King on an uncapped year

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Maybe a dumb (or at least uneducated) question, but is there any reason other than idle speculation that the owners would opt out of the current CBA? It seems to me that most teams are actually under the cap at this point in the way it is all structured, many teams actually have cap money carry over from what I understand, so why would owners put themselves in a position to open themselves up to much larger salary options, bigger contracts, longer contracts, etc? I'm sure there are nuances I'm missing, but reading that, I can't imagine that many teams want to open themselves up to some of these possibilities? Can anybody give me a better idea why the owners would voluntarily opt out of an agreement that seems to work in their favor in most ways?

 

[spacecrime]

Woah, this is a great idea! Sounds like an awesome time for all involved, hell yeah!

Now I can say I was the only person in America to respond positively to this idea, regardless if I actually meant it.

You're not the only one. I say it, and I mean it, that the cap would be a tremendous advantage to the Pats and Cowboys.

They have money and they have smarts.

You cannot inforce the intent of a rule, only the wording.

Smart teams work around the cap, they will work around this.

Can't sign FAs for $40 mil unless you lose a $40 mil contract? THat's a problem? Not to the team that gave Brandon Gorin a $3 mil incentive in case he was the superbowl MVP that resulted in transferring cap from one year to another.

That FA restrictive clause is equally easy to get around. For one: Hey Victor Hobson, instead of a one-year deal, here's a two year deal with a $20 mil second year. So they cut him and free up $20 mil to sign a FA. DO that with three or four players.

There are lots of other ways, just as there are ways around the cap.

Smart teams do better anyway, and without a cap, smart teams with deep pockets will rule the NFL.

Bottom line: The cap was designed to create parity, and it's done a decent job of it. Take it away and you don't create even more parity. You create less.

 

[spacecrime]

Gene Upshaw is so short-term.

The NFL would eventually lose megabucks if only the best financed teams were competitive every year.

TV revenues would plummet.

nah. Look at baseball. You think they are having problems generating TV revenue?

 

[upstater1]

nah. Look at baseball. You think they are having problems generating TV revenue?

You're being sarcastic, right? If not...

The NFL makes $4 billion a year in TV, not counting NFLN and DirectTV.

Baseball makes $400 million a year, 1/10th of what the NFL makes. Granted, each team has their own local rights. The Yankees make 57 million, the Mets 44 million, and the Red Sox come in just after that. The Royals though make 6 million, so say 15-20 million is the average; that's another say $500 million a year net. The NBA makes more than that.

Baseball was actually making $230 million a year in the 1980s, when the league's revenue system made them hyper-competitive. In those years teams like the Orioles, Padres, Royals, Pirates, Brewers, were pretty good. They've only increased to $400 million in 20 years? Why? The NFL meanwhile has gone from $470 million a year in the 80s, comparable to baseball at the time, to $4 billion, a ten fold increase. Whereas baseball hasn't even managed to double their TV revenues.

Obviously the NFL is a TV sport, and people love to watch it. Then again, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. You can bet very few people in middle America are turning on their TVs to watch Red Sox Yankees every weekend.

All these cities will tune out if the NFL goes uncapped: Buffalo, Miami, Jax, Minnesota, Green Bay, St Louis, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Cleveland, maybe more, who knows? But football will die in 33% of the entire league. Just like baseball has died in KC, Florida, Tampa, Oakland, Cincy, Pitt, Toronto, etc.

 

[jeffbiologist]

If we have a uncapped year coming we can redo every contract we have now and give them all the bonuses and guaranteed $$ in the uncapped year, right?? That way we can go after TONS of FAs every year EXCEPT that year! Instead of paying a guy $10M a year for 5 years we give him $1 this year and $40M the uncapped year, and a little the rest of the contract years.....and have that much more room to play with.
The NFL and players are limited league-wide how much $$ they can make now. Running uncapped will make some teams go under, but may be better for the league as a whole....Its total $$ brought in they are looking to improve and the CBA limits this. You can say the PRESENT situation is communistic than any uncapped proposal.

