The NFL should allow teams to trade off salary cap space.

[MAJBobby]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

The fact that a team can field a competitive team while saving losts of money means you don't need someone else's money....to build a competitive team. 

 

The NFL is unique in the "have nots" are those teams that are managed/coached poorly, not the ones with no money.  Every team has the same budget.  That's parity defined.

 

This is a solution in search of a problem.

Everyteam really doesnt have a same budget.

 

Lets say Buffalo offers 8M to a player and a team in a Non income tax state offers the same 8M, everything similar (and the player wants to maximize his Income he is going to chose the state with No Income tax.  So to offset the tax rate Buffalo has to offer more, which means their budget is not the same as a budget from a team residing in a zero tax state

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Now IF you want to create Parity using the Salary Cap.  Then tie it to State Taxes as well.

 

Teams that play their home games in states with a State Income tax.  that Buffer gets added to the cap.  So NY teams would get an additional 8.82% added onto their Salary Cap.

 

This levels that Salary cap for ALL teams, and allows for the teams located in states with an income tax to offer the same VALUE as teams that are located in non income tax states.  Levels that playing field.

 

This is actually a reasonable idea to adjust player salaries to account for state tax and allow the cap to be adjusted.

[MAJBobby]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is actually a reasonable idea to adjust player salaries to account for state tax and allow the cap to be adjusted.

 Yep that would actually allow a level playing field in terms of the cap.  Because lets face it teams that have a state income tax will always have to outpay the teams that do not live in a state income tax state.

 

However I do like the Hard Salary Cap (even with Pegula's as owners).  I absolutely HATE the luxury tax system the NBA has.  I do not mind the NHLs (ability to retain salary for a couple players in a trade) and well the MLB is well no idea what they do expect piss away big money.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

1 hour ago, formerlyofCtown said:

That would kinda eliminate competetive balance wouldnt it.  It would be good if their was some kind of buffer for teams that were in tax happy states.

I agree, the state tax should be the same for all teams just for player contracts. 

[Just Joshin']

26 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Now IF you want to create Parity using the Salary Cap.  Then tie it to State Taxes as well.

 

Teams that play their home games in states with a State Income tax.  that Buffer gets added to the cap.  So NY teams would get an additional 8.82% added onto their Salary Cap.

 

This levels that Salary cap for ALL teams, and allows for the teams located in states with an income tax to offer the same VALUE as teams that are located in non income tax states.  Levels that playing field.

This makes sense but may be hard to manage as the tax is based on the game location.

[Mr. WEO]

19 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Everyteam really doesnt have a same budget.

 

Lets say Buffalo offers 8M to a player and a team in a Non income tax state offers the same 8M, everything similar (and the player wants to maximize his Income he is going to chose the state with No Income tax.  So to offset the tax rate Buffalo has to offer more, which means their budget is not the same as a budget from a team residing in a zero tax state

 

Then how are income tax states filling their rosters?

 

Of the 10 teams with the highest extra cap space, only 3 are in no tax states. 

 

6 of the 8 Division winners were teams with a state tax.

 

Clearly, state income tax has no bearing on how much money teams have available to spend, or their ability to fieid Division winners.

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

Nah I actually hate trading Cap Space Idea.  It will just further widen the gap between the haves and have nots.

 

However retaining Salary (like the NHL) for up to 2 players total that could be an idea.

 

It would absolutely widen the gap between Haves and Have Nots. Cheap teams like the Bengals would use it to spend even less than they do now and wealthy owners would use it to gain a competitive advantage.  No way would owners allow this (but the NFLPA would love it).  Exemptions wont happen for the same reasons.

 

We are looking at the very real possibility of another lockout in two seasons.  With the owners looking to squeeze the players for more money the likelihood of any rule changes that would put more money in players’ pockets is almost nil.  The only exception is if it was offset by other money and I don’t see that happening. 

[MAJBobby]

7 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

This makes sense but may be hard to manage as the tax is based on the game location.

I would just go based on the home games.  Every player knows that they will be paying state taxes when they play games elsewhere, but the signing bonuses, roster bonuses ets the big money of the contracts will be based off the home location of the team

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Then how are income tax states filling their rosters?

