Don Banks on an uncapped 2010

[spacecrime]

I recognize that - but there are some who believe this is going to be the wild west with Kraft and other richer teams spending like there's no tomorrow

No one said that. What was said was that without a cap, some teams will spend more than they would have if there was a cap.

I'm not worried about Snyder. His free spending can't even get him into the playoffs. As long as he is playing fantasy football with real money, the Redskins aren't going anywhere.

The teams to worry about are teams with money to spend and who can build cometitive teams. And the biggest team people should worry about is THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS. You think everyone dislikes the Pats now? Wait until Kraft re-signs all his key players and signs one or two more key FAs and BB pulls out the draft of the century with picks he moved back from this year. Pats will have a terrific team and will be despised by everyone west of the Berkshires.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I agree that the Pats don't spend foolishly, but they drop out of the market for players they want because of the cap ramifications of signing those players. Both Belichick and Pioli have admitted that to some point. They probably would have kept Samuel if there was no cap consideration last year. They probably would have resigned Branch too. Belichick probably would have no problem pulling the trigger to trade for Peppers if there was no cap.

There is a difference between just throwing big money at every name out there whether they are past their prime, don't fit your system, or are just guys looking for a buck, and once paid, have no desire to work hard and being unrestricted by a salary cap and now have no restraints to go after the top free agents that do fit your system, will work hard, and still can make an impact. The Pats won't just pay big bucks to acquire every big name out there that they can. But if there is a marquee free agent that they are extremely high on that in a cap year would just be too expensive to fit under the cap without sacrificing elsewhere, don't be shocked if the Pats go hard after that player and overpay for him in an uncapped year.

I think in an uncapped year assuming they aren't too hamstrung by the top 8 rule, the Pats will be a major player in free agency and could uncharacteristically over pay for a player or two or three. It won't mean they will change their philosophy and just sign all the big name free agents they can. But they will go after marquee guys they are high on.

You're wrong about why they let Samuel and Branch and even Givens and Woody and Willie walk. It was because he believed they weren't worth what the market was willing to pay them. And he was right.

Another reason they won't do what you predict is because it would undermine their system and the salary structure across the board. And that's the underpinning of the system. Pioli is installing the same system in KC. He has over $40M in cap yet he isn't signing every FA he can get his hands on. He figures like Kraft does that bluster aside, the cap will return and bite those who abused in in a last capped or uncapped year in the ass. You still have to pay all that guaranteed money irrespective of cap consequence or performance. They've had an unspoken but acknowledged rule of thumb here for the last 4-5 years. No one on this roster makes more than the QB. And the QB makes no more than 10-12% of the cap. Their discipline in maintaining their system isn't going to evaporate over an uncapped year.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

if you mean the rule of 8, they have about 30 contracts expiring this season, so I'd imagine they'd have SOME attrition of free agents to replace.

if you mean the further restrictions of being in the final 4, or whatever, I have no idea what those are.

This was part of post over at Planet discussing an uncapped 2010:

Incentive Point Three - Playoff Teams will have a ‘Final 8 Rule'. The rule will restrict the final eight teams in the playoffs from signing free agents. The final four teams shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any unrestricted free agent to a player contract except for players who acquired their status by being cut or were on a final four team when their contract expired. Playoff teams five thru eight will be allowed to sign one player with a salary of $4,925,000 or more and any number of players with a first-year salary of no more than $3,275,000 and an annual increase of no more than 30 percent in the following years.

There is a mechanism to permit the final eight teams to sign an unrestricted free agent for each one of their own unrestricted free agents who sign with another club as long as they don't spend more than what their own lost player received from his new club.

I expect New England will lose some Free Agents, which appears to have been part of the planning all along. That will allow them an opportunity to bring in some help, but the big spending dreamers may be disappointed with the cash restrictions involved.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

none of this matters. They will get a deal done in time, and there will be a cap. IMHO


If they don't, and there's a stoppage, ouch. That'll make 2 years that Brady loses to make his point that he's the best ever.

