radagast5 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Currently, 2007 is an uncapped year for the NFL. Now, that may well change before the 2007 off-season even gets here, but let's assume for argument's sake that it actually remains an uncapped year. Does anyone have a clear idea of exactly what that means? Could, for instance, the Redskins take the remaining salary for LaVar Arrington's contact, and dump the entire thing, bonus and all into that one year? That way, they could pay him the NFL minimum for the rest of his contract, thus alleviating untold millions from their cap number in future years. They could do this with every player on the roster. Surely, this can't be the case because if it is, *every* NFL team with the bankroll to do this (and surely Snyder has the money), is going to basically refresh their cap numbers down to ridiculously low rates, meaning 2008 will be open for an enormous league-wide spending spree. Heck, you could even sign prime free agents in 2006, pay them chump change initially in exchange for a windfall of guaranteed cash in 2007. What are the parameters of this "uncapped" year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankRizzo Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 this is news to me. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzfan4life Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 It has been reported that this is true its in the bargining agreement, but from what i have heard on sportstalk980's sportscenter most of the owners are against this and want to get this done soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 radagast5, thanks for asking this question. I meant to do this myself but was busy. I'm very curious if this could be used to the team's advantage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I hope there is an uncapped year. Wooopee! But really it would be embarrassing if we spent 200mil and then didnt win it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwebst1 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by radagast5 Currently, 2007 is an uncapped year for the NFL. Now, that may well change before the 2007 off-season even gets here, but let's assume for argument's sake that it actually remains an uncapped year. Does anyone have a clear idea of exactly what that means? Could, for instance, the Redskins take the remaining salary for LaVar Arrington's contact, and dump the entire thing, bonus and all into that one year? That way, they could pay him the NFL minimum for the rest of his contract, thus alleviating untold millions from their cap number in future years. They could do this with every player on the roster. Surely, this can't be the case because if it is, *every* NFL team with the bankroll to do this (and surely Snyder has the money), is going to basically refresh their cap numbers down to ridiculously low rates, meaning 2008 will be open for an enormous league-wide spending spree. Heck, you could even sign prime free agents in 2006, pay them chump change initially in exchange for a windfall of guaranteed cash in 2007. What are the parameters of this "uncapped" year? I see what you are saying... because so many teams would want to do this, particularily the ones with deep pockets like the Skins, they have to set some rules. But I honestly don't see how they could go back to a cap if they go a year without it. Can you imagine the Skins going buck wild then having to clear 50 mill to get back under when they start the salary cap back up? I don't think there is any question there will be a cap... plus I don't want to ever see the NFL without one. Don't want to be referred to as the Yankees of professional football... we are already called that and we are playing on a level ball field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by jwebst1 I see what you are saying... because so many teams would want to do this, particularily the ones with deep pockets like the Skins, they have to set some rules. But I honestly don't see how they could go back to a cap if they go a year without it. Can you imagine the Skins going buck wild then having to clear 50 mill to get back under when they start the salary cap back up? I don't think there is any question there will be a cap... plus I don't want to ever see the NFL without one. Don't want to be referred to as the Yankees of professional football... we are already called that and we are playing on a level ball field. I don't care what they call us, as long as we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by TheSteve I hope there is an uncapped year. Wooopee! But really it would be embarrassing if we spent 200mil and then didnt win it all. Steve, I think that's why we should try to alleviate any cap restrictions we've created for ourselves without going nuts in free agency (if, like radagast5 posted, that's even allowed). For example, we should use this uncapped season to renegotiate with our own players and try to keep them happy with bonus money. If we could come out of that season with good cap numbers on our "core" of players, I'd be happy. We don't have to turn it into 2000 again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidenreich Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I have heard about this as well, but I'm not exactly sure how it works. I read on ESPN.com, how Tagliabue said that he wants the CBA done soon, because if it drags, it will be difficult to sign players to long term contracts. But there are plenty of players signed beyond 2007, so I'm not sure exactly how this will play out. I assume you could theoretically restructure every contract, and instead of paying a $15 million signing bonus over five years, pay it all at once. This is pure speculation on my part, and I have a feeling that this isn't going to get that far anyway. I think if people start talking about what can be done during an "uncapped" year, then we can start thinking about it. Otherwise, it's probably not worth it. By the way, nice signature. It's always good to see another Hammerhead.