 

[Miguel]

If we have a uncapped year coming we can redo every contract we have now and give them all the bonuses and guaranteed $$ in the uncapped year, right?? That way we can go after TONS of FAs every year EXCEPT that year! Instead of paying a guy $10M a year for 5 years we give him $1 this year and $40M the uncapped year, and a little the rest of the contract yearsl.

There are rules against such machinations.

 

[spacecrime]

There are rules against such machinations.

The increase per year rule, you mean?

I am surprised at the tenor of your posts. I would think you would be the first guy to point out work arounds for the rule of eight, not to embrace it as a kind of immobable object.

For years you have been posting that teams don't get into cap hell, and that there are work arounds possible to mininimize the effect of cap rules.

But here we have a rule that will only be invoked if the cap rule goes away and everyone seems to think no team will think of any way to maximize their personnel acquisitions.

 

[spacecrime]

The NFL would eventually lose megabucks if only the best financed teams were competitive every year.

TV revenues would plummet.

nah. Look at baseball. You think they are having problems generating TV revenue?

You're being sarcastic, right?

Yeah, I was. Sorry. Let me give my thoughts directly. Right now, all 32 teams are not competitive. THere are four or five teams you expect to loss every game the play, unless they have the good fortune to play each other or hit the "any given SUnday" lottery. Also, there are four or five teams that manage the cap very well and/or are good at personel acquisition and year after year we expect them to win every game they play except for "any given Sunday") and when they play each other, games which are highly sought after games.

Should the cap go away, I would expect the same rough breakdown of competiveness. Different teams, maybe, but still I would expect there to be four or five teams you expect to lose every game they will play, unless they have the good fortune to play each other or hit the "any given Sunday" lottery. Also, there will be four or five teams that have deep pockets and/or are good at personel acquisition and year after year we expect them to win every game they play except for "any given Sunday" and when they play each other, games which will be highly sought after games.

So my question is: Why will TV revenues drop? We will have the exact same situation. The only difference will be some of the elite will change as cap smarts will be replaced with deep pockets (a premium on good personnel acquisition will still be a plus).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The increase per year rule, you mean?

I am surprised at the tenor of your posts. I would think you would be the first guy to point out work arounds for the rule of eight, not to embrace it as a kind of immobable object.

For years you have been posting that teams don't get into cap hell, and that there are work arounds possible to mininimize the effect of cap rules.

But here we have a rule that will only be invoked if the cap rule goes away and everyone seems to think no team will think of any way to maximize their personnel acquisitions.

Polian ran into those rules head on in 2006. Threatened to take the league to court over his and Condon's (LOL) "misinterpretation" of those rules when they structured the Manning and Harrison deals in 2004. In the end he was stymied, and the only answer was for Manning and Harrison to agree to ACTUAL MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PAY CUTS, something most players will never do. The 11th hour settlement bailed him out of facing impending cap hell absent a couple of players who wanted to remain in Indy and were willing to risk losing tens of millions in the process rather than see Polian possibly unable to field a 53 man roster. Most players would not exhibit that kind of loyalty.

If we have a uncapped year coming we can redo every contract we have now and give them all the bonuses and guaranteed $$ in the uncapped year, right?? That way we can go after TONS of FAs every year EXCEPT that year! Instead of paying a guy $10M a year for 5 years we give him $1 this year and $40M the uncapped year, and a little the rest of the contract years.....and have that much more room to play with.
The NFL and players are limited league-wide how much $$ they can make now. Running uncapped will make some teams go under, but may be better for the league as a whole....Its total $$ brought in they are looking to improve and the CBA limits this. You can say the PRESENT situation is communistic than any uncapped proposal.

Nope, the lawyers who crafted the cap portion of the expiring CBA language thought of that. There are so called poison pill clauses that restrict how contracts can be structured heading into an uncapped year under an expiring CBA. We had to deal with that when Brady was extended in 2005 (and the CBA was set to expire in 2006). The Deion Rule and the 30% rule limit the number of years you can pro rate bonus and the amount by which salary can increase annually on any contract extending more than a year or two into a potentially uncapped season. Which is why I think we will get Brady extended before that vote to opt out takes place.

