snyder sacrificing 2006 to get an uncapped 2007 ???

[shallyshal]

a strange thought just occurred to me.. do any of you out there think, as i am starting to think, that snyder and a couple of other owners are digging their heels in fully knowing that they will suffer some in 2006, so that they can get an uncapped year in 2007 ??

now before you go off thinking i am totally off my rocker, follow this thought process just a little longer.

i hope, as do most of you, that based upon past performances in 2006 this is a team that has a legitimate shot at a deep playoff runin 2006. maybe it does if everything falls into place and we have a terrific draft. but there are some facts to consider:

this is a team that will for certain be in transition at the qb spot, and that will determine the ultimate fate of the team. who amongst us feels that brunell has enough left to make it through a season without flaming out again? can anybody feel that campbell is really ready to take the team deep into the playoffs? ramsey is in all likelihood gone, so we are left with extremes at qb... too old and too young.. teams do not get to the superbowl that way.

what happens if the skins take it in the shorts because of cap hits this year and have to play a lot of rookies and younger players? short term pain, and probable long term gains as these guys learn the nfl game. campbell gets a year to learn as a starter. add in this years draft and next years draft plus the real gem, an uncapped 2007, and this team should be peaking for a title run in 2007.

can you imagine what next off season would be like with snyders millions being fully available? don't think for a second that snyder doesn't think about it all the time.

far fetched ?? yup... but is it more far fetched than snyder and other rich owners being willing to let the "poorer" owners take millions of dollars fromhis profitable franchise. he has debt service and he does not have a sweetheart stadium deal as some other poorer owners (tom benson, saints)

have. it is going to be a really hard sell to convince owners that a poor team like pittsburgh cannot be competitive any longer. that is a pile of BS and everyone knows it.. snyder didn't get his billion dollars by allowing folks to pick his pockets. i do not think he and jerry jones will let it happen.

short term possible pain for a chance of becoming the new york yankees of the nfl. don't think for an instant that subject has been chewed on for a long timer at redskin park. how about you all out there, would you trade a disappointing 2006 for a chance to become a perpetual playoff team ??

the nfl has been a model for other sports leagues but they are at a watershed moment with the cba negotiations. it is not as simple as some would have us believe. there are big monies and bigger egos involved in this.. nothing would surprise me

[sknsrbck26]

I hope there is a capped season in 2007....if there is a uncapped year it will ruin the great NFL we know today.

[wilbur58z]

Despite Upshaw's rhetoric, there's nothing stopping a new CBA deal in the future that would reinstitute the cap in 2008, so no, I don't think Snyder's planning for a 2007 binge that could possibly just cause troubles later if the cap returns.

Plus, Joe Gibbs runs this team now in terms of personnel. He's not a guy who just changes everything up, adding high priced players and kicking out tenured players who've been here.

Even if there were no cap we would not see major additions every offseason with Gibbs in control.

We'd mainly see him paying a lot of money to keep the guys he's already got.

Just adding high priced players everywhere and not rewarding the guys who've been here busting their butt for the organization kills team morale and is something Gibbs is very very aware of.

It's also something I think he came back to help change because that *was* Snyder's way. Gibbs is here to work with Snyder and teach him that is not how you build a team. And I think Snyder is taking that advice...

So I don't think Snyder is looking THAT forward to one uncapped season (at least)because we wouldn't do what everybody assumes we'd do...

[shallyshal]

Despite Upshaw's rhetoric, there's nothing stopping a new CBA deal in the future that would reinstitute the cap in 2008, so no, I don't think Snyder's planning for a 2007 binge that could possibly just cause troubles later if the cap returns.

Plus, Joe Gibbs runs this team now in terms of personnel. He's not a guy who just changes everything up, adding high priced players and kicking out tenured players who've been here.

Even if there were no cap we would not see major additions every offseason with Gibbs in control.

We'd mainly see him paying a lot of money to keep the guys he's already got.

Just adding high priced players everywhere and not rewarding the guys who've been here busting their butt for the organization kills team morale and is something Gibbs is very very aware of.

It's also something I think he came back to help change because that *was* Snyder's way. Gibbs is here to work with Snyder and teach him that is not how you build a team. And I think Snyder is taking that advice...

So I don't think Snyder is looking THAT forward to one uncapped season (at least)because we wouldn't do what everybody assumes we'd do...

everything you say is true.. but bear this in mind.. once the genie is let out of the bottle, i do not think the cap is going to be returned so easily. it will take only 9 teams to scuttle it being re-instituted. not a lot.

also,, the big issue is whether snyder is going to allow himself to be looted of millions of dollars to go to other rich owners crying poverty. if he were the only one, i would say he might as well bend over and smile. but he has at least 7 or more owners who feel the same way he does. again, it only takes 9 to keep the status quo--what ever that is.

i do not think that tagliabue can enforce this edict from top down.

where big money and big egos are involved, you never know what is going to happen. these are guys who are used to giving orders, not taking them

[RiggoReincarnated]

everything you say is true.. but bear this in mind.. once the genie is let out of the bottle, i do not think the cap is going to be returned so easily. it will take only 9 teams to scuttle it being re-instituted. not a lot.

also,, the big issue is whether snyder is going to allow himself to be looted of millions of dollars to go to other rich owners crying poverty. if he were the only one, i would say he might as well bend over and smile. but he has at least 7 or more owners who feel the same way he does. again, it only takes 9 to keep the status quo--what ever that is.

i do not think that tagliabue can enforce this edict from top down.

where big money and big egos are involved, you never know what is going to happen. these are guys who are used to giving orders, not taking them

If it only takes 9 to keep the status quo, why have the CBA negotiations stalled over revenue sharing? At least 9 object to it, so why is it an issue?

[Jumbo]

You don't have to ask me to stretch for that, shally. It seemed quite believable, even expected really, all along that any of the "top-$$" owners would rather suffer for one year than give away part of the bank for a number of years if it comes to that being the deal-breaker. Especially since a couple of them may not have to suffer all that much.

But my assuming such doesn't lessen this new form of suspense of what specific effects this will have on the season vs the "normal" suspense

Now if they (Snyder + 8) choose to do differently, I'd actually be more surprised. Unless there is some kind of meaningful recompense for going along with the desired revenue share expansion.

[wilbur58z]

Upshaw's just trying to squeeze revenue sharing out of this deal so that more teams have more money to spend on players.

But going uncapped....there's no revenue sharing there either, is there?

Why he is threatening with that I dont know.

Because, sure, 10 or so teams could pay out the yin yang for players in that situation, but 2/3 of the league wouldn't be able to pay them hardly at all because they'd be totally uncompetitive and not making money like they'd be (and have been) under a cap.

So the point may be that it may not be in the players interest to go uncapped.

He must be betting that the rich teams would be scared of skyrocketing payrolls or something.

But I think they'd rather face that than having a cap and sharing money with small market teams.

I ultimately think Upshaw will back down once he sees he won't get revenue sharing. He's been talking a lot of crap lately.

In fact, he has already backed down from his proclamation that the union would not negotiate further if no deal was done by early next week.

He's now saying, "Oh, we'll negotiate until the 3rd."

That's a clear indication that he's just trying to scare the owners into backing down before he does and before he ultimately has to.

[fdarugar]

Under the CBA the uncapped 2007 has certain rules which apply to teams that try and buy up every free agent. It wouldn't be the Pro Bowl team lining up in the B&G, it is in everyones best interest to get this new CBA done as soon as possible before all the chaos which would occur starting March 3rd, until everything gets resolved.

[shallyshal]

If it only takes 9 to keep the status quo, why have the CBA negotiations stalled over revenue sharing? At least 9 object to it, so why is it an issue?

because i think there is revenue sharing, and there is revenue sharing.. what i mean is that what is being proposed now is to take away a lot of the revenue that individual teams make from non shared sources. sure, the tv revenue is shared, but not other items. before this, it did not amount to very much, but snyder and others have found ways to literally print money.

some owners are either not as adept, or suffer because their markets are not as competitve.

you would find it a very tough sell to establish that small market teams like cincy, pitts and jax would no longer be competitve if this extra source of revenue were not divided up. in fact, they were all in the playoffs this year. snyder's extra revenues have not turned into on field domination and there is little reason to surmise that it ever will. snyder is justified in believing he should reap the benefit of better financial managemnt and creative thinking.

so what if he happens to be centered in a city that gives him some advantages. texas does not have an income tax, you do not hear bellyaching to even that out. denver has an advantage playing at mile high elevation, are we going to try and level that?

i doubt seriously if anyone evertruly envisions a nfl that operates as MLB does with winners and losers stratified. on the other hand, it must gall snyder and others mightily to have to fork over the fruits of their labors to supplement the coffers of others. where big money is concerned people get mighty stubborn...

[shallyshal]

Upshaw's just trying to squeeze revenue sharing out of this deal so that more teams have more money to spend on players.

But going uncapped....there's no revenue sharing there either, is there?

Why he is threatening with that I dont know.

Because, sure, 10 or so teams could pay out the yin yang for players in that situation, but 2/3 of the league wouldn't be able to pay them hardly at all because they'd be totally uncompetitive and not making money like they'd be (and have been) under a cap.

So the point may be that it may not be in the players interest to go uncapped.

He must be betting that the rich teams would be scared of skyrocketing payrolls or something.

But I think they'd rather face that than having a cap and sharing money with small market teams.

