• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Comp pics to be tradeable?

steelerscotty

steelerscotty

Well-known member
Contributor
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
1,239
Points
113
Location
Sioux Falls, sd
Heard this today on the NFL channel (88) on xm radio. The competition committee is recommending that compensation picks become tradeable starting in 2016 draft. Owners/league expected to approve.
 
Well, I do think that it is a good thing as some teams just can't protect themselves from themselves. Change the rules to satifsy a few. Kind of like politicaly correct.............




Salute the nation
 
I think it devalues the ability to award a team for losing a FA starter. But if your FO is superior, and you can utilize that pick to move up and grab a blue chip, it may not be a bad idea. I just hope we don't trade back and take another team's 3rd comp pick...
 
Get rid of comp picks completely.
 
conspiracy theory - this is Goodell's way to help Kraft get his picks back.
 
Cope said:
I think it devalues the ability to award a team for losing a FA starter. But if your FO is superior, and you can utilize that pick to move up and grab a blue chip, it may not be a bad idea. I just hope we don't trade back and take another team's 3rd comp pick...
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think it adds value as now instead if giving them a restricted asset, they would get an unrestricted asset.
 
bigtwnvin said:
This will create a flow of cash so wheelers and dealers like Ozzie Newsome can go out and buy a roster.
Click to expand...

Could care less about "ozzie's purchases" as look where that has him this nyear. If a team can go the financial road to the super bowl, so be it. Just hasn't been a factor as the CAP keeps that in check.



Salute the nation
 
Troglodyte said:
Why? That would add fuel to free agency and the Steelers tend to be poachees and not poachers.
Click to expand...

Because the best you can get is something at the bottom of the 3rd. It makes no sense to me that you get picks for losing a player. What sense does that make. A better system would be to give you a credit to your salary cap based on the contract signed. I'd also like to see teams get a salary cap discount when they keep a long term player. Had a guy for 7-8 years? When you sign him to a new contract you don't take the full capost hit.
 
ark steel said:
Because the best you can get is something at the bottom of the 3rd. It makes no sense to me that you get picks for losing a player. What sense does that make. A better system would be to give you a credit to your salary cap based on the contract signed. I'd also like to see teams get a salary cap discount when they keep a long term player. Had a guy for 7-8 years? When you sign him to a new contract you don't take the full capost hit.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is you're creating a soft cap and increasing salary expenditures. Comp picks are meant to offset the overall impact of FA losses and maintain competitive balance.
 
Not sure how increasing salary expenditures is a "problem" other than to a few rich owners, and the owner doesn't have to retain the player and increase his expenditure.
 
Troglodyte said:
The problem with that is you're creating a soft cap and increasing salary expenditures. Comp picks are meant to offset the overall impact of FA losses and maintain competitive balance.
Click to expand...

It allows a team to keep a long term player where another team would have to pay more in order to get the player, rather than getting some super late draft pick that will, in (I bet) most cases won't be on the team in 4 years.

The discount wouldn't be super huge or cap credit wouldn't be super huge that it is some fantastic advantage, but the results would be better 5han a ****** draft pick.
 
Fiji Mariner said:
Not sure how increasing salary expenditures is a "problem" other than to a few rich owners, and the owner doesn't have to retain the player and increase his expenditure.
Click to expand...

No it would be a problem to the small market owners (Steelers) as Daniel Snyder would get a cap break retaining his own players, and therefor have more cap space to poach other teams.
 
Troglodyte said:
No it would be a problem to the small market owners (Steelers) as Daniel Snyder would get a cap break retaining his own players, and therefor have more cap space to poach other teams.
Click to expand...

I think you are assuming a lot about what the cap break would be. If the comp pick would have been a 6th or 7th rounder, what kind of cap break would you expect. I'd assume pretty small, but it might be enough to help you retain a good back up instead of a, mostly, useless late pick.

It would allow small market teams to retain longer term players with smaller cap impacts and be able to compete better with Snyder and Jones.
 
ark steel said:
I think you are assuming a lot about what the cap break would be. If the comp pick would have been a 6th or 7th rounder, what kind of cap break would you expect. I'd assume pretty small, but it might be enough to help you retain a good back up instead of a, mostly, useless late pick.

It would allow small market teams to retain longer term players with smaller cap impacts and be able to compete better with Snyder and Jones.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the salary of the long term player would be more than that of the comp pick. I don't think that's a stretch.

I don't understand how a soft cap could possibly benefit a small market team more than a hard cap.
 
Troglodyte said:
No it would be a problem to the small market owners (Steelers) as Daniel Snyder would get a cap break retaining his own players, and therefor have more cap space to poach other teams.
Click to expand...

Trust me the Rooney family makes plenty of money, the Steelers make them boatloads...they aren't hurting for cash and would be able to retain their players with a soft cap. The Steelers are always right up against the current cap and yet still make very significant profits. If the goal is to cry poor maybe a team like the Jaguars would get "poached" more frequently, but name the NFL teams that are losing money and those would be the ones with beef against a soft cap...are there any?

Just did some quick research and the last team I could find that operated at a loss was the 2012 Lions who lost 3.5 million, but had just massively invested in Ford field to the tune of 350 million. With the 226 million and change from just shared TV revenue I think teams could afford to retain desired players. Having a soft cap would help with players staying put in most situations if the team desired to keep them as they would be able to pay the say bonus 10-20% which poachers could not match.
 
Last edited:
Fiji Mariner said:
Trust me the Rooney family makes plenty of money, the Steelers make them boatloads...they aren't hurting for cash and would be able to retain their players with a soft cap. The Steelers are always right up against the current cap and yet still make very significant profits. If the goal is to cry poor maybe a team like the Jaguars would get "poached" more frequently, but name the NFL teams that are losing money and those would be the ones with beef against a soft cap...are there any?

