If they will be forced to spend a lot of money on free agents, some teams might not be able to cut a player because he will count too much agains the cap the following year, if he got a big signing bonus and have multiple years left on his contract.

No way Buffalo holds a team. Cincinnati might but barely. Jacksonville gone. Seattle and Miami dependent on very wealthy owners because they won’t be profitable enough to hold a team otherwise.

It’s going to get ugly fast if this is the basis for the new deal.

Well, those teams probably spend more than you think they do. The Packers in particular have been big spenders of late. They’ve spent about $377 million on player salaries over the last three years, more than any of those AFC North teams. (They spent a ton in particular last year, upwards of $156 million.) And the Eagles fell right around the middle, at $346 million.

IMO I like this. Its means a new contract for Djax is going to happen sooner rather than later. I think that will be the biggest difference with this new rule as younger players will get the big deal a lil bit sooner than they would have.

I think you meant:
“The Bengals have been near the top of the league [THREE TIMES] when it comes to spending to the salary cap ever since their new stadium was constructed…”
And I would add:
“And in the bottom third 60% of the time”

I agree with you, “I hate uninformed NFL fans”

Well, presumably “dead money” would still count at some point… if not when the player is cut, then when it is originally paid out. Dead money results from real cash payout, so that cash is going to count towards a floor at some point or another, and rightly so.

The big difference, I have to imagine, would come from eliminating unearned LTBE incentives as counting toward the salary floor at the end of the year. These amounts, often used to roll salary cap space over into the next year, are not tied to an actual cash payout (in that year or any other).

The most important thing is a firm salary cap floor so that all teams must spend a minimum so that we don’t have the equivalent of the Pittsburgh Pirates in the NFL.

If teams are forced to spend, then the rookie wage scale is less onerous because the money has to be spent and will thus go to established players.

A rookie wage scale and a ‘standard rookie contract’ maximum 3 years for all rounds would allow teams to get all their rookies signed quickly and into camp this year. Year 4 rules of RFA tenders would apply. And after that only one franchise player per team per year.

The draft pick compensation on RFA tenders has to come way down. No one will surrender a 1st and a 3rd for anyone, not even Pro Bowlers. And let’s hope they deal with the poison pill terms and conditions so that a decision to match an offer sheet doesn’t change the terms in any material way for the team that decides to match.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this information, but I suspect that it’s off. I’m looking at some figures from the last three years (based on numbers that I keep myself), and the Bengals were handily the lowest cash spenders on player salaries in their division over that period:

$368M Steelers
$350M Browns
$345M Ravens
$307M Bengals

Now, obviously that’s just a subset of the total data that you’re talking about, but I’m skeptical that the results would be much different if I expanded to look at all 32 teams over a longer span.

I hate uninformed NFL fans…