Don Banks on an uncapped 2010

[Ring 6]

The Patriot's certainly won't have to do the things they do to get under the cap in the current system - and that freedom certainly helps administratively - but I think they'll spend as wisely as they always have.

Maybe the cap flexibility does allow them to sign a player they might not otherwise - though there's ALWAYS things that can be done to find cap space if there's a guy they want... so I don't see that changing dramatically.

Maybe they don't have to cut guys who are deemed salary cap liabilities - but those are usually role players anyway

Obviously it's not a hinderance to the Patriots to be without a cap - my concern is that it benefits other teams MORE than it does the Pats - especially those that have a history of spending UNWISELY as there's no longer the same negative impact to those teams

I think there is one major way an uncapped system helps the PAts and other elite teams that draft well. I need to explain as an example for it to make sense.

If you have a capped league, essentially all of the talent is spread out among 32 teams. The cost of the talent on each team is virtually the same. However the value of the talent is very different.
If you took the entire league and tore up all of the contracts, then, under the exact same cap, every player signed as a free agent, and then looked back at the roster before you made everyone a free agent, you would find some teams had 150,000,000 of value on their 100,000,000 cap and others had 50,000,000.
What this causes is that you cannot keep good teams together as their players contracts mature (especially the rookie deals) under a hard cap. Without a cap, it would be easier for good teams to keep players, because under the current rules, the best teams are underpaying their players as a whole, so when they become free agents, you simply couldnt afford all of them.

 

[Rob0729]

You can't use the Yankees as an example, because there is an uneven playing field. The Yankees spend more because they have exhorbitantly more revenue because of their TV contract. Most of the revenue in pro sports is from the TV contracts. The NFL shares revenue, so the argument has to be that some owner will dip into his non-football assets to overpay and built the 'dream team'.
By the way, anyone fearing 'bought championships' should just look at how thats been working out for the Yankees lately.

But Snyder makes more money than the Steinbrenners. Maybe not totally from the team, but he is a fan desperate for a Super Bowl win. Snyder probably wouldn't be afraid to dip into his own funds.

Besides, the Yankees may make more on their TV revenue, but there are economies of scale here and the Redskins are the NFL version of the Yankees in terms of revenue. It may or may not be as much as the Yankees, but they make a heck of a lot more than most other teams.

As for buying a championship, I agree that it isn't the way to go. Doesn't mean there won't be teams in the NFL who will try to buy a championship if there is an uncapped year. Snyder seems to not have learned from his decade long attempts at it.

 

[Ring 6]

But Snyder makes more money than the Steinbrenners. Maybe not totally from the team, but he is a fan desperate for a Super Bowl win. Snyder probably wouldn't be afraid to dip into his own funds.

Besides, the Yankees may make more on their TV revenue, but there are economies of scale here and the Redskins are the NFL version of the Yankees in terms of revenue. It may or may not be as much as the Yankees, but they make a heck of a lot more than most other teams.

As for buying a championship, I agree that it isn't the way to go. Doesn't mean there won't be teams in the NFL who will try to buy a championship if there is an uncapped year. Snyder seems to not have learned from his decade long attempts at it.

This is where I think you are off. The Yankees aren't spending the Steinbrenner family fortune (or the revenue from other Steinbrenner companies) to pay for those salaries. The Yankees are spending NY YANKEE REVENUES to pay those salaries. Steinbrenner could be a paperboy or a trillionaire, and it would make no different because he is no subsidizing the team.
I have no idea what you are talking about describing these teams as economies of scale. That concept doesnt apply here.
The Yankees do have more revenue from attendence that some teams, but surely not enough compared to the top half to account for the salary difference, and in the NFL essentially every game is a sellout.
What you are proposing is that with almost exactly the same revenues as all of the other teams dan Snyder is going to put the Redskins in the red, lose money, and contribute his own personal assets to the Washington Redskins, Inc to win. I do not believe that is realistic.

Also, there is absolutely no correlation between what teams do in a capped system and an uncapped system. Snyder really doesn't outspend other teams. He can't, he is under the same cap. What he does is believe that his most expensive players should be ones that were on other teams.
Snyder does not pay any more than other teams, but what he does is fall in love with the quick fix, so he spends a disproportionate PERCENTAGE of his cap money on larger free agent contracts.

Nothign suggests that Snyder is any more willing to exceed the cap than anyone else.

 

[eom]

Snyder really doesn't outspend other teams. He can't, he is under the same cap.

well, that's not entirely true -- cap space and real cash are 2 different things.

if I sign 4 guys to 4 yr deals and give them each a 40m signing bonus, that's 160m in real money and it won't be reflected in cap space that year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is where I think you are off. The Yankees aren't spending the Steinbrenner family fortune (or the revenue from other Steinbrenner companies) to pay for those salaries. The Yankees are spending NY YANKEE REVENUES to pay those salaries. Steinbrenner could be a paperboy or a trillionaire, and it would make no different because he is no subsidizing the team.
I have no idea what you are talking about describing these teams as economies of scale. That concept doesnt apply here.
The Yankees do have more revenue from attendence that some teams, but surely not enough compared to the top half to account for the salary difference, and in the NFL essentially every game is a sellout.
What you are proposing is that with almost exactly the same revenues as all of the other teams dan Snyder is going to put the Redskins in the red, lose money, and contribute his own personal assets to the Washington Redskins, Inc to win. I do not believe that is realistic.

Also, there is absolutely no correlation between what teams do in a capped system and an uncapped system. Snyder really doesn't outspend other teams. He can't, he is under the same cap. What he does is believe that his most expensive players should be ones that were on other teams.
Snyder does not pay any more than other teams, but what he does is fall in love with the quick fix, so he spends a disproportionate PERCENTAGE of his cap money on larger free agent contracts.

Nothign suggests that Snyder is any more willing to exceed the cap than anyone else.

Agreed, with one small caveat. In years past, the Yankees have run substantially in the red. With the new stadium, however, i assume that that'll no longer be the case. Whether or not that's a case of Steinbrenner subsidizing the payroll, though, is up for debate.

Report: Yankees lost $50M to $85M in 2005 - MLB - ESPN

 

[AzPatsFan]

This was part of post over at Planet discussing an uncapped 2010:I expect New England will lose some Free Agents, which appears to have been part of the planning all along. That will allow them an opportunity to bring in some help, but the big spending dreamers may be disappointed with the cash restrictions involved.

It would appear that the UFA restrictions apply to their own players who are UFAs, as well, if they are in the final four. That sounds probable, given the strength of the Team.

I thought their was an exception in that Teams would be allowed to re-sign their own UFAs; but be restricted in signing other Team's UFAs.

So if true, the Patriots wouldn't be able to sign say Wilfork or Seymour or Neal until they lost one of them, even if they tagged them.

For example they lost Seymour, so they then can sign Wilfork. But having done so, they can't sign another UFA before they lose another, and then can do so. So they must lose Neal.

What a wonderful Uncapped year guys !

The Pats apparently must lose two of the big three in order to sign any single one of them. That would make a situation that using two tags would still be utterly worthless. Something doesn't make sense, here.

There must be allowance to re-sign your own, especially if they are tagged.

 

[eom]

It would appear that the UFA restrictions apply to their own players who are UFAs, as well, if they are in the final four. That sounds probable, given the strength of the Team.

I thought their was an exception in that Teams would be allowed to re-sign their own UFAs; but be restricted in signing other Team's UFAs.

So if true, the Patriots wouldn't be able to sign say Wilfork or Seymour or Neal until they lost one of them, even if they tagged them.

For example they lost Seymour, so they then can sign Wilfork. But having done so, they can't sign another UFA before they lose another, and then can do so. So they must lose Neal.

What a wonderful Uncapped year guys !

The Pats apparently must lose two of the big three in order to sign any single one of them. That would make a situation that using two tags would still be utterly worthless. Something doesn't make sense, here.

There must be allowance to re-sign your own, especially if they are tagged.

no, I don't think that's how it works.

sign your own all you want, but in order to sign another team's unsigned (not cut) you have to lose one of your own of equal or lesser value.
final 4 teams seem to be only able to sign from other final 4 (from vague memory of the post).

my question is how they treat YOUR OWN fa's w/regard to the monetary restrictions.

what I mean is that you can only apparently sign one $5m+ salary guy, which precludes signing, say, 3 big pieces to hugely front loaded deals to abuse future cap.
IF this counts your own guys.

I'm assuming roster bonus = salary, in this case.

 

[spacecrime]

It would appear that the UFA restrictions apply to their own players who are UFAs, as well, if they are in the final four. That sounds probable, given the strength of the Team.

