CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season

[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?"