Lombardi's view of uncapped future NFL world

[fgssand]

Interesting stuff here (following my thoughts)

I seriously think Patriots are preparing for this and best way to do it is through the draft along with signing their own (next year).

I think it would work to our advantage, we know how to draft AND we are a franchise that has money.

We also have an awesome organization with great ownership, coaching and scouting, not to mention serious talent on the current team to boot.


Watch out players...I don't think you'll win here.


The National Football Post | National Football Post Diner News


FROM PAUL DOMOWITCH OF THE PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS…“An uncapped system is not going to hurt us,” chimed in NFLPA president Kevin Mawae. “The sky’s the limit.” That remains to be seen. While it’s easy for Mawae and (Richard) Berthelsen to talk tough now and suggest that an NFL world without a salary cap would be a utopia for the players, the truth is that won’t necessarily be the case. While no cap would mean teams could spend as much as they wanted on free agents, it also means they could spend as little as they wanted. There would be no salary-cap ceiling or floor. For every big spender like the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, there will be a tightwad like the Bengals’ Mike Brown. Then there are the restrictions in the CBA that accompany free agency in an uncapped year. Most significant, the number of service years to qualify for unrestricted free agency jumps from 4 years to 6. In addition, the eight teams that make it to the divisional round of the playoffs are restricted as to the number of free agents they can sign the following year. The four teams that make it to the conference championship games can’t sign a free agent unless they lose one. “The biggest negative is the shift from 4 years to 6 years to be eligible for unrestricted free agency,” said longtime agent Jerrold Colton. “That is just a huge difference. There will be so many players that have either a significant delay in getting to free agency, or never actually hit it. I mean, 6 years is almost twice the average NFL playing career.”
What fans don’t realize about the uncapped year is that it will be a bonanza for the owners, not the players. Not having to spend a minimum level will allow owners to put a budget on player costs, field very competitive teams and make money. Free agency at six years instead of four is another benefit for the owners because most players do not reach six years in the league, and those who do will be re-signed well before they hit the potential free-agent date. I realize that I’ve always been in the management part of the NFL, but when I look at the uncapped year, I see a huge benefit for the owners.
In free agency, you should spend money on great players and spend very little on role players. Where teams make mistakes (and I’ve made them myself) is when they pay top dollar for a second-level player. Overpaying for mediocrity is a cancer for teams in the UFA market.
Instead of spending big money for free agents, owners would benefit more if they built a first-class scouting department that could be on the cutting edge of finding players. Much like the drug companies invest millions in research and development, NFL owners should invest more money in scouting rather than view it as a way to trim costs.

 

[BPF]

Interesting stuff here (following my thoughts)

I seriously think Patriots are preparing for this and best way to do it is through the draft along with signing their own (next year).

I think it would work to our advantage, we know how to draft AND we are a franchise that has money.

We also have an awesome organization with great ownership, coaching and scouting, not to mention serious talent on the current team to boot.


Watch out players...I don't think you'll win here.