I thought their was an exception in that Teams would be allowed to re-sign their own UFAs; but be restricted in signing other Team's UFAs.

So if true, the Patriots wouldn't be able to sign say Wilfork or Seymour or Neal until they lost one of them, even if they tagged them.

For example they lost Seymour, so they then can sign Wilfork. But having done so, they can't sign another UFA before they lose another, and then can do so. So they must lose Neal.

What a wonderful Uncapped year guys !

The Pats apparently must lose two of the big three in order to sign any single one of them. That would make a situation that using two tags would still be utterly worthless. Something doesn't make sense, here.

There must be allowance to re-sign your own, especially if they are tagged.

There is. You sign them before March 1. They aren't free agents until then. The Pats (and every team) never need lose a player again due to the cap. They just keep extending the players they have that are good.

The system (capped or uncapped) still favors those who draft well.

Capped or uncapped, I would expect basically the same teams to dominate the playoffs in general.

In fact, I guarantee it! :bricks:

 

[AzPatsFan]

People misunderstand Signing Bonuses. If player a signs a contract with a $20 million dollar signing bonus and a $1 million dollar salary. He receives a check from hae team of $21 million dollars when the contract is signed. Even if the SB is amortized over a 5 year contract at $4 million a year.

There would be no difference in 2010 except they would not call it a signing bonus but something else The Check would still be for $21 million right then. The only difference is the accounting. His compensation would be $21 million in year 1 and only his annual salaries in every subsequent presumebly newly CAPPED year. Kraft pays out the same dollars on the same schedule, in either case. Capped or uncapped Kraft if he wants to keep Seymour, Wilfork, and Neal would have to fork out the same money in 2010 Capped or Uncapped.

 

[BradyFTW!]

People misunderstand Signing Bonuses. If player a signs a contract with a $20 million dollar signing bonus and a $1 million dollar salary. He receives a check from hae team of $21 million dollars when the contract is signed. Even if the SB is amortized over a 5 year contract at $4 million a year.

There would be no difference in 2010 except they would not call it a signing bonus but something else The Check would still be for $21 million right then. The only difference is the accounting. His compensation would be $21 million in year 1 and only his annual salaries in every subsequent presumebly newly CAPPED year. Kraft pays out the same dollars on the same schedule, in either case. Capped or uncapped Kraft if he wants to keep Seymour, Wilfork, and Neal would have to fork out the same money in 2010 Capped or Uncapped.

So the holdup on extending them, even if they've already essentially agreed to a deal, would largely be whether to term the compensation as a signing bonus (if a cap is kept) or a roster bonus due, say, the day the contract is signed (if there is no cap in 2010). Identical result in every sense except accounting.

 

[eom]

So the holdup on extending them, even if they've already essentially agreed to a deal, would largely be whether to term the compensation as a signing bonus (if a cap is kept) or a roster bonus due, say, the day the contract is signed (if there is no cap in 2010). Identical result in every sense except accounting.

I'm not sure if it's 100% identical.

I think the signing bonus would be recoverable in the event the player gets caught fighting dogs, or whatever, while the roster bonus is in their pockets for good.

but I'm just guessing on that.

 

[AzPatsFan]

There is. You sign them before March 1. They aren't free agents until then. The Pats (and every team) never need lose a player again due to the cap. They just keep extending the players they have that are good.

The system (capped or uncapped) still favors those who draft well.

Capped or uncapped, I would expect basically the same teams to dominate the playoffs in general.

In fact, I guarantee it! :bricks:

Doesn't the new Year begin on March 1? Then they would count against the 2009 cap, if signed before March 1. Thats no good.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

my question is how they treat YOUR OWN fa's w/regard to the monetary restrictions.

what I mean is that you can only apparently sign one $5m+ salary guy, which precludes signing, say, 3 big pieces to hugely front loaded deals to abuse future cap.
IF this counts your own guys.

I'm assuming roster bonus = salary, in this case.

I believe salary will be affected by the 30% rule, Miguel may know for sure. I don't believe it will apply to Signing bonuses though.

 

[Miguel]

http://www.nflplayers.com/images/fck/NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2006 - 2012.pdf

Article XXI - The Final Eight plan

may be of help.

