Quote: @greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@ MaroonBells I think those dollars are a bit light. I think Zeus is going to need closer to $20 per and O'Neill $15+.
You're probably right. But those numbers would be per-year averages, not cap hit. We can choose to put as much or as little into that 1st year as we want, especially when you consider how much the cap will go up in '23.
Read yesterday that the big cap jump won't be until 24, the cap is based on previous years revenues and the new TV deal won't kick in until 23. So you would be looking at kicking that can 4 years out in a league where players average less than that for a career. Might be a bit early to be spending that new tv money.
It will likely increase a decent amount over the next two years due to the return of revenue and the 17th game, and then explode in '24 due to the TV deal. OTC projects $200 in '22, $225 in '23 and then a whopping $260 in '24.
So unless you're writing one or two year contracts, there will be a very deep hole in 2024 to stuff money into. A hole nearly $80M larger than it is now. And like I said, the Vikings have $21M in space for '22 (estimated $200 cap space). And that includes a $45M hit for Cousins which we likely won't see and a $17M hit for Hunter that we likely won't see.
What's more, right now we have $34M committed to 2024. If the cap is $260M, you can do the math.
It never goes as far as we are led to believe. If the cap goes up 40% you can bet every position will think they are worth 45% more. More money in the cap won't ease cap woes, it will just be a bigger number to discuss.
Damn greedy players. How will the owners cope if they get an extra $113 billion if they have to turn right around and give it to all those greedy players?
What you don't seem to understand is that it all evens out in the end. If the cap goes up 40%, salaries will go up 40%. There can be no additional 5% on a salary without an equal reduction of 5% elsewhere. That's the beauty of the salary cap, the beauty of the market.
I think you see "woes" everywhere you look.
I don't see it as a greedy players issue, but Jimmy raises the point. The first wave of free agents will be looking to soak up more than their share of that 40%. QBs will be getting about 30% of it and the mid level vets will be getting cut.
Right. So? The point is they can look for whatever the hell they want. They might get it, they might not, but every team is in the exact same position. If you decide to pay your QB 15% of your cap, that's your prerogative. It means that you pay other positions less.
Roster construction and cap distribution is as much a strategy as Xs and Os. But nobody's at a disadvantage here. There are no "cap woes" on one team that don't exist on another. It's a perfectly level playing field and fans need to stop getting bent out of shape about skyrocketing salaries and comparing them to real world salaries. Like, oh $17M a year isn't enough to feed your family and make you happy? It's not about that; it's a game, no different than Monopoly, where you're given a percentage of revenue to play the game, and to keep your best "properties" you have to pay for them. If you don't, you lose them. But guess what? Unlike Monopoly, where you can go bankrupt, in this game, your profit margin is all but guaranteed. Expenses (salaries) can only go up when revenue goes up. It's actually a goddam racket for owners.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@ MaroonBells I think those dollars are a bit light. I think Zeus is going to need closer to $20 per and O'Neill $15+.
You're probably right. But those numbers would be per-year averages, not cap hit. We can choose to put as much or as little into that 1st year as we want, especially when you consider how much the cap will go up in '23.
Read yesterday that the big cap jump won't be until 24, the cap is based on previous years revenues and the new TV deal won't kick in until 23. So you would be looking at kicking that can 4 years out in a league where players average less than that for a career. Might be a bit early to be spending that new tv money.
It will likely increase a decent amount over the next two years due to the return of revenue and the 17th game, and then explode in '24 due to the TV deal. OTC projects $200 in '22, $225 in '23 and then a whopping $260 in '24.
So unless you're writing one or two year contracts, there will be a very deep hole in 2024 to stuff money into. A hole nearly $80M larger than it is now. And like I said, the Vikings have $21M in space for '22 (estimated $200 cap space). And that includes a $45M hit for Cousins which we likely won't see and a $17M hit for Hunter that we likely won't see.
What's more, right now we have $34M committed to 2024. If the cap is $260M, you can do the math.
It never goes as far as we are led to believe. If the cap goes up 40% you can bet every position will think they are worth 45% more. More money in the cap won't ease cap woes, it will just be a bigger number to discuss.
