mgteich

Now, I know that none of this will be necessary if there is no cap. I think that Brady will be extended with a 2010 cap hit at or below the $10M Miguel has listed. And I think there is easily enough money for two of Mankins, Seymour and Wilfork, even at $10M a year of 2010 cap. With restructures and a bit of work, we might even be able to sign all three.

BTW, we could use a 1st or 2nd round draft pick on a guard to replace Neal or Mankins.
================================================== ==
CURRENT SITUATION (34 "signed" for 2010 plus six 2010 rookies for a total of 40)
Using Miguel's numbers, I have eliminated thaose who likely won't make the squad and added the rookies.
================================================
IN ROUND NUMBERS WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY $45M LEFT for 13 spots.
================================================
SIGN OR REPLACE FOR $25M 2010 CAP OR AT AN AVERAGE OF $2.5M EACH
Gostkowski
Faulk
Neal
Kaczur
Watson
Alex Smith
Galloway
Bodden
Green
Woods
=========================================
THAT LEAVE $20M for
Mankins
Seymour
Wilfork
=========================
We can CERTAINLY afford two of the three, if we choose to.

MoLewisrocks

There is certainly no quit in you. Just as long as it's on your terms, I guess.

We're fine with a cap in 2010 and fine without one. BTW a new CBA would make that $20M go a lot farther than the three you mentioned. Because with 6 years to amortize and no 30% rules we'd be back to crafting deals with minimal first year cap consequences if we choose to.

Pats726

Does anyone KNOW what might be in a new CBA???,,,,"new CBA would make that $20M go a lot farther than the three you mentioned. Because with 6 years to amortize and no 30% rules"....I think IF they come to a new CBA..those rules COULD be brought over...or maybe not?? There's NO guarantee what might be in a new CBA..it's all open for negotiation. IF the new CBA has similar things, you are correct..but there could be a lot of changes.
Mgtch...it's always good to look ahead and at LEAST see options. AND what you are saying might indicate that possibly all 3 COULD be signed..and it may not be a one or the other. Great point!

PatsChowder

When it all comes down to it, this is only thing we know. Everyone is talking about the potential for an uncapped season, but as a player I'd rather have a strong long term deal in place now than wait for the uncapped year that never happens.

__________________
Follow me on
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, and don't forget to check out
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Are you a Sox fan as well? Swing by
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
for a new look at your team.

MoLewisrocks

Those rules are just part of the poison pill provisions in an expiring CBA. While they may return as the same at the end of a new CBA, they will not be present in it's first 4 years (assuming as in the past they do a 6 year agreement). This last go round was also an oddity in that they were so unhappy with what they were agreeing to at the 11th hour they made the last two years of the deal voidable (kinda like they do in some contracts...).

MoLewisrocks

Especially considering the year that follows the uncapped year is projected to be a work stoppage year therefore as 2010 unfolds there may be a lot less owners/teams interested in signing expensive FA's to deals that hand them years worth of out of pocket bonus money up front. This is the message the owners are attempting to impart to the players when they talk about no floor as well as no ceiling... Facing a no revenue season owners may actually choose to start pocketing as much of the pooled revenue as they can in 2010 before the TV contract spigot gets shut off to carry their non player related expenses like debt service and off field employees and other investments through 2011.

Jimke

In a new CBA, the union might make some concessions in return for

a four year maximum for first round contracts and three year maximum

for all other contracts with no RFAs. They might also try to eliminate

the franchise tag.

MoLewisrocks

Although oddly last time around none of that came up. At the end of the day it's all about % and size of the pie. I don't think the union will be looking to trade much of that away for concessions, especially given all the new issues Goodell is busily creating.

Any tradeoffs on rookie contract length and control will likely center around a rookie bonus cap. And seeing how the veteran players feel about that the owners won't have to trade much for more for it beyond some compeomising on length of rookie deal and assurance that the bonus money not spent there will be spent on veterans. Perhaps in the form of increasing veteran exemptions and roster limits.

There are lots of details to ponder, but at the end of the day it will be easier to construct extensions absent poison pills present in an expiring CBA. And that was the only real issue being discussed.

Pats726

I am wondering IF these poison pills would be in effect in 10 whether or NOT a CBA is in place or not?? (part of the expiring CBA...) OR would a new CBA (if negotiated and agreed upon before the start of 10 season) possibly override these provisions?? I think more a technical question...of if/when the old one expires..new one takes over.

Pats726

Agreed....totally...BUT who knows how these clowns will do?? I THINK Today they are meeting...At least they are starting early.