Rob0729

They were all cap casulaties because they all were getting paid beyond their value and both the Redskins and Jags had cap issues.

Snyder didn't have plenty of money, but he made room by cutting Springs. Springs was cut to make room for the DeAngelo Hall resigning and Albert Haynesworth (Hall didn't sign until after Springs was cut). Cutting Springs gave the Redskins $6 million of cap space and they were only $1 million under the cap when they cut him.

Fred Taylor was clearly cut because of his cap number and his age. The Jags probably keep him in an uncapped year unless they are hurting so bad financially.

Bodden was cut because of his cap number too. They might have cut him anyway, but who knows.

Yes, there will be players cut next year with or without a cap. You won't see players like Fred Taylor or Jason Taylor cut like this year because their age and cap number were getting too high for their value. That means the number of players getting cut will go down exponentially next year.

I don't know if the Top 8 rule has anything to do with trades. There may be a restriction there, but I really don't know.

jmt57

Your comment brings up a very good topic I had not considered: trades.

Assuming 2010 becomes an uncapped year, it could become a trade-intensive season. With a cap in place, teams don't make trades because of the acelerated hit to their salary cap. But with no cap, is it possible that the NFL resembles MLB with their trades?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlitzFritz

OK so i would add a few more strategies from this discussion

4. Dont extend your key players until 2010 if you can. Next year there will be no cap, so you wont have that to consider in negotiations.

5. Worry about lack of FAs and cap casualty players on the market in the future, especially if you are a playoff team with limited FA slots. Prepare yourself for making more trades potentially. So stockpile picks that can help facilitate trades?

we really need a CBA guru!!
anyway, this is really interesting stuff.

-- FRITZ

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"If you counted out the Patriots, you just don't get it." Adam Schein, September 2008

“We are building a big, strong, fast, smart, tough and disciplined football team that. consistently competes for championships.” Guess who.

solman

CBA means collective bargaining agreement. The rules for future seasons will be determined by collective bargaining between the players union (as long as there is one) and the owners.

They are free to negotiate a new CBA without a salary cap.

They are also free to negotiate how a new CBA with a salary cap treats contracts signed during an uncapped year.

In all likelihood, any amounts paid during 2010 in the form of roster bonuses or salary (i.e. compensation that would have been counted against the 2010 cap under the old CBA) will not be counted against the teams in future capped years. The union will insist on this. Otherwise, in any future capped year, the owners will act as if they are constrained by an (as yet unknown) cap.

The owners are likely to insist that signing bonuses and option bonuses paid during the 2010 season be prorated into future capped years according to the same set of rules used by the new CBA, but they have somewhat greater negotiating flexibility on this point.

I think that we are very likely heading into an uncapped 2010. The players are ultimately going to have to give back some of the revenue that they gained in the last CBA. It will be difficult for them to stomach this without first forcing the owners into an uncapped year. (In which the true cost of the salary cap will become apparent). The exception to this would be if the new union leader determines that salaries are likely to fall in the uncapped year, and is able to persuade the rest of the players to accept an early haircut. But it is difficult for me to imagine the union achieving such a level of unity.

I think that an uncapped year will most definitely work in the Patriots favor. We are one of the rich teams, and we have a HUGE class of critical free agents next year [many of whom will be restricted free agents if the year is uncapped]. Kraft will try to act responsibly [and, in part, be forced to by the final 8 provision] but our team will still benefit substantially.

I also think that a couple of the poorer teams will take advantage of a season without minimums, and drop their payroll by $40M+, thus strengthening some balance sheets that may have difficulty surviving a 2011 lock out. This may very well have a significant negative impact on 2010 salaries. Certainly any continuing economic weakness will help the owners keep 2010 salaries down.

Jimke

The Patriots have to draft a lot of players in 2009 and 2010

to offset having to over pay some key veteran players.

spacecrime

Cutting a player because they make more than they are worth does not make them cap casualties. Every year teams who are not in cap trouble cut players who make more than they are worth.

Players who are being paid more than they were worth to a team are prime candidates to be cut any year, cap trouble or not.

And next year, cap or no cap, teams will find themselves with players who are getting paid more than they are worth and will cut them. Some team will pick them up at bargain rates.

Those players can be signed by any team as they do not fall under the Rule of Eight.

I would not panic about there not being any veteran players available for the Pats to sign.

