Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

EXACTLY!!!! Great post! How can the league say the Redskins and Cowboys were trying to create a competitive advantage over other teams when there are quite a few other teams in the league that have much bigger cap space?

While I DO NOT think the Redskins did anything wrong, they did create a competitive advantage for themselves. In theory, the cap should allow all teams to be competitive for a short time, then they will lose some players and have to retool due to the cap. It may not have given us an immediate advantage, but it most certainly gave us the possibility of being more competitive in the future.

The Redskins hamstrung themselves with contracts and used the uncapped year to alleviate that strain. That is where the competitive balance comes into play. The reason why it isn't an issue for many of those other teams, is they didn't have to drastically drop cap space to get where they were -- we did. The salary cap it an attempt to keep players moving and force teams to be careful with their money, we violated 'the spirit' of that philosophy.

That said -- the Redskins did nothing wrong and it was a very, very smart move. Even if the penalty stands, which I severely doubt it will -- it gave us a significant amount of manuverability. I see no real difference between restructuring deals and tossing huge salaries for new FAs into that single year -- the end result is the same, keeping your future cap number down while paying some high-priced players.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Daseal

While I DO NOT think the Redskins did anything wrong, they did create a competitive advantage for themselves. In theory, the cap should allow all teams to be competitive for a short time, then they will lose some players and have to retool due to the cap. It may not have given us an immediate advantage, but it most certainly gave us the possibility of being more competitive in the future.

The Redskins hamstrung themselves with contracts and used the uncapped year to alleviate that strain. That is where the competitive balance comes into play. The reason why it isn't an issue for many of those other teams, is they didn't have to drastically drop cap space to get where they were -- we did. The salary cap it an attempt to keep players moving and force teams to be careful with their money, we violated 'the spirit' of that philosophy.

That said -- the Redskins did nothing wrong and it was a very, very smart move. Even if the penalty stands, which I severely doubt it will -- it gave us a significant amount of manuverability. I see no real difference between restructuring deals and tossing huge salaries for new FAs into that single year -- the end result is the same, keeping your future cap number down while paying some high-priced players.

I agree except that that "philosophy" was thrown out the window when they opted out and couldn't reach an agreement with the NFLPA before an uncapped year ensued.

Obviously they couldn't reach an agreement because the players were operating under the false premise that an uncapped year caused problems for the owners. The owners through evil-genius alleviated that leverage via collusion.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I agree except that that "philosophy" was thrown out the window when they opted out and couldn't reach an agreement with the NFLPA before an uncapped year ensued.

Obviously they couldn't reach an agreement because the players were operating under the false premise that an uncapped year caused problems for the owners. The owners through evil-genius alleviated that leverage via collusion.

As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.

And the fact that the Skins and Cowboys didn't break any of the 2006 CBA provisions, and there is no disagreement on that, makes the question of punishment questionable. If the Skins had written a contract that violated the 30% rule, it would have been voided by the league. If the Skins had written a contract that contained language forbidden by the 2006 CBA it would have been voided by the league. None of the contracts were voided by the league at the time, why? because they were allowed by the 2006 CBA. Why didn't the league simply get with the NFLPA and adjust the rules, because the NFL would have been accused of collusion. Why, now 2 years later are they punishing the Skins and Cowboys, well according to you, it's simply because they can. Maybe 24 does overrule legal sense, if the Skins and Cowboys aren't willing to blow up the whole system, but I tend to think that an arbitrator, once given the opportunity will do what it takes to make it right. Keep in mind, and I am certain of this, if the arbitrator does say he has jurisdiction, (and if he doesn't it will be on your explanation of the 24 etc), that all parties have, in advance, accepted the arbitrator's right to make a final ruling.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

As I wrote above, the 2006 CBA foresaw an uncapped year and included multiple rules designed to prevent loading salary cap hits into an uncapped year.

you seem to see this as proof the Skins/Cowboys can be punished, but I see it the opposite way. The league wrote the rules of what could and could not be done, and the Skins didn't violate them. You can't come back and punish them because you weren't smart enough to write effective rules.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

you seem to see this as proof the Skins/Cowboys can be punished, but I see it the opposite way. The league wrote the rules of what could and could not be done, and the Skins didn't violate them. You can't come back and punish them because you weren't smart enough to write effective rules.

I didn't write that I thought the Skins could be punished based on this - I wrote that that's the League's argument.