The New CBA Will Make Or Break The Upcoming Chiefs Dynasty

 39 replies

Tony discusses the importance of the upcoming CBA for the NFL.

Labor negotiations aren’t exactly the stuff movies are based on. You’re not going to find many summer blockbusters about a bunch of overweight guys in suits arguing about whether or not the workers should get an extra half of a percent of the revenue from the business. But Chiefs fans should pay close attention the upcoming negotiations between the NFL and the NFL Player’s Association, as the outcome of those talks will have a huge impact on how many Super Bowl rings Mahomes will be wearing in 30 years.

Before the current CBA, highly drafted rookies were paid well. Too well. In the 3rd year of his rookie deal in 2012, Sam Bradford was the 2nd highest paid quarterback in the NFL. In 2011 the highest paid quarterback was Mark Sanchez, at that point also in his 3rd year of his rookie deal. The veteran players were understandably upset about this. Why should guys who haven’t played a single down of professional football get contracts bigger than Pro Bowlers?

Embed from Getty Images

Since the NFLPA represents the current players only, they made this a point of emphasis when negotiating the next CBA. In response, rookie contracts were more strictly defined and, more importantly, were far cheaper. But this one change dramatically altered how teams were built. With young players being so cheap, teams who had good quarterbacks on rookie deals had a huge advantage over those who had the more expensive veterans. Where before it was quite common for quarterbacks on veteran deals to win Super Bowls, after 2010 those types of champions went nearly extinct.

Since the new CBA, only two teams besides the Patriots (we’ll get to them, don’t worry) have won the Super Bowl with a quarterback who wasn’t on his rookie deal. One was the 2011 Giants, who did it before these new rookie deals could really take hold. The other was the 2015 Broncos, who won despite Peyton’s contract in large part because they had made a number of cap-friendly free agent signings.

Embed from Getty Images

The Patriots have had a Super Bowl dynasty in the last several years, despite having a veteran quarterback in Tom Brady. But when you consider that Brady has consistently taken less than he’s worth (in 2017 he had the same cap hit as Mike Glennon), he’s the exception that proves the rule. By taking less money, he’s given the Patriots the same advantage that teams with young quarterbacks have.

Right now the Chiefs are in the ideal situation of having an elite quarterback on a rookie deal, but that won’t be the case in 2021 when the new CBA comes into effect. Then we’ll have yet another veteran quarterback on an expensive deal (albeit a very, very good one). If the new CBA keeps the same rookie wage scale that currently exist, we’ll have a much harder time in the playoffs. While our quarterback will be better, theirs will be cheaper, and that extra talent they can get with the extra cap space will make our path much harder.

But if they adjust those rookie salaries up, it eliminates one path other teams can use to overcome the gap in quarterback talent, and Clark Hunt will be able to line the walls of Arrowhead with Lombardi trophies.

39
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
11 Comment threads
28 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
19 Comment authors
kc_radrh8rSpiderSeverely ConcussedStramtoReidtsv0728 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Spider
Spider

The Kareem Hunt situation has proven a need for basic team protections for personal conduct. Maybe something where players cut for personal conduct don’t count against the cap and teams that sign those players owe the previous team a draft pick equivalent to where that player was taken if a suspension is assessed. Plus those players can’t be signed for more than their previous contract. But the discipline needs to go to a third party at the NFL level whilst the team retains discipline rights.

Severely Concussed
Severely Concussed

I would like the NFL to develop some kind of Larry Bird rights so teams that draft well can keep more of their superstars for second or third contracts. Maybe something like 20% of their salary doesn’t count against the cap.

tsv0728
tsv0728

The converse of that is that less stars are available to amend your roster if the previous regime was garbage. I love the parity that hard cap and URFA create.

StramtoReid
StramtoReid

I’m happy with a 5th year option on 1st rounders. I like having a rookie salary cap, and having a franchise tag. I like being able to franchise players and trade them. I agree that maybe you can do a contract extension after the 2nd year.

The things that should be change is, Goodell’s having so much power in the discipline process. I don’t like the commissioner’s exempt list, let’s say Tyreek’s case happened in the middle of the season, He could have missed half the season even though there was no evidence he did anything.

I heard there is going to be a change in the marijuana rule, Ricky Williams is probably thinking the NFL should have changed that rule when he was playing

I’m pretty happy with most the CBA

tsv0728
tsv0728

Five years is too long for a player to be under a forced contract. Their careers just aren’t long enough to force them to spend 1/2 of it under a regulated contract. Rookie contracts should be 2 or 3 years. That reduces their “cheap” value enough so that vested vets of middling talent are back in the mix. Right now the middle class of the NFL is being curb stomped by the CBA. That is mostly because the rookies are so artificially cheap in comparison that teams lean towards rooks. I don’t know what the discipline policy should be, but they should agree on one, and have it completely independently arbitrated. This way the NFL doesn’t have to be responsible for any of it, and won’t need to virtue signal America with random acts of disciplinary madness.

Berserker

Speaking of the discipline thing, I heard Jarran Reed got suspended six games today. So that’s yet another fanbase that’ll be super-salty about Tyreek.

SonOfaVeach
SonOfaVeach

If I was an NFL player, I wouldn’t play under the franchise tag. Let the NFL keep the tag, but if a player is tagged and he is hurt during the tag year, the player is set to receive any additional pay for however long they miss at the tag rate. There is NO protection for players under the tag. We as fans love it, because all we care about is keeping our favorite players, but the franchise tag is wrong on many levels.

Snafu
Snafu

A lot of strong WR duos out there. Our overall group could be among the best, and I really liked what the Rams were able to do with three-WR sets. If receivers 4-6 develop as hoped, WTFO.
Many here want to write off Antonio Brown, but I don’t like counting on other teams to implode.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001035670/article/browns-odell-beckham-jarvis-landry-top-nfls-best-wr-duos

ArrowFan
ArrowFan

Position caps would be nice as well but the players would never go for it.

