[skinsguy]

Joetheismanfan:

I think you and I are kind of saying the samething, at least by how I am interpreting it. The only thing I am unclear on is, I had always felt that it was the contract that tied the team and the player together, and not so much a salary cap. I mean, going by what a contract is, a binding agreement, regardless of a presence or absense of a salary cap the team could not simply cut a player unless there was some language in that contract that said the team held the right to cut a player if he chose not to honor his side of the agreement.

With that said, with or without a cap, I woudn't believe a team could cut a player and not have to still pay him the remainder of his guaranteed money of his contract. I could be wrong on that, but I had just assumed that the salary cap was nothing more than a budget that each team could not exceed each season.

True, I think every policy put in place is going to have its pros and cons, but the way things are going right now, I see this agent stuff as being too much of a distraction among players and teams. It henders teams preparations during the offseason - which can in turn have an effect on the team's performance during the season.

But...all really I am concerned with is teams getting the most out of the players they pay for - not so much handicapping the player's finances long term.