I ultimately think Upshaw will back down once he sees he won't get revenue sharing. He's been talking a lot of crap lately.

In fact, he has already backed down from his proclamation that the union would not negotiate further if no deal was done by early next week.

He's now saying, "Oh, we'll negotiate until the 3rd."

That's a clear indication that he's just trying to scare the owners into backing down before he does and before he ultimately has to.

i think there is far more collusion between upshaw and the nfl then, say, MLB and donald fehr...

[shallyshal]

Under the CBA the uncapped 2007 has certain rules which apply to teams that try and buy up every free agent. It wouldn't be the Pro Bowl team lining up in the B&G, it is in everyones best interest to get this new CBA done as soon as possible before all the chaos which would occur starting March 3rd, until everything gets resolved.

i agree with you.. but once there is an uncapped year (and the world doesn't actually end) i think it is going to be tough to get it back in the bottle.

there is not as much altruism among the players as they would have you believe. the NFLPA has long taken a "sucks to be you" attitude to the older players from decades past who have gotten the shaft. if the uncapped scenario takes place my feelings are that there will be winners and losers again, and the winners will once again say, "sucks to be you"

[FedUpField]

I think it's hilarious, first of all, that any of us would even dare to presume what decisions should and shouldn't, can and can't, will and won't, be made with all the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. That said, second of all, I think this is another in a long string of imbroglios that serve exclusively to deepen the divide between league and fans. There's enough money to go around, this is just everyone being greedy and trying to justify it to the amazingly disinterested press. I can't think of one person or group of persons in this situation that has their head or heart in the right place, even most fans, who either don't understand the ramifications of what's going down or think having all the money to spend on big name F.A.'s would be just the coolest.

Personally I think this will all go away and an extension will be reached after one or the other budges half a percentage point (oh, for f*ck's sake....) and this will all be forgotten before minicamps....but what does that leave us with now? Disenfranchised Labor, Rich Owners, Alienated Public? Is this life in America or what?

No sympathy from me for any of them -- and if they do decide to throw it all away and screw over everyone (oh, really, FUF, like the system isn't screwed enough as it is....) then they can have their happy little league and I'll go watch Soccer.

- FUF

[arrowhead]

I think it's hilarious, first of all, that any of us would even dare to presume what decisions should and shouldn't, can and can't, will and won't, be made with all the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. That said, second of all, I think this is another in a long string of imbroglios that serve exclusively to deepen the divide between league and fans. There's enough money to go around, this is just everyone being greedy and trying to justify it to the amazingly disinterested press. I can't think of one person or group of persons in this situation that has their head or heart in the right place, even most fans, who either don't understand the ramifications of what's going down or think having all the money to spend on big name F.A.'s would be just the coolest.

Personally I think this will all go away and an extension will be reached after one or the other budges half a percentage point (oh, for f*ck's sake....) and this will all be forgotten before minicamps....but what does that leave us with now? Disenfranchised Labor, Rich Owners, Alienated Public? Is this life in America or what?

No sympathy from me for any of them -- and if they do decide to throw it all away and screw over everyone (oh, really, FUF, like the system isn't screwed enough as it is....) then they can have their happy little league and I'll go watch Soccer.

- FUF

:applause:

Somebody finally understands!

[More Complete]

To answer your question... No, I don't think so. At least, I don't think it's his plan. If it happens that way, it looks like he's willing to take the risk. However, I think it's more about taking a stand on the issue. He's standing his ground, period.

[NavyDave]

I side With Danny and the other eight.

I don't enjoy the current NFL where its ok to to be pathetic year after year like the Cards and until recently the Bengals and still get paid while not doing what it takes to be a winner.

I dont see any of the owners forking over dollars to balance Danny's remaining debt on the Team and stadium deal.

Havent the small market teams won superbowls recently while also being cheap or made it to the big dance?

Philly, the patriots and pittsburgh are applauded for not spending money on players but being a successful set of franchises and the skins have been used as the poster kid for spending doesnt equate to superbowl trophies though people ignore the circumstances for that result back then.

So what is the fear of an uncapped season or true unrestricted free agency?

Most of you talk so sweetly about our superbowl victories yet they happened when there wasnt a cap and there were teams that you could say were the haves and have not and the league thrived.

Detroit isnt a small market but the behave like one.

Heck Houston has deep pockets and the young franchise is wiling to do what it takes compared to the rest but are supposed to be reined in by the penny pinchers?

If they dont want to spend then sell.

Danny should not be under any obligation to give more of his cash to owners who are only about a profit.

The NFL is the only place where you can be shamed into going along with Socialism.

[Westbrook36]

When I read threads like this, I sometimes get the feeling that a majority of the Redskins fan base doesn't feel like they can compete year to year unless there wasn't a cap and there was an advantage to the team with the most revenue.

