Another bad reason for a uncapped yr

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Say good bye to a extention for Richard Seymoer, and might as well say good bye to him as well.. He will be the Reggie White in 2007 and go to the highest bidder.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Say good bye to a extention for Richard Seymoer, and might as well say good bye to him as well.. He will be the Reggie White in 2007 and go to the highest bidder.

But again, assuming we are in the playoffs, we can't use any of that uncapped money to sign UFAs from other teams - we'd basically be barred from being players in the free agent market at all.

- our only choice is going to be to spend it on the guys we have, and I believe all teams would also have an additional franchise tag to use... so we could "rent" Seymour for one year at a high rate, but there would be no cap consequence.

I think in that situation we'd probably keep him.

 

[tailgater]

Say good bye to a extention for Richard Seymoer, and might as well say good bye to him as well.. He will be the Reggie White in 2007 and go to the highest bidder.

Nope. The Pats will tag him if they have to.

As long as the Pats are one of the eight best teams next season, they will receive two franchise and two transition tags they can use in 2007. It's yet another poison pill built into the CBA to get the union back to the bargaining table.

No way will Big Sey see free agency without heavy compensation to the Pats.

 

[Ring 6]

Why would an uncapped year create that?
If it is uncapped, we can be the highest bidder because we are not constrained by the cap.

Kraft has as much money to spend as any owner (based on team revenues and not bankrupting your other business to run your team) as any owner.

An uncapped system would seem to HELP the Pats.

While we work well under a capped system it still means BB is limited in building a roster. Its not cap management that works for us as much as what BB can do coaching up the talent he gets. If everyone can get more talent, BB wins at that too.

 

[JoeSixPat]

As long as the Pats are one of the eight best teams next season, they will receive two franchise and two transition tags they can use in 2007.

I think right now teams can use a Franchise OR a Transition tag - but can only use one. Next year teams will be granted an additional tag - and can use a total of two.

I had not heard that teams would have 4 tags that they could use - but I'd welcome it if they could.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Why would an uncapped year create that?
If it is uncapped, we can be the highest bidder because we are not constrained by the cap.

Kraft has as much money to spend as any owner (based on team revenues and not bankrupting your other business to run your team) as any owner.

An uncapped system would seem to HELP the Pats.

While we work well under a capped system it still means BB is limited in building a roster. Its not cap management that works for us as much as what BB can do coaching up the talent he gets. If everyone can get more talent, BB wins at that too.

I suppose if we win the SB next year you could make the case that being barred from participating in Free Agency is good for the Pats.

But personally I always enjoy a litttle retooling from year to year.

 

[DaBruinz]

Say good bye to a extention for Richard Seymoer, and might as well say good bye to him as well.. He will be the Reggie White in 2007 and go to the highest bidder.

That is incorrect. In the uncapped year, depending on if the Patriots finished in the top 8 teams in the league (not sure if this is record based or play-off based), then they may only be able to sign their own free agents or replace free agents that they lose. I don't know if this would apply to street free agents (players who were free agents prior to the start of free agency).

 

[Ring 6]

I suppose if we win the SB next year you could make the case that being barred from participating in Free Agency is good for the Pats.

But personally I always enjoy a litttle retooling from year to year.

IF that part of the deal actually did happen, we know the reality, those playoff teams would find another way, Id guess with trades. Does that only include players who contracts expire, or also players cut? Would it include RFAs?

There is just no way that the system will end up shutting playoff teams out of roster moves. If there is no cap along with it, you will probably end up seeing players traded for cash.

 

[p8ryts]

I'll take the super bowl

Retooling can take place later

 

[JoeSixPat]

IF that part of the deal actually did happen, we know the reality, those playoff teams would find another way, Id guess with trades. Does that only include players who contracts expire, or also players cut? Would it include RFAs?

There is just no way that the system will end up shutting playoff teams out of roster moves. If there is no cap along with it, you will probably end up seeing players traded for cash.

Well they don't call it a poison pill for nothing. If they wanted to encourage roster moves in the last year of the CBA they wouldn't have put it in there in the first place.

As far as trades for cash - I guess you're right - but I'd think only the ultimate bottom feeder teams would be the ones with owners wanting cash rather than good players

It would certainly make for an interesting off season.

I'd just prefer to be able to have the Pats be active in UFA like always