This isn't about taking in more money, it's about redistributing it. Collectively the NFL can command more for it's product than 32 teams can independently. The half dozen or so with deep pockets and broad marketability will probably undertake starting their own sports networks. The rest will be attempting to sell their product to the highest bidder. Some will garner national interest while others will struggle to find that bidder locally. Absent collective revenue which presently entirely funds the cap, more than half of the league will be in jeopardy. Anybody who doesn't already have a state of he art stadium in the pipeline will be toast since stadium revenue will become their base source of income pending what they can generate in a independent TV and radio deals. The union will still see the big bucks, only it will be a even more concentrated on superstars, sometimes several to a team, with far less left to trickle down and the other 200 odd players who round out rosters will get screwed playing for teams whose payrolls will plummet to a fraction of the former cap. You won't see a small market team like Indy with triplets like Manning, Harrrison, James again because they won't be able to pay them in that market even with a new stadium because they won't be able to replace the $120M+ in shared revenue they were operating on.

Maybe a dumb (or at least uneducated) question, but is there any reason other than idle speculation that the owners would opt out of the current CBA? It seems to me that most teams are actually under the cap at this point in the way it is all structured, many teams actually have cap money carry over from what I understand, so why would owners put themselves in a position to open themselves up to much larger salary options, bigger contracts, longer contracts, etc? I'm sure there are nuances I'm missing, but reading that, I can't imagine that many teams want to open themselves up to some of these possibilities? Can anybody give me a better idea why the owners would voluntarily opt out of an agreement that seems to work in their favor in most ways?

The current CBA is untenable because the union insisted in upping the players share of revenue to 60%+ at a time when the owners were haggling over revenue sharing and the have not were insistent that ALL revenue be included in the formula rather than exempting portions that were previously viewed as not collective (like stadium naming rights, local advertising, local programming and radio deals). The agreement reached in 2006 was an 11th hour compromise that was never intended to be more than a stop gap. Unfortunately the owners have not been able to reach a compromise and the union is not going to give back gains it realized to make an owners formula work. Or so they all say now. Absent a CBA lots of things beyond the cap are lost, like the college draft. So there will have to be a CBA in place by 2012, just probably not with this union which means a lockout or strike in 2011. If plans some have for a new league to compete with the NFL come to fruition that would really create a perfect storm scenario because not only would that league be competing for on field talent, they would be in positon to drain the NFL of off field talent - the kind that often doesn't get paid during a work stoppage (coaches, scouts, trainers, FO managers, PR/marketing staff, etc.). Not to mention players not inclined to sit idly by would have a venue in which to play. Even absent that look how long it took baseball to come back - and it took a steriods induced HR race just to re-start that comeback process...

 

[castlelong1]

Maybe a dumb (or at least uneducated) question, but is there any reason other than idle speculation that the owners would opt out of the current CBA? It seems to me that most teams are actually under the cap at this point in the way it is all structured, many teams actually have cap money carry over from what I understand, so why would owners put themselves in a position to open themselves up to much larger salary options, bigger contracts, longer contracts, etc? I'm sure there are nuances I'm missing, but reading that, I can't imagine that many teams want to open themselves up to some of these possibilities? Can anybody give me a better idea why the owners would voluntarily opt out of an agreement that seems to work in their favor in most ways?

Some owners hate the other owners that cutting off their nose to spite their face seems OK if you can cutoff the other guy's head.

 

[castlelong1]

...

... If plans some have for a new league to compete with the NFL come to fruition that would really create a perfect storm scenario because not only would that league be competing for on field talent, they would be in positon to drain the NFL of off field talent - the kind that often doesn't get paid during a work stoppage (coaches, scouts, trainers, FO managers, PR/marketing staff, etc.). Not to mention players not inclined to sit idly by would have a venue in which to play. Even absent that look how long it took baseball to come back - and it took a steriods induced HR race just to re-start that comeback process...