 

[Ring 6]

well, that's not entirely true -- cap space and real cash are 2 different things.

if I sign 4 guys to 4 yr deals and give them each a 40m signing bonus, that's 160m in real money and it won't be reflected in cap space that year.

In a vaccuum, yes, but over the longterm, no, it all adds up in the end.

 

[AzPatsFan]

http://www.nflplayers.com/images/fck/NFL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2006 - 2012.pdf

Article XXI - The Final Eight plan

may be of help.

Thank You Miguel.

Yes it did define a distinction between your own ie "Prior Player" UFAs and UFAs on another club.

Under XX1, Section 2, definition b; and XXI, Section 3, definition b; the NFLPA CBA says you can sign as many of your own, ie "Prior Players" UFAs as you have on your roster. There does not appear to be a restriction on what you can pay to your Prior Player UFAs, unlike another clubs UFAs.

So the roster restrictions do NOT apply to your own "Prior Player" UFAs, at all,as far as I can see.

It also makes extremely clear what strategy Belichick, Reese and Kraft are doing. They expect an Uncapped year,and are fashioning a team able ot ride through it unfazed.

They are going to and have loaded up this team with guys who could become UFAs but then have the right to re-sign them all. (Bodden, Galloway, Hobbs, etc, as well as the Big Three)

I also conclude that Seymour, Wilfork, Mankins, Neal, and company will not get extended this season, unless the Pats have money just burning a hole in their pockets and that does not appear to be the case. Waiting will obviate and render void, much of the 30% rules and other restrictions as well.

Once again, Thank You Miguel.

 

[vyrago]

You're wrong about why they let Samuel and Branch and even Givens and Woody and Willie walk. It was because he believed they weren't worth what the market was willing to pay them. And he was right.

Not that he is the final word on the subject, but Reiss seems to think that BB regrets not signing Samuel.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Not that he is the final word on the subject, but Reiss seems to think that BB regrets not signing Samuel.

Well, Reiss had Cassel being cut, so I'm not sure how insightful he is in these behind the scenes matters. However, BB may well regret losing Asante. He's in the top handful of CBs.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Not that he is the final word on the subject, but Reiss seems to think that BB regrets not signing Samuel.

I think that is Mike's take on the situation. I don't agree. The local mediots seem to forget that Bill was trying to sign Asante after his 2005 season heading into 2006 when he wasn't worth a bag of used balls in trade. But the money was never enough. They offered him something in the range of $4-4.5M per and he was insulted. They also persued DeShea Townsend in FA, a guy both the Steelers and NE felt was a great nickle and reasonable starter for the money, but he re-signed with them for the same $2.5M we offered. By the time they offered Asante close to $6M (which was apparently what he wanted entering 2006) after his 2006 season he was looking for $9M. They were never going to give him that. He isn't worth it. He wasn't a difference maker for the Iggles, either. They had more pressing issues they continue to bury thier heads in the sand over. They crawled into the playoffs by default in a weaker and frankly wide open conference. They've done that and more lots of times without Asante... He is a ballhawk and was a good fit for this system. But you don't pay for that like it's Champ Bailey or Ty Law in his prime. That's what you pay for the kind of mega talent at the position that is demonstrably defense elevating and potentially franchise changing. Asante is to corners as one of the second tier of so-called elite QB's is to Manning or Brady or even Roethlisberger. He's a borderline top ten on an otherwise very good defense. He's not a top 3 stand alone talent. Leave him on an island against a top ten WR and you're gonna be unhappy with the result 4 out of 5 times. People forget that 6 of his 10 picks in 2006 came in two games against the immortal Donte Culpepper and the incomparable Rex Grossman. Like Bill didn't have that all mapped out...

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

AzPatsfan raises a good point that an uncapped year might very well help the Pats keep all of their bigtime FA's - assuming the limits on spending don't apply to your own FA's.

if so, then I suppose the Pats could front big money to Wilfork and Mankins all in 2010 and then pay them small salaries in the future (which would be good assuming the cap will come back in some form).

The idea of even going to an uncapped year though is bad news. The NFL, the league, the owners, the players, have all seen huge income growth under the cap/parity system; only unrestrained greed would make any of them demand more. All concerned parties should sign a deal this year - it's be best for everyone.

I hope the players are aware that given the nasty economic climate they will receive zero sympathy from the fans if they allow a work stoppage because the players aren't satisfied making millions to play a game. Please come to your senses gentlemen.