 

[Pats726]

Yeah, I think the Snyders, Jones, and Krafts of the NFL might spend quite a bit more or not, but I also think there will be several teams that take advantage of no salary floor. Mike Brown of the Bengals seems to be perfectly happy to win the title of most frugal owner even at the expense of a chance to win the Super Bowl.

There will be some owners who spend like crazy and others who won't spend at all.

That is true...if a team can make MORE money by spending way less...it's what will be the bottom line...so there will be two extremes...SPEND like crazy or spend little...fot owners..the bottom line is all that matters...THAT will not be good for pro football...the rich will get richer the poor will be worse off...

 

[Rob0729]

You're wrong about why they let Samuel and Branch and even Givens and Woody and Willie walk. It was because he believed they weren't worth what the market was willing to pay them. And he was right.

Another reason they won't do what you predict is because it would undermine their system and the salary structure across the board. And that's the underpinning of the system. Pioli is installing the same system in KC. He has over $40M in cap yet he isn't signing every FA he can get his hands on. He figures like Kraft does that bluster aside, the cap will return and bite those who abused in in a last capped or uncapped year in the ass. You still have to pay all that guaranteed money irrespective of cap consequence or performance. They've had an unspoken but acknowledged rule of thumb here for the last 4-5 years. No one on this roster makes more than the QB. And the QB makes no more than 10-12% of the cap. Their discipline in maintaining their system isn't going to evaporate over an uncapped year.

The reason they were not worth the money they were given is because of the cap. If Kraft says build a winner and money is no object next year in an uncapped year, Belichick isn't going to not sign a free agent because he feels he isn't worth the money. Branch and Samuel were not worth the cap hit they are occupying. Pioli and Belichick couldn't care less what it would cost to sign them in real dollars. They are in charge of football operations, not profit and losses. If Kraft doesn't care about the money in an uncapped year, Belichick certainly won't.

Again, I never said that every team would spend like drunken sailors. What does a small market franchise like the Chiefs being $40 million under the cap have to do with a billionaire like Daniel Snyder who uses the Redskins as a fantasy football team and is always right up against the cap.

MLB has no cap and it doesn't mean that every team spends like crazy. There are about a half dozen teams that do while other's entire payroll equals A-Rod's salary. That is what I expect in the NFL. The Redskins, Cowboys, and Pats (and a few others) will be the Red Sox and Yankees of the NFL and teams like Cincy will be the Pirates of the NFL.

As for for the QB rule, Brady will probably get a new contract next year anyway especially if it is an uncapped year. So he will most likely be the highest paid player on the team even if the Pats spend a lot. I guarantee you if there is an uncapped year, Kraft will take full advantage of paying Brady a huge 2009 salary or roster bonus in 2009 to help in future cap hits if the salary cap is reintroduced. The Pats could give him $30-40 million in 2009 and have it completely off the books come 2010 if the salary cap is reintroduced in 2010. His future cap hits in that scenario could be much lower than they are now. That is the benefit of an uncapped year.

I guarantee you teams will take advantage of the uncapped year if there is one. Not every team, but quite a few. It is the perfect way to acquire big free agents and resign some of your own and actually improve future cap hits for those players.

 

[Rob0729]

That is true...if a team can make MORE money by spending way less...it's what will be the bottom line...so there will be two extremes...SPEND like crazy or spend little...fot owners..the bottom line is all that matters...THAT will not be good for pro football...the rich will get richer the poor will be worse off...

Well, that's the way MLB works. And nationally, the sport has suffered a lot for it. Baseball is still huge in NY and Boston, but smaller markets where their home team is eliminated from contention before season starts have weak fan support.

I think that is why owners like Kraft who would benefit personally from a lack of a cap are totally against it. The Pats would be a perenial Super Bowl team with no cap, but the sport would become regionalized like baseball. That isn't good for the league. If that wasn't a concern, Kraft would be all over an uncapped league because he could satisfy both the fan and businessman in himself long beyond the Belichick/Brady era.

 

[upstater1]

Well, it actually helps Daniel Snyder the most because he has the most money of any owner and the largest revenue stream, but Kraft isn't that far behind. Snyder is looking forward to overpay for every free agent available next year.

One popular misconception is that Kraft is afraid to spend his money. If you look at the deals he made prior to Belichick, Kraft was fast and loose with his money. In fact, he made Belichick overpay for Bledsoe and Milloy. It took like seven years for a CB to get a bigger deal than Ty Law got in the late 90s. Even when salaries grew exponentially, no CB got the deal Law did until I think Champ Bailey did his current deal.

So, Snyder is hoping his team isn't one of the best 8 in football?

 

[Rob0729]

So, Snyder is hoping his team isn't one of the best 8 in football?

First, he would happily sit out of free agency next year for a Super Bowl this year. He hopes he will be have a playoff team and contend for a Super Bowl.

Second, being one of the top 8 teams doesn't exclude him from spending like crazy next year. It just makes it harder to do. As his free agents get signed by other teams and if any decent players get cut, he can spend like crazy.

I bet Snyder does expect that an uncapped year is his best shot at winning a title though. He still believes he can buy a championship.

 

[spacecrime]

I guarantee you teams will take advantage of the uncapped year if there is one.

How do you guarantee that? You cannot guarantee anything not under your control. You may think the owners will do this or that, but you cannot guarantee they will.

This type of silly statement is best left to newbies and agitators.

It is second only to the, "Anyone who doesn't think the way I do is deluded/dumb/not paying attention" as a sign that the speaker has nothing real to support his stance.

I agree with you that teams will take advantage of an uncapped year, though in ways we probablly cannot even guess, let alone guarantee. NFL owners are businessmen and got rich by taking advantage of opportunities and turning setbacks into opportunities via preparation and executing a sound business plan.

But it is only our opinion, that's all. That we're right is irrelevant; it's still a guess and a speculation on our part, nothing more.

 

[Rob0729]

How do you guarantee that? You cannot guarantee anything not under your control. You may think the owners will do this or that, but you cannot guarantee they will.

This type of silly statement is best left to newbies and agitators.

It is second only to the, "Anyone who doesn't think the way I do is deluded/dumb/not paying attention" as a sign that the speaker has nothing real to support his stance.

I agree with you that teams will take advantage of an uncapped year, though in ways we probablly cannot even guess, let alone guarantee. NFL owners are businessmen and got rich by taking advantage of opportunities and turning setbacks into opportunities via preparation and executing a sound business plan.

But it is only our opinion, that's all. That we're right is irrelevant; it's still a guess and a speculation on our part, nothing more.

I think I have seen enough of sports without cap to know that it is all but a certainty that it will happen. Who knows? Daniel Snyder might have a religious experience and finally realize that throwing money at overpriced talent is not the way to go. Maybe the New York teams will get those average Joes to gladly pay out thousands of dollars in PSLs for nosebleed seats in a bad economy and not feel the pressure to buy a winner. I mean the Jets the last few years have shown incredible restraints and frugality the last few years. Maybe Jerry Jones will lose his shirt on his new stadium and declare bankrupcy.

Hey look at the Yankees. They drew a line in the sand this year and decided not to sign a single big name free agent and cut costs (note the sarcasm). Maybe the NFL will follow suit.

You want to play the game about using the word "guarantee" go ahead. It doesn't change the argument. That fact of the matter there are plenty of owners who have shown in the past that they are unable to use financial restraint and the only reason why a lot of teams don't spend over the cap is because they have found the tricks and loopholes to avoid it. Daniel Snyder was over the cap this year and it didn't stop him for going on a spending spree and are even rumored to be primed to try to trade for Jay Cutler. What makes you think he would act responsibly with no cap when he can't with a cap?

 

[JoeSixPat]

I agree that the Pats don't spend foolishly, but they drop out of the market for players they want because of the cap ramifications of signing those players. Both Belichick and Pioli have admitted that to some point. They probably would have kept Samuel if there was no cap consideration last year. They probably would have resigned Branch too. Belichick probably would have no problem pulling the trigger to trade for Peppers if there was no cap.

