2010 Budget

[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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

When it all comes down to it, this :yeahthat: 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.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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!

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]

When it all comes down to it, this :yeahthat: 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.

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]

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!

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]

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.

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]

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...).

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]

When it all comes down to it, this :yeahthat: 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.

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

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

They are called rules under an expiring CBA for a reason. That is the only time they come into play, when it's expiring.

They go away once a new CBA is signed. Remember they existed in 2005 and heading into 2006 too (recall Polian tearing his hair out and threatening to sue because he couldn't clear cap by converting Manning and Harrison's signing bonuses due to Deion and 30% poison pills...had to redo their contracts pending a resolution. Those redo's were torn up once the deal was extended because the poison pills went away.).

However if you do a deal under them nothing in that deal changes once a new CBA is signed until you revisit it under the new CBA. And you can't necessarily do that immediately since you have to wait 12 months to revisit a deal. And some things like prior amortization cannot ever change. One more reason not to necessarily do a badly constructed deal just to do a deal. There are other options.

 

[jmt57]

I would think that with the exception of Dan Snyder, the rest of the NFL owners are going to be conservative with their 2010 budgets if the NFL goes in to an uncapped season.

For one thing if a new CBA has not been agreed upon at that point, then owners would prepare for the possibility of a lockout; the owners are not going to spend a lot of money knowing there is a good chance that there will be no revenue coming in the following year. There are a lot of NFL teams that currently are far under the cap; in fact there are many that are going to need to spend money just to hit the salary floor. In my opinion that is an indication that many owners are already preparing for the possibility of a lockout.

Even if a new CBA is worked out, nobody knows what it will be. So again I would expect most owners to be conservative with their budgets. Why spend a lot of money re-signing free agents only to be in cap hell one year later?

Currently the Pats have been very successful due to their approach to the salary cap. I would expect the Pats to employ a similar philosophy to their 2010 budget as they have had with the salary cap. They will assign a value to a player, and if his contract demands exceed that then they will let him leave. It will be the same philosophy, but with "budget" replacing "salary cap" in their business plan.

 

[Pats726]

They are called rules under an expiring CBA for a reason. That is the only time they come into play, when it's expiring.

They go away once a new CBA is signed. Remember they existed in 2005 and heading into 2006 too (recall Polian tearing his hair out and threatening to sue because he couldn't clear cap by converting Manning and Harrison's signing bonuses due to Deion and 30% poison pills...had to redo their contracts pending a resolution. Those redo's were torn up once the deal was extended because the poison pills went away.).

However if you do a deal under them nothing in that deal changes once a new CBA is signed until you revisit it under the new CBA. And you can't necessarily do that immediately since you have to wait 12 months to revisit a deal. And some things like prior amortization cannot ever change. One more reason not to necessarily do a badly constructed deal just to do a deal. There are other options.

I understand there are RULES...but when do the "rules of the old CBA that is expiring" go away?? So...if the CBA is agreed upon before March 2010(teh start of 10 season)...do these poison pills STILL affect the 10 season OR are they overuled by a new CBA?? I would think that is important to know??

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I understand there are RULES...but when do the "rules of the old CBA that is expiring" go away?? So...if the CBA is agreed upon before March 2010(teh start of 10 season)...do these poison pills STILL affect the 10 season OR are they overuled by a new CBA?? I would think that is important to know??

I don't want to sound harsh but I believe I've already explained this to you as many ways as I can. A new CBA takes precedence going forward the moment it's ratified and signed. HOWEVER, if you already did a deal under the expiring rules you can't change the terms of that deal materially for 12 months and in some cases - like placement of amortization - you can never change that no matter how many times you revisit a contract or under which rules it was constructed. Once amortization hits the books it is there it will remain.

What a new CBA will certainly allow for is longer amortization and no 30% salary increase limits on deals signed once it is in place. The reason I can say that with certainty is just plain old commom sense...

 

[jmt57]

I understand there are RULES...but when do the "rules of the old CBA that is expiring" go away?? So...if the CBA is agreed upon before March 2010(teh start of 10 season)...do these poison pills STILL affect the 10 season OR are they overuled by a new CBA?? I would think that is important to know??

All the rules of the old CBA would go away, becoming null and void once a new CBA is agreed upon and signed. No old rules would remain in effect, like a 'grandfather clause' unless both sides agreed to that, in which case it would need to be included as part of the new CBA.

 

[Pats726]

I don't want to sound harsh but I believe I've already explained this to you as many ways as I can. ...

I don't wish to be harsh either..BUT it was as about muddy as it can be...BUT..you did clear that up here...Thank you!!

A new CBA takes precedence going forward the moment it's ratified and signed. HOWEVER, if you already did a deal under the expiring rules you can't change the terms of that deal materially for 12 months and in some cases - like placement of amortization - you can never change that no matter how many times you revisit a contract or under which rules it was constructed. Once amortization hits the books it is there it will remain.
What a new CBA will certainly allow for is longer amortization and no 30% salary increase limits on deals signed once it is in place. The reason I can say that with certainty is just plain old commom sense...

Now what you have said makes sense...that contracts made BEFORE a new CBA can not be changed for a year even though a new CBA may have different rules, different sorts of conditions etc. That makes mucho sense.
I wonder if there is advantages to waiting to see if there is an uncapped year or not?? Or if it's more important for a deal to be made not knowing?? I am sure there are pros and cons...but I have to think this will play a BIG part in any big money negotiations.

 

[mgteich]

No one knows what new rules March 1st might bring for new contracts and for the 2010 and 2011 cap. Players and teams can or cannot make deals now not knowing.

A deal can remove the uncertainly for both player and team.

 

[Pats726]

No one knows what new rules March 1st might bring for new contracts and for the 2010 and 2011 cap. Players and teams can or cannot make deals now not knowing.

A deal can remove the uncertainly for both player and team.

I wonder what the limits are about that?? More what is prudent fair in making deals now?? NOT knowing...I agree and I HOPE all sides will pressure Smith and Goodell to get on with it. (NOT that they will ever listen...)