I think we'd see a lot of 32 year old journeymen loosing their jobs to 6th & 7th round picks, which would dilute the quality of the on-field product. GMs are already taking too much advantage of the discrepancy between cash value and cap value of players. It's a fun idea, but I think it solves one small issue while potentially creating larger problems. Let them negotiate. As long as there are players/agents and GMs/owners, new lines will be drawn and redrawn every season no matter what the rules are.
I would do this by only counting the top 48 salaries (i.e. equivalent to the active roster size) against the salary cap. Second round picks wouldn't necessarily fall into that, but often would.
The three second rounders on the Seahawks right now, still on their rookie contracts are the 23rd, 24th, and 27th highest salaries on the team. (Walker, Hall, Charbonnet)
I love this comment so much! I'm not really into Kenneth's idea, as it would mean that several years worth of draft picks could be on a team and not count against the salary cap. An alternative way to relieve pressure on negotiations and slow the growth of the salary cap would be to allow each team to have one player that doesn't count against the salary cap. Think of it as a supplement to the franchise tag that makes teams more likely to retain their stars and be able to be competitive. I'd also like to see rosters expanded and active players expanded. I don't get the 48 active limit on a 53 man roster.
Agree. If a team had 50% of their players on their first contracts, a little less than 50% wouldn't count against the salary cap. The potential for abuse would be crazy.
I don't think it is that big of a deal. It's June 22, and as long as they have signed their contracts by training camp and don't hold out, everything is fine.
I wonder if some of this pressure comes from rookies looking at the NIL money being paid out NOW, as opposed to when they started in college, and wanting to catch up.
But the medium-term problem, it seems to me, is that college players may well be asked to take pay cuts to turn pro after the NIL gravy train gets cut off. I don't think that will go well. I also suspect having affluent rookies entering the league changes both the locker room and the leverage available to teams. It may allow young players to do stupid things with money and learn better before the NFL, or not. But it's a whole lot different from the days when a kid left college pretty much broke and finally got paid as a rookie. They know what money is, what it can and cannot buy, and what they'd like to spend it on.
Fundamentally, though, I take issue with the negotiated payscale. Google says the average NFL career lasts 3.3 years. So if you're drafted and have an AVERAGE career, the team/union contract limits your income for your entire career. (I know, no 22-year-old kid thinks he's going to have an average career. But.) I don't think that works equitably.
And, finally, I have real problems with positional value and the salaries some "skill" positions command. I think QBs are overpaid and IOL are underpaid. The salary cap (and the Dodgers/Yankees problem is real) imposes a logic on player pay that cannot be good for team building, that is fundamentally unfair, and that disadvantages certain positions EVEN THOUGH Centers, say, in the Kubiak system have all the responsibility for making adjustments and such.
But it's a whole lot better than it was. (I suspect I am shaped, all these years later, by Bernie Parrish's book from the '70s, They Call It A Game. He was, if memory serves, a Detroit DB who got drummed out of the league as a union agitator or some such.)
The salaries of the 2nd and 3rd round draft picks are not counted in the salary cap numbers for one season, rookie contract (4 years), or for their career? One season may make sense, but a team could possibly arrange their trades to have most, if not all, of their picks be in the second and third round. Thus, a significant percentage of their players' salary would not count towards their particular cap for whatever the duration.
The salary cap is ownership’s version of The Precious. It’s hard to see them eroding it just to make the league better. Plus, if that’s goal, get rid of the salary cap altogether.
The problem with getting rid of the cap, the very rich teams will buy the talent as they do in baseball. And the Dodgers and Yankees will be impossible to unseat with a team with a small budget like the Mariners.
Actually, if you look at the wealth of the NFL owners, some have mega billions and some have a bit less. It is the cap and the socialized distribution of the majority of the revenue that have created parity and competition as opposed to baseball where teams like NY and LA can spend 2 or three times what other teams can spend on players. I think Seattle loses if the cap is removed. Jody Allen must preserve the capital of the estate as trustee. That would hinder the Seahawks from spending exorbitantly to improve the team. However if Bezos buys the team, he could spend however much he wanted to win the Super Bowl.
