Thread: Clady.
View Single Post
Old 01-25-2013, 03:25 PM   #145
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
He theoretically could, but there are provisions in there to prevent it. Among them are that the league has to pay the difference the the players union, which no one wants to do, and there are things they can do to the teams for not meeting the minimum.

Honestly, the league has to try and hit %100 and the league will self-enforce each team spending at least %89 of their cap each. And you are correct in that the new season doesn't start for a few months, but that is the cap number we're all talking about here.
OK a reasonable response..

But have questions and frankly I do not see how they could force a team to max out..

since at least in the past all player that hit IR had to fall under the cap, how can you go into the season at max cap, have a player hit IR and then be able to replace them.. If they were at max cap starting the season how are they going to handle it..

If they do not count the money on IR players then what is to stop teams from placing player there to lower the cap values?

or better yet stash them away for next year?

every thing I read and heard told me that the 89% was the minimum they any team had to spend and it was placed there for the smaller market owners to ensure they could remain profitable..

that the league ONLY had to hit the 89% total league wide or penalties then would be in play..

there is no way for every team to get to 100% without going over and still have the IR provision..

then add in the presumed incentive bonus money that has to be added into the cap, for "reaching the pro bowl", getting 15 sacks, having a QBR of 100.. etc.. if that money is counted in the cap money then I see the owners padding that area with unreachable goals to save paying them real money..

What say you?
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote