Steelers insider: NFL feeling effects of owners’ labor win

[Oviedo]

Not true at all. Just need to implement a defensive system where players can succeed simply by winning one on one battles rather than relying on trickery. Also, offensive players start year one all the time, even for us. Load up the offense if you have a top 5 QB. Give him a steady OL that doesn't fall apart every season within 4 games due to injury and a RB that isn't out of shape and requesting to come off the field every other play, or one that isn't a walking injury.

I completely agree with what you said on both sides of the ball. The only people we fool anymore with our defensive "trickery" is ourselves as our decreasing sacks and INTs clearly show.

[Oviedo]

Cindrich is wrong. Easy to complain about the system today, but the bottom line is no one is offering a reasonable alternative to the team salary cap. How do you propose you prevent the haves and have nots without such an arrangement? To me, the cap is the best solution because it offers teams the ultimate in flexibility to sign players based on their needs and systems. If a team chooses not to sign a $100M QB, they have flexibility to sign a $65M CB and a $35M LB for example. So no system is perfect, but the cap is actually useful in keeping teams as equal as possible from a financial standpoint.

I agree, but I would modify the salary cap to allow one "veteran exemption" where you can exempt all or part of the salary of a player who has been on the roster for 5 years from the cap. The reality is that teams with a franchise QB are effectively punished at a disprpotionate level because of the salary of these players.

[Ghost]

Cindrich is wrong. Easy to complain about the system today, but the bottom line is no one is offering a reasonable alternative to the team salary cap. How do you propose you prevent the haves and have nots without such an arrangement? To me, the cap is the best solution because it offers teams the ultimate in flexibility to sign players based on their needs and systems. If a team chooses not to sign a $100M QB, they have flexibility to sign a $65M CB and a $35M LB for example. So no system is perfect, but the cap is actually useful in keeping teams as equal as possible from a financial standpoint.

Cindrich is in no way stating there should not be a salary cap. What he's saying is the cap isn't raising as it should to be in line with the ever increasing revenues. He's saying players are getting squeezed out because the cap is stagnate.

The NFL revenues have gone from $8.5 Billion in 2009 to $9.7 Billion in 2012 and with new TV deals coming in 2104, that number will only continue to rise. But the cap is not getting any real benefit from this increase.
Cap:
2009 - $123M
2010 - uncapped (working out CB deal - Dallas and Washington lost many millions for being shady with front loaded deals this season)
2011 - $120.3
2012 - $120.6
2013 - $123.9

There's no reason the cap couldn't be $130 this year. Or even $135. Teams are cutting veterans based on a cap that's not raising as it should. There's PLENTY of $$ for everyone.

[Mister Pittsburgh]

don't the players get a percentage of the revenue, not a set number? If so, how can the cap remain stagnant? Is the league revenue stagnant?

[Oviedo]

Cindrich is in no way stating there should not be a salary cap. What he's saying is the cap isn't raising as it should to be in line with the ever increasing revenues. He's saying players are getting squeezed out because the cap is stagnate.

The NFL revenues have gone from $8.5 Billion in 2009 to $9.7 Billion in 2012 and with new TV deals coming in 2104, that number will only continue to rise. But the cap is not getting any real benefit from this increase.
Cap:
2009 - $123M
2010 - uncapped (working out CB deal - Dallas and Washington lost many millions for being shady with front loaded deals this season)
2011 - $120.3
2012 - $120.6
2013 - $123.9

There's no reason the cap couldn't be $130 this year. Or even $135. Teams are cutting veterans based on a cap that's not raising as it should. There's PLENTY of $$ for everyone.

The new and increased TV revenue doesn't kick in until 2014. So from a TV revenue perspective revenue is flat. Plus the owners are surely building their war chest of funds to deal with ex-players making their money grab over injuries and concussions that they were seemingly totally unaware could happen playing football.

[feltdizz]

I agree, but I would modify the salary cap to allow one "veteran exemption" where you can exempt all or part of the salary of a player who has been on the roster for 5 years from the cap. The reality is that teams with a franchise QB are effectively punished at a disprpotionate level because of the salary of these players.

Teams aren't punished for having a franchise QB...... LOL.

[NorthCoast]

Cindrich is in no way stating there should not be a salary cap. What he's saying is the cap isn't raising as it should to be in line with the ever increasing revenues. He's saying players are getting squeezed out because the cap is stagnate.

The NFL revenues have gone from $8.5 Billion in 2009 to $9.7 Billion in 2012 and with new TV deals coming in 2104, that number will only continue to rise. But the cap is not getting any real benefit from this increase.
Cap:
2009 - $123M
2010 - uncapped (working out CB deal - Dallas and Washington lost many millions for being shady with front loaded deals this season)
2011 - $120.3
2012 - $120.6
2013 - $123.9

There's no reason the cap couldn't be $130 this year. Or even $135. Teams are cutting veterans based on a cap that's not raising as it should. There's PLENTY of $$ for everyone.

Maybe true, but the NFL isn't some isolated, monopolistic, hoarder. This is no different than many Fortune 100 companies that are overflowing with cash while employees are barely staying even with inflation. Is it right? maybe not, but the oft heard cliche 'the door is always open for exit' applies equally in the NFL as it does elsewhere.
I actually believe the massive lawsuits the NFL is dealing with has been weighing on their business decisions. They could potentially be paying out $100Ms for players that are not even playing the game today! If I owned a business, I certainly would be worried.