I lived in NY until the mid 1980s. I grew up a yankee fan. But when Steinbrenner started using the yankee cash to buy free agents I dropped the team. It’s no fun to me winning by being able to spend 2 or 3 times what other teams can spend. If Bezos did start doing that, I’d find another team. I don’t want to win that way.
The NFL is having it's reckoning with Guaranteed deals. Plays look at the MLB as a primary example, why do those guys get guaranteed deals when we play in a richer more popular league and face greater personal risks?
The NFL just about dodged the Lamar Jackson situation (by massively illegally colluding, but hey let's not bring that up). And the flops of Wilson and Watson have just about pushed the veteran guarantee question out of sight for the moment.
But Rookies. If we see this go half way down the round this year... Don't be surprised to see a lot more negotiation trip ups come early 2026. The dominos are teetering. The owners know they are fundamentally fighting against all guaranteed deals, not just 2nd rounds. The long term cash impact of that would be mega. The long term cap impact would be mega.
Personally I think fully guaranteed deals in any sport are nuts, because the values are so high. I think it is in better player interest to carry that bet-on-themselves risk. But it's complicated. And if College pay-to-play comes through with fully guaranteed deals... God sounds like I'm supporting Billionaires in a case of workers rights... Oof... Nah, fuck em. Fully guaranteed deals should be more common (but players should then expect less flashy overall numbers).
RE Guaranteed Contracts: While a significant change, some argue that widespread fully guaranteed contracts, similar to other professional leagues, would shift the financial risk of injury to team owners, something I'm guessing owners in the most injury prone sport might object to. I like thinking outside the box but I'm not sure how this gets resolved. I'd like to see something that accounts for injured players...maybe not counting against the cap. Maybe only players that play should count? I don't know...
I think we'd see a lot of 32 year old journeymen loosing their jobs to 6th & 7th round picks, which would dilute the quality of the on-field product. GMs are already taking too much advantage of the discrepancy between cash value and cap value of players. It's a fun idea, but I think it solves one small issue while potentially creating larger problems. Let them negotiate. As long as there are players/agents and GMs/owners, new lines will be drawn and redrawn every season no matter what the rules are.
I would do this by only counting the top 48 salaries (i.e. equivalent to the active roster size) against the salary cap. Second round picks wouldn't necessarily fall into that, but often would.
The three second rounders on the Seahawks right now, still on their rookie contracts are the 23rd, 24th, and 27th highest salaries on the team. (Walker, Hall, Charbonnet)
I love this comment so much! I'm not really into Kenneth's idea, as it would mean that several years worth of draft picks could be on a team and not count against the salary cap. An alternative way to relieve pressure on negotiations and slow the growth of the salary cap would be to allow each team to have one player that doesn't count against the salary cap. Think of it as a supplement to the franchise tag that makes teams more likely to retain their stars and be able to be competitive. I'd also like to see rosters expanded and active players expanded. I don't get the 48 active limit on a 53 man roster.
I tend to disagree with the concept altogether, since any exemptions would open windows for teams to look for ways to abuse it.
Agree. If a team had 50% of their players on their first contracts, a little less than 50% wouldn't count against the salary cap. The potential for abuse would be crazy.
I don't think it is that big of a deal. It's June 22, and as long as they have signed their contracts by training camp and don't hold out, everything is fine.
I wonder if some of this pressure comes from rookies looking at the NIL money being paid out NOW, as opposed to when they started in college, and wanting to catch up.
But the medium-term problem, it seems to me, is that college players may well be asked to take pay cuts to turn pro after the NIL gravy train gets cut off. I don't think that will go well. I also suspect having affluent rookies entering the league changes both the locker room and the leverage available to teams. It may allow young players to do stupid things with money and learn better before the NFL, or not. But it's a whole lot different from the days when a kid left college pretty much broke and finally got paid as a rookie. They know what money is, what it can and cannot buy, and what they'd like to spend it on.