There is a difference between just throwing big money at every name out there whether they are past their prime, don't fit your system, or are just guys looking for a buck, and once paid, have no desire to work hard and being unrestricted by a salary cap and now have no restraints to go after the top free agents that do fit your system, will work hard, and still can make an impact. The Pats won't just pay big bucks to acquire every big name out there that they can. But if there is a marquee free agent that they are extremely high on that in a cap year would just be too expensive to fit under the cap without sacrificing elsewhere, don't be shocked if the Pats go hard after that player and overpay for him in an uncapped year.

I think in an uncapped year assuming they aren't too hamstrung by the top 8 rule, the Pats will be a major player in free agency and could uncharacteristically over pay for a player or two or three. It won't mean they will change their philosophy and just sign all the big name free agents they can. But they will go after marquee guys they are high on.

The Patriot's certainly won't have to do the things they do to get under the cap in the current system - and that freedom certainly helps administratively - but I think they'll spend as wisely as they always have.

Maybe the cap flexibility does allow them to sign a player they might not otherwise - though there's ALWAYS things that can be done to find cap space if there's a guy they want... so I don't see that changing dramatically.

Maybe they don't have to cut guys who are deemed salary cap liabilities - but those are usually role players anyway

Obviously it's not a hinderance to the Patriots to be without a cap - my concern is that it benefits other teams MORE than it does the Pats - especially those that have a history of spending UNWISELY as there's no longer the same negative impact to those teams

 

[Rob0729]

The Patriot's certainly won't have to do the things they do to get under the cap in the current system - and that freedom certainly helps administratively - but I think they'll spend as wisely as they always have.

Maybe the cap flexibility does allow them to sign a player they might not otherwise - though there's ALWAYS things that can be done to find cap space if there's a guy they want... so I don't see that changing dramatically.

Maybe they don't have to cut guys who are deemed salary cap liabilities - but those are usually role players anyway

Obviously it's not a hinderance to the Patriots to be without a cap - my concern is that it benefits other teams MORE than it does the Pats - especially those that have a history of spending UNWISELY as there's no longer the same negative impact to those teams

The Pats won't pay big bucks for just any name, but they may be willing to pay Seymour top dollar even if they don't think he is worth it but he fits the system well or pay Peppers top dollar if he is a free agent next season or make Brady the highest paid player in history (as long as they make something like $30-40 million accrue in 2009 so it doesn't appear in subsequent years) or overpay another player they are high on since there is no cap. They won't pay a 12 year veteran top dollar to reward him for doing what they do for another team when all the value he has is as a role player.

To think that they will be really high on a player and not spend the money just because they think it would be irresponsible in any other year, I think you are crazy. The Pats won't be like a kid in the candy shop trying to grab whatever free agent is available, but as long as Kraft is willing to open the pursestrings, they will probably spend whatever they need to to get the right free agents even if they spend a lot.

Belichick is going to have to contend with teams that will be willing to spend a lot of money for the free agents he wants including Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. In previous years, the cap stopped him from getting into bidding wars. Next year without the cap, it is just how much Kraft wants to spend.

Belichick has revised his personnel strategy many times based on the changing environment (lack of post June 1st cuts, more competition for his types of players, more teams using the 3-4, etc.) and he will in an uncapped year. That is one of the big things that sets the Patriots above most of the other teams - adaptability.

Kraft may decide in these economic times that he doesn't want to spend a fortune, but if he writes a blank check to Belichick, Belichick isn't going to avoid paying a player big bucks that he really wants if he can put most of the contract money in 2009 with none of the money going forward into subsequent years if the cap is reinstated. The money could get driven up that Kraft refuses to pay that much (like an ARod type of contract or the equivalent in the NFL), but Belichick's cap value mentality would most certainly be changed quite a bit.

 

[spacecrime]

You want to play the game about using the word "guarantee" go ahead.

Ummm, I'm not playing a game with the word. The game is someone saying "I guarantee this will happen." That is playing a game with the word.

