Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

That is part of it, but teams were allowed to dump contracts, also. If we had cut DHall and Haynesworth, we would not have got in any cap trouble and we would have been even father under the cap.

Agreed...that's where I really scratch my head as to the reasoning behind all this. I draw a very fine line of distinction between what we did and simply having cut them. Both achieve similar results yet it is totally inconceivable to think that we would get punished for having just cut them. So the "competitive advantage" could have been achieved through actions that definitely wouldn't have been subject to sanction. And make no mistake the league's argument is that we gained this "advantage" now and into the future so whether we cut them or did what we did is irrelevant. The result is the same...freed cap space. But in one case it's ok and in another it's not? Hope the league has on its spikes walking that slippery slope.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yes your honor, I do have one of those cards. Several of them in fact.

*reaches in back pocket*

wipe my ass w those

keep the change you filthy animal

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Like you said, saving cash in an Unfloored year allows a team to restructure a contract and give upfront cash in a later year. Does it mean the saints, for example couldn't have come up with the cash for Vilma, who knows, but certainly if a team saved cash, accrued interest on that cash, etc etc, they did brighten their balance sheet for years when the floor and cap were back in place.

None of this is relevant to the arbitrator, but it just points to the hypocrisy of this particular sanction, which I put more on Mara than I do on Goodell. I don't believe Goodell ever would have acted on this just on his own.

Not spending cash in an uncapped year doesn't create additional cap room in the future. This isn't baseball where Pittsburgh can't afford to spend what the Yankees do becuase they don't make enough - because of revenue-sharing all the teams make enough to afford to pay up to the salary floor.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Agreed...that's where I really scratch my head as to the reasoning behind all this. I draw a very fine line of distinction between what we did and simply having cut them. Both achieve similar results yet it is totally inconceivable to think that we would get punished for having just cut them. So the "competitive advantage" could have been achieved through actions that definitely wouldn't have been subject to sanction. And make no mistake the league's argument is that we gained this "advantage" now and into the future so whether we cut them or did what we did is irrelevant. The result is the same...freed cap space. But in one case it's ok and in another it's not? Hope the league has on its spikes walking that slippery slope.

If you give a player $X over Y capped years, you still have to fit the total amount into the caps for those years, and teams have the freedom to decide how much cap hit to take in each of those years. If one year is uncapped, and you dump most of the cap hit into that year, you're essentially getting a good player for very little cap hit in the later years.

If you cut the player, you're not getting the benefit of the player in those future years.

The real point where the Skins got screwed is that if in 2010 anyone had objected or told them there would be action taken based on how they restuctured the contracts, they absolutely would have cut Haynesworth before the end of the 2010 league year in February 2011 instead of holding on to him and trading him for a draft pick. There was no way on earth Haynesworth was going to be on the roster in 2011. The worst punishment that should have come down is to take away a 5th round pick in 2013 (what we got for Haynesworth) and have Hall's contract count $3m against the cap for the next 3 years.

That's the absolute most benefit the Skins have gotten out of restructuring. $36m over 2 years is ridiculous.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'll agree with you on this. But the league is going to argue that we were causing salaries to go up or salaries for other players cause we were paying our two so much money in such a short amount of time.

But no one cared that PManning got a $100 mill contract? That clearly raised QB salaries especially to any team who had a QB with similar skills, ie; Saints, Giants, and Patriots.

Then there is the $100mill contract for AH. No one complained about that contract being too much for a player and how it would cause a rise in salaries to that positions and possibly force some teams to not be able to sign their DL.

The whole arguement is BS that the league is making. Lets throw their cards on the table..... they didn't want any one team going out this year and picking up all the good Free Agent talent screwing other teams from either keeping their player or keeping other teams from being able to compete for those players. The owners pissed and moaned and the Exec Committe along with Goodell came up with a cock eyed way of shafting the Skins and keeping them from using the full $36mill in CAP space that they would have used.

Covered this earlier - the league is absolutely NOT going to argue what you wrote above - that would be obvious evidence of collusion.

