Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
I guess the theory here is that by not having to abide by a spending floor those teams that chose to spend minimally did so by not signing players to contracts. Absent these multi-year contracts these teams theoretically saved future cap-space. Essentially they have more future space since they don't have contracts on the books that they might well have had if a spending floor existed or they spent more freely in the capless year. I think the potential advantage isn't quite as great but it exists to some degree. Or more accurately...I don't see how spending less than an imaginary cap floor is more egregious than spending more than the imaginary cap limit.
|
That is part of it, but teams were allowed to dump contracts, also. If we had cut DHall and Haynesworth, we would not have got in any cap trouble and we would have been even father under the cap.