CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season

GTripp0012

The owners want a cap. The players are more towards hoping for an uncapped league, but still getting a new deal. IF we reach free agency next year without a cap, the players union has confirmed that they will not go back to having a cap.

Since some owners would just spend, spend, spend in 2010 once they weren't restricted to do so, and others would cut, cut, cut all of their overpayed talent that is currently protected by cap constraints, the most common scenario would be a simple stalemate where it's no longer the interests of the owners to give into the demands of the union. Since the union would have effectively lost their credible threat (the salary cap), there is no harm left for the owners, particularly the small market owners, to lockout the players.

The teams and stadiums are still asset for the owners. The players are expenses. With no CBA in place, it's incredibly profitable for the owners to not have players on payroll. Therefore, it's a lockout because the owners would have the leverage, abscent a CBA.

The best solution would be to come to an agreement to extend the cap before this time next year. Problem is, the players union doesn't feel that they should give up any of the benefits that they won back in 2006, and the Owners thought that deal was totally ridiculous and that Tags caved. The ONLY leverage the players union has to keep the gains they made in 2006 is that 85% of the owners want to prevent an uncapped year at all costs.

Dan Snyder is probably not in that 85%.

Anyway, if you understand the concept of backwards induction, the owners didn't opt out of the CBA two years early just so they could get grabbed by the balls by the Union for an even more ridiculous deal. If they didn't think they could push the players off their 2006 gains by just a little bit, the owners would never have opted out. So, at the very basis, this becomes "how far are the players willing to go in order to ensure work into the future?"

__________________
Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

skinsfan69

I just hope they resolve this. I remember back in 82 and there was no football for like 7-8 weeks. It was just awful and no one wins when there is no football. Then in 87 the owners bought in the scabs. Anyone out there remember the band aid football games?? Ed Rubbert throwing to some guy (forgot his name) that broke all the Redskin single game receiving records. It was just awful. But I'll never ever ever forget that Mon night game against Dallas when Dallas had a bunch of guys cross the picket line and play and they still lost. Gibbs had Tony Robinson running the wishbone, and the defense held Dallas, Tony Dorsett and Danny White to 7 points ( I think), one of the greatest coaching jobs ever by Gibbs and Pettibone.

freddyg12

I remember those games. The movie "The Replacements" is actually based on the Skins scab team of 87. I think the wr's name was Allen.

Hey, don't hope too much for a non-strike year, remember we've won 2 super bowls in strike years!

SBXVII

Here is my issues....It seems there is way too much trun over like others have said. It seems fans get mad at the players when they want to renegotiate a contract prior to time or get mad when a player says I want out(Arrington for one, Cutler, Bolden, CJ, etc) but if a team decides to let a player go prior to the end of his contract simply to meet the CAP no one complains. All parties should be held equally to the contract. The fact that a player can't get out of a contract if he wanted to but any team can cut a player simply at a whim whether they take a penalty for it or not monitary wise is not fair.

I also have issues with paying Rookies millions of dollars when no one knows if they will even work out. I would like to see Rookies start out at perhaps the vet min. for like a 2 or 3 yr stint and perhaps then get the 6 yr deal in the millions.

Another pet peave is that since the CAP started there seems to be no actual team guys. I can remember players playing their whole career with one team. Now your lucky if they resign.

SBXVII

Why can't the owners look at all the other team sports and build an agreement based of of what has worked out best in each of the other sports. My example would be baseball where if an owner goes over his CAP then he is punished monitarily no draft pick. Will it cause other teams to do the same probably but the penalty money can go to the league to be given to the lesser markets.

Set a standardized amount each Rookie can make in his Rookie contract.

The CAP was set up to keep parity in the league. but it's not an issue of whether teams can afford it now. I mean look at some of the teams that had 30 or 40 mill under the CAP and we signed Haynesworth to his deal while just being 14 mill under. Heck we signed AH, Hall, and Dockery. Where were all the other teams who had millions they could have spent....where was Tampa? Cinci? Buffalo? no one stepped up to out bid us on AH. So basically the CAP is BS and it's more about what the owner is willing to spend. but penalizes teams that are willing to spend.

I guess that was their idea of trying to keep the cost down for players each year and not trying to let it get out of hand like the AH contract.

CRedskinsRule

I wish Rookie Pay was better controlled. Draft day would be far more interesting, as teams jockeyed for higher pick trades. as it is now, no one is trading into the number 1 - 5 spots, unless they are in that ball park already.

53Fan

I agree. Getting a top 5 pick is not as attractive as it used to be because of the money. I can understand vets having a problem with this also.

__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"

John Denny

I also agree that there should be a rookie cap. It works well in the NBA.
Now let me ask you this because I wasn't sure if I understood it correctly. We can cut aging players with high salaries during the uncapped year or if there's a lockout and there wont be any hit?

gw0103

Having no cap means getting rid of overpaid underachievers

__________________
REDSKIN4LYFFEE 21 TO GOD

SBXVII

contract is still a contract. DS will be able to pay them and cut them and it won't effect the team other then in DS's pocket. Then "if" the CAP is put back we should be in good shape for the future. That is unless DS gets to mortgaging our future again. Plus the CAP by all accounts would most likely be pushed to a hire number knowing the players are commanding hire salaries now then when it was first put into place.

John Denny

So the Skins could restructure say, Randle El's contract so he makes the remainder of his deal in the uncapped year and then we could cut him without any penalty (other than to DS pocket but who cares about that)

Lotus

As long as it doesn't cancel the Super Bowl. I've never forgiven baseball for not having a World Series. If all of those rich men (owners and players) take it that far, they've lost their minds completely.

__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.

SBXVII

Well I guess it shows how much Baseball knowledge I have. I was simply refering to taking the part about punishment for going over their salary cap. I like it better then the NFL's. However the teams making money would simply say who cares we will pay the fine and move on like the Yankees.