This offseason and the prospect of an uncapped 2010

[stinkypete]

Alot of fans, I think of all teams, are looking at the 2010 offseason with a lot of uncertainty because under the current CBA the league will go uncapped for the year. I've seen on this board some posters already looking at next offseason like a potential disaster with so many free agents.

One detail I don't think anyone has noticed, and it was mentioned in PFT today, is that during the uncapped year, only players with 5 years service will be granted unrestricted free agency. Look at the Patriots major free agents after next year:

Faulk (vet)
Gostkowski (4 years service)
Green (vet/possible cut)
Hobbs (5 years service)
Kaczur (5 years service)
Mankins (5 years service)
Neal (vet)
Seymour (vet)
Vrabel (vet)
Watson (6 years service)
Wilfork (6 years service)

Most of the young names on that list won't be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Does this mean restricted free agency for them instead? Either way, under the current CBA, it looks like the young core of the team will be able to be kept intact for another offseason.

If this is true, then I think that the assertion that this offseason will be dedicated to locking up younger players long term is incorrect. Wilfork being the one exception, but I can see even his contract being allowed to run out. That extra couple of million in cap space could go a long way in 2009, and he will be franchised next year if an extension isn't worked out.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One detail I don't think anyone has noticed, and it was mentioned in PFT today, is that during the uncapped year, only players with 6 years service will be granted unrestricted free agency. Look at the Patriots major free agents after next year:

Six years, not five (i.e., only players who started prior to 2005 would be UFAs in 2010).

Most of the young names on that list won't be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Does this mean restricted free agency for them instead? Either way, under the current CBA, it looks like the young core of the team will be able to be kept intact for another offseason.

Yes, they become RFAs, but remember that the minimum value of an RFA tender is the greater of the contracted amounts (e.g., the ~$1.4M the Patriots gave Mike Wright for a second-round tender this year) or 110% of the player's salary the previous year (not his cap hit).

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Alot of fans, I think of all teams, are looking at the 2010 offseason with a lot of uncertainty because under the current CBA the league will go uncapped for the year. I've seen on this board some posters already looking at next offseason like a potential disaster with so many free agents.

...

I'm among those who don't think this is a disaster at all for the Pats. Sure, it might be a disaster for small market teams like Tennessee, Indy, San Diego. But, cry me a river. Their players and management were at the forefront of dumping all over us during Spygate. And, franchises like Buffalo that want to freeload off of what owners like Kraft and Jones and Snyder and Laurie generate for the league deserve a comeuppance. Why do I care if they're going to have a tough time?

The Pats, within reason, are going to have no trouble spending well above the cap.

And, I'm clearly not someone who thinks that a more "Free Market" NFL would be all that bad. There's nothing magical about "32" Franchises and there's certainly nothing magical about them all staying in their current locales. There are some dinosaur owners and franchises that are taking advantage of what other teams are building. It wouldn't be all that bad to let the market sort it out.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Uncapped FA year = Yankees vs Sox in baseball?
If you saw the Yankees ridiculous offseason - Sabathia, Teixeira, Burnett, etc.
You'd have reason to be concerned.

Watch out for the Redskins spending spree.
Salaries will definitely go UP during the uncapped year.
If you can lock up your own players at least past 2010.
Then go get the best free agents you can when the spending spree starts.
Teams willing to throw around money WILL get the best players available in 2010.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

the players will be locked out before they play a game in an uncapped year

 

[ctpatsfan77]

the players will be locked out before they play a game in an uncapped year

They can't be.

The CBA specifically forbids lockouts (and strikes, BTW) until the CBA expires, which is after the first uncapped year, not before.

 

[DGameguy]

I don't understand why people are panicking about this. I think it could actually be a good thing.

Why? Because, if we are to believe the Patriots will be playoff contenders next season, the uncapped year would actually work against them if they resigned most of those players. Under the rules of the uncapped year, teams that make the playoffs are limited in their ability to sign free agents. Playoff teams would only be able to sign 1 free agent for every free agent that leaves. If the Patriots have a number of free agents that year, it gives them more maneuverability to pursue free agents.

Just a thought.

 

[AFPatsFan12]

I admit freely that I don't follow the "business" side of the game all that much, if at all, so these questions may seem dumb. But what needs to be done to prevent an uncapped 2010? Or is it already too late to do so? Also, if you go uncapped for 2010, how do you go back to having a cap in subsequent years? Is that just something teams have to prepare for and think about before going on a player-shopping binge cough: Redskins :cough?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

But what needs to be done to prevent an uncapped 2010? Or is it already too late to do so? Also, if you go uncapped for 2010, how do you go back to having a cap in subsequent years? Is that just something teams have to prepare for and think about before going on a player-shopping binge cough: Redskins :cough?

They need to agree to a new CBA before the old one expires. Of course, it would likely have to have some provision to protect teams from screwing themselves over in 2010 (e.g., some sort of a luxury tax instead of a hard cap in 2010).

And keep in mind Gene Upshaw said, before he died, "once the salary cap goes away, it's gone forever." The players will never agree to a new hard cap unless it's demonstrably a case of hard cap versus no jobs.

 

[upstater1]

I don't want to see Football go the way of baseball. Baseball used to be my favorite sport--in the 80s. I lost interest by the early to mid 90s.

 

[Synovia]

And keep in mind Gene Upshaw said, before he died, "once the salary cap goes away, it's gone forever." The players will never agree to a new hard cap unless it's demonstrably a case of hard cap versus no jobs.

I'm still surprised by that. Not having a cap helps 5% of the players. Yes, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning/Larry Fitzgerald, etc, are going to make more money, but its not going to help the Lewis Sanders and Jabar Gaffneys that make up 90% of the NFL.


Its seems like the top 5% of the NFL salary earners control the union, despite the fact that they are in direct opposition to the rest of the league. The fact that the union opposes draft slot salary is a clear example of this... the only players that get helped by the current draft salary structure are the first 10 picked.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm still surprised by that. Not having a cap helps 5% of the players. Yes, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning/Larry Fitzgerald, etc, are going to make more money, but its not going to help the Lewis Sanders and Jabar Gaffneys that make up 90% of the NFL.


Its seems like the top 5% of the NFL salary earners control the union, despite the fact that they are in direct opposition to the rest of the league. The fact that the union opposes draft slot salary is a clear example of this... the only players that get helped by the current draft salary structure are the first 10 picked.

Some people have argued it's the agents that are playing the union (since the agents get up to 3% of a player's deal, the agents representing the top players have no incentive to see the current system change).

 

[Synovia]

Some people have argued it's the agents that are playing the union (since the agents get up to 3% of a player's deal, the agents representing the top players have no incentive to see the current system change).

Well, theres only about $10M between the salary cap and salary floor, and you need 53 players, so I still can't see any incentive on why the guys making Vet-Min still seem to vote for stuff thats only to the good of the top 5%. Theres more agents out there representing average players than elite ones.