PDA

View Full Version : Ok someone help me out here



Dortoh
12-17-2008, 06:39 PM
This is probably the wrong place for this but I'm putting it here for now anyway since there is more activity here. If I'm breaking the rules my birthday is in December if you need to take it away as punishment.

Someone explain how an uncapped year would work in the NFL. Do you have a resident cap expert or something?

Is it like baseball where the richest teams can just buy everyone they want. Is there any regulation to protect against that.

We have alot of FA's in 2010 I believe.

NameUsedBefore
12-17-2008, 06:44 PM
Is it like baseball where the richest teams can just buy everyone they want. Is there any regulation to protect against that.

I think it is like that, yeah.

*Although I'd bet contracts would still be worked out under the assumption a cap could return, or with some sort of stipulation for its return.

Hobe
12-17-2008, 06:45 PM
A very good question! Anyone got the scope?

D1g1tal j1m
12-17-2008, 06:55 PM
Good read about what may happen (based on a Redskins' point of view)
Uncapped 2010 (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2008/05/the_mysterious_uncapped_year.html)

The Mysterious Uncapped Year

Things are quiet in Skins-land, with a lull in the schedule before OTAs resume in June, so I thought I'd open it up on th4e topic du jour in the NFL - the possibility of a work stoppage and, prior to that, an uncapped year. I don't see either of these things happening, and I'm going to give the owners the benefit of the doubt that they don't maim the golden goose, but Lorenzo sent me an interesting email today and I thought it made sense to discuss on the blog during these lazy days of May.

Okay, unless you've been living a sequestered life limited to changing diapers and dispensing rations of band-aids and medicine you've no doubt heard the news that the NFL owners might opt out of the current CBA with the players during meetings this week. Okay, so what does this mean?

Well, for one, the current CBA that is supposed to run through 2013 would now cease after the 2011 season, and, as such, the 2010 season would be uncapped. But don't get too excited. Sure, Joe Gibbs would go on and on about how that without that pesky salary cap Dan Snyder would no doubt buy a dynasty, but even if the owners opt out today, that uncapped year is far from a certainty.

An early opt out most likely will be the first step towards an early return to the bargaining table as both sides try to has out a new CBA. And that process - again, giving both sides the benefit of the doubt - could very likely result in a new labor deal well prior to 2010. A resolution like that would negate the uncapped year. (I see the process unfolding in this manner).

Should there be no new CBA by 2010 and that off season be uncapped, there are some provisions in place to keep things from getting completely bonkers. Free agents would need 6 years of service and not 4 to hit the open market, for instance. But, in the long term, I think if we ever hit uncapped year the owners will never go back to a cap, and the game could be changed forever, for the worse in my opinion.

It will be exceedingly difficult to force teams that have spent immensely in 2010 to then comply with a new cap whenever NFL play resumes, in whatever form. Once that box opens, look out. Now, from a Redskins perspective they would undoubtedly be heavy spenders - they've already spent $40 million more on players since 2000 than any other NFL team - but no cap hardly ensures the richest guy wins. Pro sports ain't that simple.

Throwing globs of money at players without a cap would allow you to purchase some serious depth, perhaps, but chemistry and front-office acumen and cohesion and leadership has never been for sale to the best of my knowledge. Watching that off season leading up to an uncapped 2010 season sure would be an interesting socio-economic experiment if nothing else. It would be a novelty for this generation of players, and a good portion of the owners as well.

Hard to see it as being the best thing for the game, what with the competitive balance, general import of most NFL games and the allure of being able to come from the depths of the league to a champion in short order intrinsically tied to what made this league a behemoth in the first place. But, for those of you who still pine for Coach Joe, an uncapped year might be about the only thing to get him to considered his retirement as well.

By Jason La Canfora | May 19, 2008; 1:07 PM ET

D1g1tal j1m
12-17-2008, 07:02 PM
NFL.com view (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true&campaign=ec0005)

Uncapped years would actually limit free agency
Pat Kirwan
Senior Analyst

Now that NFL owners have voted unanimously to end their agreement with the players' union in 2011, they still have all of 2008 and 2009 to negotiate a new CBA before the "trigger" points that are in place to encourage negotiations would fire and things wouldn't be as we know them today.

The one factor fans have heard the most about is that 2010 and 2011 would be "uncapped" years. But there are three main trigger points that will go off in 2010 if there isn't a new CBA in place, and they may offset the fear of life with no salary cap. They are: 1) free agency will require six years of service (instead of four years in 2010 and five years in 2011); 2) teams will have three tags to use to restrict free agents instead of one tag, as they do now; and 3) teams that go deep in the playoffs could have some spending restrictions.

Let's take a look at the practical side of these three concepts to get a better understanding of just what they mean to the players and the clubs:
Longer to hit free agency

To get a clearer picture, let's see what this year's free-agency period would have looked like if players needed more than four years of service to reach the open market.

Let's start with the Tennessee Titans. They lost defensive ends Travis LaBoy (Arizona) and Antwan Odom (Cincinnati) as well as guard Jacob Bell (St. Louis). The three players signed for a combined total of $87.5 million ($32 million guaranteed). If the extension on time to free agency was in place, none of these players would have been free. All of them had just four years of service and would have remained Titans for upwards of two more years. The Titans would have probably changed their draft strategy and not gone after defensive linemen Jason Jones or William Hayes and could have taken a receiver or a corner.