 

Of the 10 teams with the highest extra cap space, only 3 are in no tax states. 

 

6 of the 8 Division winners were teams with a state tax.

 

Clearly, state income tax has no bearing on how much money teams have available to spend, or their ability to fieid Division winners.

It doesn't but it is a secondary cap and discriminator, if you want to talk parity it is about leveling the field right, well the cap isnt leveling the field 100% when there are teams with no state tax

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

I don't like it. If a team wants to front load a contract with tons of guaranteed money, it's on them. The only clause I could see as a way out would be if the player is forced to retire because of injury (i.e. Eric Wood) Then I could see the dead money wiped because of the unforeseen circumstances and complete loss of the contract that can not be recouped.

 

[Tipster19]

Example:

 

Team A is loaded with salary cap space. Team B is strapped with little to no salary cap space. Team A desires a player(s) and/or draft pick(s) from Team B. Team A trades for player(s) and/or draft pick(s) from Team B and in addition takes on X amount of Team B’s used salary cap dollars. 

 

Bottom line Team A gets the desired player(s) and/or draft pick(s) and uses their salary cap dollars to do it. This would keep the player to salary cap ratio in line. Team B benefits to where not only do they lose a contract but reduces their salary cap debt so they can still go out and either trade, draft or sign another player with their new found cap dollars. That should keep parity intact.

[ddaryl]

2 hours ago, Tipster19 said:

They wanted to create parity so why stop short? The teams (this year’s Colts) that were shrewd enough to conserve their salary cap space while sporting a competitive roster should be allowed to trade off some space to obtain better players whether it be in trade or by draft. 

 

For the teams that are in salary cap trouble this would allow them to reset by by trading off either draft position or player(s). 

 

If there should be a limit or percentage of what salary cap space is debatable but I think that this would be a brand new twist to the ever changing NFL, it keeps it fresh and it keeps it interesting. It doesn’t hurt that it would also make the predictions and projections even more muddled for the gambling aspect which is widely suspected of making up a large part of the NFL.

 

this puts us right back to where we were before the salary cap. The rich teams will just continue to buy up salary cap space and out bidding the small markets for FA's.

[Mr. WEO]

39 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

I would just go based on the home games.  Every player knows that they will be paying state taxes when they play games elsewhere, but the signing bonuses, roster bonuses ets the big money of the contracts will be based off the home location of the team

It doesn't but it is a secondary cap and discriminator, if you want to talk parity it is about leveling the field right, well the cap isnt leveling the field 100% when there are teams with no state tax

 

 

I've just shown  you that this is not the case in reality.  Players go for the best money.  Only 6 teams play in no tax states.  the other 26 are competing just fine despite this.

 

Leveon Bell (guy who sat rather than make 14 million) just went from a 3.1% state to a 9% state (a move that will cost him at least 2.7 million just for his home games!).

 

AB just went form a 3.1% state to a 13.3% state!  That's going to cost him an extra 2.6 million just for the home games 

 

You are describing a scenario (players picking the no state tax team over a team with a state tax) that does not exist.

 

Clearly, the best deal, if it comes from a taxed state, is the best deal they can get---the tax factor is already considered before they accept the deal.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[JAMIEBUF12]

You can in a way.When you trade a player and that players contract.You may have some dead cap if you paid bonuses already, but that is totally fair.Go Bills!!

[BearNorth]

I think NY taxes your entire income if you reside in the state for 183 or more days during the year, regardless of where it is earned, with a credit for taxes paid to another state.  I think that's one reason why the players union has really cut back on the days of OTA's/Minicamp etc.  Also [wishful] thinking, a deep run into the playoffs could click a player over the 183 days.

 

Top Tax Rates

• California 13.3% [Rams, Chargers, 49'rs, Raiders]
• Minnesota 9.85% [Vikings]
• New Jersey 8.97% [Giants, Jets]
• New York 8.82% [Bills]
• Wisconsin 7.65% [Packers]

Raider players will see a huge gain when they move to Vegas, which has no income tax.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, Tipster19 said:

They wanted to create parity so why stop short? The teams (this year’s Colts) that were shrewd enough to conserve their salary cap space while sporting a competitive roster should be allowed to trade off some space to obtain better players whether it be in trade or by draft. 

