jsull87

OK seeing as we have all these starters with contracts about to come up i was just wondering this. There is an uncapped year coming up. Why not sign all these guys to deals where in that uncapped year they get paid llike they want say 20 million (this is assuming kraft can pay). Then with that contract they have been signed for say 6 years but in the following 5 years they are making a middle of the road salary. So when the deal is all don say we sign wilfork seymour mankins... even peppers for that uncapped year to 20 million each then the rest of their contract can be alot more manageable. I don't know if this is possible i was just wondering, if so why not go on an absolute spending spree that year?

Pats726

Just off the top of my head...what if there is NOT an uncapped year??? Are u going to wait to the last minuute to sign them??

patsfan-1982

i argee the owners will try everything not to have a uncaped yer will maybe not jerry jones lol but the rest of them will

friggs

I have always wondered this, and if I am missing something I'd be glad for the info, but here it is...IF there is an uncapped year and teams (Pats and the rest) sign guys to huge contracts say for 5 years with 90% of the money in the first uncapped year what is to stop players from taking the huge first year salary and then hold out in year two or three since they will "only" be making X dollars instead of the 5X dollars they got in year one?

ctpatsfan77

How would that be any different than the deals that many players sign today that give them most of their money upfront? For example, Welker's getting less than $2M this year—but he's already been paid about $10M.

It's only if the total amount they've been paid becomes drastically unfair that this would be likely to happen.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

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

ctpatsfan77

It's essentially impossible to do a contract like the OP's in 2009, because of the rules designed to prevent teams from backloading contracts. So, it would only be possible to do that in 2010, and if 2010 were capped, no one would do it (well, maybe Al Davis. . . . ).

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

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

eom

my memory's a little vague on this, but I'm pretty sure the league fixed it so you can't do that.

I think the rule is that if the first year salary is......hmmmmm....I forget, but let's say twice as large as year 2, then it's considered a signing bonus rather than salary, and so is amortized for cap purposes.

I think the way it shakes out is you COULD hide a little bit on contracts in 2010 via frontloading, but nothing like you're thinking.

edit: oh, and the other thing is I'm not sure kraft wants to pay out 200m, especially a year before a possible work stoppage.

ctpatsfan77

But if there's no cap in 2010, what difference does that make?

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

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

AndyJohnson

The owners seem to feel an uncapped year is better for them.
There are a lot mor facets to an uncapped year than just that their isnt a salary cap.
The uncapped SYSTEM greatly restricts player movement. There are more tags (and we've seen how much players are against the tag) there are restrictions on signing free agents, particularly for good teams. There is no minimum cap(actually floor).
Really an uncapped system is essentially better for the owners in every way except opening up the possibility that they will be self-destructive and outbid each other for players all the way to the poor house. I recognize that baseball owners pretty much did exactly that in the past, but everyone seems to forget the NFL owners are a very organized group of 32 people who understand very clearly they are all in it together.

Pats726

Not sure if that is teh case..I think many may THINK they can use the floor and gain a lot of profit...BUT if it is such a good thing why are the owners threatening a lockout?? IF it is so good for them..they would not be even thinking of that. I do agree uncapped year will restrict movement of players...but it also might open the door for other things.