The National Football Post | National Football Post Diner News


FROM PAUL DOMOWITCH OF THE PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS…“An uncapped system is not going to hurt us,” chimed in NFLPA president Kevin Mawae. “The sky’s the limit.” That remains to be seen. While it’s easy for Mawae and (Richard) Berthelsen to talk tough now and suggest that an NFL world without a salary cap would be a utopia for the players, the truth is that won’t necessarily be the case. While no cap would mean teams could spend as much as they wanted on free agents, it also means they could spend as little as they wanted. There would be no salary-cap ceiling or floor. For every big spender like the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, there will be a tightwad like the Bengals’ Mike Brown. Then there are the restrictions in the CBA that accompany free agency in an uncapped year. Most significant, the number of service years to qualify for unrestricted free agency jumps from 4 years to 6. In addition, the eight teams that make it to the divisional round of the playoffs are restricted as to the number of free agents they can sign the following year. The four teams that make it to the conference championship games can’t sign a free agent unless they lose one. “The biggest negative is the shift from 4 years to 6 years to be eligible for unrestricted free agency,” said longtime agent Jerrold Colton. “That is just a huge difference. There will be so many players that have either a significant delay in getting to free agency, or never actually hit it. I mean, 6 years is almost twice the average NFL playing career.”
What fans don’t realize about the uncapped year is that it will be a bonanza for the owners, not the players. Not having to spend a minimum level will allow owners to put a budget on player costs, field very competitive teams and make money. Free agency at six years instead of four is another benefit for the owners because most players do not reach six years in the league, and those who do will be re-signed well before they hit the potential free-agent date. I realize that I’ve always been in the management part of the NFL, but when I look at the uncapped year, I see a huge benefit for the owners.
In free agency, you should spend money on great players and spend very little on role players. Where teams make mistakes (and I’ve made them myself) is when they pay top dollar for a second-level player. Overpaying for mediocrity is a cancer for teams in the UFA market.
Instead of spending big money for free agents, owners would benefit more if they built a first-class scouting department that could be on the cutting edge of finding players. Much like the drug companies invest millions in research and development, NFL owners should invest more money in scouting rather than view it as a way to trim costs.

Good read, thanks. Some on this board are worried about all the unsigned players going into next offseason for the Pats but it's the same all around the league. Everryone is waiting to see what happens w/the cba.

I completely agree that it will be much better for the owners.

 

[Pats726]

This is all uncharted territory....I agree the owners have O minimum and can low ball it and make a killing..even with a bad team bad attendance...how does it help the players?? I really think in uncharted waters..there might be a LOT of side effects that no one can predict...what teams may fair better?? Certainly the Pats...but will it be good for football?? I don't think so..and teh NFLPA is in such disarray..a CBA may never happen again...worst case..is both dumbo Goodell and the NFLPA kill football...an dmake it horrible or worse a lock out or strike...Goodell seems not to care at all...as does the NFLPA..so???? It might be enjoyable for a bit and then.....who knows... HARD to get the toothpaste back in the tube...

 

[signbabybrady]

Interesting stuff here (following my thoughts)

I seriously think Patriots are preparing for this and best way to do it is through the draft along with signing their own (next year).

I think it would work to our advantage, we know how to draft AND we are a franchise that has money.

We also have an awesome organization with great ownership, coaching and scouting, not to mention serious talent on the current team to boot.


Watch out players...I don't think you'll win here.


The National Football Post | National Football Post Diner News


FROM PAUL DOMOWITCH OF THE PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS…“An uncapped system is not going to hurt us,” chimed in NFLPA president Kevin Mawae. “The sky’s the limit.” That remains to be seen. While it’s easy for Mawae and (Richard) Berthelsen to talk tough now and suggest that an NFL world without a salary cap would be a utopia for the players, the truth is that won’t necessarily be the case. While no cap would mean teams could spend as much as they wanted on free agents, it also means they could spend as little as they wanted. There would be no salary-cap ceiling or floor. For every big spender like the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, there will be a tightwad like the Bengals’ Mike Brown. Then there are the restrictions in the CBA that accompany free agency in an uncapped year. Most significant, the number of service years to qualify for unrestricted free agency jumps from 4 years to 6. In addition, the eight teams that make it to the divisional round of the playoffs are restricted as to the number of free agents they can sign the following year. The four teams that make it to the conference championship games can’t sign a free agent unless they lose one. “The biggest negative is the shift from 4 years to 6 years to be eligible for unrestricted free agency,” said longtime agent Jerrold Colton. “That is just a huge difference. There will be so many players that have either a significant delay in getting to free agency, or never actually hit it. I mean, 6 years is almost twice the average NFL playing career.”
What fans don’t realize about the uncapped year is that it will be a bonanza for the owners, not the players. Not having to spend a minimum level will allow owners to put a budget on player costs, field very competitive teams and make money. Free agency at six years instead of four is another benefit for the owners because most players do not reach six years in the league, and those who do will be re-signed well before they hit the potential free-agent date. I realize that I’ve always been in the management part of the NFL, but when I look at the uncapped year, I see a huge benefit for the owners.
In free agency, you should spend money on great players and spend very little on role players. Where teams make mistakes (and I’ve made them myself) is when they pay top dollar for a second-level player. Overpaying for mediocrity is a cancer for teams in the UFA market.
Instead of spending big money for free agents, owners would benefit more if they built a first-class scouting department that could be on the cutting edge of finding players. Much like the drug companies invest millions in research and development, NFL owners should invest more money in scouting rather than view it as a way to trim costs.