 

For the teams that are in salary cap trouble this would allow them to reset by by trading off either draft position or player(s). 

 

If there should be a limit or percentage of what salary cap space is debatable but I think that this would be a brand new twist to the ever changing NFL, it keeps it fresh and it keeps it interesting. It doesn’t hurt that it would also make the predictions and projections even more muddled for the gambling aspect which is widely suspected of making up a large part of the NFL.

 

 

That wouldn't create parity. Just the opposite, it would allow the rich to get even richer.

 

And making things more interesting isn't a good reason for anything. That's essentially change for change's sake, which isn't something you should do for something that is a wild wild success.

 

[corta765]

The NFL has a pretty perfect version of parity that other sports wish they could model. Trading cap in the NHL and NBA is plausible because the rosters are smaller so the impact is not as great. If you do that in the NFL it basically allows the best teams the same advantage as before while also allowing crappy owners like Mike Brown to cut costs even more for greater profit.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is actually a reasonable idea to adjust player salaries to account for state tax and allow the cap to be adjusted.

every state that they play in,  they pay state taxes for that state.  

 

every one wants their share 

 

States without state taxes get benefits enough 

[Thurman#1]

39 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Example:

 

Team A is loaded with salary cap space. Team B is strapped with little to no salary cap space. Team A desires a player(s) and/or draft pick(s) from Team B. Team A trades for player(s) and/or draft pick(s) from Team B and in addition takes on X amount of Team B’s used salary cap dollars. 

 

Bottom line Team A gets the desired player(s) and/or draft pick(s) and uses their salary cap dollars to do it. This would keep the player to salary cap ratio in line. Team B benefits to where not only do they lose a contract but reduces their salary cap debt so they can still go out and either trade, draft or sign another player with their new found cap dollars. That should keep parity intact.

 

 

 

Either way, under either system, Team A gets what it wants or doesn't. Under your system they are more likely to get what they want due to having yet more competitive advantage over poorly-run Team 2 whose general manager has put himself under yet more pressure with poor cap management than poor cap management produces now.

 

The effect on parity is that Team A has yet another method of exchange to trade for what they need. The smarter team gets the bigger advantage. The dumber team gets more pressure on them from the results of their decision-making and is more easily forced into making decisions. Bad teams will be forced to sell competitive advantage in terms of players on the field for the ability to mitigate their poor financial decision-making. That's the opposite of parity.

 

Don't fix what ain't broken. The NFL is very much not broken and particularly so in terms of the salary cap.

[Mr. WEO]

30 minutes ago, corta765 said:

The NFL has a pretty perfect version of parity that other sports wish they could model. Trading cap in the NHL and NBA is plausible because the rosters are smaller so the impact is not as great. If you do that in the NFL it basically allows the best teams the same advantage as before while also allowing crappy owners like Mike Brown to cut costs even more for greater profit.

 

 

Teams have to spend 89% of the cap.

 

The cap has gone up by $10 million every year for 6 years.

 

Allowing teams to get more cap would be like giving a bad gambler more money to waste.

 

PArity is alive and well in the NFL.  Any team can be comfortably under the cap and be competitive if they competent leadership.  This is proven every season.  Money, literally, is no object.

[Thurman#1]

12 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Teams have to spend 89% of the cap.

 

The cap has gone up by $10 million every year for 6 years.

 

Allowing teams to get more cap would be like giving a bad gambler more money to waste.

 

PArity is alive and well in the NFL.  Any team can be comfortably under the cap and be competitive if they competent leadership.  This is proven every season.  Money, literally, is no object.

 

 

Was just coming back to this.

 

The Player's Union would self-immolate. Teams're supposed to spend 89% in cash on players (over a 4 year period yadda yadda yadda but that's the bottom line) ... and you're going to change that so they could sell the unspent money instead?