 

[spacecrime]

I think I have seen enough of sports without cap to know ...

We all have seen the same sports without a cap. You are not unique in this regard. Watching other sports does not imbue you with powers denied the rest of us who watch the same sports.

THe fact that there is no clear consensus among many knowledgable fans of what will happen should be an indicator to you that your analysis is not the only possible analysis and that what you think you "know" is opinion, not fact that the rest of us have to accept as gospel.

There is nothing wrong with opinions. We all have them. Just please get off your high horse and pretend that your opinion is a guaranteed lock of the only possible truth. It isn't. Other opinions are equally valid.

As I said, I agree with your opinion, but it is after all only an opinion.

 

[Rob0729]

We all have seen the same sports without a cap. You are not unique in this regard. Watching other sports does not imbue you with powers denied the rest of us who watch the same sports.

THe fact that there is no clear consensus among many knowledgable fans of what will happen should be an indicator to you that your analysis is not the only possible analysis and that what you think you "know" is opinion, not fact that the rest of us have to accept as gospel.

There is nothing wrong with opinions. We all have them. Just please get off your high horse and pretend that your opinion is a guaranteed lock of the only possible truth. It isn't. Other opinions are equally valid.

As I said, I agree with your opinion, but it is after all only an opinion.

I think it is you who need to get off your high horse. I never said said anything disparaging about anyone else's opinion. You act like I said that other's opinions are just stupid and ignorant. You are acting like I think I am morally and intellectually superior because I used the word "guarantee".

I'm sorry I used such an offensive word as guarantee. How I was not banned forever for guaranteeing something just goes to show the moderators aren't doing their job. Maybe you should be blasting them for not putting me in a firing squad for making a guarantee on the site.

 

[eom]

There is a mechanism to permit the final eight teams to sign an unrestricted free agent for each one of their own unrestricted free agents who sign with another club as long as they don't spend more than what their own lost player received from his new club.This was part of post over at Planet discussing an uncapped 2010:

Incentive Point Three - Playoff Teams will have a ‘Final 8 Rule'. The rule will restrict the final eight teams in the playoffs from signing free agents. The final four teams shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any unrestricted free agent to a player contract except for players who acquired their status by being cut or were on a final four team when their contract expired. Playoff teams five thru eight will be allowed to sign one player with a salary of $4,925,000 or more and any number of players with a first-year salary of no more than $3,275,000 and an annual increase of no more than 30 percent in the following years.


I expect New England will lose some Free Agents, which appears to have been part of the planning all along. That will allow them an opportunity to bring in some help, but the big spending dreamers may be disappointed with the cash restrictions involved.

excellent info --- thx for that.

so, my question would be if your ufa's are treated differently from those of another team.
for example, it seems you will only be able to sign one $5m+ guy ---- does that include your own ufa's?

 

[Ring 6]

Daniel Snyder has the money to give a player a seven year/$100 million contract and have $90 million of it be paid out in salary in 2009 if he chooses. That means even if there is a tighter salary cap in a new CBA, the player he has under contract will have a low cap number the final six years.

Even for teams with more realistic budgets, you seem to forget teams pay out a large chunk of money of a player's contract in the first year but most of it is in a signing bonus that is amortized over the life of the contract. In an uncapped year, there will be no signing bonuses because there is no cap to worry about. Everything that would have been a signing bonus in any other year will be either straight salary or a roster bonus to avoid problems with a new CBA that has a more restricted cap. If there is no cap next year and a new cap implemented in 2011, every deal made in 2010 (unless you have a stupid GM) will be far more cap friendly than the same deal in any other year.

As for a work stoppage, if the league loses a year, the contracts just get pushed back a year. So if there is no football in 2011 and it picks up again in 2012, all the contracts for 2011 will be in 2012. Besides, with no dead bonus money for any contracts signed in 2010, it will be easy for teams to cut loose players signed in 2009 in the 2012 season if there is no football in 2011 and they become too old for their contract.

