Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
This is where I don't agree with you. Did the Commish warn? yes. Did he warn the teams not not spend too much in the uncapped year? yes. Loop hole or not the team had contracts for these players, they didn't go out and pick up new players at high contracts, they simply reworked the contracts already in place. The players still got the money they were supposed to get. Did the two teams shift money? yes. but it was money the player would have gotten anyway. was it a benifit? I guess in the end yea it cleared up CAP space. But where we differ is the warning didn't specifically and I would argue non specifically address what the two teams did. But because the league was afraid the Skins would buy up all the good players waited until the last minute, so the two teams couldnt' get it reversed quick enough to use it, and applied a punishment. was it detrimental? no. was it an unfair advantage? only if other teams could not do the same thing but they could and didn't. Proof... the Cowboys did it.
|
You just:
A) made that argument that the "players still got all the money they were supposed to get" - which means the teams weren't being punished for paying the players too much money.
B) assumed that a verbal warning did not address something, when published reports quote sources saying the Clubs were warned not to do what the Skins did
C) argued that anyone could have done what the Skins did, and used the other team that got heavily punished as proof.
I have no idea what the apparently 6 or more verbal warnings contained. But, the NFL Bylaws give the Commissioner power to punish in this situation whether he warned them or not.
I agree that the Skins got screwed by the timing, process, and severity of the penalties, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing with fire and it doesn't mean the Commissioner doesn't have the right to punish them.