the C suite are making many times more than the rank and file worker. But you keep showing up anyway because you got bills to pay.

[SmokinwithWilly]

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Always been that way. Same thing is probably true at the company you work at. The folks in the C suite are making many times more than the rank and file worker. But you keep showing up anyway because you got bills to pay.

Actually it's getting harder to keep rank and file. You have to pay them more and give better incentives because if you won't, someone else will to get top quality employees. 

I get what you're saying and we'll just disagree, but I think in the next few years it's going to come to a head. 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

Actually it's getting harder to keep rank and file. You have to pay them more and give better incentives because if you won't, someone else will to get top quality employees. 

I get what you're saying and we'll just disagree, but I think in the next few years it's going to come to a head. 

This is a good thing. It's also the main reason NFL players switch teams. Someone else offered them a better deal.