I still don't think it will ever get to that....They will figure it out like they have the last few times....

 

[JoeSixPat]

While I have no doubts that the Patriots will continue to field competitive teams without a salary cap, I can't understand anyone trying to convince themselves that the Patriots are better off abandoning a system that punished teams for making unwise personnel and salary cap moves.

Take the Jets. They made quite a few questionable and expensive views, and if not for Favre's voluntary retirement, would be in serious cap hell right now.

Can someone explain to me why letting them out of such a salary cap box they put themselves in would be a GOOD thing for the Patriots?

A portion of the credit due to Belichick comes by way of his skill in making wise choices in the salary cap era. That helped make the Patriots 3 time Super Bowl winners - and created a significant and often lasting divide between the Patriots and teams that made poor choices - especially bad teams that wasted huge bonus money on top pick busts.

Now an owner of a team that has condemned an organization to long-term cap hell can dig out of that hole simply by writing a big check.

How is that good for the Patriots?

 

[Pats726]

While I have no doubts that the Patriots will continue to field competitive teams without a salary cap, I can't understand anyone trying to convince themselves that the Patriots are better off abandoning a system that punished teams for making unwise personnel and salary cap moves.

Take the Jets. They made quite a few questionable and expensive views, and if not for Favre's voluntary retirement, would be in serious cap hell right now.

Can someone explain to me why letting them out of such a salary cap box they put themselves in would be a GOOD thing for the Patriots?

A portion of the credit due to Belichick comes by way of his skill in making wise choices in the salary cap era. That helped make the Patriots 3 time Super Bowl winners - and created a significant and often lasting divide between the Patriots and teams that made poor choices - especially bad teams that wasted huge bonus money on top pick busts.

Now an owner of a team that has condemned an organization to long-term cap hell can dig out of that hole simply by writing a big check.

How is that good for the Patriots?

I think many seem to just look at teh future with the Pats situation and..not look at what will happen league wise...I agree,,,keeping some teams from cap hell..DOES NOT help the Patriots in reality....I am not sure what side effects it will all have...

 

[mayoclinic]

While I have no doubts that the Patriots will continue to field competitive teams without a salary cap, I can't understand anyone trying to convince themselves that the Patriots are better off abandoning a system that punished teams for making unwise personnel and salary cap moves.

Well said. The salary cap favors smart teams like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. It handcuffs everyone, but gives an advantage to those smart enough to work with it intelligently, which is a small minority. It's a great advantage to the Pats, just like the draft process (where dumb teams pay a king's ransom to workout warriors from the combine like Vernon Gholston and Jamarcus Russell, put themselves in salary cap hell, and then get to do it all over again).

 

[fgssand]

While I have no doubts that the Patriots will continue to field competitive teams without a salary cap, I can't understand anyone trying to convince themselves that the Patriots are better off abandoning a system that punished teams for making unwise personnel and salary cap moves.

Take the Jets. They made quite a few questionable and expensive views, and if not for Favre's voluntary retirement, would be in serious cap hell right now.

Can someone explain to me why letting them out of such a salary cap box they put themselves in would be a GOOD thing for the Patriots?

