Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by biffle

Again, he tried to in effect impose his own salary cap rules in 2010, which he can't do. And he's punishing the Redskins and Cowboys for not following his rules. Draft picks or cap space, he has no right to overrule the CBA, and that's what he is trying to do here.

Look, I agree that what he's doing is unfair.

However, if he decides - in his sole discretion - that it was conduct detrimental to the league and affected competitive balance, he does have the authority to remove draft picks, and the clubs wouldn't have any grounds to complain that he violated the CBA.

It would be a reach for the NFLPA to argue that taking away draft picks violated the CBA - and given that the NFLPA signed off on this, I find it hard to believe they'd even get involved if it were draft picks.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

In this case, the cop is saying, "I have the authority to arrest you for reckless driving, but I'm just going to give you the lesser punishment for speeding even if the speeding laws were under review at the time."

That said, there's probably no point in pursuing this analogy further. It's getting pretty farfetched.

But see, now this is where I like jdlea's analogy...

Even if there was wrong-doing (obviously not legal wrong-doing) wouldn't the punishment have to be stated in some kind of agreement or law? Isn't that a totally arbitrary punishment? I've said this before, basically other teams did "sketchy" things and got no punishment AND the rest of the league got a reward.

Now, in the end if we're just expected to accept Goodell as king and be done with it, that's a WHOLE bigger problem.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Well, I don't mean just the Peppers deal, but there are a number just like him.

So basically we're saying, "We got punished. Teams who underspent didn't. Tough shit."?

That's what makes me think that it might be an ugly route to take, but if arbitration isn't satisfactory, legal proceedings might be the only avenue.

I think these are the real Peppers' numbers:
https://twitter.com/#!/Adam_Schefter/status/10190771133
Here is the contract Dallas was punished for giving to Miles Austin:
Why Miles Austin's contract doesn't hurt Cowboys | Dallas Cowboys Blog | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | The Dallas Morning News

For comparison, Chicago allocated 20 mil of the cap hit in Peppers' contract into 2010, while he averaged 12.8 mil per year afterward.
Dallas allocated 17.078 in 2010, while Austin averaged 6.7 afterward.

It's pretty clear they both did the same thing, while Dallas did it to a slightly larger extent. But Dallas was hit with a 10 mil cap penalty, while Chicago is rewarded with an extra 1.6 mil in cap space.

Why? I would think this is going to be a major question that comes up in any proceedings. My guess at the answer is that Dallas spent a lot more money in 2010, but that isn't supposed to be an issue. So, it would be interesting to hear how Goodell and Mara answered that.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

But see, now this is where I like jdlea's analogy...

Even if there was wrong-doing (obviously not legal wrong-doing) wouldn't the punishment have to be stated in some kind of agreement or law? Isn't that a totally arbitrary punishment? I've said this before, basically other teams did "sketchy" things and got no punishment AND the rest of the league got a reward.

Now, in the end if we're just expected to accept Goodell as king and be done with it, that's a WHOLE bigger problem.

I'd suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. The Commissioner has strong powers and broad authority. Everything he can't do alone he can do with 24 votes.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Agree, but doubt legal proceedings will happen. Better to take this licking and move on, imo.

Best hope is that they negotiate a reduced penalty in order to make this go away quickly and keep any dirty laundry private. NFLPA is entitled to discovery on any documents produced for this arbitration. With 29 owners behind him, Goodell is going to win this, but may not want to drag out a fight.

OK, so that being said, assuming +/- 5% of bias, wouldn't the arbitrator look at this and be like, "HA! Wow, NFL this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life. I rule in favor of the Redskins and Cowboys."? There are SO MANY things in favor of both of those teams when it comes to the details. I HATE the Cowboys. I hate them with every fiber of my soul. But even with my loathing hatred of them, they got dicked over as much as we did.

Someone posted this in this thread already, but the timing, the teams, the amount, EVERYTHING screams of collusion.

In my opinion, this is a simple "can't see the forest for the trees" type of argument that unless Goodell goes all "I-do-what-I-want-bitches", it's an obvious injustice.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I'd suggest you read the NFL Bylaws. The Commissioner has strong powers and broad authority. Everything he can't do alone he can do with 24 votes.

No way this can precede arbitration. I just have a hard time believing anyone even SEMI-neutral can agree with what he did. Was it within his rights? Maybe. Should an arbitrator side with the NFL? Evidence would suggest in the Redskins and Cowboys favor.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Look, I agree that what he's doing is unfair.