Just did some quick research and the last team I could find that operated at a loss was the 2012 Lions who lost 3.5 million, but had just massively invested in Ford field to the tune of 350 million. With the 226 million and change from just shared TV revenue I think teams could afford to retain desired players. Having a soft cap would help with players staying put in most situations if the team desired to keep them as they would be able to pay the say bonus 10-20% which poachers could not match.
Click to expand...
They also do not own the team outright as there is deep pocket investors...

this team can spend as much as the cap allows...
 
Fiji Mariner said:
Trust me the Rooney family makes plenty of money, the Steelers make them boatloads...they aren't hurting for cash and would be able to retain their players with a soft cap. The Steelers are always right up against the current cap and yet still make very significant profits. If the goal is to cry poor maybe a team like the Jaguars would get "poached" more frequently, but name the NFL teams that are losing money and those would be the ones with beef against a soft cap...are there any?

Just did some quick research and the last team I could find that operated at a loss was the 2012 Lions who lost 3.5 million, but had just massively invested in Ford field to the tune of 350 million. With the 226 million and change from just shared TV revenue I think teams could afford to retain desired players. Having a soft cap would help with players staying put in most situations if the team desired to keep them as they would be able to pay the say bonus 10-20% which poachers could not match.
Click to expand...

Revenue sharing is a big part of the equation, as well.

During the last CBA negotiations in 2011, many of the wealthier owners wanted to reduce it, but reluctantly agreed to sustain it at its current level at the last minute.

That is the bigger threat to competitive balance than softening the cap, IMO. How greedy the likes of Jones, Kraft, Snyder, Mira and Johnson get is the question.
 
slashsteel said:
They also do not own the team outright as there is deep pocket investors...

this team can spend as much as the cap allows...
Click to expand...

There are some Wall Street big dicks invested in the Steelers, with David Tepper being the most prominent.

The Steelers have more financial resources than the the Pirates or Penguins do. That's for sure.
 
Troglodyte said:
I'm assuming the salary of the long term player would be more than that of the comp pick. I don't think that's a stretch.

I don't understand how a soft cap could possibly benefit a small market team more than a hard cap.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the first sentence relates to what I said. Of course, the long term players salary would be higher. Do you think the discount to the salary cap would be the full salary? Why would you think that when the comp pic lk would be, at best, a very late 3rd rounder? I'd expect the discount would be pretty modest.

As a wild example, let's say it is $1m. Now, the small market team can offer a second contact worth $9m per year, but only take a $8m cap hit. Would the player go to redskins for $9m if they could stay with the same team? I would guess not. How much more Snyder have to offer the player to leave?
 
Fiji Mariner said:
Trust me the Rooney family makes plenty of money, the Steelers make them boatloads...they aren't hurting for cash and would be able to retain their players with a soft cap. The Steelers are always right up against the current cap and yet still make very significant profits. If the goal is to cry poor maybe a team like the Jaguars would get "poached" more frequently, but name the NFL teams that are losing money and those would be the ones with beef against a soft cap...are there any?

Just did some quick research and the last team I could find that operated at a loss was the 2012 Lions who lost 3.5 million, but had just massively invested in Ford field to the tune of 350 million. With the 226 million and change from just shared TV revenue I think teams could afford to retain desired players. Having a soft cap would help with players staying put in most situations if the team desired to keep them as they would be able to pay the say bonus 10-20% which poachers could not match.
Click to expand...

The Steelers are the Rooney's livelihood, Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones bought themselves a hobby with money from their existing fortunes. You're confusing NFL profits with the wealth of NFL owners.

The cap is a mechanism for keeping the (relatively) poor teams competitive with the wealthy teams. What your are arguing is that by allowing (all) teams a way to circumvent that mechanism, you would help the poor teams. That doesn't make sense.
 
ark steel said:
I'm not sure how the first sentence relates to what I said. Of course, the long term players salary would be higher. Do you think the discount to the salary cap would be the full salary? Why would you think that when the comp pic lk would be, at best, a very late 3rd rounder? I'd expect the discount would be pretty modest.

As a wild example, let's say it is $1m. Now, the small market team can offer a second contact worth $9m per year, but only take a $8m cap hit. Would the player go to redskins for $9m if they could stay with the same team? I would guess not. How much more Snyder have to offer the player to leave?
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying and I like the idea of it in a vacuum (retaining a veteran player) but the overall impact is it would increase salary expenditures. It would serve to undermine the purpose of the salary cap and I think it would hurt the Steelers.

While comp picks mostly amount to nothing, the Steelers still make more of them than the Redskins of the league.
 
Troglodyte said:
The Steelers are the Rooney's livelihood, Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones bought themselves a hobby with money from their existing fortunes. You're confusing NFL profits with the wealth of NFL owners.

The cap is a mechanism for keeping the (relatively) poor teams competitive with the wealthy teams. What your are arguing is that by allowing (all) teams a way to circumvent that mechanism, you would help the poor teams. That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing profits with wealth of owners, merely stating that with shared revenue alone a team can operate with a profit while operating near the cap with additional revenues being all profit. It is simple math.

There is no way I compare the Rooney family with the hobby owners, they obviously have more wealth and their clubs bring in far more profit as well.

Simply stating with the generation of money the NFL has created there are no "poor" owners and the shared revenue could allow a rules change in regards to the cap if it creates greater player loyalty through cash incentives.

The league probably wants players switching teams tho...more jersey sales$$$, more free agency talk to keep the NFL in the limelight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top