Smash Articles
14
Playoff Teams
Rule Changes
17 Game
Season
Low Lights
-
-
-
-
-
-
| |  
+/-
Somehow the NFL owners have to come together and get a handle upon the loop holes within
this league. If a player decides that he wants out of a franchise all he
has to do is enlist bad behavior and he is soon to either get traded, get his
release or get thrown into the dog house. None of these options are palatable.
Of greatest commonality & interest is when a player gets his outright
release. In the
long run, the player that chooses bad behavior just might be shooting themselves in the foot
however if their desire to part ties becomes too great, and if that player has just cause ... it may be that
players only trump card. By the way, being on a winner at any cost or
simply not caring is not just cause. So how can each franchise properly handle
it's
players that has the thoughts of employing bad behavior. The simple answer,
which tends to be the best answer, lies within pluses & minuses.
Players want security. They find that security in the form of guaranteed money. The problem is
that there are way too many franchises paying guaranteed money where that player is playing for another
franchise. Why? Because
by contract, it is
guaranteed money that must be paid to that player? We all realize that the team guaranteeing the money
must take the hit on the
cap, as it should be, however no one is keeping score when it comes to
guaranteed money and what franchise is ultimately benefiting from that investment. This loose-y
goose-y stuff is a prime way to bypass the rules, opening Pandora's Box, and in my opinion is a loop
hole of which too few (franchises) get to take advantage. One could also
argue that guaranteed money anchors a player to a franchise one year, where
maybe in the future that player shouldn't be anchored to your franchise after
all, where that player is a square peg made to fit into a round hole of some
other system. In other words, it could be argued that not enough players
are given their outright release to the detriment of the league.
This new system just might free both the organization and the player into making
a superior
product.
The way to stem the
tide of bad behavior and to ensure professionalism is to enlist a simple system
that tracks the guaranteed money that is paid out to each franchise in any
particular year. Call it the Guaranteed Cap Number (GCN). From
year to year, the GCN could also accumulate for a franchise. Call this the
Accumulated Guaranteed Cap Number (AGCN) .
If the St. Louis Rams
is paying part of a players contract in guaranteed money, say 3.2 million, so
that this player can play in Minnesota, then the guaranteed portion of that
money is posted to the Vikings account. The Vikings GCN would be +3.2.
Here's the
catch. If the Vikings have a net positive AGCN, or in other words, if more
GCN is being paid into the Vikings franchise than is paid out to other
franchises, then
they are not eligible to pick up another player with guaranteed
money attached to his contract until the AGCN becomes a negative number.
If a highly paid player with tons of guaranteed money decided that they wanted
out of Franchise A, and they chose the unprofessional way out by not
honoring their contracts in good faith, the team could cut that player on the
spot where Franchise A still pays that players guaranteed money per the terms of the
contract. If Franchise B picks up that player, and the guaranteed money
paid to that player for that year is 7.6 million, Franchise B adds 7.6 million
to the AGCN, where Franchise A deducts 7.6 million from their AGCN. In
other words Franchise A immediately recoups their loses in the form of an AGCN,
where in effect it gives that
franchise the ability to recoup the value paid for that player in another future
player when he becomes available. In this case players get the security in
the form of guaranteed money where owners get a certified return on their
investment. Everybody wins except the franchises that are exploiting the
system as it is now.
It is paramount that the AGCN remains fluid. Say you pick up a player with
a GCN of 2.6 million in August and by the beginning of October he really isn't
working out. The franchise can cut that player where the net AGCN is
zero. That player still has the opportunity of playing on another team and
the player wins because he doesn't have to sit in your dog house and affect his
hall of fame status (playing time). Once again, the catch is you cannot
bring a player in until your net AGCN is a negative number, which might mean
having to cut other core players from your squad if you covet a certain
player.
This system, at the very least, would ensure that all the available GCN would
not end up with one particular franchise, or the best perceived franchises, year after year.
In short, if you're going to keep track of salary cap ... then you need to keep
track of the entire salary cap. As for the owners, maintaining value for
your investments is paramount.
As for the present misbehavior, players that prefer a steady wholesome
environment aren't going to risk their family life reaching for foolish
aspirations. They also tend to understand that the grass is not always
greener on the other side. For the ones that don't give a crap, they could be snapped up
by six different franchises before they either get chucked out of the league or
until they find the perfect place to hang their shingle. They still
get the pay but they don't get to play. To play, or to get back into
league to prove that they made a mistake and are worth the coin, they might have
to agree to dump that old contracts guaranteed money. Either way
the +/- system will end the shenanigans.
The Viking Ghost
Writer
http://MyVikingBlood.org
Date: August 12, 2011
|
