2007 Uncapped Year

[CRT3]

Based on this article in SI it sure looks like this scenario will play out.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...tes/index.html

[SmootSmack]

This is interesting stuff, and someone should post a reply so I might as well be the first...

I have nothing to say. Need to read more about the situation but I just can't see them going to an uncapped year. There's no turning back after that

[Monksdown]

I would love to comment on the article, as it appeared to be interesting. But after 10 PM, my ADD really kicks in, and I realize that i cant see more than 6 months into the future.

[sportscurmudgeon]

The NFLPA had an "uncapped situation" as soon as the Federal Judge ruled that the NFL "limited free agency" was illegal. The NFLPA negotiated away that status in favor of the cap situation. People need to go back and read that last sentence one more time so they might understand the history of the salary cap that exists now.


It is rhetorical flourish to say that if the NFL "ever went uncapped" there is no turning back. They turned back once before and they can do it again.


There IS a Redskin danger here. Given the propsect of an uncapped year, imagine the spending binge that Danny Boy will undertake. Then they will need to conform to a cap. Can you say "Salary Cap Hell"?

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

There IS a Redskin danger here. Given the propsect of an uncapped year, imagine the spending binge that Danny Boy will undertake. Then they will need to conform to a cap. Can you say "Salary Cap Hell"?

I can picture some interesting contracts, actually.

LDS: We'll pay you $50 million this year, thoughwe'll be deferring most of that, and league minimum for the next seven years. What do you say?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

It is rhetorical flourish to say that if the NFL "ever went uncapped" there is no turning back. They turned back once before and they can do it again.

Yeah, well...maybe I was going for "rhetorical flourish". Didn't think about that, now did you?

Curmudgeon, I'm guessing what you were referring to was Plan B Free Agency right? But I must say I didn't realize that there was a cap before then. I thought the cap came after the judge ruled Plan B illegal

[saden1]

From the article:

The union wants the players' salary cap based on teams' total football revenues, rather than the current system

Are they fucking serious? The whole reason the cap exists is to level the playing field. 64% of Redskins revenue is 156.8 million (245 million * 0.64). 64% of Arizona Cardinal's revenue is 83.84 million (131 million * 0.64). This seems like a disastrous idea to me. I'd rather there be NFL labor stoppage.

Forbes : NFL Revenues

[saden1]

Or maybe the want to add up the total teams' revenue and then divide that number by 32 teams and then multiply that number by 64%. If this is what they want then the salary cap would jump to 106.6 million (5330 billion / 32 * 0.64) based on current figures.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by saden1

From the article:



Are they fucking serious? The whole reason the cap exists is to level the playing field. 64% of Redskins revenue is 156.8 million (245 million * 0.64). 64% of Arizona Cardinal's revenue is 83.84 million (131 million * 0.64). This seems like a disastrous idea to me. I'd rather there be NFL labor stoppage.

Forbes : NFL Revenues

I hope they strike, if they do I will bet the farm we win the SB!

2-0 in strike year's baby!:headbange

[bedlamVR]

Any huge increase like what the PFA are looking for will just cause more problems . There are two caps in football the calculated salary cap enforced by the NFL and then the actual amount of money teams can afford to pay out . This would lead to a situation of a splitting fo the teams between the haves and have nots .

[CRT3]

That is exactly the point why they can not come to an agreement. The NFLPA want the haves, such as the Redskins, Cowboys, Texans, to include more of their revenue stream in the calculation. Local advertising, local TV, suites, and club seats are among the items that teams are exempt from sharing. Since Danny and Jerry have come to town they have found ways to raise that revenue stream. Now the players want a share of that to. Since the CBA already states that there will be a no cap year at the end of the agreement, 2007 has always been in play. Thats why I have been constantly stating the Redskins based on there contracts last year and this year have been angling fo the 2007 season. I believe if you ask Crazy he also sees the wisdom in this.

[Skinsfanatic]

If there is an uncapped year, we need to sign all of the players we would like to keep to long term contracts that year. NO SIGNING BONUSES. Huge 1st year money with minimum salaries over the remainders of the contracts. Then, we pay a huge amount one year to keep the core guys we want while arranging for lots of cap space in upcoming years.

For example, take Samuels new contract. Currently he makes 52 million over the next seven years. We could rework his contract to be 46 million in base salary in the uncapped year and 1 million per for the next 6 years. If we take that same type of approach with our top 5 contracts (Samuels, Arrington, Griffin, Portis and Springs **leaving out the Brunell contract for obvious reasons**), then we would play these 5 players around 150 million in base salary in the uncapped year and we get to keep them for another 6 years past the uncapped year at 5 million per year for all 5 of them. Thats around 20-30 million per year in extra cap space that we would save by taking a huge hit in the uncapped year.

Of course, I don't actually think there will be an uncapped year, but here's to delusions of grandeur.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Skinsfanatic

If there is an uncapped year, we need to sign all of the players we would like to keep to long term contracts that year. NO SIGNING BONUSES. Huge 1st year money with minimum salaries over the remainders of the contracts. Then, we pay a huge amount one year to keep the core guys we want while arranging for lots of cap space in upcoming years.

For example, take Samuels new contract. Currently he makes 52 million over the next seven years. We could rework his contract to be 46 million in base salary in the uncapped year and 1 million per for the next 6 years. If we take that same type of approach with our top 5 contracts (Samuels, Arrington, Griffin, Portis and Springs **leaving out the Brunell contract for obvious reasons**), then we would play these 5 players around 150 million in base salary in the uncapped year and we get to keep them for another 6 years past the uncapped year at 5 million per year for all 5 of them. Thats around 20-30 million per year in extra cap space that we would save by taking a huge hit in the uncapped year.

Of course, I don't actually think there will be an uncapped year, but here's to delusions of grandeur.

I was just going to post the same idea. Sign everyone to long term deals with it heavily loaded in the '07 season.

Seems like the league is asking for trouble, I'm sure Snyder is drooling at the idea of an uncapped year.

[saden1]

What happens if one of those players gets disgruntled? ala Coles.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I was just going to post the same idea. Sign everyone to long term deals with it heavily loaded in the '07 season.

Seems like the league is asking for trouble, I'm sure Snyder is drooling at the idea of an uncapped year.

LDS wouldn't even have to come up with the cash. I believe he could defer payment of the base salary over the length of the deal - Samuels would count for 46 million, but he could still get paid 6-7 million a year.

The uncapped year is perhaps the greatest potential boon to players currently in the league - ever. 2008 rookies will do better as well, since current players will all average, oh, league minimum if the system is abused to its full advantage. A free agent in 2007 will actually walk around making "cha-ching" noises.