Other players that never would have seen a big payday: Michael Turner, who signed a $34.5 million deal ($15 million guaranteed) with Atlanta, would still be LaDainian Tomlinson's backup in San Diego; Gibril Wilson would still be a Giant; D.J. Hackett a Seahawk.

Teams have gotten very smart about the type of players they pay in free agency. They target young players four or five years removed from college that are approaching the big second contract in their careers. That group would be eliminated if teams vote not to continue the current CBA and it gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011.

All you have to do to realize how lean the free agent market will be is go back and look at all the players from the 2005 draft who signed five-year deals, all the players from the 2006 draft who signed four-year deals and even players from the 2007 draft who signed four-year deals. None of these players, under the non-CBA trigger points, would be eligible for unrestricted free agency when their originals contracts expire. Here are some examples of whom it might affect if the owners choose not to continue the current CBA and a new CBA isn't negotiated:

Second-round picks from 2006 such as DeMeco Ryans, D'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh, Thomas Howard, Deuce Lutui, LenDale White, Cedric Griffin, Marcus McNeill, Greg Jennings, and Tarvaris Jackson should be the core of the free-agent market in 2010, but unless they have the ability to "void" their contracts, they will not be free as planned. They would stay with their teams as restricted free agents and it might mean two more years of service before they experience the big payday.

The 2007 draft, especially in the second and third rounds, already has a number of budding stars such as Justin Blalock, Trent Edwards, Eric Wright, James Jones, Tony Ugoh, Samson Satele, Sidney Rice, Steve Smith, David Harris, Zach Miller, LaMarr Woodley, Brandon Mebane, and Arron Sears, to name a few. All are scheduled to be free in 2011, but all would fall short of the five years of service required under the trigger points.

There are at least another 30 to 50 quality young players from later rounds of the '06 and '07 drafts who will not see free agency -- players such as Elvis Dumervil, Willie Colon, Dawan Landry, and Antoine Bethea from 2006, and Marshal Yanda, Kevin Boss, Michael Bush, Cliff Ryan, and Tanard Jackson from '07.
Three tags instead of one

Currently, a team can put either a franchise tag (average of the top five salaries at his position) or a transition tag (average of the top ten salaries at his position) on any one player on the club to protect the team from losing the unrestricted free agent. If the NFL gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011, teams will have use of one franchise tag and two transition tags. So not only would none of the young players with less than six years of service be free, but now the top three players who are eligible for free agency on a roster can be protected.

If this situation existed in 2008, a team like Pittsburgh -- which used a transition tag to retain OT Max Starks -- could have also tagged Alan Faneca with either a transition or franchise tag if it so desired. If every team in the league used one or two tags, not even the three they would possess, it could take another 40 quality free agents off the market.

There is speculation teams would not overuse this trigger because so many of their quality younger players would not be free to depart.
Playoff restrictions

If the league gets to the point of an uncapped year, people are afraid that deep-pocket owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder will come in and buy a championship. If the aggressive owners already have playoff teams, there will be restrictions on how much money they can spend. The formula may slide with the number of players they lose in free agency, but the plan is designed to not let teams buy a championship. The truth is, the first two triggers aren't going to leave too many players available to acquire anyway.

Time will tell, but I think the NFL and the NFLPA will negotiate a new CBA before we ever get to 2010. I also believe a number of the players looking at the prospect of 2010 and 2011 being uncapped and preventing them from being free agents will try to sign long-term extensions with their teams in the near future.

And don't think all the trigger points favor the clubs, because there are other things -- like the end of the NFL draft in 2011 -- which the league doesn't necessarily want to see. And the emergence of a new league could complicate matters. If the owners decide not to continue the CBA this week, all is not lost. There is time, and there are triggers in place, to get this solved.

Shazam!
12-17-2008, 10:18 PM
I think the Players Union and the NFL will come to some kind of terms. IMO I doubt it will come to this.

Lonestar
12-17-2008, 10:45 PM
I do not see unlimited spending even by the biggie teams especially with the economy in shambles.. One of the first thing to go in discrepancy spending and business may be getting less chances to deduct them as expenses ,,

Pat has already cut back and they have not hit the cap ceiling the past two years IIRC.. TV contracts and seat revenues are not going to keep going on forever..

Heard the other day that the NFL cut a couple hundred people from the home office..

Fan in Exile
12-18-2008, 10:18 AM
As much as I enjoy mock drafts and the like I wouldn't mind it if the nfl draft went away and guys just off their three years in college could be free agents. I think that's a much better way of dividing up the talent. It would also help even out the money that gets spent of rookies if we allowed some competition into it.

studbucket
12-18-2008, 10:48 AM
One thing the articles (as good as they are) also fail to mention is that the players would lose all other forms of benefits they currently enjoy including insurance, retire plans, and other things that many people have at regular jobs. By agreeing to go into an uncapped year, the players have the potential to make more money, but will also have higher expenses.

All in all, it's not nearly as attractive or enticing to the players as some people think it is (or so I've heard), but I still hope everything is ironed out before then.