In the hard-cap era, in which a team can’t pass a preset salary scale, every year teams cut some valuable veterans in the name of saving money, even negotiating contracts with enormous bonuses to be paid “midway” through the deal that the team never plans to pay, nor does the player ever plan to collect. Or a team just gives up on a key player when his contract is up, such as the Indianapolis Colts are doing with Edgerrin James, still one of the league’s leading rushers, yet a cap casualty because the team can’t keep everyone it wants and stay under the cap.

In that way, the cap is a hindrance, preventing teams from keeping valued veterans, destroying continuity, and resulting in the devolution of even the best organizations. Look at how quarterback has gone from the team’s most important position, the gunslinger who set a team’s personality, into a drab “game manager” whose job it is to make sure he plays as safely as possible.

There’s no luxury of developing players, such as the apprenticeship eventual Hall-of-Famer Steve Young served under eventual Hall-of-Famer Joe Montana in San Francisco. If a young player is ready, he’s in. Coaches can’t afford to wait. The 10 job openings this off-season are further evidence that, in an era when teams are spending equally, owners and fans assume you can go from worst to first, and have no patience for rebuilding programs.

The result on the game itself has been corrosive over time. It’s not that there aren’t dynasties anymore, what with New England’s recent three-out-of-four Super Bowls run. It’s just that it often appears a team doesn’t have to be great to win — just error-free.

Look at the 2005 playoffs, which climaxed in one of the least exciting Super Bowls ever. The 2005 Steelers played well at times, but they are not going to be confused with their 1970s dynastic forbears. Their playoffs opponents botched games as much or more as the Steelers won them. When the winning Super Bowl quarterback’s passer rating is lower than his age — especially if he’s only 23 — it’s a sign of something wrong.

This is not to say the lack of a cap will immediately bring back great teams, or make for better football. Initially, teams such as Washington and Dallas that are itching to spend, will, and probably do quite well. There will still be free agency, so it won’t be the case that continuity comes because players aren’t allowed to leave.

But smart organizations will figure out how to make the new system work for them, and be sufficiently rewarded for it. Bad organizations will fumble, either by not spending enough, or by spending money in all the wrong ways, and be sufficiently punished for it.

If a team doesn’t feel like it has a hope of winning, poor-mouthing can only get you so far. In baseball, Oakland and Minnesota win consistently while dealing with the same financial constraints as perennial sad-sacks Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Even worse, because the former two teams don’t have the glistening, new, taxpayer-funded stadiums the latter have.

Baseball needn’t be the NFL’s bogeyman as it faces an uncapped future. Whatever the agreement with the players, however it comes, owners will still have plenty of money to spend. What they — and their supporters — are most afraid of is that in an uncapped environment, some owners might be more tempted than ever to spend unwisely.

The debate about caps is never about keeping the fans’ hope alive. It’s always about owners trying to have the players save them from themselves.

MORE FROM NFL

NFL Section Front

Brady vs. Manning — who has the edge? Cimini: Patriots-Colts greatest NFL rivalry of 2000s     Slideshow: Peyton vs. Brady through the years   Video: Playing 'what if?' with Peyton's career Report: Raiders want to fire coach Tom Cable Eagles-Bears matchup will remain Sunday night game PFT: Rest of league is catching up to Broncos PFT: Tomlinson hints at retiring after this season PFT: Ex-Packer Brown rips McCArthy PFT: Quinn reportedly will start for Browns again NFL Section Front   Add NFL headlines to your news reader: