Could Pats be prepping for the end of the CBA?

[PonyExpress]

The CBA has its opt-out this November. The rumor is that the owners are likely to end the agreement. Kraft has as much knowledge of this as anyone, maybe more, considering his vote could be decisive. That decision could lead to alot of financial uncertainty going forward, as 2009 may be an uncapped season, if it's played at all. The Krafts may be a reluctant to pay high signing bonuses now if 2009 is a lockout/strike year.

 

[PromisedLand]

The CBA has its opt-out this November. The rumor is that the owners are likely to end the agreement. Kraft has as much knowledge of this as anyone, maybe more, considering his vote could be decisive. That decision could lead to alot of financial uncertainty going forward, as 2009 may be an uncapped season, if it's played at all. The Krafts may be a reluctant to pay high signing bonuses now if 2009 is a lockout/strike year.

Wouldn't they then be wise to lock up players with long-term contracts NOW while the cap is still in effect, rather than have to bid in the free market that will follow the CBA opt-out? Of course if there is a strike or lockout they will lose the benefit of having the player during that period, and therefore would have to consider the guaranteed portion of the contract as being amortized over fewer games, but I would think they could structure a deal so as to make it work out.

 

[PonyExpress]

Wouldn't they then be wise to lock up players with long-term contracts NOW while the cap is still in effect, rather than have to bid in the free market that will follow the CBA opt-out? Of course if there is a strike or lockout they will lose the benefit of having the player during that period, and therefore would have to consider the guaranteed portion of the contract as being amortized over fewer games, but I would think they could structure a deal so as to make it work out.

We don't really know what a post lock-out landscape would look like, so it's hard to speculate, other than to say financial uncertainty may be looming. Assuming that such a breakdown occurs, some teams probably have an idea what the future may hold and are making current decisions with that in mind. The Pats have been ahead of the curve on almost everything so it's pretty safe to bet they are ahead of the curve on this as well.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Wouldn't they then be wise to lock up players with long-term contracts NOW while the cap is still in effect, rather than have to bid in the free market that will follow the CBA opt-out? Of course if there is a strike or lockout they will lose the benefit of having the player during that period, and therefore would have to consider the guaranteed portion of the contract as being amortized over fewer games, but I would think they could structure a deal so as to make it work out.

Nah, that would make too much sense.

 

[JoeSixPat]

We don't really know what a post lock-out landscape would look like, so it's hard to speculate, other than to say financial uncertainty may be looming. Assuming that such a breakdown occurs, some teams probably have an idea what the future may hold and are making current decisions with that in mind. The Pats have been ahead of the curve on almost everything so it's pretty safe to bet they are ahead of the curve on this as well.

I think its safe to say salaries go UP in without the salary cap - wouldn't you?

Locking players into contracts now would therefore be incredibly beneficial.

The only strategic planning would be to backload the contracts so that the current cap hit is light... i.e. extend Brady's contract and you can reduce his current cap hit - when that cap bill comes due there might not be a cap to be concerned about.

 

[PonyExpress]

That "uncapped year" is only one possibility. The result of a lockout could be a better deal for the owners. It could also mean victory for the players and an end to the current salary cap structure. This would make the amortization of signing bonuses irrelevant, and change the financial structure of future deals. Whatever the outcome of an opt-out, the Pats likey have a better idea what it will be than anyone else, given how clever they have been through the years, and how involved in CBA negotiations J. Kraft has been. I just wonder if their current behavior with free agency hints at their thinking re: the CBA.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The CBA has its opt-out this November. The rumor is that the owners are likely to end the agreement. Kraft has as much knowledge of this as anyone, maybe more, considering his vote could be decisive. That decision could lead to alot of financial uncertainty going forward, as 2009 may be an uncapped season, if it's played at all. The Krafts may be a reluctant to pay high signing bonuses now if 2009 is a lockout/strike year.

My understanding of the situation is that even if the owners (or the players) opt out of the CBA this year, the cap would still remain in place until 2010.

 

[sebman2112]

I know a lot of people will probably disagree, but as a Pats fan I'd almost be interested to see the NFL without a salary cap.

The Patriots have been one of the best drafting teams in the league under BB & Pioli, and they also happen to be one of the richest franchises. So, it would be easier to build and maintain their core group of guys, without having to worry about going over your cap to keep them around, if another team wants to sign them away.

 

[primetime]

An uncapped environment ruined the NHL and has made the MLB unbearable. Please, owners, for the love of God do NOT opt out of the CBA. A salary cap is necessary or I'm going go crazy.

 

[winged1dur]

An uncapped environment ruined the NHL and has made the MLB unbearable. Please, owners, for the love of God do NOT opt out of the CBA. A salary cap is necessary or I'm going go crazy.

I guess it's safe to say you are not a fan of the Red Sox,Yankees, Mets or Red Wings!

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Wouldn't they then be wise to lock up players with long-term contracts NOW while the cap is still in effect, rather than have to bid in the free market that will follow the CBA opt-out? Of course if there is a strike or lockout they will lose the benefit of having the player during that period, and therefore would have to consider the guaranteed portion of the contract as being amortized over fewer games, but I would think they could structure a deal so as to make it work out.

Exactly. Prepping for a new CBA to me would look the complete opposite of what we're doing now. Sign Samuel and Moss to backloaded contracts, restructure Colvin, and their salaries would have no consequences in the future.

 

[PatriotsReign]

An uncapped environment ruined the NHL and has made the MLB unbearable. Please, owners, for the love of God do NOT opt out of the CBA. A salary cap is necessary or I'm going go crazy.

It is only logical that a salary cap is best for any sport to maintain competitiveness year after year. You're absolutely right.

Although I love the fact that the Red Sox have been able to win a couple of championships, the lack of competitiveness is so obvious it's sickening. Even revenue sharing doesn't seem to make a difference.

 

[marcus]

2011 would be the first uncapped year.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The CBA has its opt-out this November. The rumor is that the owners are likely to end the agreement. Kraft has as much knowledge of this as anyone, maybe more, considering his vote could be decisive. That decision could lead to alot of financial uncertainty going forward, as 2009 may be an uncapped season, if it's played at all. The Krafts may be a reluctant to pay high signing bonuses now if 2009 is a lockout/strike year.

The uncapped year is 2010, not 2009. 2009 will operate under a cap but exacerbated by the rules for an expiring CBA. Those effect contract negotiation via limits on amortization and salary backloading. There are also rules to limit the ability of playoff teams to sign FA.

Not sure when a strike or lockout might occur, but that is another thing to plan for. But if it was as early as 2009 then teams would all be reluctant to be handing out bonus money this year, and they don't seem to be. So maybe it's 2011 - in which case bonus money this season wouldn't be a concern since you would essentially be paying for 2-3 years in advance and those would occur pre work stoppage. You want nothing on the books but salary you won't pay in a strike year.

Thing is, and I don't know what the situation is across the league, we only have 5 players signed through 2010, and just 1 beyond that - Ty Warren. Brady should be locked down through retirement before any of this unfolds, which would mean a new deal or extension this year. I assume that will cost them AT LEAST $30M in some form of bonus/guaranteed money. So maybe they are eschewing large bonuses elsewhere this year for that reason. It's not always just about cap space, it's cash resources. And they may also be earmarking some of the next couple of seasons revenue to cover debt service in the event of a strike or lockout when no one will have revenue streams but teams will still have expenses unless they want to risk losing not just their on but off field talent (scouts, coaches, administrators) to a new renegade league.

 

[PonyExpress]

The uncapped year is 2010, not 2009. 2009 will operate under a cap but exacerbated by the rules for an expiring CBA. Those effect contract negotiation via limits on amortization and salary backloading. There are also rules to limit the ability of playoff teams to sign FA.

Not sure when a strike or lockout might occur, but that is another thing to plan for. But if it was as early as 2009 then teams would all be reluctant to be handing out bonus money this year, and they don't seem to be. So maybe it's 2011 - in which case bonus money this season wouldn't be a concern since you would essentially be paying for 2-3 years in advance and those would occur pre work stoppage. You want nothing on the books but salary you won't pay in a strike year.

Thing is, and I don't know what the situation is across the league, we only have 5 players signed through 2010, and just 1 beyond that - Ty Warren. Brady should be locked down through retirement before any of this unfolds, which would mean a new deal or extension this year. I assume that will cost them AT LEAST $30M in some form of bonus/guaranteed money. So maybe they are eschewing large bonuses elsewhere this year for that reason. It's not always just about cap space, it's cash resources. And they may also be earmarking some of the next couple of seasons revenue to cover debt service in the event of a strike or lockout when no one will have revenue streams but teams will still have expenses unless they want to risk losing not just their on but off field talent (scouts, coaches, administrators) to a new renegade league.

Great insight. Thanks.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Thing is, and I don't know what the situation is across the league, we only have 5 players signed through 2010, and just 1 beyond that - Ty Warren.

I understand what you're saying, but hopefully that number will be over a dozen before TC starts (every rookie signed this year should be signed through at least 2010/2011).