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Here is the thing There is no way the NFLPA will go back to a cap if there in uncapped year. If 2007 is uncapped you will never see the salary cap in pro football again, so it really will not matter. In theory though it does sound right that if a cap were to come back in 2008, Snyder could and would accelerate all bonuses to that year and have something riddiculous like a 200 million dollar pay roll. But once the cap comes off it is gone for good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by jwebst1 I see what you are saying... because so many teams would want to do this, particularily the ones with deep pockets like the Skins, they have to set some rules. But I honestly don't see how they could go back to a cap if they go a year without it. Can you imagine the Skins going buck wild then having to clear 50 mill to get back under when they start the salary cap back up? I don't think there is any question there will be a cap... plus I don't want to ever see the NFL without one. Don't want to be referred to as the Yankees of professional football... we are already called that and we are playing on a level ball field. I think what the first poster is saying is to use the uncapped year to clear the bank rolls by simply converting everyone we want to keep, to a HUGE signing bonus in 2007 with minimal salary's for the term of the contract. That when the cap came back, say the next year, instead of any dead money or Sb carry over.. all that would count towads that years cap would be this itty bitty salaries (SB's would have been charged off in that uncapped year). A team such as the skins, would only be limited by the amount of money they could throw away in a given year. Now I don't know if this is how it would work, but I think it could be as bad as it could be good. Dumping the roster and signing every big name you can, isn't going to win you games, and I would argue it would probably cause some serious team issues as well. BUT... Say we did things a bit smartly, dump all the carry overs and dead monies, lock in everyone we wanted to keep for the long haul to a cap friendly contract, then we could be sitting pretty even when the cap came back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 The uncapped year might not be the bonanza we think it is. I have been collecting information from Pro Football Talk -- believe it or not there is useful information on this web site from time to time -- and here is what Mike Florio has learned so far. Evidently there are already some "rules" in play for this contingency but when these agreements were reached I have no idea. Nor do I know where Mike Florio got his information. UNCAPPED YEAR WILL LIMIT ELITE TEAMS March 3, 2005 - Pro Football Talk As the 2005 free-agency spending spree continues to unfold, more details are emerging regarding the realities of the looming uncapped year, which under the current collective bargaining agreement will occur in 2007. 1. Although, on the surface, the notion of no salary cap is a bonanza for players, we've recently reviewed the reality that the threshold for hitting the market will move from four years of service to six. And there are more provisions that will, as a practical matter, limit the ability of players to cash in on this cash cow. No cap would mean no limit on spending for players, who would see free agency but only after six seasons instead of four. 2. For example, each team will have in 2007 an extra transition player designation. Under current rules, teams can use either a franchise or a transition designation. In 2007, the additional transition tag creates a right of first refusal in exchange for a one-year average salary equal to the top ten salaries at the player's position or 120 percent of his 2006 salary, whichever is greater. 3. More importantly, the final eight playoff teams from 2006 will be limited in their free agency activities in 2007. In other words, the rich won't be permitted to go out and try to get richer by spending their riches. Specifically, the teams in the conference championship games will be permitted only to sign their own unrestricted free agents or unrestricted free agents off of waivers. They each also may sign an unrestricted free agent for each unrestricted free agent lost to another team. 4. The next four teams (the losers in the divisional round) will be limited as well, plus one unrestricted free agent with a 2007 salary of $1.5 million or more and others with a first-year salary of less than $1 million (not including the signing bonus). 5. The final eight teams may sign franchise and transition players without limitation. [<<< The only problem with this is, if you sign them you have to compensate the other team with high 1st and 2nd round draft picks. [ 6. Finally (for now), there's some good news for the NFL cheapskates in 2007. Just as there's no ceiling on player spending that year, there's also no floor. As we learn more about the realities of the uncapped year, we become even more convinced that the NFL and the union will work out a deal before then. The grass of the uncapped season isn't nearly as green for the players as first blush might suggest, but there are obvious reasons for the owners to try to prevent guys like Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones from throwing cement mixers full of cash at every available free agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 The collective bargaining agreement expires by then meaning they won't have a cap. They will make a new colective bargaining aggreement by then...There will be a cap...look what happened to hckey and now baseball...small market teams can't thrive...bye-bye-Colts. They must have a cap so they can have shared revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by cphil006 They must have a cap so they can have shared revenue. I believe that NFL owners have been sharing revenue since before a cap was put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Originally posted by wskin44 I believe that NFL owners have been sharing revenue since before a cap was put in place. Snyder and Jones are wanting to keep more of the money they generate. Smaller market teams don't want this to happen. Minnesota would be hurt if Snyder and Jones have their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Riggins, actually Snyder and Jones would be happy to keep things the way they are. The small market owners are trying to change the formula so that more of the big market owners' money is thrown into the pool of shared funds. More than likely some adjustment will be made that takes money from Snyder/Jones. The point that I was trying to make is that even if 2007 was an uncapped year, Revenue Sharing would still be in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 i like the salary cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 There would be NO prime FA's with an uncapped year. Think about it for a second. Any potential prime FA's would be signed unless the team/player just didnt want to be with that player/team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.