Adding owner turmoil, we might see whole teams jumping either to a new league or making one. Don't know who, but one faction might be Jones/Kraft and the other Brown/Wilson. Which one leaves and which stays, who knows.

Seriously, this could mean NFL 1922- 2011 before it was replaced by the (whatever)FL.

If the Patriots go relatively unscathed into the new league, I won't cry.

 

[upstater1]

Yeah, I was. Sorry. Let me give my thoughts directly. Right now, all 32 teams are not competitive. THere are four or five teams you expect to loss every game the play, unless they have the good fortune to play each other or hit the "any given SUnday" lottery. Also, there are four or five teams that manage the cap very well and/or are good at personel acquisition and year after year we expect them to win every game they play except for "any given Sunday") and when they play each other, games which are highly sought after games.

Should the cap go away, I would expect the same rough breakdown of competiveness. Different teams, maybe, but still I would expect there to be four or five teams you expect to lose every game they will play, unless they have the good fortune to play each other or hit the "any given Sunday" lottery. Also, there will be four or five teams that have deep pockets and/or are good at personel acquisition and year after year we expect them to win every game they play except for "any given Sunday" and when they play each other, games which will be highly sought after games.

So my question is: Why will TV revenues drop? We will have the exact same situation. The only difference will be some of the elite will change as cap smarts will be replaced with deep pockets (a premium on good personnel acquisition will still be a plus).

Because there's at least the semblance of competitive fairness. If your team sucks year after year, you can't blame the league structure. You blame the front office instead. I mean, can you really rage against the Royals' Schuerholz for not fielding a competitive team? You can't. And that's why no one goes to watch the Royals and Pirates. But then you look at Buffalo. They have had 15 years of sellouts at their stadium without playoffs. Their fans are till loyal and crazy for football on Sundays. They can also blame the likes of Wilson and Donahoe for the team' putridness. Trading away #1 draft choices for the rights to JP Losman isn't going to win many games. In an uncapped environment, Bills fans will stop attending the games, and stop watching altogether.

Again, read my previous post. Baseball has gone from 230 million in tv revenues in the 1980s to 400 million now, while football went from 470 million in the 1980s to 4 billion now.

Baseball has lost luster because the sport is only relevant in 10 markets.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

can't you bypass this by having the former team signing the palyer then trading for this player if you get a trading partner?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

can't you bypass this by having the former team signing the palyer then trading for this player if you get a trading partner?

Because one of the rules that comes into effect specifically states that a team subject to the "Final Eight Plan" cannot complete a trade for a UFA if it wouldn't otherwise (under the Plan) be legal for them to sign that player.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Absent a CBA lots of things beyond the cap are lost, like the college draft.

I forgot about that point--it's a very good one.

Here's the question, though: would the Pats be better off with a cap, or without a cap?

 

[bradmahn]

You're not the only one. I say it, and I mean it, that the cap would be a tremendous advantage to the Pats and Cowboys.

They have money and they have smarts.

You cannot inforce the intent of a rule, only the wording.

Smart teams work around the cap, they will work around this.

Can't sign FAs for $40 mil unless you lose a $40 mil contract? THat's a problem? Not to the team that gave Brandon Gorin a $3 mil incentive in case he was the superbowl MVP that resulted in transferring cap from one year to another.

That FA restrictive clause is equally easy to get around. For one: Hey Victor Hobson, instead of a one-year deal, here's a two year deal with a $20 mil second year. So they cut him and free up $20 mil to sign a FA. DO that with three or four players.

There are lots of other ways, just as there are ways around the cap.

Smart teams do better anyway, and without a cap, smart teams with deep pockets will rule the NFL.

Bottom line: The cap was designed to create parity, and it's done a decent job of it. Take it away and you don't create even more parity. You create less.

There may be viable ways to get around this rule of 8, but you have yet to provide one. Your example would be against the agreement, as per the 30% increase rule. Beyond even the legality or applicability of cut players counting toward your "pool" of free agent money and acquisitions, you would not be able to "free up" $20 million by giving Victor Hobson a deal with $20 million in the second year unless you were willing to give Victor Hobson $15.384615 in the first deal. Are you willing to blow 13 million on Victor Hobson for one season to (maybe) have $20 million in the following season, 'cause I'm not. And I'm pretty sure Robert Kraft wouldn't want to spend $13 million of his own money to do something foolish like that either, because that's what he'd have to do.

An uncapped year like that would have the radical effects of "parity" that the NFL claims they want with the current CBA, but real parity is not as lucrative as the "parity" that the league points to now.

With the ever-increasing salary cap rising as fast as it has in the past couple of years (and the effect of hyper inflated contracts being given to marginal players) it would be in the best interest of the players (and quite possibly the teams themselves) to think more about expanding the bottom tier of salaries, rather than become espoused with the ability to blow up the salaries at the top of the market. Teams that are left with loads of salary cap space (the Tennessee Titans, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Jacksonville Jaguars, San Diego Chargers) are going to continue to have that salary cap space because they are not spending it on the "marquee" or highly overrated free agents left on the market now, leaving the money dead to use. For me, the problem isn't the lack of spending that money, it's the misuse of that money, such as when an injured Javon Walker or marginal offensive lineman get paid like the best at their position. By raising the bottom tier of salaries (vet minimum) you would have multiple positive effects, the most important being that teams that right now have, say, $30 mill in space would have probably half of that, creating a self contained ability to pursue the good-not-great players in free agency and forcing teams to think more fiscally responsibly before giving a good player a contract intended for a great player.

Currently, aside from drastic and unusual events, the good teams have been all but eliminated from pursuing free agents in the market at the moment. Last year the Patriots jumped head first into the player pool, but that was because of the big change in money available because of the huge increase in cap space (and players they deemed worth that money). This year, when it has come to players that they may have been interested in either re-signing or pursuing, good players that have limitations, "bit players" if you will (I'm looking at you, Randall Gay and Calvin Pace), the Patriots and others were unable to compete because those players were getting contracts they really shouldn't have been getting. If the available cap money for "stupid" teams is being used to increase the vet minimum, there would be fewer of the inflated deals we see so often now, increasing the viability of teams to use free agency to help build, or re-stock (), their roster and be competitive without being killed because of dumb contracts. There is a benefit of limiting contracts like this to the well-run teams because they can now incorporate free agency more comprehensively as well as the benefit of protecting the dumb organizations from themselves.

Not to mention raising the lowest bar (the vet minimum) will protect the NFL from future action taken against them by former players who feel they were screwed out of the glory days (and money) when the NFL was king ****, their teammates were making millions upon millions, and they were not.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

:agree: First off, let me say this is one of the best posts I've read here in a while.

Teams that are left with loads of salary cap space (the Tennessee Titans, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Jacksonville Jaguars, San Diego Chargers) are going to continue to have that salary cap space because they are not spending it on the "marquee" or highly overrated free agents left on the market now, leaving the money dead to use.

As a minor point, there's a salary floor, too; if a team underspends, the money needed to bring the team to the floor is distributed among the players on the roster.

Currently, aside from drastic and unusual events, the good teams have been all but eliminated from pursuing free agents in the market at the moment. Last year the Patriots jumped head first into the player pool, but that was because of the big change in money available because of the huge increase in cap space (and players they deemed worth that money).

And note that even then they didn't give out any stupid money. Heck, $18M/5 years for Welker looks like a friggin' steal.

 

[bradmahn]

:agree: First off, let me say this is one of the best posts I've read here in a while.

Thanks.

As a minor point, there's a salary floor, too; if a team underspends, the money needed to bring the team to the floor is distributed among the players on the roster.

Off hand, do you know what the salary floor is this year, and if it is team specific or if everyone has the same bottom figure they have to at least meet. In addition, I can't imagine a team forcing themselves into the position of actually paying out the difference to their roster instead of using the same creative bookkeeping methods that gave Kyle Eckel a $5,856,752 million cap hit last season. It is, of course, easier to "spend" salary cap figures than actually doling out millions of real dollars.

And note that even then they didn't give out any stupid money. Heck, $18M/5 years for Welker looks like a friggin' steal.

Oh I completely agree. That's something that was overlooked last offseason when critics were claiming the Pats to be Redskins 2.0. They gave out one really lucrative deal but even then it was lower than what Adalius could have made on the open market if he had signed with the 49ers. Kyle Brady's deal could be considered expensive for what he turned out to be (not necessarily for what he should have been, but that's subjective) and Sammy Morris's may be a little longer than would be prudent, but their other moves were very smart and highly cost effective. But, then again, they are the best run franchise in the NFL so it shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[spacecrime]

There may be viable ways to get around this rule of 8, but you have yet to provide one.

I haven't originated any of the ways teams get around the cap, either. Just realize that:

1. Wilthokut the cap and with the rule of 8, no team with deep pockets will ever again have to lose a top player to FA. They can re-sign every good player on the team simply by paying more than he is offered elswhere. The front line of Seymour-Wilfork-Warren will never be broken up because we cannot afford all three under the cap.

2. The NFL cannot enforce the intent of the rule, only the wording, and teams with deep pockets can afford the legal weasels to circumvent ruling.

3. The Rule of 8 is not carved in granite. If the Players Union doesn't like it because it is keeping salaries down, they will fight to remove it, and will get support for the influential team owners.

We are all severely over-reacting with doom and gloom to something which will benefit the Pats more than almost every other team.

 

[spacecrime]

look at Buffalo. They have had 15 years of sellouts at their stadium without playoffs. Their fans are till loyal and crazy for football on Sundays. They can also blame the likes of Wilson and Donahoe for the team' putridness. Trading away #1 draft choices for the rights to JP Losman isn't going to win many games. In an uncapped environment, Bills fans will stop attending the games, and stop watching altogether.

??? Did you watch the Pats all those years when they weren't competitive? I hope you don't think Bills fans aren;t as fanatical aobut their team as we are about ours. You aren't one of htose post 2001 fans, are you?

THe BIlls suck, with or without a cap.

If Bills games don't sell out, the game will be on TV where more people can watch them suck.

Because the lack of a cap will not cause the Bills to suck. The Bills (and Raiders and Cards and Lions and etc) suck now with a cap, and NFL TV revenues are terriffic. Why will NFL TV revenues plummet because they will suck without a cap? I doubt if many fans will get into fnancial discussions about the cause of sucking.

The big, fat juicy TV contracts are not that huge because of teams like the Bills, and the fact that they lose a lot of games.

The lack of a cap will cause some teams to not be competitive. I agree with that, but the NFL has that situation now, and still have huge TV revenues. THe future: nothing much will change about the competitiveness you seem so concerned about as a cause of no TV revenues.

Your doomsday scenario (some teams not competitive) is not the future. It is the present and the past.

Right now, all 32 NFL teams are not all competitive. THere are four or five NFL teams you expect to loss every game the play, unless they have the good fortune to play each other or hit the "any given SUnday" lottery. Also, there are four or five teams that manage the cap very well and/or are good at personel acquisition and year after year we expect them to win every game they play except for "any given Sunday") and when they play each other, games which are highly sought after games.

Should the cap go away, I would expect the same rough breakdown of competiveness. Different teams, maybe, but still I would expect there to be four or five teams you expect to lose every game they will play, unless they have the good fortune to play each other or hit the "any given Sunday" lottery. Also, there will be four or five teams that have deep pockets and/or are good at personel acquisition and year after year we expect them to win every game they play except for "any given Sunday" and when they play each other, games which will be highly sought after games.

So my question is: Why will NFL TV revenues drop? We will have the exact same situation. The only difference will be some of the elite will change as cap smarts will be replaced with deep pockets (a premium on good personnel acquisition will still be a plus).