Graziano speculated as to that based on something someone else wrote, but the logic was full of holes. IIRC, it went like this:

- Reports were that multiple teams complained about the Skins and Cowboy moves
- I can think of three teams that had trouble holding onto players because the franchise tag at those positions went up that year
- Those must be the teams complaining and that must be the reason why

Nevermind the fact that 29 owners voted to ratify the sanctions and that 26 of those 29 benefited at least indirectly from the 3 teams losing their players.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Not spending cash in an uncapped year doesn't create additional cap room in the future. This isn't baseball where Pittsburgh can't afford to spend what the Yankees do becuase they don't make enough - because of revenue-sharing all the teams make enough to afford to pay up to the salary floor.

My statement was solely cash basis, not cap related. Revenue sharing helps but if a team socked away $40 million extra dollars because they didn't have to meet a floor amount that cash is extra that they have directly related to the unfloored year. A team now back in the cap era can use that $40 million cash to over bid against a cap strapped team that still kept the floor based on a gentlemans agreement among the owners.

This is hypothetical only:
2 cash strapped teams go into an unfloored year with $120 million cash available to spend.
Team A uses the unfloored year and spends only 55million in cash
Team B knows the league wants teams to spend at least 75million for competitive reasons, though no rules in effect force them to spend that. They choose to spend the 75million in accordance with the league wishes.
The next year the floor comes back and both teams are bidding for a stud FA WR. Both teams have the same amount of cap room to structure any deal.

Team B for cash reasons wants a longer deal that offers higher incentives and base salaries but can only put 15mil as a cash upfront part of the deal

Team A has the extra cash they saved so they offer a 35 mill cash upfront but lower base salaries and incentives.

Team A gained a competitive bidding advantage simply because they could wave more immediate cash in the player's contract.

[imaskin4life]

Here are most of the 2013 free agents - some of which we could target next year depending on our cap situation.

KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by imaskin4life

Here are most of the 2013 free agents - some of which we could target next year depending on our cap situation.

KFFL - 2013 NFL Free Agents

The position we need is DB and its not that good, considering Revis isn't going to be a FA next year, the jets reworked his contract. Ed Reed is intriguing but that won't happen because he's always threatening retirement and is a raven for life. Quentin Jammer is old. Mike Jenkins is not that good. Brent Grimes will be 30 and is probably going to get signed by the Falcons this offseason. Patrick Willis is supposed to be a FA, according to your list, but again theres no way he leaves the niners, and I'm pretty sure he was resigned by them a year or two ago.

[imaskin4life]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Patrick Willis is supposed to be a FA, according to your list, but again theres no way he leaves the niners, and I'm pretty sure he was resigned by them a year or two ago.

Just saw that, Willis shouldn't be a FA until 2017 - that must be an error.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by imaskin4life

Just saw that, Willis shouldn't be a FA until 2017 - that must be an error.

Although looking over your list with the WR's, if we need a good slot guy next year, Greg Jennings, Cruz and Amendola are FA's. Although Cruz and Jennings will probably resign, Amendola may not, but he is injury prone so again, poor options for us next year.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My statement was solely cash basis, not cap related. Revenue sharing helps but if a team socked away $40 million extra dollars because they didn't have to meet a floor amount that cash is extra that they have directly related to the unfloored year. A team now back in the cap era can use that $40 million cash to over bid against a cap strapped team that still kept the floor based on a gentlemans agreement among the owners.

This is hypothetical only:
2 cash strapped teams go into an unfloored year with $120 million cash available to spend.
Team A uses the unfloored year and spends only 55million in cash
Team B knows the league wants teams to spend at least 75million for competitive reasons, though no rules in effect force them to spend that. They choose to spend the 75million in accordance with the league wishes.
The next year the floor comes back and both teams are bidding for a stud FA WR. Both teams have the same amount of cap room to structure any deal.

Team B for cash reasons wants a longer deal that offers higher incentives and base salaries but can only put 15mil as a cash upfront part of the deal

Team A has the extra cash they saved so they offer a 35 mill cash upfront but lower base salaries and incentives.

