I like this salary cap theory thread...
What you spend on the team DOES corroalate to on field performance. Now, there are plenty of examples of teams that did not spend their money wisely, and teams that spent low and still won. But, overall, the more money you spend, the better the team.
I think there are 3 types of team cap spending out there:
1) Low budget teams (only a few teams) -
Now, the Cardinals and the Bengals spend below the cap for an extended period of years. The Cards have come close and have used all the cap by the end of most of those years, but they never really spent over the cap. If the cap was a stable $100M, then these teams 10 year average cap expensise would be $97 million (less if your team is the Bengals).
Note, the Cardinals actual for the last 2 years and this year, have pushed money into their current year's cap to make it look like they are spending to the cap. Example, most teams would have cut Wadsworth after June 1st, but the Cards cut him in March, so instead of his cap hit being spread over 2 years, the cap hit was taken all at once, making it look like the Cards are spending to the cap.
2) Push cap $$$ into future years (Most NFL Teams) -
These teams are always stressing the cap. They cut players after june 1st to fit their rookies. They redo veterans deals to fit 1 more quality player under their cap. If you look at their actual expensense each year for a 10 year period, for the my imaginary $100 stable cap, these teams would always be spending about $106 million. Which means, they are in a constant state of mortgaging their future, but as long as you can keep pushing money out into the future, you can overspend forever.
3) Shoot the Moon (very few teams, Oakland this year)
Teams that think they have a chance can sacrifice the future and add 3 or more quality vets. They can end up spending huge amounts over the cap for 1 last push. Teams only do this if they think they can win it all. Teams can only do this for 1 or possibly 2 years. After that, it's time to pay the piper. You can either take the SFO's choice (the correct way) and burn down your team and start completely over and get back under the cap in 1 or 2 years.
Or, you can go the Dallas route (wrong way) and try to put your team back into the Push cap $$$ into future years mode. Here's why this is not a good idea. If your team overspent the years before and you owe $20M and you try to push more out into future years, you might be able to keep pushing about 90% of that $20M into future years. Also, since you are only pushing 90% (taking about 10 years to get back to normal) your actually spending $2M less (10% of $20M) than the other teams in Push $$$ into future mode, so now your team is only spending $104M per year until you catch up. That means the other teams are outspending you for a long period of time. Also, to keep pushing that much, your team needs to cut many players each year on June 1st, causeing roster churn of high order. It's hard to build a good team with large roster churn and all the other teams are out spending you.
Dallas has been doing this until this year. I believe they cut Emmitt before June 1st just so they can give up and take the cap hit and get back on an even footing with the rest of the NFL.
Teams like SFO, who burn down their roster to recover their cap space, will fininsh close to last in 1 or 2 seasons, but will get quality draft picks and go back to the "push $$$ into the future mode" and become competitive again quickly. Fresh cap, Quality high draft picks = Back in business
------------------------
Until the Cards start getting with the way most of the NFL do business and spend over the cap, they will always subpar, but not bottom of the barrel team. The bottom of the NFL will go to teams like Cin who underspent the cap by $6M last year, teams that are burning down to start over, or mega injury teams. Then come the teams like the Cards, that are not playing the NFL spending game. They field a just below average team, get the second tier of draft picks, under spend, and go a constant 4-12 to 8-8 year after year.
To correct this, the Cards need to start signing players to backloaded contracts, giving incentives, and pushing cap hits into future years. If they did this, they could have signed twice the number of players.
The Cards should never be in the situation they are in now, which is, under the cap, with few quality veterans left in free agency to sign. To fill their cap this year, the Cards are going to have to sign several average or below veterans to contracts. Which means, the Cards starters will be below average in talent, but the depth will be possibly the best in the nfl. Or, you could say, most of the team is at the backup/starter transisition level of play. Meaning on most teams the Cards players would probably be backups with just a few starters.
There are 32 Teams in the NFL. Take the top 20 from each position. Would any of the Cards players make the top 20?
Think about it, on def none of the DL would make it.
Starks is probably top 20.
Would McKinnon be? I'm not sure.
The new FS, Jackson is probably top 20, so that's a good addition.
On offense, some of the OL guys would be, but no QB, No WRs.
Is Emmitt top 20? Marginal at best, probably not.
If Emmitt wasn't on the team, I would guess Shipp is around 15.
I have F. Jones rated as the 22nd best TE.
If Boston was still on the Cards, he's top 10, possibly top 5.
In conclusion, even though the Cards signed many free agents, they are still being outspent by the majority of the nfl each and every year.
