NLFPA Sends Memo Preparing Agents for Uncapped Year

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

I've been thinking about this myself for awhile now. What would be the advantages for the Skins in an uncapped year?

I'm of the mind that we could use the second year of the Shan-a-Allen regime to solidify for the future, and shed what's left of the Gibbs II, Vinny, and Zorn eras.

Most importantly shed contracts that are cap killers. With Samuels, Randy Thomas, ARE, Andre Carter, Moss and Landry contract structures, release or trade was basically an impossibility (not sure how Samuels or Thomas' retirement would've affected the cap tho). Not sure of the guarantees or new structure of Portis' contract but it opens up options with him also. This uncapped year allows us to clean up some of the contractual messes that could've eventually put us in cap hell (if the cap returns).

Not to mention, being the # 1 or #2 revenue team in the NFL we can win a bidding war for a most UFAs if need be.

[MTK]

Definitely a great chance to shed those overpriced aging vets.

You can't go totally buck wild signing free agents though, teams are setting self imposed caps in order to account for the cap if/when it comes back.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

If I understood Smith's argument, it is that the lower end teams are not using all the available supplemental funds and thus paying less total salary. Well that was what the salary floor was supposed to enforce, that every team met the minimums, not meet the minimum floor + use all available supplemental funds. Now that there is no floor, I don't quite understand the argument that the lower end teams have to spend all that is allocated, since theoretically the could sign each player to a vet minimum deal. Further, Smith said they were going to be watching the deals to see that player salaries didn't decline in an uncapped year, but again uncapped also means no floor, and I think more teams will take advantage of that fact rather than looking to break the bank on players, heck I don't really even expect us to break the bank, and that is not what the NFLPA expected at all.

thats what i am not sure about either but my take on it is that the NFLPA back when this deal was struck in 93 (?) made a provision for the uncapped year to protect against cheap low rev teams from not spending any money on players (in the uncapped year = no floor) by forcing high rev teams to give to the low rev teams so that low rev teams couldnt say they didnt have the money.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Definitely a great chance to shed those overpriced aging vets.

You can't go totally buck wild signing free agents though, teams are setting self imposed caps in order to account for the cap if/when it comes back.

That's why I'm so happy we have some intelligent people running the ship now.

[SmootSmack]

A lot of people are saying this really isn't going to be about owners vs. players. It's more owners vs. owners, high rev vs. low rev

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

A lot of people are saying this really isn't going to be about owners vs. players. It's more owners vs. owners, high rev vs. low rev

Isn't that what the last cba was about and basically the high rev side capitulated. I don't think they are gonna cave this time.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Definitely a great chance to shed those overpriced aging vets.

You can't go totally buck wild signing free agents though, teams are setting self imposed caps in order to account for the cap if/when it comes back.

Not to mention if you trade a guy in a couple of years.. nobody wants some monster contract to take over

[Ruhskins]

I don't know if this was asked before, but if a team signs a free agent this season, can they front load a lot of the money for that uncapped year? Just curious.