Daniel Snyder desperately wants a Super Bowl championship for his team. I don't think he would be totally opposed to spending an extra $50-100 million to get it done especially when he sees that overpaying players in an uncapped year will have no negative effect if the cap is reinstated. The only thing stopping Snyder from spending the money now is the cap.

As for Kraft, he may look at it as an opportunity to get some top quality free agents in 2009 which may actually improve the Pats' cap situation if they implement a cap in 2010.

I think that everyone is misreading the impact of an uncapped year.
Ownership believes the cost certainty of a hard cap is beneficial to them. Ownership is LOOKING FORWARD to the uncapped year.
They aren't doing that so they can all outbid each other and give all of their money to the players during labor strife and give the players a bigger bargaining advantage.

The owners are looking forward to the uncapped year as a way to break the union.

I expect that an uncapped year will result in free agents struggling to find deals rather than owners stumbling over each other to over pay.
My understanding is that being an NFL owner is not a tremendously profitable venture under the current system (at least up until you profit by selling the team) and abolishing a salary cap and increasing salary expense 25% would destroy many franchises. (That would be over 25,000,000 and there is no way NFL franchises are making 25mill in profits)

I would expect it is much, much more likely that next years free agency in an uncapped system will result in collusion lawsuits than record breaking contracts.

In an uncapped system, NFL owners are smart enough to realize they will put themselves out of business if the league turns into a bidding war like is being suggested by most fans.

 

[spacecrime]

You are acting like I think I am morally and intellectually superior because I used the word "guarantee".

No, I think you cannot guarantee what the owners will do. That is it. How hard is that for you to accept?

I'm sorry I used such an offensive word as guarantee. How I was not banned forever for guaranteeing something just goes to show the moderators aren't doing their job. Maybe you should be blasting them for not putting me in a firing squad for making a guarantee on the site.

Jeez, no need to go into histrionics here. I have blasted no one. Go back and read my posts. All the blasting here is defensiveness coming from your end. I have merely insisted that there are a number of valid positions of what might happen in an uncapped year, and that you cannot guarantee that what you think will occur will actually occur.

Go back and read. But first, is there any reason at all that you cannot talk to anyone without resorting to ridicule or over-the-top hyperbole? Not just this thread, but anytime someone disagrees with you, you either get huffy and ridicule the other person or his idea rather that discuss the point at hand.

I've lost interest in this discussion totally, so let's agree to disagree whether or not it is possible we might actually be wrong about what we predict for 2001. Sheesh.

 

[Ring 6]

I think I have seen enough of sports without cap to know that it is all but a certainty that it will happen. Who knows? Daniel Snyder might have a religious experience and finally realize that throwing money at overpriced talent is not the way to go. Maybe the New York teams will get those average Joes to gladly pay out thousands of dollars in PSLs for nosebleed seats in a bad economy and not feel the pressure to buy a winner. I mean the Jets the last few years have shown incredible restraints and frugality the last few years. Maybe Jerry Jones will lose his shirt on his new stadium and declare bankrupcy.

Hey look at the Yankees. They drew a line in the sand this year and decided not to sign a single big name free agent and cut costs (note the sarcasm). Maybe the NFL will follow suit.

You want to play the game about using the word "guarantee" go ahead. It doesn't change the argument. That fact of the matter there are plenty of owners who have shown in the past that they are unable to use financial restraint and the only reason why a lot of teams don't spend over the cap is because they have found the tricks and loopholes to avoid it. Daniel Snyder was over the cap this year and it didn't stop him for going on a spending spree and are even rumored to be primed to try to trade for Jay Cutler. What makes you think he would act responsibly with no cap when he can't with a cap?

You can't use the Yankees as an example, because there is an uneven playing field. The Yankees spend more because they have exhorbitantly more revenue because of their TV contract. Most of the revenue in pro sports is from the TV contracts. The NFL shares revenue, so the argument has to be that some owner will dip into his non-football assets to overpay and built the 'dream team'.
By the way, anyone fearing 'bought championships' should just look at how thats been working out for the Yankees lately.