A portion of the credit due to Belichick comes by way of his skill in making wise choices in the salary cap era. That helped make the Patriots 3 time Super Bowl winners - and created a significant and often lasting divide between the Patriots and teams that made poor choices - especially bad teams that wasted huge bonus money on top pick busts.

Now an owner of a team that has condemned an organization to long-term cap hell can dig out of that hole simply by writing a big check.

How is that good for the Patriots?

We are very fortunate to have a great owner, a franchise that is profitable and the best coach / GM in football.

We will continue to thrive if agreement is reached OR in an uncapped world. I have no doubt preparations and decisions are being made for either scenario.

 

[JoeSixPat]

We are very fortunate to have a great owner, a franchise that is profitable and the best coach / GM in football.

We will continue to thrive if agreement is reached OR in an uncapped world. I have no doubt preparations and decisions are being made for either scenario.

As to the quality of our coach and owner... well, yeah, I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise. But what "preparations" are you talking about?

The issue isn't what OUR organization will do - it's the fact that other teams that make perpetually stupid personnel moves suffer an adverse consequence... and under an uncapped NFL, they can erase those bad moves by writing a check.

Compared to the current system that rewards good moves and punishes bad ones, by definition that makes things worse for the Patriots - not better.

 

[Deus Irae]

As to the quality of our coach and owner... well, yeah, I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise. But what "preparations" are you talking about?

The issue isn't what OUR organization will do - it's the fact that other teams that make perpetually stupid personnel moves suffer an adverse consequence... and under an uncapped NFL, they can erase those bad moves by writing a check.

Compared to the current system that rewards good moves and punishes bad ones, by definition that makes things worse for the Patriots - not better.

So you've never heard of the Boston Red Sox then?

 

[JoeSixPat]

So you've never heard of the Boston Red Sox then?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here....

That the Patriots and a New York organization will be the only teams to spend a lot of money without a salary cap? I'd be interested in knowing what facts you have to back that up because Robert Kraft doesn't strike me as the type of guy to spend $300 million on personnel just because he can. Nor would I expect Football to parrot the team spending structure seen in baseball.

Or are you making the point that, yes, the Red Sox have made many bad moves and haven't had to pay the price... effectively trading guys like Rentaria not to play on the team anymore, and replacing them with better players regardless of price tag?

So you're saying that BELICHICK would the same sort of bad decisions but wouldn't have to pay the price?

I don't think you're going to find too many people agreeing with that. Just the opposite - other teams that make poor decisions will be able to dig out of their hole just like the Red Sox have - thereby making them more competitive, just like the Red Sox.

No one else here is suggesting that, for some unknown reason Belichick will suddenly lose his ability when the cap goes away. They're simply talking about the fact that the poor decisions that other teams make could be undone by the swipe of the corporate credit card.

So while I like your Red Sox analogy I think it proves just the opposite of what you intended.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here....

That the Patriots and a New York organization will be the only teams to spend a lot of money without a salary cap? I'd be interested in knowing what facts you have to back that up because Robert Kraft doesn't strike me as the type of guy to spend $300 million on personnel just because he can. Nor would I expect Football to parrot the team spending structure seen in baseball.

Or are you making the point that, yes, the Red Sox have made many bad moves and haven't had to pay the price... effectively trading guys like Rentaria not to play on the team anymore, and replacing them with better players regardless of price tag?

So you're saying that BELICHICK would the same sort of bad decisions but wouldn't have to pay the price?

I don't think you're going to find too many people agreeing with that. Just the opposite - other teams that make poor decisions will be able to dig out of their hole just like the Red Sox have - thereby making them more competitive, just like the Red Sox.

No one else here is suggesting that, for some unknown reason Belichick will suddenly lose his ability when the cap goes away. They're simply talking about the fact that the poor decisions that other teams make could be undone by the swipe of the corporate credit card.

