Owners agree on CBA !! Labor peace restored !!

[83-Steelers-43]

Originally Posted by WyomingCowgirlBarbie

The curious thing is that they are not the team that is courting him the hardest.

You brought this up in another thread and I asked the same question. Then who else is? If so, do you have a link?

Also, going by what Cleveland needs and their situation with the cap it's understandable why some people feel Cleveland are the front runners.

[Livinginthe past]

Originally Posted by steelreserve

OK, I have to admit I'm reluctant to give the Patriots credit mostly because I don't like the Patriots. Also, part of the reason they won three Super Bowls is because the competition was artifically weakened. Sure, they figured out the system better than most teams, kept together the best squad they could, and had talented coaches. But the Patriots are nothing like, say, Joe Montana's 49ers or the '85 Bears. Teams like that are outlawed these days, and there aren't too many really memorable clubs that get compared with the "best of all-time" anymore. That's what the salary cap takes away, and personally, I found it more fun when you have those kinds of teams around, whether you're rooting for them or whether you're the underdog that knocks them off.

Fine, I'll begrudgingly give you some credit, and I also have to admit that the Steelers benefited from the same things you did.

Also, I still do think the amount of players most teams lose won't change dramatically with or without a cap... but the big thing to me is, I think it's a lot more frustrating to lose players to the cap than it would be to lose them without one. Really, as a fan, it sucks to have a rule that gives you no chance of keeping a good and well-liked player around. Without the cap, some guys might leave, but at least you'd have a chance at keeping them if both sides wanted it to work.

If I was a player, I'd be more than a little insulted at being treated like a commodity to that extent.

Its an interesting debate - whether it is better to have marquee teams that win a majority of the titles or a kind of parity where 70% of the teams have a realistic shot at the beginning of the year.

There is an attraction to the possibility of having more All-Time Great teams in our generation, which the CBA tries to prohibit.

As a Pats fan I feel we haven't suffered too many high profile losses in terms of personnel that I have been seriously unhappy with - perhaps Milloy and Law were the biggest worries.

I think good teams can become complacent if they are allowed to to keep the same squad of players intact - and there is no hard and fast rule that the players you pick up in FA or the draft have to necessarily be a downgrade on the players you lose.

Drafting is still key - but proper cap management combined with good business ethics (the ethics the Steelers pretty much pioneered many moons ago) lead to a squad of talented, motivated individuals that will be capable of challenging for major honors year on year.

I dont think the Steelers and Patriots are going to share the next 10 SB's - but I see no reason why they both cant be very, very competitive over this period.

NM

[Stlrs4Life]

Originally Posted by steelreserve

The high-priced teams aren't always in the playoffs, though. Look at baseball, where half of the top 10 in payroll missed the postseason entirely:

http://www.onestopbaseball.com/TeamPayroll.asp

Even if money was everything, the Steelers would be in great shape playing in a division with Cleveland, Cincinati and Baltimore. Those teams aren't going to outspend us, and we'd be in the playoffs all the time.

What, you don't think we could knock off higher-seeded teams in the playoffs? ... (pause) ... yeah, I guess this year really proved that, huh?

The Steelers will never be like the Pirates, even without a salary cap. Teams that make good decisions will always be right in the mix. In the worst case, the Steelers would be like the Oakland A's, only with a better chance of winning it all because of the shorter season.

Really, baseball has had more parity and more diversity in the Big Show than the NFL has. In football, it depends a lot on how you obey rigid, arbitrary financial rules, whch I don't really consider an essential part of the game. The Patriots' "dynasty" essentially happened because their accountants were the best at working the system. That's not how I want to determine the NFL champion. If anything, the Steelers this year, with all the young talent on their roster, should be an example of how smarts, not money, can win you a championship.

Even though I prefer a salary cap in the NFL. I must say you make some very valid points!

[WyomingCowgirlBarbie]

Originally Posted by 83-Steelers-43

You brought this up in another thread and I asked the same question. Then who else is? If so, do you have a link?

Also, going by what Cleveland needs and their situation with the cap it's understandable why some people feel Cleveland are the front runners.

I don't have a link because it isn't public. Sorry. I've even gone to the web site of the team and they don't mention it either. It is really interesting that some teams are so public about who they are looking at and others aren't.

[Atlanta Dan]

Good article in Sunday's Boston Globe describing how the owners put together a plan to ratify the CBA.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal..._force/?page=2

Best parts of the article for me were the quotes where the big revenue teams were not feeling the love for Mike Brown and the Bengals:

At one point during the often contentious negotiations, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones mockingly offered to buy the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium from the Bengals for $5million ''because I can double that in about five minutes, Mike." and

This argument over who deserved the money was punctuated when Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, who controls one of the league's richest teams, said he was ready to help any team in a bad circumstance but then turned toward Brown and said, ''But if someone has a publicly funded stadium they pay $1 a year for with no operating costs, I'm not helping that person."

The Bengals have a franchise QB and a good coach, but based on the quality of upper management and cash flow I expect the Browns to replace the Bengals as the Steelers main competition in the division sooner rather than later. Stories I have read on the CBA negotiations confirmed my impression Mike Brown is regarded by other NFL owners to be a clown.

[Stlrs4Life]

So true Atlanta Dan, good post.

[Midnightwriter1]

For financial reaons, you cant have the old school way before F/A... the NFL needs parity for merchandising reasons and revenue. The players are making more and more money, signing bonuses, new staduims, billion dollar stadium deals... the NFL has to keep the cap in order to keep all teams ( or try to ) competitive. If they dont fill the seats, sell merchandise, concessions, ect. overall then the NFL wont make as much money/ Nobody really wants to see a pair of 3-12 teams play and certainly not on television with nothing at stake.