Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.

I'd guess:

Less spent money means more pocket money
They didn't spend as much on players as the other teams
They tried to spend less in order to keep salaries down for their advantage

The key issue has been brought up over and over. The reason for an uncapped year was to force the two sides to work harder to come to an agreement in order to keep either side from feeling like they were getting screwed during the uncapped period. In this case neither side could agree, both sides let it get to an uncapped year. Heck the owners wanted an uncapped year and even Locked out the players.

So what is the fear of an uncapped year?

Players: owners not spending as much and keeping more of their money.
Owners: other owners spending $$$ on players raising salaries and CAP.

But that is exactly why the uncapped year was put in place to help force the two sides to come to an agreement prior to the uncapped year. It didn't happen. So two teams take advantage of the uncapped year and the league has issue's with the fact. Guess what they never should have let it go to an uncapped year. Basically what it is is the owners wanted their cake and to eat it too. Uncapped year, change in some of the rules, Rookie salary CAP, force the NFLPA to agree to their demands, AND no one team spending too much.