Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
This is a good point. I know read that the Chargers are pissed the Austin's contract drove up the franchise tag for WRs and basically caused them to lose him. To which I say...GTFO!!!
The uncapped year in spirit and rule was designed to allow these crazy pants situations. To have tried to alleviate the pain of the uncapped year by secretly imposing constraints was wrong both ethically and legally. To impose sanctions now for failing to collude by taking advantage of the the spirit and rule of the uncapped year is certainly ethically wrong and pretty plain stupid if you ask me. The absolute last person I'd want to piss off like this is Dan Snyder...he is going to sue their ass even if it isn't the smartest move.
The better way to have handled it was to have made no collusive effort in the first place. To come back now and identify a "competitive advantage" absent the collusion makes it a little easier to swallow. Although trying to compile a dossier of acceptable spending practices versus unacceptable during that uncapped year seems pretty slippery to me.
|
The League's argument is that they are not punishing the Skins for paying players in an uncapped year. They are punishing the Skins for shifting future cap hits into an uncapped year.
In 2010, the Skins gave Haynesworth a $21m bonus and Hall a $15m bonus. Normally, as signing bonuses they would count equally against the cap over the life of the contract: $7m in '10, '11, and '12 for Haynesworth and $3m in '10, '11, '12, '13 and '14 for Hall.
What the Skins did was get creative with the accounting. They gave Haynesworth a void clause that they knew he would never ever exercise because it made it a player-controlled option and shifted the entire cap hit to '10. They gave Hall a Roster Bonus instead of a Signing Bonus in '10 because the whole roster bonus would count against the cap in '10.
The League is saying they could have paid the players as much as they wanted in the uncapped year, but couldn't structure the contracts to totally load the cap hit in the uncapped year. They addressed the principle in the 2006 CBA, they agreed amongst themselves on the principle going into the uncapped year, and two teams went out of their way to violate that principle.
The question is, how do you deal with it?
A) Reject the contracts? Bad idea going into a lockout while being sued for collusion.
B) Address it later? Existing rules and procedure don't allow for salary cap redistribution without creating a mess.
C) Punish them within existing authority? Taking draft picks is overly harsh.
D) Let them skate? 29 Owners say no.
Looks like the League chose B).
Look, I thought the Skins and Cowboys were going to win this until I heard about the 29-0-3 vote. Everything in the NFL comes down to 24 owner votes, the other owners supposedly initiated this, and the other owners agree they should be punished.
Fair or not, I doubt the Skins win this in the end. The bright side is that Skins fans could be the ultimate winners if the fight escalates to the point where the League forces Snyder to sell the team (which ultimately takes 24 votes).