Uncapped season realistic but not as scary as it sounds

[Steve O]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ings/index.html

 

Tried the search button, could not find where this had been discussed, apologies if I missed something.

 

Cliff notes version owners are prepared for 2010 to be uncapped. This is not nearly as beneficial to players or beneficial to "rich" teams as one might think. Would require 6 years before FA eligilibity, final 4 and final 2 restrictions on acquiring free agents, teams would be able to use both franchise and transition tag in same year, various other safeguards to prevent a doomsday scenario for small market teams.

[VOR]

No salary floor either.

[plenzmd1]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ings/index.html

 

Tried the search button, could not find where this had been discussed, apologies if I missed something.

 

Cliff notes version owners are prepared for 2010 to be uncapped. This is not nearly as beneficial to players or beneficial to "rich" teams as one might think. Would require 6 years before FA eligilibity, final 4 and final 2 restrictions on acquiring free agents, teams would be able to use both franchise and transition tag in same year, various other safeguards to prevent a doomsday scenario for small market teams.

 

I read that article, and I usually like Banks, but damn he souded like a schill for the owners. Maybe everything he said is true, but remember that was one side of the story. All of his "sources" were GM's, who quite naturally are making it sound like the players are in trouble and get to bargaining before they kill the golden goose. I would like to hear how DeMaurice Smith might paint the picture in a different light from the players perspective.

[nucci]

I read that article, and I usually like Banks, but damn he souded like a schill for the owners. Maybe everything he said is true, but remember that was one side of the story. All of his "sources" were GM's, who quite naturally are making it sound like the players are in trouble and get to bargaining before they kill the golden goose. I would like to hear how DeMaurice Smith might paint the picture in a different light from the players perspective.

He may have sounded like that, but those are the facts when the CBA expires. They are mostly in favor of the owners and does restrict player movement.

[VOR]

He may have sounded like that, but those are the facts when the CBA expires. They are mostly in favor of the owners and does restrict player movement.

Yeah, those are the main points. Some 150 players who otherwise would have been UFA's won't be able to become one. That's huge! And 32 more players can potentially be restricted by the franchise or transition tag (won't happen, but given the number of franchise tags used this year...). Meanwhile some teams can just sit-out FA and spend well below what they were required to do in the past.

[plenzmd1]

He may have sounded like that, but those are the facts when the CBA expires. They are mostly in favor of the owners and does restrict player movement.

 

Absolutely, but the players may have a different point of view is all. I know I heard listening to Sirius(can't remeber who it was) talking about the "warchest" the union has been building anticipating the lockout. This guy also went on about 10 or so owner finances who would be crushed with debt service. And BTW, I am not buying that a lockout is a "force majeaur" event. After all, it will be the owners lockong out the players, so I cannot see the debt service going away. Take our favorite whipping boy Danny Snyder. Danny is making some serios coin on hte Redskins, his Six Flags investment is getting crushed, etc. Yes, he may be wealthy, but going a year without revenue from Fedex and the networks gunna put a serios hurting on that boy.

 

In short, all I am saying is that is the owners side, the players have a side too and it will be why an uncapped year is GREAT for them.

[ChasBB]

When the Bills were making all those repeat Super Bowl appearances, weren't those uncapped seasons, too?! Just goes to show that a small market team CAN have success w/o salary caps.

[300yrds]

When the Bills were making all those repeat Super Bowl appearances, weren't those uncapped seasons, too?! Just goes to show that a small market team CAN have success w/o salary caps.

 

we also had one of the highest salaries in the league and where one of a handful of teams to renegotiate contracts when the cap was put into place

[Fingon]

Absolutely, but the players may have a different point of view is all. I know I heard listening to Sirius(can't remeber who it was) talking about the "warchest" the union has been building anticipating the lockout. This guy also went on about 10 or so owner finances who would be crushed with debt service. And BTW, I am not buying that a lockout is a "force majeaur" event. After all, it will be the owners lockong out the players, so I cannot see the debt service going away. Take our favorite whipping boy Danny Snyder. Danny is making some serios coin on hte Redskins, his Six Flags investment is getting crushed, etc. Yes, he may be wealthy, but going a year without revenue from Fedex and the networks gunna put a serios hurting on that boy.

 

In short, all I am saying is that is the owners side, the players have a side too and it will be why an uncapped year is GREAT for them.

The networks have to pay the NFL even if there is a lockout. The money those networks pay will then be deducted from the following years of the contract. The league can count on at least $1 billion in revenue from DirecTV.

[nucci]

Whether fair or not, the owners usually can hold out much longer than the players.

[plenzmd1]

The networks have to pay the NFL even if there is a lockout. The money those networks pay will then be deducted from the following years of the contract. The league can count on at least $1 billion in revenue from DirecTV.

 

WOW, that I did not know. Man, the NFL has some serious juice eh??

[nucci]

Yeah, those are the main points. Some 150 players who otherwise would have been UFA's won't be able to become one. That's huge! And 32 more players can potentially be restricted by the franchise or transition tag (won't happen, but given the number of franchise tags used this year...). Meanwhile some teams can just sit-out FA and spend well below what they were required to do in the past.

I think after one year of this, the players would be in a hurry to negotiate a new deal.

[My Friends Call Me Tebucky]

More tags, more years of service until UFA status is all well and good. But it's still a huge advantage for big market owners if they choose to use it.

 

The fact that the only two names on the record there are Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft says it all, in my opinion...those are big market, massive revenue producing teams.

 

My concern isn't free agency, it's teams re-structuring contracts to push what would be a massive cap hit into the uncapped year, then having a player under contract on the cheap in the following years, when the cap is again an issue. There are very few teams that have the financial wherewithal to do that, and New England and Dallas just happen to be 2 of them. Of course they aren't concerned about an uncapped year.