Fundamentally, though, I take issue with the negotiated payscale. Google says the average NFL career lasts 3.3 years. So if you're drafted and have an AVERAGE career, the team/union contract limits your income for your entire career. (I know, no 22-year-old kid thinks he's going to have an average career. But.) I don't think that works equitably.
And, finally, I have real problems with positional value and the salaries some "skill" positions command. I think QBs are overpaid and IOL are underpaid. The salary cap (and the Dodgers/Yankees problem is real) imposes a logic on player pay that cannot be good for team building, that is fundamentally unfair, and that disadvantages certain positions EVEN THOUGH Centers, say, in the Kubiak system have all the responsibility for making adjustments and such.
But it's a whole lot better than it was. (I suspect I am shaped, all these years later, by Bernie Parrish's book from the '70s, They Call It A Game. He was, if memory serves, a Detroit DB who got drummed out of the league as a union agitator or some such.)
The salaries of the 2nd and 3rd round draft picks are not counted in the salary cap numbers for one season, rookie contract (4 years), or for their career? One season may make sense, but a team could possibly arrange their trades to have most, if not all, of their picks be in the second and third round. Thus, a significant percentage of their players' salary would not count towards their particular cap for whatever the duration.
NFL : LIsten to Seaside Joe ! ! !
The salary cap is ownership’s version of The Precious. It’s hard to see them eroding it just to make the league better. Plus, if that’s goal, get rid of the salary cap altogether.
https://youtu.be/se21HBRG_YI?si=x3X_vC3m2FrANa9k
The problem with getting rid of the cap, the very rich teams will buy the talent as they do in baseball. And the Dodgers and Yankees will be impossible to unseat with a team with a small budget like the Mariners.
They are all rich. The NFL socializes earnings in a way that other sports do not.
Actually, if you look at the wealth of the NFL owners, some have mega billions and some have a bit less. It is the cap and the socialized distribution of the majority of the revenue that have created parity and competition as opposed to baseball where teams like NY and LA can spend 2 or three times what other teams can spend on players. I think Seattle loses if the cap is removed. Jody Allen must preserve the capital of the estate as trustee. That would hinder the Seahawks from spending exorbitantly to improve the team. However if Bezos buys the team, he could spend however much he wanted to win the Super Bowl.
I lived in NY until the mid 1980s. I grew up a yankee fan. But when Steinbrenner started using the yankee cash to buy free agents I dropped the team. It’s no fun to me winning by being able to spend 2 or 3 times what other teams can spend. If Bezos did start doing that, I’d find another team. I don’t want to win that way.
How about the undrafted free agents? Maybe their contracts never count against the cap.
The NFL is having it's reckoning with Guaranteed deals. Plays look at the MLB as a primary example, why do those guys get guaranteed deals when we play in a richer more popular league and face greater personal risks?
The NFL just about dodged the Lamar Jackson situation (by massively illegally colluding, but hey let's not bring that up). And the flops of Wilson and Watson have just about pushed the veteran guarantee question out of sight for the moment.
But Rookies. If we see this go half way down the round this year... Don't be surprised to see a lot more negotiation trip ups come early 2026. The dominos are teetering. The owners know they are fundamentally fighting against all guaranteed deals, not just 2nd rounds. The long term cash impact of that would be mega. The long term cap impact would be mega.
Personally I think fully guaranteed deals in any sport are nuts, because the values are so high. I think it is in better player interest to carry that bet-on-themselves risk. But it's complicated. And if College pay-to-play comes through with fully guaranteed deals... God sounds like I'm supporting Billionaires in a case of workers rights... Oof... Nah, fuck em. Fully guaranteed deals should be more common (but players should then expect less flashy overall numbers).
RE Guaranteed Contracts: While a significant change, some argue that widespread fully guaranteed contracts, similar to other professional leagues, would shift the financial risk of injury to team owners, something I'm guessing owners in the most injury prone sport might object to. I like thinking outside the box but I'm not sure how this gets resolved. I'd like to see something that accounts for injured players...maybe not counting against the cap. Maybe only players that play should count? I don't know...
Love this idea. Seriously great. Let’s get Seaside Joe to the owner’s meeting.