CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season

[Schneed10]

There are so many ways to circumvent the salary cap these days that for most teams in the NFL, cash is actually the bigger constraint than the cap is. In many ways the cap already has limited impact on the way a number of teams operate.

Baseball does not have a salary cap, but they have had tremendous success recently just by having a revenue sharing agreement in place. They've shown you can generate enough parity in the league, giving small market teams enough of a chance, by controlling the flow of cash on the revenue side without limiting it on the expense side.

In many ways I think a capless league can be good for the NFL. I won't go as far as to say the league will be better without one, but baseball sure has shown that small market teams can compete and win titles without a cap in place. I don't think the NFL will get worse at all, it will still be the same product we've come to love.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

There are so many ways to circumvent the salary cap these days that for most teams in the NFL, cash is actually the bigger constraint than the cap is. In many ways the cap already has limited impact on the way a number of teams operate.

Baseball does not have a salary cap, but they have had tremendous success recently just by having a revenue sharing agreement in place. They've shown you can generate enough parity in the league, giving small market teams enough of a chance, by controlling the flow of cash on the revenue side without limiting it on the expense side.

In many ways I think a capless league can be good for the NFL. I won't go as far as to say the league will be better without one, but baseball sure has shown that small market teams can compete and win titles without a cap in place. I don't think the NFL will get worse at all, it will still be the same product we've come to love.

I agree. I know I liked things better before the cap. This crap of letting players go just to get under the cap has got to go! You still have a 53 man limit. You should be able to keep your best players no matter what the cost is. Some teams don't even reach the cap limit and that is their perogative. Which is why it was raised even more this year. But for teams that WANT to have the best 53 guys on their roster, they should be allowed to do so.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

There are so many ways to circumvent the salary cap these days that for most teams in the NFL, cash is actually the bigger constraint than the cap is. In many ways the cap already has limited impact on the way a number of teams operate.

Baseball does not have a salary cap, but they have had tremendous success recently just by having a revenue sharing agreement in place. They've shown you can generate enough parity in the league, giving small market teams enough of a chance, by controlling the flow of cash on the revenue side without limiting it on the expense side.

In many ways I think a capless league can be good for the NFL. I won't go as far as to say the league will be better without one, but baseball sure has shown that small market teams can compete and win titles without a cap in place. I don't think the NFL will get worse at all, it will still be the same product we've come to love.

if there IS a CBA Extension AND a salary cap in 2009, then we have some problems:

1. Haynesworth's cap number is something like 23M, if i remember correctly.

2. Rogers and Campbell both become free agents. Assuming we wanted to keep one or both of them, what could we do? If we had the cap space, we could extend one and franchise the other... but considering the franchise tag for either of them would be north of 12M, and the cap figure in a contract for the other one of them would be 6-8M, then what could we do? Would we be forced to let them both walk for nothing?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

if there IS a CBA Extension AND a salary cap in 2009, then we have some problems:

1. Haynesworth's cap number is something like 23M, if i remember correctly.

2. Rogers and Campbell both become free agents. Assuming we wanted to keep one or both of them, what could we do? If we had the cap space, we could extend one and franchise the other... but considering the franchise tag for either of them would be north of 12M, and the cap figure in a contract for the other one of them would be 6-8M, then what could we do? Would we be forced to let them both walk for nothing?

Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.

Thanks for the info. I remember something about a huge roster bonus or something being paid in 2010... knowing his cap figure will only be 8.8M is wonderful... pretty much makes my other questions/concerns moot...

also, i know we started this offseason something like 10M over the projected cap (which has since risen), and we had to restructure and cut alot of guys to get under the cap. What youre saying is that - even with the new contracts of Haynesworth, Dockery, and Hall... and "dead weight" like Thomas and Jansen on the roster- we are still about 20M under the 2010 cap?

If true, thats incredible. In fact, we might be better of WITH a salary cap, because we would have plenty of room to extend some of our own guys (definitely Rogers, Montgommery and Golston, possibly Campbell) and have plenty of space to sign quality free agents who would actually be hitting the market instead of staying with thier 2009 teams because they didnt have the mandatory 6 years of league service.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.

Haynesworth's contract does contain a $23m OB next year. It's fully guaranteed. Obviously, if there's a cap next year, it's going to be pro-rated. And obviously, if there's no cap, might as well just leave it as a 2010 option bonus. In which case, his real cap number would be in the ballpark of 30 million. And it wouldn't matter one bit.

I wouldn't say that having a cap next year is unlikely. I would say that no agreement and no cap essentially guarantees some sort of labor lockout in 2011.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Haynesworth's contract does contain a $23m OB next year. It's fully guaranteed. Obviously, if there's a cap next year, it's going to be pro-rated. And obviously, if there's no cap, might as well just leave it as a 2010 option bonus. In which case, his real cap number would be in the ballpark of 30 million. And it wouldn't matter one bit.

I wouldn't say that having a cap next year is unlikely. I would say that no agreement and no cap essentially guarantees some sort of labor lockout in 2011.

Sorry Im way out of the loop this year with the NFL, Why is it that their will be a labor lock out in 2011 as a result of no cap in 2010?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by WillH

Sorry Im way out of the loop this year with the NFL, Why is it that their will be a labor lock out in 2011 as a result of no cap in 2010?

The owners want a cap. The players are more towards hoping for an uncapped league, but still getting a new deal. IF we reach free agency next year without a cap, the players union has confirmed that they will not go back to having a cap.

Since some owners would just spend, spend, spend in 2010 once they weren't restricted to do so, and others would cut, cut, cut all of their overpayed talent that is currently protected by cap constraints, the most common scenario would be a simple stalemate where it's no longer the interests of the owners to give into the demands of the union. Since the union would have effectively lost their credible threat (the salary cap), there is no harm left for the owners, particularly the small market owners, to lockout the players.

The teams and stadiums are still asset for the owners. The players are expenses. With no CBA in place, it's incredibly profitable for the owners to not have players on payroll. Therefore, it's a lockout because the owners would have the leverage, abscent a CBA.

The best solution would be to come to an agreement to extend the cap before this time next year. Problem is, the players union doesn't feel that they should give up any of the benefits that they won back in 2006, and the Owners thought that deal was totally ridiculous and that Tags caved. The ONLY leverage the players union has to keep the gains they made in 2006 is that 85% of the owners want to prevent an uncapped year at all costs.

Dan Snyder is probably not in that 85%.

Anyway, if you understand the concept of backwards induction, the owners didn't opt out of the CBA two years early just so they could get grabbed by the balls by the Union for an even more ridiculous deal. If they didn't think they could push the players off their 2006 gains by just a little bit, the owners would never have opted out. So, at the very basis, this becomes "how far are the players willing to go in order to ensure work into the future?"