Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.

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.

yeah disagree, nothing about Skins organization or fan base I would discribe as desperate.

Actually yeah...desperate wasn't the right word. Petty is more accurate.

You: "But judge ... everybody else was [cheating on the test, speeding, running a bounty system, circumventing the cap, etc.] it's unfair just to punish me b/c I got caught"

Judge: Oh ... you have a "Life is Fair" card. Great, just bring it up here and show it to me ... What? You don't have one of those? Guilty.


Yes your honor, I do have one of those cards. Several of them in fact.

*reaches in back pocket*


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4TpCGGKlB4Q/TLajvec84lI/AAAAAAAADiY/UlVH5WYihTU/s1600/1000-bill-front1.jpg

At this point, I've grown tired of the whole thing...whatever happens will happen...'skins will get over it and move on.

I was done about 59 pages ago, lol

Yes... our best moral argument is that we shouldn't be punished for doing something that was not against any documented rules. Arguing that other teams are getting or have gotten away with similar tactics is a losing argument because it is wrong.

I'd like to point out that I strongly believe we've been screwed. I just don't think we were screwed in the manner that some of you seem think we were. The emotional arguments are not going to get us anywhere. Stick to the facts...we did not do anything wrong.

I'll agree with you on this. But the league is going to argue that we were causing salaries to go up or salaries for other players cause we were paying our two so much money in such a short amount of time.

But no one cared that PManning got a $100 mill contract? That clearly raised QB salaries especially to any team who had a QB with similar skills, ie; Saints, Giants, and Patriots.

Then there is the $100mill contract for AH. No one complained about that contract being too much for a player and how it would cause a rise in salaries to that positions and possibly force some teams to not be able to sign their DL.

The whole arguement is BS that the league is making. Lets throw their cards on the table..... they didn't want any one team going out this year and picking up all the good Free Agent talent screwing other teams from either keeping their player or keeping other teams from being able to compete for those players. The owners pissed and moaned and the Exec Committe along with Goodell came up with a cock eyed way of shafting the Skins and keeping them from using the full $36mill in CAP space that they would have used.

You: "But judge ... everybody else was [cheating on the test, speeding, running a bounty system, circumventing the cap, etc.] it's unfair just to punish me b/c I got caught"

Judge: Oh ... you have a "Life is Fair" card. Great, just bring it up here and show it to me ... What? You don't have one of those? Guilty.


lol.... trust me people do use that excuse. Just go to court one day and watch all those people who got a ticket for speeding asking the officer's why he didn't stop all the other cars who were speeding also.

Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.


I'd guess:

Less spent money means more pocket money
They didn't spend as much on players as the other teams
They tried to spend less in order to keep salaries down for their advantage

The key issue has been brought up over and over. The reason for an uncapped year was to force the two sides to work harder to come to an agreement in order to keep either side from feeling like they were getting screwed during the uncapped period. In this case neither side could agree, both sides let it get to an uncapped year. Heck the owners wanted an uncapped year and even Locked out the players.

So what is the fear of an uncapped year?

Players: owners not spending as much and keeping more of their money.
Owners: other owners spending $$$ on players raising salaries and CAP.

But that is exactly why the uncapped year was put in place to help force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the uncapped year. It didn't happen. So two teams take advantage of the uncapped year and the league has issue's with the fact. Guess what they never should have let it go to an uncapped year. Basically what it is is the owners wanted their cake and to eat it too. Uncapped year, change in some of the rules, Rookie salary CAP, force the NFLPA to agree to their demands, AND no one team spending too much.

Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.

Like you said, saving cash in an Unfloored year allows a team to restructure a contract and give upfront cash in a later year. Does it mean the saints, for example couldn't have come up with the cash for Vilma, who knows, but certainly if a team saved cash, accrued interest on that cash, etc etc, they did brighten their balance sheet for years when the floor and cap were back in place.

None of this is relevant to the arbitrator, but it just points to the hypocrisy of this particular sanction, which I put more on Mara than I do on Goodell. I don't believe Goodell ever would have acted on this just on his own.

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.

Like you said, saving cash in an Unfloored year allows a team to restructure a contract and give upfront cash in a later year. Does it mean the saints, for example couldn't have come up with the cash for Vilma, who knows, but certainly if a team saved cash, accrued interest on that cash, etc etc, they did brighten their balance sheet for years when the floor and cap were back in place.

None of this is relevant to the arbitrator, but it just points to the hypocrisy of this particular sanction, which I put more on Mara than I do on Goodell. I don't believe Goodell ever would have acted on this just on his own.

I agree about Goodell. The whole situation screams vindictiveness and I think Goodell generally seems astute enough to have not pursued this without being ordered to. I really don't think he would have done this in this manner on his own. He's carrying out his order from the EMC because that's what employees do. Especially ones with million dollar salaries on the line.