What is the matter? Why are you afraid to venture forward with Gibbs and company in the current NFL where everyone is on equal footing regarding the opportunity to add players?

[skinz1972]

When I read threads like this, I sometimes get the feeling that a majority of the Redskins fan base doesn't feel like they can compete year to year unless there wasn't a cap and there was an advantage to the team with the most revenue.

What is the matter? Why are you afraid to venture forward with Gibbs and company in the current NFL where everyone is on equal footing regarding the opportunity to add players?

westbrook,this is a skinz board,why are u here anyway?ur an iggles fan.

[jimster]

I agree with everything ND said.

[jimster]

When I read threads like this, I sometimes get the feeling that a majority of the Redskins fan base doesn't feel like they can compete year to year unless there wasn't a cap

for all the time you spend here it doesn't sound like you're doing too much reading then.

[sknsrbck26]

Even if there is no capped year in 2007, I don't believe any teama will go crazy because in 2008 there will probably be a new CBA so 2008 will have a cap.

Even though some people are saying there will be a strike in 08????

[sknsrbck26]

for all the time you spend here it doesn't sound like you're doing too much reading then.

Give him a break he is an eagle fan....he probably doesn't know how to read.

[Brianbien83]

When I read threads like this, I sometimes get the feeling that a majority of the Redskins fan base doesn't feel like they can compete year to year unless there wasn't a cap and there was an advantage to the team with the most revenue.

What is the matter? Why are you afraid to venture forward with Gibbs and company in the current NFL where everyone is on equal footing regarding the opportunity to add players?

On the contrary, I think most of us feel like we're on the right track. We feel that with a couple moves, we will be in prime position to move far into the playoffs this season. That being said, if no CBA is reached, we will need to axe a bunch of guys and all the work that Gibbs & Co. has done thus far will be for naught.

There have been a couple posters who have said, "Oooh, an uncapped year! Let Danny go wild and bring home the SB trophy!" I think they are in the minority. You will hear far more about the fact that once there is an uncapped year, football will start to stratify like baseball. Toronto has just started spending money, but other than that, we see the same folks in the playoffs and getting prize free agents every year in MLB. The NFL will end up the same way. It will become far less fun to watch.

Another argument that I think you are confusing with the whole uncapped year thing is the revenue sharing. Many of us realize that by virtue of his business sense (greed perhaps?) The Danny has been able to make a lot of money in local revenue. Last time I checked, he also paid a mint for the team. The other owners should market their teams more effectively, and then they wouldn't need shared revenue. There is no reason Snyder should give up local revenue to the Cardinals because their owners are cheap punks.

I hope a CBA does get done, as do most here. If it doesn't, the Skins are in trouble next year, and even in 2007 if it is uncapped. We've seen how well the shopping sprees work here. Better to have a cohesive unit year in and year out than 10 new impact guys every year.

[LD0506]

I think it's hilarious, first of all, that any of us would even dare to presume what decisions should and shouldn't, can and can't, will and won't, be made with all the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. That said, second of all, I think this is another in a long string of imbroglios that serve exclusively to deepen the divide between league and fans. etc......

- FUF

This may be the best thought-out post I've seen on the subject yet. Squabbling millionaires on both sides doesn't exactly bring tears to my eyes. This will be resolved, and all the pipe dreams about uncappped free spending NYY of the NFL will be forgotten as quickly as the postings about "Gibbs is too old" or "Brunell is washed up".

[bricucci]

When I read threads like this, I sometimes get the feeling that a majority of the Redskins fan base doesn't feel like they can compete year to year unless there wasn't a cap and there was an advantage to the team with the most revenue.

What is the matter? Why are you afraid to venture forward with Gibbs and company in the current NFL where everyone is on equal footing regarding the opportunity to add players?

No its quite the contrary. I think it pisses of fans of this team to see owners like Snyder and Jones that market their team very effectively and draw in millions more in revenue than other teams. Why should Snyder have to share profits from his Redskin stores, preseason games, his websight etc etc. I by no means want to see an uncapped season, but these so called small market (I call them less savy) owners keep pushing to dip into the pockets of the Big 9 they will get an uncapped season and it will only hurt their pockets in the long run. Maybe guys like Bill Bidwell should follow Mr Snyders lead and learn how to market his team to bring more revenue in instead of robbing him with a gun and a mask. :2cents:

[Jumbo]

This may be the best thought-out post I've seen on the subject yet. Squabbling millionaires on both sides doesn't exactly bring tears to my eyes. This will be resolved, and all the pipe dreams about uncappped free spending NYY of the NFL will be forgotten as quickly as the postings about "Gibbs is too old" or "Brunell is washed up".

Love the sig :laugh: