The Chaos Once Free Agency Hits

[Ring 6]

NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com

They are among the bottom teams in revenues (hence why they don't want to spend a lot on player personnel costs). I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Same source.
Bengals rank 5th in operating income, Bills 17th

 

[Ring 6]

so this floor is no different than past ones? I doubt that.

It will be a lot closer than implying there was none at all.
Its going be pretty close to the same thing, why wouldnt it be?
Using cash spent instead of cap cost really isnt much of a factor.

 

[patriot lifer]

Same source.
Bengals rank 5th in operating income, Bills 17th

right, because they keep their spending down. An increased floor undermines their strategy and pushes them down the list.

 

[patriot lifer]

It will be a lot closer than implying there was none at all.
Its going be pretty close to the same thing, why wouldnt it be?
Using cash spent instead of cap cost really isnt much of a factor.

Well if you say so. We'll just have to see. My impression from Florio's commentary was that the players would receive a reduced % of revenues but there would be other compensating aspects.
I just scoured PFT's archives and dug up this item:

Next CBA likely will require plenty of teams to spend plenty of cash | ProFootballTalk

There are important differences from what it says, but it remains to be seen whether it's implemented or not.

 

[Ring 6]

right, because they keep their spending down. An increased floor undermines their strategy and pushes them down the list.

Well, you called them low profit teams.
Now you are implying they have spent to the salary cap floor, which I do not believe is correct.

 

[Ring 6]

Well if you say so. We'll just have to see. My impression from Florio's commentary was that the players would receive a reduced % of revenues but there would be other compensating aspects.
I just scoured PFT's archives and dug up this item:

Next CBA likely will require plenty of teams to spend plenty of cash | ProFootballTalk

There are important differences from what it says, but it remains to be seen whether it's implemented or not.

That is from March and its an offer that went nowhere. I don't know how that is pertinent to what is happening today.

 

[patriot lifer]

Well, you called them low profit teams.
Now you are implying they have spent to the salary cap floor, which I do not believe is correct.

The original point was that I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of teams like the Bills and Bengals could be upset over the current direction of negotiations because of an item like this. It's conjecture. Arguing over profit or revenue? Don't get lost in the minutiae. It's the broader idea. Also, someone else brought up the 90% rule -- not me (your war is with them).

And the link does refer back to March (I didn't catch that), but you said that you think the floor would be more similar to the status quo. It could end up that way, but there is reason to believe that it won't be. They're spending all this time crafting this CBA. They're not doing it just to create a carbon copy of the previous one. The change to the floor has been floating out there, and the commentary has indicated that it could be significant. It seems that you were unaware of this aspect that the owners were conceding. No worries, I forgive you. :bricks:

 

[Ring 6]

The original point was that I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of teams like the Bills and Bengals could be upset over the current direction of negotiations because of an item like this. It's conjecture. Arguing over profit or revenue? Don't get lost in the minutiae.

There is a big difference between profit and revenue.

It's the broader idea. Also, someone else brought up the 90% rule -- not me (your war is with them).

No war, I was just trying to discuss. Apparently now I did something wrong by not reading your mind and going by what you wrote?

And the link does refer back to March (I didn't catch that), but you said that you think the floor would be more similar to the status quo.

Actually I said it will be closer to what the floor has been than to none at all. I think, though, its safe to say there isnt going to be a hige difference either way in the end.

It could end up that way, but there is reason to believe that it won't be. They're spending all this time crafting this CBA. They're not doing it just to create a carbon copy of the previous one. The change to the floor has been floating out there, and the commentary has indicated that it could be significant. It seems that you were unaware of this aspect that the owners were conceding. No worries, I forgive you. :bricks:

Where is anyone saying this is a major issue, and a concession being made?
It was mentioned in March. Nothing has really come out about it since. And when it was mentioned there was no analysis I am aware of that would indicate it was any type of concession. What did you read that says this will be a major difference?

 

[patriot lifer]

1. There is a big difference between profit and revenue.

2. No war, I was just trying to discuss. Apparently now I did something wrong by not reading your mind and going by what you wrote?

3. Actually I said it will be closer to what the floor has been than to none at all. I think, though, its safe to say there isnt going to be a hige difference either way in the end.

4. Where is anyone saying this is a major issue, and a concession being made?
It was mentioned in March. Nothing has really come out about it since. And when it was mentioned there was no analysis I am aware of that would indicate it was any type of concession. What did you read that says this will be a major difference?

1. Again, you're getting lost in the details. It's the larger point of the conjecture.

2. When I say 'war' I'm referring to the fact that you come off in a harsh way.

3. A fair opinion, but you still seemed unknowing of the legitimate potential of a differently formulated floor. The idea has been floated out there, and with the intent of enticing the players to compromise. There could be something attractive included in the next CBA. It is a real possibility. Will it happen? Who knows? But it is a viable possibility. Your opinion is that it won't, which I by no means disagree with. But I don't understand how you can say so definitively that it won't change significantly.

4. To your question of will it be a major difference, that's what the commentary indicated. Afterall, it was intended to appeal to the players. The overall offer made by the owners (back in March) wasn't attractive enough, but that doesn't mean that this aspect has been thrown to the waste basket. What we know is that it's something the owners are willing to relinquish, but we don't know if the players dislike it.

 

[Ring 6]

1. Again, you're getting lost in the details. It's the larger point of the conjecture.

If the conjecture is the teams that are in the worst financial condition are going to need to be more favorable to ownership that the best financial conditioned owners, thats kind of a no brainer isnt it?

And your original point was that those 2 owners are the ones behind it based upon being 'least profitable'. They aren't, so what is your conjecture now? I've lost the point

2. When I say 'war' I'm referring to the fact that you come off in a harsh way.

That is all in your perception.

3. A fair opinion, but you still seemed unknowing of the legitimate potential of a differently formulated floor. The idea has been floated out there, and with the intent of enticing the players to compromise.

I do not believe that is correct. It was part of one proposal, and all it said was that instead of a cap floor there would be a cash minimum. Nothing has shown that it would be better for the players, and it hasn't been brought up since that proposal.

There could be something attractive included in the next CBA. It is a real possibility. Will it happen? Who knows? But it is a viable possibility. Your opinion is that it won't, which I by no means disagree with. But I don't understand how you can say so definitively that it won't change significantly.

No thats not what I said at all.
You called it the "Anticheap rule" and said it flies in the face of Ralph Wilson. I have not seen anyone show that Wilson spent significantly under the cap, or that his expenditures would be increased under such a plan.
If your argument is hey, anything could happen, I'm not sure why we would have a discussion, other than 'hey anything could happen', and 'right, see you later'.

4. To your question of will it be a major difference, that's what the commentary indicated. Afterall, it was intended to appeal to the players.

We do not know that. We know the owners put it in a proposal, we do not know if it was a concession that would be better for the players. Cash spent and cap floor are 2 very different things. The Colts could conceivably spend 50% of their cap on Peyton Mannings signing bonus this year, use the other 40% on everyone elses payroll and be under what an equaivalent cap floor would be by quite a bit.

The overall offer made by the owners (back in March) wasn't attractive enough, but that doesn't mean that this aspect has been thrown to the waste basket. What we know is that it's something the owners are willing to relinquish, but we don't know if the players dislike it.

No. We know that it was one piece of a proposal made and rejected months ago. No more, no less.

Your posting suggests that Wilson and Brown are the holdouts and the reason is because of a disagreement with the 90% cash floor.
You have not shown anything to back that up, other than its a guess based on no facts.
I could say the holdouts are Kraft and Mara and its because they demand an 18 game schedule, and argue that its just conjecture and its possible, but I have nothing to back it up, so I might as well talk about something else.

 

[patriot lifer]

1. If the conjecture is the teams that are in the worst financial condition are going to need to be more favorable to ownership that the best financial conditioned owners, thats kind of a no brainer isnt it?

And your original point was that those 2 owners are the ones behind it based upon being 'least profitable'. They aren't, so what is your conjecture now? I've lost the point

That is all in your perception.

2. I do not believe that is correct. It was part of one proposal, and all it said was that instead of a cap floor there would be a cash minimum. Nothing has shown that it would be better for the players, and it hasn't been brought up since that proposal.


3. No thats not what I said at all.
You called it the "Anticheap rule" and said it flies in the face of Ralph Wilson. I have not seen anyone show that Wilson spent significantly under the cap, or that his expenditures would be increased under such a plan.
4. If your argument is hey, anything could happen, I'm not sure why we would have a discussion, other than 'hey anything could happen', and 'right, see you later'.


5. We do not know that. We know the owners put it in a proposal, we do not know if it was a concession that would be better for the players. Cash spent and cap floor are 2 very different things. The Colts could conceivably spend 50% of their cap on Peyton Mannings signing bonus this year, use the other 40% on everyone elses payroll and be under what an equaivalent cap floor would be by quite a bit.


6. No. We know that it was one piece of a proposal made and rejected months ago. No more, no less.

7. Your posting suggests that Wilson and Brown are the holdouts and the reason is because of a disagreement with the 90% cash floor.
You have not shown anything to back that up, other than its a guess based on no facts.
I could say the holdouts are Kraft and Mara and its because they demand an 18 game schedule, and argue that its just conjecture and its possible, but I have nothing to back it up, so I might as well talk about something else.

1. You keep suggesting that there are no facts involved. See #7. I mentioned those two specific owners as examples. Their teams are among the lowest in revenues. They are higher in the rankings in profits because they keep their costs down, which include player personnel costs (fans of those teams will be the first to say that they historically fall short of the salary cap--If they're wrong, then it would be some other owners by). If costs increase, then they have less flexibility in lowering costs. And with less revenues, this is especially problematic because they are more sensitive to increased costs.

2. Nothing has shown it would be better for the players? Isn't that the point of the offer? Although it would explain the ire of the players.

3. If you want to talk Ralph Wilson, I always hear from Bills fans how cheap he is. I thought it was common knowledge. I recall when McNabb was on the trading block, that NFL Analysts ruled out the Bills because he would never pay that much. If this is wrong, then...okay. [Insert cheap owner in his place] I did refer to other teams in my original post. The other point with the Bills and Bengals owners is that I picture them making more of a fuss. I'm basing this on general media coverage over the years. My musings were only 3 lines long in that post because writing essays was what I did in College (not on a board).

4. The basis is that the owners brought up the idea of this altered floor.

5. Then why were people talking about it? Why was it brought up? The whole idea of it is that it was a benefit for the players. You're completely ignoring this. See below point from Kirwan in #6.

6. It's an idea the owners took seriously and have shown are willing to implement. It seems that part of our disagreement is that you think it must not have been helpful to the players. I surmise that the owners thought it was helpful for them. Plus, Pat Kirwan wrote that the design of it would effectively help "help a lot of guys in the middle-income bracket." So one opinion is that it could improve on income inequality. (see the link in the PFT link I posted). Kirwan is a former NFL exec. It's fair for you to guess that it isn't being included in current talks.

7. It's conjecture (an idea reached by incomplete information). And yes, there are facts that we know of. 1. Certain owners are notorious for not breaking the bank. 2. The owners have seriously considered a compromise in the latest talks that can affect those who wish to keep cash flows lower than what other owners would have.

What round are we in? :spygate:

 

[BlueThunder]

Not sure what round it is...but I'm running out of popcorn

 

[patriot lifer]

Not sure what round it is...but I'm running out of popcorn

Does me going to bed soon count as a TKO?

 

[Joker]

I just wish all you clowns who prattle on nonstop day after day, week after week, month after month, all year long about "economics talk on the Patriot FAN board!!!" would go to bed and NEVER wake up.

Really, it's about time a mod made a "Blab all day about contracts,money, housing markets, stocks and arcane legal facets of 900 page agreements" page....then the same six or seven people can beat this frickin' dead jackass to smithereens in the relative anonymity it deserves.

Go Patriots!!! Go NFL football!!~

 

[Mike the Brit]

I just wish all you clowns who prattle on nonstop day after day, week after week, month after month, all year long about "economics talk on the Patriot FAN board!!!" would go to bed and NEVER wake up.

Really, it's about time a mod made a "Blab all day about contracts,money, housing markets, stocks and arcane legal facets of 900 page agreements" page....then the same six or seven people can beat this frickin' dead jackass to smithereens in the relative anonymity it deserves.

Go Patriots!!! Go NFL football!!~

What else is there to talk about? Wes Welker's male chicken?

 

[Mike the Brit]

We're up to post 55 and no one has made the point I'm about to. Am I missing something?

It's a given that any settlement is going to lead to a reduced cap -- that was what the whole lockout was about, wasn't it? So I assume that a lot of teams are going to find themselves scrambling to reduce their cap numbers. Which suggests to me that some middle-ranked veterans -- players in the 1.5m-5m p.a. bracket -- might suddenly find themselves asked to take salary reductions or being cut to be replaced with rookies/minimum salary veterans.

If that's so, it will surely have a big effect on free agency.

 

[Rob0729]

We're up to post 55 and no one has made the point I'm about to. Am I missing something?

It's a given that any settlement is going to lead to a reduced cap -- that was what the whole lockout was about, wasn't it? So I assume that a lot of teams are going to find themselves scrambling to reduce their cap numbers. Which suggests to me that some middle-ranked veterans -- players in the 1.5m-5m p.a. bracket -- might suddenly find themselves asked to take salary reductions or being cut to be replaced with rookies/minimum salary veterans.

If that's so, it will surely have a big effect on free agency.

There will most like not be a reduced cap. The owners are looking to slow the growth of the cap, not constrict it. Most people think that the 2011 cap will be about $5 million or so higher or more than the 2009 cap.

I also don't know if there will be a lot of teams dumping players (at least not a significantly greater rate than 2009) due to salaries. I just don't think the slowed growth of the cap will force teams to shed players to get under the cap like we saw in the late 90s. At least not for a few years.

The cap growth rate slowing could very well start to have teams getting in cap jail like they did in the past, but it probably will take a few years for this to start. Many teams signed big named players to lucrative deals, but they based the structure of these deals with the expectations of the cap growing at a rapid rate year after year. That means that it will take several years of modest cap growth for the sh*t to hit the fan. Maybe if there was a cap constriction, it would happen immediately. But few expect the cap to shrink.

I think where the free agency might get crazy is if the RFA rules go back to 4 years as expected. That means there will be quite a bit of extra young players on the UFA market since all the players with 5 years of playing time who should have been UFAs last year will hit the market as well as the players who now have 4 years of playing time. Conceivably if teams take the strategy of getting younger and go crazy on the free agency market, they might shed some older players. That might happen.

 

[Mike the Brit]

There will most like not be a reduced cap. The owners are looking to slow the growth of the cap, not constrict it. Most people think that the 2011 cap will be about $5 million or so higher or more than the 2009 cap.

I also don't know if there will be a lot of teams dumping players (at least not a significantly greater rate than 2009) due to salaries. I just don't think the slowed growth of the cap will force teams to shed players to get under the cap like we saw in the late 90s. At least not for a few years.

The cap growth rate slowing could very well start to have teams getting in cap jail like they did in the past, but it probably will take a few years for this to start. Many teams signed big named players to lucrative deals, but they based the structure of these deals with the expectations of the cap growing at a rapid rate year after year. That means that it will take several years of modest cap growth for the sh*t to hit the fan. Maybe if there was a cap constriction, it would happen immediately. But few expect the cap to shrink.

Makes sense.

 

[Rob0729]

I just wish all you clowns who prattle on nonstop day after day, week after week, month after month, all year long about "economics talk on the Patriot FAN board!!!" would go to bed and NEVER wake up.

Really, it's about time a mod made a "Blab all day about contracts,money, housing markets, stocks and arcane legal facets of 900 page agreements" page....then the same six or seven people can beat this frickin' dead jackass to smithereens in the relative anonymity it deserves.

Go Patriots!!! Go NFL football!!~

Until there is a new CBA, what is there to talk about. There is no football to talk about.

 

[mgteich]

Did someone force you to read this thread? Did someone force you to respond?

I just wish all you clowns who prattle on nonstop day after day, week after week, month after month, all year long about "economics talk on the Patriot FAN board!!!" would go to bed and NEVER wake up.

Really, it's about time a mod made a "Blab all day about contracts,money, housing markets, stocks and arcane legal facets of 900 page agreements" page....then the same six or seven people can beat this frickin' dead jackass to smithereens in the relative anonymity it deserves.

Go Patriots!!! Go NFL football!!~