Salary Cap

[packedhouse01]

I'm not a real big believer in the way the salary cap is designed. I think there needs to be cap of some sort, but I don't like the idea that signing bonus' can be used against you once you cut a player. I'm not sure why they do that. I look at the Hunt situation. I realize that Sherman blundered badly in signing him to a big money long term contract. Sherman was an idiot for doing that, but the team is going to pay for that mistake in having to take a huge salary cap hit. I don't blame them for wanting to get out from under that contract. Hunt has been a bust in every way and isn't worth the money. But if they cut him, they take a huge hit which in essence impacts the teams chances of paying those who deserve to be paid. In the long run that signing and the price you pay for it, hinders the team in many ways for years to come. At the same time, the guy is a cancer, doesn't seem to want to play and it doesn't look like he can. I look at what happened to San Francisco when they backloaded all those contracts and simply didn't have any money to pay anyone. Is this good for football?

 

[agopackgo4]

I dont think that after you cut a player that you should have to play them. I mean the way it is a player could play well for one year, get a new contract and decide "hey now I have the money" then he might think what is to stop me from not playing my hardest? I think that is kind of the situation with Hunt.

 

[wpr]

packed,
if the teams weren't held accountable for the signing bonus money after they cut a player you would see a lot more money put into the bonus and less into the annual contract.
the players would love it because it is all up front money that they won't give back unless they screw up and pull a ricky williams or something like that.
it leads to potential abuse where the extremely strong franchises would buy players for outrageous signing bonuses. Since there would be no cap ramifications they could out bid the weaker teams for any player. This wouldn't necessarily be limited to the better players as they would be the ones who would be cut. It would have more effect on the 2nd and 3rd level of players who would add the depth to the financially strongest teams and gut the smaller and weaker financial teams.

 

[IPBprez]

Agreed WPR - you have to watch the angles and avoid letting anyone abuse the System - which all of them will try to do....even the Owners! Especially the Owners, which is why they have a Player's Union.

My take, fellas, is that Ted Thompson will do what's right for the Pack.
As far as I'm concerned, he already has.... BY LETTING HUNT GO...
(I hope the door hit him in the *** on the way out, he's slow enuf for even that)

As far as the Salary Cap hit - we'll get thru that... Next year will be an even bigger test for Teddy... Remember, many of our mainstay Players are on the Contract listing at that time...

 

[packedhouse01]

Very good point wpr. Thanks for clearing that up. I find it funny that the owners have had to put this kind of system in to protect themselves from themselves.

 

[wpr]

Very good point wpr. Thanks for clearing that up. I find it funny that the owners have had to put this kind of system in to protect themselves from themselves.

while I tend to side with the owners in player-owner issues. some of these guys got there money by being willing to bend a few of the rules just a bit.