Damn greedy players. How will the owners cope if they get an extra $113 billion if they have to turn right around and give it to all those greedy players?
What you don't seem to understand is that it all evens out in the end. If the cap goes up 40%, salaries will go up 40%. There can be no additional 5% on a salary without an equal reduction of 5% elsewhere. That's the beauty of the salary cap, the beauty of the market.
I think you see "woes" everywhere you look.
I don't see it as a greedy players issue, but Jimmy raises the point. The first wave of free agents will be looking to soak up more than their share of that 40%. QBs will be getting about 30% of it and the mid level vets will be getting cut.
Right. So? The point is they can look for whatever the hell they want. They might get it, they might not, but every team is in the exact same position. If you decide to pay your QB 15% of your cap, that's your prerogative. It means that you pay other positions less.
Roster construction and cap distribution is as much a strategy as Xs and Os. But nobody's at a disadvantage here. There are no "cap woes" on one team that don't exist on another. It's a perfectly level playing field and fans need to stop getting bent out of shape about skyrocketing salaries and comparing them to real world salaries. Like, oh $17M a year isn't enough to feed your family and make you happy? It's not about that; it's a game, no different than Monopoly, where you're given a percentage of revenue to play the game, and to keep your best "properties" you have to pay for them. If you don't, you lose them. But guess what? Unlike Monopoly, where you can go bankrupt, in this game, your profit margin is all but guaranteed. Expenses (salaries) can only go up when revenue goes up. It's actually a goddam racket for owners.
WTF are you babbling about?
The point is and always has been the flawed logic of over spending now being justifiable since there will be more cap money available in future years and the fallacy that it won't lead to a cap crisis down the road.
What the hell does owners profits have to do with how spending stupidly this year can and most likely will lead to future roster difficulties despite the increased revenues and corresponding salary cap?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@ MaroonBells I think those dollars are a bit light. I think Zeus is going to need closer to $20 per and O'Neill $15+.
You're probably right. But those numbers would be per-year averages, not cap hit. We can choose to put as much or as little into that 1st year as we want, especially when you consider how much the cap will go up in '23.
Read yesterday that the big cap jump won't be until 24, the cap is based on previous years revenues and the new TV deal won't kick in until 23. So you would be looking at kicking that can 4 years out in a league where players average less than that for a career. Might be a bit early to be spending that new tv money.
It will likely increase a decent amount over the next two years due to the return of revenue and the 17th game, and then explode in '24 due to the TV deal. OTC projects $200 in '22, $225 in '23 and then a whopping $260 in '24.
So unless you're writing one or two year contracts, there will be a very deep hole in 2024 to stuff money into. A hole nearly $80M larger than it is now. And like I said, the Vikings have $21M in space for '22 (estimated $200 cap space). And that includes a $45M hit for Cousins which we likely won't see and a $17M hit for Hunter that we likely won't see.
What's more, right now we have $34M committed to 2024. If the cap is $260M, you can do the math.
It never goes as far as we are led to believe. If the cap goes up 40% you can bet every position will think they are worth 45% more. More money in the cap won't ease cap woes, it will just be a bigger number to discuss.
Damn greedy players. How will the owners cope if they get an extra $113 billion if they have to turn right around and give it to all those greedy players?
What you don't seem to understand is that it all evens out in the end. If the cap goes up 40%, salaries will go up 40%. There can be no additional 5% on a salary without an equal reduction of 5% elsewhere. That's the beauty of the salary cap, the beauty of the market.
I think you see "woes" everywhere you look.
I don't see it as a greedy players issue, but Jimmy raises the point. The first wave of free agents will be looking to soak up more than their share of that 40%. QBs will be getting about 30% of it and the mid level vets will be getting cut.
Right. So? The point is they can look for whatever the hell they want. They might get it, they might not, but every team is in the exact same position. If you decide to pay your QB 15% of your cap, that's your prerogative. It means that you pay other positions less.