However, if he decides - in his sole discretion - that it was conduct detrimental to the league and affected competitive balance, he does have the authority to remove draft picks, and the clubs wouldn't have any grounds to complain that he violated the CBA.

It would be a reach for the NFLPA to argue that taking away draft picks violated the CBA - and given that the NFLPA signed off on this, I find it hard to believe they'd even get involved if it were draft picks.

Not going to keep repeating myself, but he has no right to impose his own salary cap or to punish teams for not going along with it.

You can use the "sole discretion" line all you want but he still has to treat al parties fairly or they can seek relief from the court. Every league has been taken to court for doing things that were supposedly in the commish's "sole discretion". The Starcaps case comes immediately to mind. It's certainly within the commisioner's discretion to implement drug suspensions, yet he had to go to court and fight it out on that one for 2 years.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Not only that, the "competitive balance" line has to be the most subjective thing I've read so far. You can apply that to teams who underspent as well (obviously to their negative).

[CRedskinsRule]

HH, even a judge jury cop has some one that a litigant can appeal to. If we, like S Payton, were appealing to Goodell I would agree with you, but both sides have acknowledged this is going to go to an independent arbitrator, that means the cop is no longer the final say. Both sides will make their case, and you have done a good job portraying how the NFL will approach it IMO, JR did a good job laying out JJ and DS's side. I tend to think, like most commentators, that in a legal setting the Skins case has more merit, but if the arbitrator rules for the league I have not doubt his words will echo what you have said here.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Not only that, the "competitive balance" line has to be the most subjective thing I've read so far. You can apply that to teams who underspent as well (obviously to their negative).

You could say the Patriots threatened competitve balance by acquring too many draft picks. And, like in this case, disperse them among all their competitiors.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by biffle

I think these are the real Peppers' numbers:
https://twitter.com/#!/Adam_Schefter/status/10190771133
Here is the contract Dallas was punished for giving to Miles Austin:
Why Miles Austin's contract doesn't hurt Cowboys | Dallas Cowboys Blog | Sports News | News for Dallas, Texas | The Dallas Morning News

For comparison, Chicago allocated 20 mil of the cap hit in Peppers' contract into 2010, while he averaged 12.8 mil per year afterward.
Dallas allocated 17.078 in 2010, while Austin averaged 6.7 afterward.

It's pretty clear they both did the same thing, while Dallas did it to a slightly larger extent. But Dallas was hit with a 10 mil cap penalty, while Chicago is rewarded with an extra 1.6 mil in cap space.

Why? I would think this is going to be a major question that comes up in any proceedings. My guess at the answer is that Dallas spent a lot more money in 2010, but that isn't supposed to be an issue. So, it would be interesting to hear how Goodell and Mara answered that.

As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

No way this can precede arbitration. I just have a hard time believing anyone even SEMI-neutral can agree with what he did. Was it within his rights? Maybe. Should an arbitrator side with the NFL? Evidence would suggest in the Redskins and Cowboys favor.

Arbitration is a process outlined in the CBA, and the CBA is involved only because Goodell wanted to modify the salary cap.

If he had taken away draft picks, arbitration wouldn't be a option. They would have to sue - and they won't do that.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

HH, even a judge jury cop has some one that a litigant can appeal to. If we, like S Payton, were appealing to Goodell I would agree with you, but both sides have acknowledged this is going to go to an independent arbitrator, that means the cop is no longer the final say. Both sides will make their case, and you have done a good job portraying how the NFL will approach it IMO, JR did a good job laying out JJ and DS's side. I tend to think, like most commentators, that in a legal setting the Skins case has more merit, but if the arbitrator rules for the league I have not doubt his words will echo what you have said here.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Football has 32 members and needs 24 votes to make a decision.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

As far as I can tell, Peppers was paid $20m in 2010 - 6.5 signing bonus and 13.5 salary and other bonuses. Signing bonus hits the cap evenly over 5 years, the rest hits in 2010.

In 2011, salary = 900k and roster bonus = 10.5m

A drop in salary and non-signing bonus from 13.5m in 2010 to 11.4 in 2011 is
less than 30%, and therefore OK.

Bears can pull the plug on Peppers after one year | ProFootballTalk

Maybe. I've seen so many conflicting things on his contract, I'm just not going to bother with it.

There were other contracts structured in a similar fashion, though.