In the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement, the NFL enacted a real salary cap floor. Before this, teams had to meet 85% of the cap, but that counted things like not likely to be earned bonuses. So there were teams that were routinely 10s of millions of dollars below the cap. The Giants were among a handful of teams that was always up against the cap limits.
With the new agreement:
Much of the conversation about the league's salary cap has centered around the cap floor that all teams must spend to. Per Andrew Brandt of NFP, that cap floor will be 99 percent of the cap for the first two years of the deal, then drop to 95 percent for the next eight. More importantly, in those final eight years, a cash floor of 89 percent will be enacted - this will prevent teams from tying up cap space in bonuses and incentives, and force teams to spend 89 percent of the cap in actual dollars to its players.
So, this hurt the Giants in two ways. First, it removed a natural competitive advantage. Second, it reduced the pool of quality players in free agency (the Giants often hit on their FA signings).
So, with these advantages removed, the Giants had to compete on a level playing field where their mom-and-pop organizational values (loyalty above production and professionalism) combined with subpar medical (again a family loyalty thing) were simply not up to the task.
https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/7/24/2291147/new-nfl-cba-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-floor
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 20, 2023, 02:13:58 PMSo, this hurt the Giants in two ways. First, it removed a natural competitive advantage. Second, it reduced the pool of quality players in free agency (the Giants often hit on their FA signings).
So, with these advantages removed, the Giants had to compete on a level playing field where their mom-and-pop organizational values (loyalty above production and professionalism) combined with subpar medical (again a family loyalty thing) were simply not up to the task.
https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/7/24/2291147/new-nfl-cba-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-floor
I see it a little differently, Rich. Did the change, which affects all 32 teams, hurt the Giants or did the Giants' refusal to adjust to the change hurt them?
Quote from: T200 on December 20, 2023, 02:30:34 PMI see it a little differently, Rich. Did the change, which affects all 32 teams, hurt the Giants or did the Giants' refusal to adjust to the change hurt them?
Prior to the change, there were about 8 teams (give or take) up routinely up against the cap, and there were about an equal number 10s of millions below the cap (in real spending). The rest of the teams were somewhere in the middle.
After the change, all the teams were within 10 percent in terms of cap spending, and the quality free-agent pool dried up.
The only way to really adjust was to do everything better than you had before to make up for the advantages lost.
well yes
but also having an annually sub par team limits the free agents you can attract
poor drafting
poor coaching
ownership interference
having to share a stadium (weird for such a wealthy area)
only one other city LA does this and that only recent. I think having a family owned business contributed to the low budget facilities. Designing a horse by committee results in a donkey
We have a lot to overcome, but we will
Just shows to me an antiquated model with inferior drafting and development. Kudos to teams who do it right. We should look to them
How do we often hit on our FA signings? I see lots of misses.
Quote from: TDToomer on December 21, 2023, 08:46:50 AMHow do we often hit on our FA signings? I see lots of misses.
I was referring to the 2000s, not the 2010s or 2020s
Quote from: StompYouOT on December 20, 2023, 07:01:12 PMJust shows to me an antiquated model with inferior drafting and development. Kudos to teams who do it right. We should look to them
Well I think we are trying to do exactly that with the appointment of Joe Schoen as gm.