NFL uncapped -- Good or bad in your eyes?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

But isn't that a good thing? Player movement is one of my, and other fans I believe, biggest gripes. I hate to see the constant rotation of players from team to team. A player gets developed and then gets lost to another team. Oh well, time to mothball another jersey. Every year we see "salary cap casualties". I'm not looking for us to go and try to buy a championship like the Yankees, but I would like to see us be able to spend freely to keep our own players. To me, the salary cap and unrestricted free agents have led to impatience and lack of development of players. Hell if things don't work out we can always sign a FA. As has been mentioned before, some teams don't even spend what they're allowed. Some only spend what they HAVE to because there is a floor. I personally don't care what they spend or what their motivation is, but an owner who wants to win championships shouldn't be financially restricted from doing so. You should be able to pay your players what you want, and without so many UFA's there would be less movement and players holding your team hostage because someone else is now offering you more money and you're free to go with no obligation to the team that drafted and developed you. Rozelle wanted parity and now we've got one of the cheapest owners in the NFL with his team in the Super Bowl (Cardinals). Fine. The players and coaches earned it. But I don't want my owner restricted in what he can spend so we can be on an even keel with the Bidwells of the NFL. Why should the weakest link set the standard that we should go by?

All good points. All I was trying to say is there is a misconception among many fans that the rules of free agency will be exactly the same without a cap so the only difference would be that the owners could spend whatever they want. And for Redskins fans, that means Snyder can go out and get any free agent out there. But, as I said, because of several triggers in the clause that would impact free agency, that scenario is kind of utopian.

[Daseal]

I don't think it's as simple as "there's no cap, go spend freely." There are a lot of triggers in place that really limit team's ability to spend in an uncapped year, for one thing the number of unrestricted free agents will be greatly reduced. Also, I'm pretty certain there are other owners out there who will spend as much, if not more than, as Snyder with no cap.

Exactly. People seem to think that with an uncapped year everything will stay the same as it is now with free agency. Teams in essence get a 2nd franchise type tag, it takes longer for drafted players to hit FA, etc. Teams will have a MUCH easier time retaining players. In my opinion and uncapped league makes drafting MUCH more important. For instance, before the salary cap era, how much player movement was there? Hardly any I believe.

I do think we'll see an increase in trades since you won't be wrecking your cap for years to come by trading players around.

[JoeRedskin]

If the current CBA expires, do the triggers contained in it and referenced above (i.e. 2nd franchise tag, longer time before becoming an UFA, etc) run until a new agreement is signed? Or do they expire after a set number of years?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If the current CBA expires, do the triggers contained in it and referenced above (i.e. 2nd franchise tag, longer time before becoming an UFA, etc) run until a new agreement is signed? Or do they expire after a set number of years?

I think the former

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If the current CBA expires, do the triggers contained in it and referenced above (i.e. 2nd franchise tag, longer time before becoming an UFA, etc) run until a new agreement is signed? Or do they expire after a set number of years?

That's a trick question. The uncapped season is contained inside the CBA as a disincentive to reach the end of the CBA, which is currently to end after the 2010 season.

There is no football without a CBA, essentially. Or at least, not as we currently enjoy it. Any deals that run past 2010 do so under the assumption of labor peace, that includes all player contracts, TV deals, league endorsements. There's no such thing as a second uncapped year. Just uncertainty.

The most obvious and likely outcome of no agreement after the 2010 season would be a lockout. But if the union chooses to de-certify, we could see a situation where all the owners can negotiate directly with players in an incredibly unregulated market.

There would be a 2011 NFL Draft, per the prior agreement. But that is currently the final scheduled NFL Draft, which of course is certain to be extended in any sort of CBA extension. People love the draft, and even if the owners lock out the players, it would never reach the point where there is no 2012 draft.

[nyredskinsfan]

Vote: Uncapped. I could care less about parity. I want the Skins to win every game, every game. I much appreciate D.S. for going out and spending cash faster than he can print it to get players that he hopes will bring in wins. This guy is not only an owner, he's a Skins fan. Let him and any other owner open up their wallets and sign whoever they want for whatever price. The the heck with the small market teams, get better players and win....spend money. If they can't cut it, move or sell. How many times have teams moved to a better market? No reason it can't be done again. I don't want to hear poverty from any of them. I'm also a Yankee fan, the Yankee's don't win all the time, but it sure isn't from the lack of trying by the Steinbrenner family. Give D.S. and the owners, who are real fans of their teams, the freedom of managing their own finances.

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by nyredskinsfan

Vote: Uncapped. I could care less about parity. I want the Skins to win every game, every game. I much appreciate D.S. for going out and spending cash faster than he can print it to get players that he hopes will bring in wins. This guy is not only an owner, he's a Skins fan. Let him and any other owner open up their wallets and sign whoever they want for whatever price. The the heck with the small market teams, get better players and win....spend money. If they can't cut it, move or sell.