Edit: Also, as someone above, cash poor teams will be fiscally prudent and cut payroll to the bone in anticpation of a lockout. The Krafts, Rooneys, Jones, etc of the league can absorb a lockout hit, the Wilsons and Irsays cannot. If there is a hint of a labor issue in 2010, some teams will slash their rosters.

Rob0729

Many of the time players who are getting cut because they are getting paid more than they are worth is because of their base salary and amortized bonus money combined is too much. In an uncapped year, the amortized bonus money is irrelevant. Many times the player getting cut has a reasonable base salary, but may have millions in dead bonus money tied up that other than this year half or more could be pushed into the next year against the cap.

Even if a player's base salary is too high next year, teams still have a better chance to retain these players because they will be in a better position to renegotiate with them since they won't have to worry about cap ramifications. For example, say Taylor counted $10 million against the Jags cap this year (I don't know what his bonus money was, but his base salary was reported to be $6 million). Even if they gave Taylor the same deal as the Pats gave him after his release their cap would still be over $6 million. Without having to worry about the cap, the $4 million in dead money would be irrelevant.

The bottom line is amortized bonus money that was paid out years earlier usually plays a role in most veterans getting released because of money issues. That issue is irrelevant in an uncapped year.

Yes, there will still be veterans who are released, but many of the veterans who still have value who would be cut in a salary cap world will be more likely retained in an uncapped year. I think the Jags would have been far more likely to either pay Taylor or give him more attractive renogiated deal if there were no cap concerns even with them being a smaller market team. In fact, these smaller market teams may be more likely try to retain their own players since they know they will have trouble competing for free agents against the bigger market teams who will spend like drunken sailors on any decent free agent.

DaBruinz

Gene Upshaw stated that if the cap was gone, then it was gone for good. I am not sure how the new President will go as that person hasn't been elected yet. In fact, I am expecting the owners to lock out the players after the SB to prevent an uncapped year from occuring.

I would have to say yes.

I believe so. However, as I said, I don't foresee the owners allowing the uncapped year to occur as its not in their best interest financially.

DaBruinz

Here is the list of players who will be free agents next year. Beside their name, I have put the type of free agent. If it says RFA/UFA then the player would be a RFA in an uncapped year and a UFA in a capped year.

Sam Aiken, WR - UFA
Tully Banta-Cain, LB - UFA
Leigh Bodden, CB - RFA/UFA
Tedy Bruschi, LB - UFA (expected to retire)
Kevin Faulk, RB - UFA
Jarvis Green, DE - UFA
Chris Hanson, P - UFA
Russ Hochstein, G - UFA
Nathan Hodel, LS - UFA
Matt Light, OT - UFA <------ Key Player
Stephen Neal, G - UFA
Richard Seymour, DE - UFA
Ben Watson, TE - UFA
Vince Wilfork, DT - UFA <------ Key Player
Eric Alexander, LB - UFA
Stephen Gostkowski, K - RFA/UFA <------ Key Player
Ellis Hobbs, CB - RFA/UFA <------ Key Player
Nick Kaczur, T - RFA/UFA
Logan Mankins, G - RFA/UFA <------ Key Player
Ryan O'Callaghan, T - RFA/UFA
Le Kevin Smith, DE - RFA/UFA
David Thomas, TE - RFA/UFA
Raymond Ventrone, S - RFA/UFA
Pierre Woods, LB - RFA/UFA
Billy Yates, G - RFA/UFA
Gary Guyton, LB - ERFA
Brad Listorti, TE - ERFA

There are 5 players who I feel are MUST re-signs unless the Pats have someone in the pipeline to replace them. And you are reading that properly. I don't consider Seymour a must re-sign. I love the guy, but if he's expecting to make Haynesworth money, then he won't be retained, regardless of whether the year is capped or uncapped.

HEY BRO! WHAT UP?

I don't know exactly how it's going to work but the NFL needs to decide very soon if their going to be uncapped for an extended period of time or not. I don't think it's fair for teams to be uncapped next year and take advantage of it by signing key free agents and then to find out in 2011, their 20 million over the cap. This should be the only thing that worries us. Other than that, an uncapped world only helps teams like the Pats, Cowboys, Redskins and NY teams because they are in a big market. They are the highest grossing franchises in all of sports. It basically comes down to whether the owner wants to pay the luxury tax or not. So in the Pats case, they can sign whoever the hell the want. However, the teams that should be s***ting their pants are the Jaguars, Lions, Packers, Browns and other small market teams. You know, the whole point of the salary cap was to create more parity in the NFL and reduce the spending of big market teams, no matter how much revenue they made.