Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

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.

Agreed...that's where I really scratch my head as to the reasoning behind all this. I draw a very fine line of distinction between what we did and simply having cut them. Both achieve similar results yet it is totally inconceivable to think that we would get punished for having just cut them. So the "competitive advantage" could have been achieved through actions that definitely wouldn't have been subject to sanction. And make no mistake the league's argument is that we gained this "advantage" now and into the future so whether we cut them or did what we did is irrelevant. The result is the same...freed cap space. But in one case it's ok and in another it's not? Hope the league has on its spikes walking that slippery slope.

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.jpgwipe my ass w those
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a161/subdubstp/10000dollarbill1928usdFRONT.jpg
keep the change you filthy animal

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.

Not spending cash in an uncapped year doesn't create additional cap room in the future. This isn't baseball where Pittsburgh can't afford to spend what the Yankees do becuase they don't make enough - because of revenue-sharing all the teams make enough to afford to pay up to the salary floor.

Agreed...that's where I really scratch my head as to the reasoning behind all this. I draw a very fine line of distinction between what we did and simply having cut them. Both achieve similar results yet it is totally inconceivable to think that we would get punished for having just cut them. So the "competitive advantage" could have been achieved through actions that definitely wouldn't have been subject to sanction. And make no mistake the league's argument is that we gained this "advantage" now and into the future so whether we cut them or did what we did is irrelevant. The result is the same...freed cap space. But in one case it's ok and in another it's not? Hope the league has on its spikes walking that slippery slope.

If you give a player $X over Y capped years, you still have to fit the total amount into the caps for those years, and teams have the freedom to decide how much cap hit to take in each of those years. If one year is uncapped, and you dump most of the cap hit into that year, you're essentially getting a good player for very little cap hit in the later years.

If you cut the player, you're not getting the benefit of the player in those future years.

The real point where the Skins got screwed is that if in 2010 anyone had objected or told them there would be action taken based on how they restuctured the contracts, they absolutely would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the 2010 league year in February 2011 instead of holding on to him and trading him for a draft pick. There was no way on earth Haynesworth was going to be on the roster in 2011. The worst punishment that should have come down is to take away a 5th round pick in 2013 (what we got for Haynesworth) and have Hall's contract count $3m against the cap for the next 3 years.

That's the absolute most benefit the Skins have gotten out of restructuring. $36m over 2 years is ridiculous.

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.

Covered this earlier - the league is absolutely NOT going to argue what you wrote above - that would be obvious evidence of collusion.

Graziano speculated as to that based on something someone else wrote, but the logic was full of holes. IIRC, it went like this:

- Reports were that multiple teams complained about the Skins and Cowboy moves
- I can think of three teams that had trouble holding onto players because the franchise tag at those positions went up that year
- Those must be the teams complaining and that must be the reason why

Nevermind the fact that 29 owners voted to ratify the sanctions and that 26 of those 29 benefited at least indirectly from the 3 teams losing their players.

Not spending cash in an uncapped year doesn't create additional cap room in the future. This isn't baseball where Pittsburgh can't afford to spend what the Yankees do becuase they don't make enough - because of revenue-sharing all the teams make enough to afford to pay up to the salary floor.
My statement was solely cash basis, not cap related. Revenue sharing helps but if a team socked away $40 million extra dollars because they didn't have to meet a floor amount that cash is extra that they have directly related to the unfloored year. A team now back in the cap era can use that $40 million cash to over bid against a cap strapped team that still kept the floor based on a gentlemans agreement among the owners.

This is hypothetical only:
2 cash strapped teams go into an unfloored year with $120 million cash available to spend.
Team A uses the unfloored year and spends only 55million in cash
Team B knows the league wants teams to spend at least 75million for competitive reasons, though no rules in effect force them to spend that. They choose to spend the 75million in accordance with the league wishes.
The next year the floor comes back and both teams are bidding for a stud FA WR. Both teams have the same amount of cap room to structure any deal.

Team B for cash reasons wants a longer deal that offers higher incentives and base salaries but can only put 15mil as a cash upfront part of the deal

Team A has the extra cash they saved so they offer a 35 mill cash upfront but lower base salaries and incentives.

Team A gained a competitive bidding advantage simply because they could wave more immediate cash in the player's contract.

Here are most of the 2013 free agents - some of which we could target next year depending on our cap situation.

KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents (http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?option=All&y=2013)

Here are most of the 2013 free agents - some of which we could target next year depending on our cap situation.

KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents (http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?option=All&y=2013)

The position we need is DB and its not that good, considering Revis isn't going to be a FA next year, the jets reworked his contract. Ed Reed is intriguing but that won't happen because he's always threatening retirement and is a raven for life. Quentin Jammer is old. Mike Jenkins is not that good. Brent Grimes will be 30 and is probably going to get signed by the Falcons this offseason. Patrick Willis is supposed to be a FA, according to your list, but again theres no way he leaves the niners, and I'm pretty sure he was resigned by them a year or two ago.

Patrick Willis is supposed to be a FA, according to your list, but again theres no way he leaves the niners, and I'm pretty sure he was resigned by them a year or two ago.

Just saw that, Willis shouldn't be a FA until 2017 - that must be an error.

Just saw that, Willis shouldn't be a FA until 2017 - that must be an error.

Although looking over your list with the WR's, if we need a good slot guy next year, Greg Jennings, Cruz and Amendola are FA's. Although Cruz and Jennings will probably resign, Amendola may not, but he is injury prone so again, poor options for us next year.