CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season

[CRedskinsRule]

The main benefit every team wants from an uncapped year is to get rid of dead weight contracts. But there was a very good quote from a GM (#3 in the article) that basically said - if teams are not writing contracts with one eye on an uncapped year they are being stupid. Every contract the Skins have written so far seems to include language specifically designed to protect the team either way.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The main benefit every team wants from an uncapped year is to get rid of dead weight contracts. But there was a very good quote from a GM (#3 in the article) that basically said - if teams are not writing contracts with one eye on an uncapped year they are being stupid. Every contract the Skins have written so far seems to include language specifically designed to protect the team either way.

Good, we can get rid off players who are just taking up space.

[70Chip]

Is it possible to move future dead cap money into the uncapped year? There must be some way the Redskins can use it to get well.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by 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

I stopped reading the moment I read Baseball.

The Baseball system is horrible if you don't live in a top ten market.

Parity is very very important.

It's the very reason why the NFL is so great and MLB sucks baseBALLS.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I stopped reading the moment I read Baseball.

The Baseball system is horrible if you don't live in a top ten market.

Parity is very very important.

It's the very reason why the NFL is so great and MLB sucks baseBALLS.

How are you defining top 10 market

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How are you defining top 10 market

Top ten payroll's I guess. Most are obviously the biggest metropolitan areas in America, but some mid-sized cities with massive baseball traditions can afford to pay high end rosters.

Baseball's system works very very well for all the owners because even if you are a small market team and can't realistically compete you still get paid a massive portion of shared add revenues.

Also there have been seven different World Series champs in the last eight years, but one thing is for certain.

Teams in the bottom 1/3 in payroll have around a ten percent chance of making the postseason according to the stats in an article I read recently.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Top ten payroll's I guess. Most are obviously the biggest metropolitan areas in America, but some mid-sized cities with massive baseball traditions can afford to pay high end rosters.

Baseball's system works very very well for all the owners because even if you are a small market team and can't realistically compete you still get paid a massive portion of shared add revenues.

Also there have been seven different World Series champs in the last eight years, but one thing is for certain.

Teams in the bottom 1/3 in payroll have around a ten percent chance of making the postseason according to the stats in an article I read recently.

I see. I guess I just see all the different teams making it to and in some cases winning the World Series and I see teams like Minnesota, Colorado, Florida, San Diego, Tampa Bay having some post season success and I wasn't sure where you were coming from.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I stopped reading the moment I read Baseball.

The Baseball system is horrible if you don't live in a top ten market.

Parity is very very important.

It's the very reason why the NFL is so great and MLB sucks baseBALLS.

Wildly inaccurate. Horrendous post dude, especially considering this post preceded yours:

http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap...tml#post539379

Recent winners or runners-up in the World Series:
- Florida Marlins
- Colorado Rockies
- Tampa Bay Rays
- Detroit Tigers

Meanwhile the team with by far the most bloated payroll in baseball, the Yankees, hasn't made the series since 2003.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Wildly inaccurate. Horrendous post dude, especially considering this post preceded yours:

http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap...tml#post539379

Recent winners or runners-up in the World Series:
- Florida Marlins
- Colorado Rockies
- Tampa Bay Rays
- Detroit Tigers

Meanwhile the team with by far the most bloated payroll in baseball, the Yankees, hasn't made the series since 2003.

Well a while ago I posted a comparison between baseball and football's championship games to see how many big market vs. small market teams had made to the championship game in each sport. While lately small market/low payroll teams in MLS have made it to the World Series, the NFL still has a larger number of small market/low payroll teams making it to the Superbowl over the past 20 years. I'll try to dig that up when I get home.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Wildly inaccurate. Horrendous post dude, especially considering this post preceded yours:

http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap...tml#post539379

Recent winners or runners-up in the World Series:
- Florida Marlins
- Colorado Rockies
- Tampa Bay Rays
- Detroit Tigers

Meanwhile the team with by far the most bloated payroll in baseball, the Yankees, hasn't made the series since 2003.

Tell that to the fans of the three other teams in the AL East besides the Yankees and the Red Sox. Once in a decade the Rays finally put together a strong team because they were able to stockpile lots of young talent.

Yes some small market teams have had success recently in baseball, but it has been very short term success every time.

MLB is desperate for people to think that there is competitive balance, but there really isn't.

Just because the Yanks are run by idiots doesn't mean a team with a massive payroll doesn't have a huge advantage.

You argue that the Yanks prove that spending more doesn't translate.
Have a look at the Red Sox.

Maybe the baseball system is really starting to work because of the large percentage of revenue sharing, but I still think it's mostly a mirage.

It's not impossible for small market teams to compete for a short term, but they would have had to make all the right decisions for an extended period of building compared to the big spenders who can reload every single year and it's even harder for them to keep a team together because once they get good those young star players will more than likely end up in a bigger market.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

Tell that to the fans of the three other teams in the AL East besides the Yankees and the Red Sox. Once in a decade the Rays finally put together a strong team because they were able to stockpile lots of young talent.

Yes some small market teams have had success recently in baseball, but it has been very short term success every time.

MLB is desperate for people to think that there is competitive balance, but there really isn't.

Just because the Yanks are run by idiots doesn't mean a team with a massive payroll doesn't have a huge advantage.

You argue that the Yanks prove that spending more doesn't translate.
Have a look at the Red Sox.

Maybe the baseball system is really starting to work because of the large percentage of revenue sharing, but I still think it's mostly a mirage.

It's not impossible for small market teams to compete for a short term, but they would have had to make all the right decisions for an extended period of building compared to the big spenders who can reload every single year and it's even harder for them to keep a team together because once they get good those young star players will more than likely end up in a bigger market.

And not so coincidentally, MLB's revenue sharing agreement and luxury tax system went into effect just as those small market teams started doing better.

I can't argue in favor of baseball's old system sans revenue sharing, but ever since they put that in place, it's been a tremendous equalizer.

You seem to have completely forgotten that not-so-little detail.