So while I like your Red Sox analogy I think it proves just the opposite of what you intended.

More money than all but a small handful of teams + best coach and owner in the game = consistent advantage.

 

[JoeSixPat]

More money than all but a small handful of teams + best coach and owner in the game = consistent advantage.

Funny - I thought we already had a consistent advantage with an owner and coach who spent wisely compared to those who didn't.

I guess I've completely misjudged Kraft and Belichick now that you've told me they'll outspend nearly every other team - but I still think Bob Kraft might disagree with you there. He'd proably say that he's made himself a success by being frugal and spending wisely... and not by overspending compared to his competition.

I guess in hindsight its a good thing he had the new stadium publicly financed instead of paying for it out of his own pocket, because otherwise that might limit his cashflow compared to the stupid owners who didn't foot the taxpayers with the bill.

 

[Deus Irae]

Funny - I thought we already had a consistent advantage with an owner and coach who spent wisely compared to those who didn't.

I guess I've completely misjudged Kraft and Belichick now that you've told me they'll outspend nearly every other team - but I still think Bob Kraft might disagree with you there. He'd proably say that he's made himself a success by being frugal and spending wisely... and not by overspending compared to his competition.

I guess in hindsight its a good thing he had the new stadium publicly financed instead of paying for it out of his own pocket, because otherwise that might limit his cashflow compared to the stupid owners who didn't foot the taxpayers with the bill.

Your rejoinder is that Kraft might not spend the money? Yes, the guy who spends to the cap pretty much every year is suddenly going to become tight with the cash. Great logic.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Your rejoinder is that Kraft might not spend the money? Yes, the guy who spends to the cap pretty much every year is suddenly going to become tight with the cash. Great logic.

Yet another patented Deus "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" fabricating the assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with him thinks that Robert Kraft is a cheap mizer.

Nor is there any "logic" in making an unsubstantiated statement that because Robert Kraft spends to the limit in a limited spending system, that he will spend an unlimited amount if the cap is lifted.

Kraft will spend WISELY - i.e. enough to give the team to talent to win a Championship. Every year. Period. The current state of the economy alone makes any assertion that Kraft - one of the smartest businessmen around- will spend unlimted amounts completely ludicrous.

And for those teams that don't have the same financial resources as other teams - you might see some owners gamble on borrowed funds, as there aren't too many quicker ways to improve one's team marketing picture than winning a Super Bowl.

Just like you were wrong about Cassel not signing the tender, I think you're wrong if you don't think that Kraft and Belichick will continue to spend wisely - unlike other teams that often OVERSPEND for players even in a capped system.

Just TRY to comprehend that in an uncapped system, it's not only what the PATRIOTS spend that you need to factor - it's the fact that OTHER teams no longer need be hindered by the consequences of their unwise spending.

 

[fgssand]

As to the quality of our coach and owner... well, yeah, I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise. But what "preparations" are you talking about?

The issue isn't what OUR organization will do - it's the fact that other teams that make perpetually stupid personnel moves suffer an adverse consequence... and under an uncapped NFL, they can erase those bad moves by writing a check.

Compared to the current system that rewards good moves and punishes bad ones, by definition that makes things worse for the Patriots - not better.

With the potential for an uncapped year starting next season - I would think they are looking at the next next few years with "what if" scenarios in mind. Not unlike how they dove into cap management and found ways that have become SOP today, such as NLTBE's / LTBE's and moving around cap dollars with flexibility.

I am sure they have thoroughly researched every aspect of what uncapped years mean and how they should do business. Could be trying to stockpile draft choices (if they feel that would be the way to go) or how they deal with contracts thinking eligibility for free agency goes from 4 to 6 years. I am not saying they are going to operate assuming that will be the case, but they cannot make moves in a vacuum without considering what it could mean.

My whole point is that stupid organizations will continue to make stupid moves no mater what arena they operate in while our organization, by it's very nature will succeed.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yet another patented Deus "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" fabricating the assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with him thinks that Robert Kraft is a cheap mizer.