Team A gained a competitive bidding advantage simply because they could wave more immediate cash in the player's contract.

First, saying there is a theoretical gentleman's agreement to stick to a floor draws a parallel to a gentlemen's agreement to stick to a ceiling - and no one from the league or the other clubs has ever said that's the case. To be clear, the league has not said they are punishing the Skins for spending too much cash.

Any team that is cash strapped to the point where they need to save money in an uncapped year to be able to splurge on free agents in the future isn't really going to be able to dominate the free agent market anyway.

In your scenario, the team has to save in one year just to be able to spend up to the salary cap the next. That's not competitive advantage - that's doing everything you can to scrape by.

Even if teams were in that situation, that's entirely within the rules of the uncapped year - teams can spend as much or as little cash in that year as they want (down to the minimum salary x 53 players).

The fundamental issue is that actual cash paid to the players is relevant to labor law, and salary cap hit is relevant to competitive balance. Salary cap hit is much less relevant to labor law, and actual cash spent is not judged by the league to be relevant to competitive balance.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

First, saying there is a theoretical gentleman's agreement to stick to a floor draws a parallel to a gentlemen's agreement to stick to a ceiling - and no one from the league or the other clubs has ever said that's the case. To be clear, the league has not said they are punishing the Skins for spending too much cash.

Any team that is cash strapped to the point where they need to save money in an uncapped year to be able to splurge on free agents in the future isn't really going to be able to dominate the free agent market anyway.

In your scenario, the team has to save in one year just to be able to spend up to the salary cap the next. That's not competitive advantage - that's doing everything you can to scrape by.

Even if teams were in that situation, that's entirely within the rules of the uncapped year - teams can spend as much or as little cash in that year as they want (down to the minimum salary x 53 players).

The fundamental issue is that actual cash paid to the players is relevant to labor law, and salary cap hit is relevant to competitive balance. Salary cap hit is much less relevant to labor law, and actual cash spent is not judged by the league to be relevant to competitive balance.

I'm glad the 10th is almost here, and hope for a quick resolution, but I don't expect that.

The only comment I will make, because as everyone knows this subject is the horse, and it has been severely beaten, is your bolded point is exactly true of the Skins salary cap manipulations as well. What they did was ENTIRELY within the written rules of the uncapped year. You agree with that correct?

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I'm glad the 10th is almost here, and hope for a quick resolution, but I don't expect that.

The only comment I will make, because as everyone knows this subject is the horse, and it has been severely beaten, is your bolded point is exactly true of the Skins salary cap manipulations as well. What they did was ENTIRELY within the written rules of the uncapped year. You agree with that correct?

I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I agree with that.

However, what's also written in the NFL Bylaws is that the Commissioner has the power to decide what constitutes "conduct detrimental", what "affects competitive balance", and that he has the power to punish teams for it.

On top of that, he apparently gave the Skins multiple non-written warnings in advance as to how he might view certain actions.

Whether you think the Skins should be punished or not, they were definitely playing with fire and got burned.

As a Skins fan, I accept that the Skins tried to pull a fast one, and I accept that the league is trying to punish the team. Where I personally have a problem is:

1) The punishment is unduly harsh. There is no way Haynesworth would have ever been on the Skins roster beyond 2010, and ALL of his cap hit would have legitimately landed in the uncapped 2010 year no matter how his contract was structured.

2) The punishment was delayed for two years and the team was additionally harmed by the timing.

3) The procedure for this was completely screwed up.

4) The League burned relationship capital with the NFLPA to punish two of its own teams.

I am glad we agree that the Skins did nothing wrong by the letter of the CBA.

Everything else I understand what your views and points are.

Personally, I hope the arbitrator rules in the Skins/Cowboys favor, or at least scares the NFL enough that they reduce the sanctions, even if that means leaving this year's in place and writing off next year's.

[skinster]

When we say that the arbitrator will rule in favor of the skins/boys, what will the ruling be? if its unjust that there was a penalty, should the skins/boys not get some sort of compensation?