Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?

There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.

What this is really about is that owners are upset that the deals made during the uncapped year and the money that was freed up for use this year by the cowboys and redskins would lead to some big time, high dollar contracts. This raises the cost of the franchise tag. Guys have brought up that no one is punishing the owners that spent less than the cap floor. That creates a competitive discrepancy yet there is no talk of punishment for that.

This has nothing to do with competitive advantage, it has to do with cheaper owners wanting to compete without having to spend.

This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!

The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.

The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.

One relevant point is that 29 other owners felt like they had agreed something but 2 others broke the agreement. Whether the 'Skins have been treated fairly or not, they are part of a 32-member club that has power to kick you out with 24 votes, and pissing off 29 other members may or may not be terribly clever.

Which may be correct but is entirely irrelevant.

Seeing as they argue that it hurts the future aka the current cap and cba... is there any language in the current cba agreed upon by both sides as pertaining to the matter? If there was I'd think that we would have heard about it by now.

There are so many holes in the NFL's argument it is crazy.

Did any teams gain a competitive advantage? No. Did any teams use their rightful opportunity to gain future cap space within the spirit and rule of the uncapped year? Absolutely. It's not a competitive advantage if the other teams had the opportunity to conduct similar business...they had the right at that time to do what they did as did every other team.

Going back to alleviate the "competitive advantage" they chose to take is crap. Perhaps procedurally the NFL has the ability to do so but that is a very slippery slope to walk. I'd be tremendously concerned if I was an owner that my other "partners" would now feel emboldened to take similar actions against me. Where is the line? Why is there currently a line between restructures and new contracts? Why is there a line between the cap savings gained via LESS spending in the uncapped year versus MORE? The distinctions are incredibly dubious to me. Why is one form of "competitive advantage" acceptable but another is not. Will that same competitive advantage still be proper next year? Will the NFL decide it wasn't and ding me for it later?

They were not creating a competitive advantage anyway. They were fixing previous mistakes. To create a competitive advantage they would have to gain more cap space room than the rest of the teams in the league.

The way things were at the start of free agency:

Jacksonville Jaguars (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/jac/jacksonville-jaguars) $45 million
Kansas City Chiefs (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/kc/kansas-city-chiefs) $62.995 million
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/tb/tampa-bay-buccaneers), $60.496 million.
Cincinnati Bengals (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/cin/cincinnati-bengals) $60 million [/URL]
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/den/denver-broncos"]Denver Broncos (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) $50.735 million
San Francisco 49ers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/sf/san-francisco-49ers) $39.33 million
Atlanta Falcons (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/atl/atlanta-falcons) $30.6 million
New England Patriots (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ne/new-england-patriots) $20 million

So, the Redskins had ~$36million in cap room and a history of using all their cap space without producing playoff teams. Seems to me that the league would need to show a definitive statistical link between spending and playoff wins to even begin to make the competitive advantage argument. Then, they are still be left with the fact that the moves the skins and cowboys made didn't put them ahead of the other teams in the league with regards to cap space anyway.

They were not creating a competitive advantage anyway. They were fixing previous mistakes. To create a competitive advantage they would have to gain more cap space room than the rest of the teams in the league.

The way things were at the start of free agency:

Jacksonville Jaguars (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/jac/jacksonville-jaguars) $45 million
Kansas City Chiefs (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/kc/kansas-city-chiefs) $62.995 million
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/tb/tampa-bay-buccaneers), $60.496 million.
Cincinnati Bengals (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/cin/cincinnati-bengals) $60 million [/URL]
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/den/denver-broncos"]Denver Broncos (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) $50.735 million
San Francisco 49ers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/sf/san-francisco-49ers) $39.33 million
Atlanta Falcons (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/atl/atlanta-falcons) $30.6 million
New England Patriots (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ne/new-england-patriots) $20 million

So, the Redskins had ~$36million in cap room and a history of using all their cap space without producing playoff teams. Seems to me that the league would need to show a definitive statistical link between spending and playoff wins to even begin to make the competitive advantage argument. Then, they are still be left with the fact that the moves the skins and cowboys made didn't put them ahead of the other teams in the league with regards to cap space anyway.

EXACTLY!!!! Great post! How can the league say the Redskins and Cowboys were trying to create a competitive advantage over other teams when there are quite a few other teams in the league that have much bigger cap space?

EXACTLY!!!! Great post! How can the league say the Redskins and Cowboys were trying to create a competitive advantage over other teams when there are quite a few other teams in the league that have much bigger cap space?
Makes it seem like it goes back to divisional in fighting, all though I can't see 29 teams siding with the current SB winner

They were not creating a competitive advantage anyway. They were fixing previous mistakes. To create a competitive advantage they would have to gain more cap space room than the rest of the teams in the league.

The way things were at the start of free agency:

Jacksonville Jaguars (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/jac/jacksonville-jaguars) $45 million
Kansas City Chiefs (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/kc/kansas-city-chiefs) $62.995 million
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/tb/tampa-bay-buccaneers), $60.496 million.
Cincinnati Bengals (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/cin/cincinnati-bengals) $60 million [/URL]
[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/den/denver-broncos"]Denver Broncos (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) $50.735 million
San Francisco 49ers (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/sf/san-francisco-49ers) $39.33 million
Atlanta Falcons (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/atl/atlanta-falcons) $30.6 million
New England Patriots (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/ne/new-england-patriots) $20 million

So, the Redskins had ~$36million in cap room and a history of using all their cap space without producing playoff teams. Seems to me that the league would need to show a definitive statistical link between spending and playoff wins to even begin to make the competitive advantage argument. Then, they are still be left with the fact that the moves the skins and cowboys made didn't put them ahead of the other teams in the league with regards to cap space anyway.

They can make whatever argument they want. They don't have to prove a competitive advantage. They had no ADVANTAGE. Every other team had the opportunity to do the same if they pleased. They all agreed to not do it. Their loss.

If 9 of my closest friends and I are offered a pile of money to split evenly amongst ourselves and 8 decide they don't want to take it then they can't change their mind and come back in 2 years and file a lawsuit claiming I stole their money. I mean they can but they'd most likely get thrown out of court. Now can the NFL and it's owners do the similar? Perhaps procedurally they can. But that doesn't make it right.

EXACTLY!!!! Great post! How can the league say the Redskins and Cowboys were trying to create a competitive advantage over other teams when there are quite a few other teams in the league that have much bigger cap space?

While I DO NOT think the Redskins did anything wrong, they did create a competitive advantage for themselves. In theory, the cap should allow all teams to be competitive for a short time, then they will lose some players and have to retool due to the cap. It may not have given us an immediate advantage, but it most certainly gave us the possibility of being more competitive in the future.

The Redskins hamstrung themselves with contracts and used the uncapped year to alleviate that strain. That is where the competitive balance comes into play. The reason why it isn't an issue for many of those other teams, is they didn't have to drastically drop cap space to get where they were -- we did. The salary cap it an attempt to keep players moving and force teams to be careful with their money, we violated 'the spirit' of that philosophy.

That said -- the Redskins did nothing wrong and it was a very, very smart move. Even if the penalty stands, which I severely doubt it will -- it gave us a significant amount of manuverability. I see no real difference between restructuring deals and tossing huge salaries for new FAs into that single year -- the end result is the same, keeping your future cap number down while paying some high-priced players.