Nor is there any "logic" in making an unsubstantiated statement that because Robert Kraft spends to the limit in a limited spending system, that he will spend an unlimited amount if the cap is lifted.

Kraft will spend WISELY - i.e. enough to give the team to talent to win a Championship. Every year. Period. The current state of the economy alone makes any assertion that Kraft - one of the smartest businessmen around- will spend unlimted amounts completely ludicrous.

And for those teams that don't have the same financial resources as other teams - you might see some owners gamble on borrowed funds, as there aren't too many quicker ways to improve one's team marketing picture than winning a Super Bowl.

Just like you were wrong about Cassel not signing the tender, I think you're wrong if you don't think that Kraft and Belichick will continue to spend wisely - unlike other teams that often OVERSPEND for players even in a capped system.

Just TRY to comprehend that in an uncapped system, it's not only what the PATRIOTS spend that you need to factor - it's the fact that OTHER teams no longer need be hindered by the consequences of their unwise spending.

I'm not saying everyone else is wrong, as you well know. I'm pointing out simple realities and trying to apply those current realities to a possible future. The Patriots bring in top tier money and have the best coach in the game. They spend to the cap almost every year. Making Brady one of the highest paid players in the NFL, paying Moss $9 million per, etc.... are not exactly examples of Kraft refusing to pony up for quality players. If you hear players talk you hear about how well they are treated when it comes to food, facilities and the like. I think all of that would combine to give the team a decided advantage year after year if there were no salary cap. You disagree with that. Now, get back to me when being "spending wisely" and outspending other teams are mutually exclusive. Until then, your argument isn't logical because "spending wisely" does not preclude one from spending a lot.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

There aren't many teams who've been able to manage the cap as successfully as the Pats plus WIN and/or contend so consistently. JMO but I don't see them suddenly going insane, signing every superstar out there just because they're uncapped. Some teams will though,I'm sure, and we know who they are:singing:

The uncapped year comes at a great time for the Pats though, considering all the players we've got coming due after 09 like Big Vince, Sey, and Vrabes among others. No cap might allow the Pats some wiggle room should they decide to keep some of these guys, plus re-tag Cassel if the situation rolls in that direction.

 

[mayoclinic]

My whole point is that stupid organizations will continue to make stupid moves no mater what arena they operate in while our organization, by it's very nature will succeed.

That is probably a very wise and profound view of things, and likely true. Murphy's Law will likely hold true - make it harder for an idiot to screw it up, and a bigger idiot will just come along.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm not saying everyone else is wrong, as you well know. I'm pointing out simple realities and trying to apply those current realities to a possible future. The Patriots bring in top tier money and have the best coach in the game. They spend to the cap almost every year. Making Brady one of the highest paid players in the NFL, paying Moss $9 million per, etc.... are not exactly examples of Kraft refusing to pony up for quality players. If you hear players talk you hear about how well they are treated when it comes to food, facilities and the like. I think all of that would combine to give the team a decided advantage year after year if there were no salary cap. You disagree with that. Now, get back to me when being "spending wisely" and outspending other teams are mutually exclusive. Until then, your argument isn't logical because "spending wisely" does not preclude one from spending a lot.

I must have been imagining it when thinking back to player after player after player that the Patriots refused to overpay to bring back... and that other teams DID overpay for... and THAT'S in a salary cap situation.

Your assessment that the Patriots, now and in a non-capped system, will typically be the highest bidder for services seems somewhat off the mark.

I don't expect a non-capped year to be the Wild West of the NFL. If it comes down to a bidding war on a player now, and in an uncapped system, I don't expect Kraft will be the one to over-pay or consistently be the highest bidder.

And you continue to fully ignore the fact that teams that make poor fiscal choices will no longer be penalized for such moves. How is that better for the Patriots?