Roster construction and cap distribution is as much a strategy as Xs and Os. But nobody's at a disadvantage here. There are no "cap woes" on one team that don't exist on another. It's a perfectly level playing field and fans need to stop getting bent out of shape about skyrocketing salaries and comparing them to real world salaries. Like, oh $17M a year isn't enough to feed your family and make you happy? It's not about that; it's a game, no different than Monopoly, where you're given a percentage of revenue to play the game, and to keep your best "properties" you have to pay for them. If you don't, you lose them. But guess what? Unlike Monopoly, where you can go bankrupt, in this game, your profit margin is all but guaranteed. Expenses (salaries) can only go up when revenue goes up. It's actually a goddam racket for owners. The point is and always has been the flawed logic of over spending now being justifiable since there will be more cap money available in future years and the fallacy that it won't lead to a cap crisis down the road.
But that's exactly what it's all about, Jimmy. All teams structure contracts that place money into higher cap years. It's not complicated or even bad business. It's just how the game is played. And that's exactly what it is: a game. Try not to let it infuriate you so much.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@ MaroonBells I think those dollars are a bit light. I think Zeus is going to need closer to $20 per and O'Neill $15+.
You're probably right. But those numbers would be per-year averages, not cap hit. We can choose to put as much or as little into that 1st year as we want, especially when you consider how much the cap will go up in '23.
Read yesterday that the big cap jump won't be until 24, the cap is based on previous years revenues and the new TV deal won't kick in until 23. So you would be looking at kicking that can 4 years out in a league where players average less than that for a career. Might be a bit early to be spending that new tv money.
It will likely increase a decent amount over the next two years due to the return of revenue and the 17th game, and then explode in '24 due to the TV deal. OTC projects $200 in '22, $225 in '23 and then a whopping $260 in '24.
So unless you're writing one or two year contracts, there will be a very deep hole in 2024 to stuff money into. A hole nearly $80M larger than it is now. And like I said, the Vikings have $21M in space for '22 (estimated $200 cap space). And that includes a $45M hit for Cousins which we likely won't see and a $17M hit for Hunter that we likely won't see.
What's more, right now we have $34M committed to 2024. If the cap is $260M, you can do the math.
It never goes as far as we are led to believe. If the cap goes up 40% you can bet every position will think they are worth 45% more. More money in the cap won't ease cap woes, it will just be a bigger number to discuss.
Damn greedy players. How will the owners cope if they get an extra $113 billion if they have to turn right around and give it to all those greedy players?
What you don't seem to understand is that it all evens out in the end. If the cap goes up 40%, salaries will go up 40%. There can be no additional 5% on a salary without an equal reduction of 5% elsewhere. That's the beauty of the salary cap, the beauty of the market.
I think you see "woes" everywhere you look.
I don't see it as a greedy players issue, but Jimmy raises the point. The first wave of free agents will be looking to soak up more than their share of that 40%. QBs will be getting about 30% of it and the mid level vets will be getting cut.
Right. So? The point is they can look for whatever the hell they want. They might get it, they might not, but every team is in the exact same position. If you decide to pay your QB 15% of your cap, that's your prerogative. It means that you pay other positions less.
Roster construction and cap distribution is as much a strategy as Xs and Os. But nobody's at a disadvantage here. There are no "cap woes" on one team that don't exist on another. It's a perfectly level playing field and fans need to stop getting bent out of shape about skyrocketing salaries and comparing them to real world salaries. Like, oh $17M a year isn't enough to feed your family and make you happy? It's not about that; it's a game, no different than Monopoly, where you're given a percentage of revenue to play the game, and to keep your best "properties" you have to pay for them. If you don't, you lose them. But guess what? Unlike Monopoly, where you can go bankrupt, in this game, your profit margin is all but guaranteed. Expenses (salaries) can only go up when revenue goes up. It's actually a goddam racket for owners.
But there are people at a disadvantage. The aging vets that can still play but get cut to save a mil so they can afford to overpay other positions.
And why can't we get bent out of shape about skyrocketing salaries when the rest of the world is looking at job loss, food shortages and real issues? Or is that off limits? According to who? The only issue I see with that is complaining about it and then throwing money at the corporate coffers.
|
