Discostu and I have had this discussion a number of times in the past, and he may think it's a "blind spot" for me but I think my points are valid.
I should be clear that I have no problem with the salary cap in concept . . . I think it is the best mechanism for addressing the key economic issue in sports -- i.e., how to enable all teams in a nation-wide (or continent-wide) sports league to be profitable while at the same time they can remain competitive on the field under business climates and markets that vary widely.
My problem is with the way the cap is implemented -- first in the NFL, and later in the National Hockey League. The NFL model is ridiculous because the combination of a salary cap and non-guaranteed contracts results in the massive movement of players between teams every year. I stopped following my favorite NFL team (the New York Giants) closely about 8-10 years ago when it reached the point of stupidity -- when the team had to cut good, solid players for salary cap reasons, and when I didn't even recognize half the names on the opening day roster. That kind of enviornment is not conducive to fan loyalty at all, which is one reason why many long-time fans like me have lost interest even as the NFL has grown in popularity among casual fans.
I have long said that any salary cap MUST include a provision under which teams are given a financial mechanism to re-sign players instead of losing them to other teams. The most obvious plan would be a "cap increase" or "salary reduction" factor under which any player drafted by a team would only have some percentage of his salary (maybe 80%, or 50%, or something in between) counted against the cap. This would mean (using the 50% scenario) that a team with $1 million of cap space that is faced with a situation with a good middle linebacker (drafted by the organization five years earlier) whose contract has expired can either re-sign that player for up to $2 million or find a free agent from another team for up to $1 million. The linebacker would have a similar incentive to stay with his team, since his "market price" would be higher with the team that originally drafted him than it would be for any other team that would have to count 100% of his salary against their cap.
Another intriguing thought I had was that this "cap increase" or "salary reduction" factor could CHANGE over time . . . meaning (for example) that a player drafted by a team would have 80% of his salary count against the cap for the first three years, then 60% for the next three, 40% for the next three, etc. -- maybe even down to 0% after 10+ years. This would enable teams to keep players who remain healthy for long careers, and would enable fans to see their favorite players on the home field for their entire careers.
I can tell you one thing for sure . . . If the current salary cap rules had been in place 25 years ago I never would have been an NFL fan at all. I grew up watching players like Harry Carson, George Martin, Lawrence Taylor, Phil Simms, Carl Banks, etc. go through a long process of losing, growing as a team, building confidence and chemistry, and then winning championships. If the 1984 season started and I was faced with a National Football League in which Phil Simms was playing on the Cowboys, Lawrence Taylor was on the Dolphins, Harry Carson was retired, etc. -- then even as a young teenager I would have known better than to waste my Sunday afternoons watching that nonsense.
Even before the cap, dealing players was common, though. I remember Giants fans having a conniption when the Giants traded Fran Tarkenton to Minnesota. One of the reasons Bill Walsh quit the 49ers was because he wanted to trade Montana and management wouldn't let him. This was after Montana had won his third Super Bowl. Walsh also traded Ronnie Lott when he had quite a few years left.
BTW, congratulations to the Giants. It's an NFC East thing, but whack those Pats! A lot of Texans are rooting for you guys.