2011 RULES: Salary Floors

[Adam K]

Having a salary floor wouldn't affect the competitive balance. If i wanted to tank for draft purposes, and keep a low cap this year, I would just sign a few players who wouldn't help me to high 1 year deals. I would meet the floor, but i would still not be competitive. That logic is too flawed.

Is the floor $107 million?

If so, I don't understand what the big deal is. It would hard not to spend that much. I just think if we want to be a league that operates to mirror the NFL as closely as possible then we should have the floor like the NFL. Otherwise, we should just have whatever salary cap or restriction rules we want. I think this is a small issue and shouldn't even be voted on.

I vote to use the floor or be threatened to lose your team.

[larry linke]

I don't see no reason for a floor. It only applies in real life when an owner tries to save money and doesn't care about the product on the field (Tampa Bay pre 2010). We are not allowed to carry over unused funds to the following year so their is no advantage to not spending money.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

[Ben C.]

If we are going to mirror the NFL, then we should have a floor. I think the discussion should be more about how to go about doing the floor.

[Onyxgem]

If we are going to mirror the NFL, then we should have a floor. I think the discussion should be more about how to go about doing the floor.

I agree

[Strategist]

There is no reason for a floor. It is just dumb. A team could sign one player to a 50 mil contract if they need to just to get to the floor. Or if we put a limit on it they could sign 2 to 25 mil contracts. My point is it doesnt enforce people to be competitive.

[vikingfan]

Better yet, I have changed. Still have the floor but only for teams with out 53 man rosters. If they are 10M short of our established floor and only have 51 guys. Then they can add 2 or have 5M added to their roster for each player short. Otherwise all they are doing is avoiding cap hits to move a player.

I see some of the points about not needing a floor. We are not dealing with actual money here. If a team is 50M under the cap then they are just wasting their time and not fielding a competitive team.

I say no floor if you have 53 on roster. May seem like a dumb point but all those teams are doing is avoiding cap hits and if we want reality, then make sure teams have full roster.

[Dan M]

If we are going to mirror the NFL, then we should have a floor. I think the discussion should be more about how to go about doing the floor.

I agree.

I would just make it closer to 85%-90% instead of 99%.

[Nathan S.]

If we are going to mirror the NFL, then we should have a floor. I think the discussion should be more about how to go about doing the floor.

I agree.

I would just make it closer to 85%-90% instead of 99%.

This.

[Shagg]

If we are going to mirror the NFL, then we should have a floor. I think the discussion should be more about how to go about doing the floor.

I agree.

I would just make it closer to 85%-90% instead of 99%.

This.

agreed!

[Ulrich82]

But why are going to deal with this? If you want reality, then we should apply the real salary floor. The floor in the new CBA is:

1.) Each team must spend at least 89% of their cap averaged over 2013-2016 and 2017-2020 (not sure if this is pure cash or total cap spending).
2.) All 32 teams collectively must spend 99% of the cap in cash in 2011 and 2012 (not sure if this is a two year average or each year individually, but it really doesn't matter), and 95% for the rest of the CBA.

I don't know if there is a team mandate in 2011 and 2012, but obviously, teams will have to spend significantly to meet the league wide 99% cash spending.

And as far as I know, we still don't know how dead money is going to be counted against the cap and how teams can fit that in the cap if they have a minimum cash requirement.

At the end of the day, it sounds like a headache to me to keep running 4 year averages for something which barely touches competitive balance. The point of the salary floor is to guarantee that the real players get a certain amount of real money from the owners. A floor here would not change teams ability to tank if they want. They could sign players to 1 year 30 million dollar deals if they had to. And how are we punished if as a league we fail to meet a total cap spending requirement?

The only effect I see on competitive balance is if a team stays way under the salary cap so that they have more flexibility in the offseason than a team with a higher cap number. However, as long as a team can sign 1 year contracts, the salary floor will do nothing to prevent this.