You've got a good point...although it may not be good for revenue because some smaller teams would suffer....in the long run, I'd rather see 24 teams with killer talent than the current 32 of which a quarter of em dont even have a viable starting QB.

Why not...deregulate and let the cream rise to the top...I've got a good feeling that the Skins would excel in a truly open market

[fkcowboys]

in all reality its a bad thing. the competion would dwindle and the skins would be like the yankees getting everyone that they could which doesnt always work but it make other teams horrible. fans wouldnt go to the games where small market teams are cuz there would be no point an than you would have teams going bankrupt cuz the cash isnt flowing NOT GOOD. just increase the salary cap for now like 15 more mill.

[CrazyCanuck]

Bad!

[redskin37]

There needs to be a minimum salary cap as well. These low spending teams take all the television and ticket money and leave it in their pocket.

[SBXVII]

I liked the idea. Again not sure of all the ramifications though. I can remember the NFL prior to the CAP and I like it better then now only cause players actually had "Loyalty" to a team. Since the CAP it's been all about money. Players come and go. Fans purchase $75 to $100 jerseys and the player is gone in 3-6 yrs. Fans can't pick a player and stand behind him cause who knows maybe next yr he's on the rival team.

I find it funny there will be no CAP but the owners agreed to raise the CAP some 20 mill. LOL. If the owners can find a way to tweek the CAP for the future as some have suggested here then perhaps player loyalty will come back, but if it can't then I stand behind the no cap cause football was a lot better when there seemed to be loyalty and life long career players, ie: Green.

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I can remember the NFL prior to the CAP and I like it better then now only cause players actually had "Loyalty" to a team.

I think you are referring to "free agency"

I also liked it better when the Skins essentially owned players for their whole careers...but it kinda hurt the players.

I wouldn't mind seeing some form of "restricted free agency" system for all players plus a cap amount that is 50% higher than the current rate.

This way ....if the Skins wanted to overspend...they could within reason...but if they wanted someone elses players...they'd essentially have to trade picks (which we do anyways)....the difference would be that we could spend way more than now...we'd just need to stockpile picks to aquire other teams talent.

Of course some will say this will cost us more than now...but..keep in mind, the price for a restricted free agent may be less because of less competion since it is essentially a trade....not to mention, if everyone is restricted...it is far more likely that you could retain them for their entire career...especially if you are willing to pay the most.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

I think you are referring to "free agency"

I also liked it better when the Skins essentially owned players for their whole careers...but it kinda hurt the players.

I wouldn't mind seeing some form of "restricted free agency" system for all players plus a cap amount that is 50% higher than the current rate.

This way ....if the Skins wanted to overspend...they could within reason...but if they wanted someone elses players...they'd essentially have to trade picks (which we do anyways)....the difference would be that we could spend way more than now...we'd just need to stockpile picks to aquire other teams talent.

Of course some will say this will cost us more than now...but..keep in mind, the price for a restricted free agent may be less because of less competion since it is essentially a trade....not to mention, if everyone is restricted...it is far more likely that you could retain them for their entire career...especially if you are willing to pay the most.

Maybe, but Free Agency was around prior to the CAP. The only difference was most players stayed with the team they started with, and most teams found the money to resign valuable players. When the CAP was put in place teams, no different then the Skins now, find themselves close to the CAP and can not sign those valuable players unless it's for less money and the players leave for the money.

[SBXVII]

Also, I keep hearing how big, and great, and awsome the rivalry is between the Skins and Dallas and honestly since the CAP I feel it has dwindled. It's no where as strong as it was back prior to the CAP. Maybe it has more to do with how we have not done great things through the 90's but again I think its partly cause the team could not resign some players and some left for more money. Perhaps I'm just looking to put blame somewhere.

[SBXVII]

Parity is a two fold monster. One being the market which most markets are pretty well off now due to the T.V. agreements, number or fans in the areas have risen, and NFL setting pricing for products like hats, shirts, jerseys and so on.

the second issue is the owners and how much they are willing to spend. Back in the day teams like the Patriots, Browns, Bengals had owners who seemed to hord their earnings and not put a lot into advertising, player aquesition, or negotiating t.v.deals. Now the NFL makes those t.v. deals. Players are getting more money but owners could still say ..."I'm not paying that" which they do even now. The other problem is states like California that had 4 teams, San Diego, Los Angeles Rams, San Fran, and Oakland. All those teams took money from each other. Spread the teams out across the U.S. to other states with big markets that don't have teams then the two teams left in California will generate larger sums of income due to state loyalty. The Rams figured it out, but the other have not. NY is a small state and they have 2 teams fighting for money, viewers, and fans.