SonOfaVeach
SonOfaVeach

I think rookie contracts should be for ONLY 2 years. In years 3-4 the contract has a team option to keep or release.

In year 3, contract terms are based on salaries of same position group (kind of like a franchise tag $$). Instead of taking the top 5 salaries average, maybe look at the average salary from players ranked 11-20.

In year 4, the same thing, now the salary is average salary of position players ranked 6-10.

Contracts would have 50% guaranteed $. Players can’t opt out of contract until year 5 of rookie deal.

CHIEFSandSABRES

Would help with a certain player named Tanoh…

kc_radrh8r
kc_radrh8r

That’s very similar to how NBA rookie contracts work. First round picks have two years guaranteed, followed by options for years three and four.

ReverendKingdom
ReverendKingdom

Awesome article. Well laid out

Berserker

How about just allowing rookie contracts to be re-negotiated after two years, or even one year, instead of making them wait for three years?

Also could change the rules for becoming a vested veteran, to give holdouts more bite and therefor encourage teams to re-negotiate rookie contracts with players who are out-performing. We’re seeing this right now with Chris Jones.

Also could get rid of the 5th year option for 1st rounders.

Anyway, there’s a few things that could be done other than just increasing the money in initial rookie contracts. Any of those would tend to reward players who actually perform on an NFL field, while keeping salaries for “unproven” players relatively low.

But then again, from a Chiefs perspective….after Mahomes gets paid, we’ll be depending on cheap rookie contracts ourselves to surround him with talent year after year (hopefully anyway, if our GM makes good 1st round picks). So, yeah, we won’t have the advantage of a cheap rookie QB contract. But we very likely will want to take advantage of cheap rookie WR contracts, and pass rusher contracts, and CB contracts, and Chris Jones’ contract, etc etc… So, is this really a “problem” that we want to fix?

ElPasoJason
ElPasoJason

I think the cap is fine, but I would also be OK with season or career ending injuries not counting toward the cap. I know that ceeates a bunch of issues but I would much rather see a team be able to stay relevant by a trade or FA signing when one of their stars go down.

Obviously, thos comes from a place of swlfishness but I feel like it makes sense.

Berserker

I think the players should be for that. Salary that’s paid outside the cap, means potentially more total salary for players as a whole. They’d just have to be careful to protect themselves against having their salary reduced in case of injury.

Leaf
Leaf

The problem there is that if you allow a free cut for injury, there will be a lot of stubbed toe cuts. I do like the idea of while on IR players don’t count towards the cap. But then you again run the problem of teams hiding players on IR to free up space.

Berserker

Maybe have IR decisions verified by the League office before taking the IR’d player off the cap?

Team Player
Team Player

Or a percentage deducted. Like 25% of game checks non countable for injured players. It would need to be more complex than that but something along those lines

Leaf
Leaf

That might work. I wasn’t trying to say there was no solution, more just pointing out potential issues.

ElPasoJason
ElPasoJason

I agree there are countless issues to contend with. It would be a slippery slope but could be useful. Obviously the owners want a low salary cap and we want to pay all our favorite playwrs any amount of money it takes to keep them haha.

Thanks for the conversation guys! I love this community!

sportingchiefs

Even though it would be a risk, and completely kill the “parity” of the NFL, sometimes I wish we didn’t have a cap. While different leagues, I always default to the Premier League where there isn’t a cap, it just depends on how much your owner is willing to spend. Sure, there are a handful of teams that dominate the league most years but what I love is that if a team signs a stupid deal with a player that doesn’t work out, they can get out of it a lot easier (they’ll still have to pay them) and it doesn’t prevent them from signing someone else.

I don’t think it’d be a good move but does anyone, who may know better than I do, think that a cap situation like the NBA or MLB could ever work? Cause they don’t have a hard cap right?

SuperMegaChief
SuperMegaChief

In my opinion, every sport needs a salary cap as well as a minimum spending cap. Baseball has long had an issue with market size dictating success. For years, the Royals were just a farm system for the Yankees, who could pay more than anyone.

CHIEFSandSABRES

Yes baseball’s revenue sharing and market size success drives me crazy. Made the Royals back to back series appearances all that more special IMO.

Berserker

No, not at all. KC is a small market, so not having a hard cap would tend to make championships here even more rare than they already are.

tsv0728
tsv0728

Yep. It’s actually pretty wild that the Royals have an MLB championship and another appearance, while the Chiefs have a bag of dicks. Cconsidering how much harder it is for a small market team to compete in a soft cap environment.

Berserker

Didn’t the 2015 Royals have an unusually high payroll? Well, unusually high for the Royals I mean.

Mahomesisgreat
Mahomesisgreat

I love the parity created by the NFL cap, but agree with above comments about adjusting cap numbers for players on IR somehow.

Straybrit
Straybrit

Gotta remember the Financial Fair Play regs – clubs aren’t allowed to spend more than they bring in. Well, apart from Man City who flaunt those rules and get away with it every year. “Loans” from the owners aren’t allowed either – oops there Sheik Mansour – underwriting a billion pounds of spending since 2008.

The problem that would have with the NFL is that the ‘books’ have to be open and examined. That’s approx 31 billionaires who would have a shit fit if it was suggested.

StramtoReid
StramtoReid

I remember in the 70’s and 80’s the Royals were always in 1st and 2nd place, when these big market teams were allowed to spend more than everyone else there quit being an even playing field.

There is a luxury tax in baseball , but when your making money hand over fist, you don’t case if you have to pay a luxury tax.

I’m a supporter of a salary cap and even playing field in every sport.