ESPN Says We're The #1 Most-Screwed Team In Case Of Uncapped 2010

[signbabybrady]

An uncapped team may loose a few players but will also be free to sign anyone they want and pay him whatever he wants.

Bingo...the teams that are screwed aren't the teams with a lot of free agents though it doesn't help are the teams with low revenue.

In fact seeing as we are a high revenue team it may be benificial to have room on the roster...That we way we can be big byers.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Won't the Pats be one of the teams that can afford to pay for players in an uncapped environment? To me, this looks like ESPN trying to say anything negative about the Franchise after they were denied their coup de grace when Walsh didn't produce a Walkthrough tape.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Now, I have to start worrying about 2010.

 

[fgssand]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyBlueCat
An uncapped team may loose a few players but will also be free to sign anyone they want and pay him whatever he wants.

Bingo...the teams that are screwed aren't the teams with a lot of free agents though it doesn't help are the teams with low revenue.

In fact seeing as we are a high revenue team it may be benificial to have room on the roster...That we way we can be big byers.

Not quite that easy.....one of the "poison pills" in there are that final four playoff teams cannot sign any free agents, other than to make up for what they themselves happen to lose.

Further, there will be very little free agent talent around at that time as another of the "poison pills" are that teams will get 2 transition tags and 1 franchise tags - that alone will take 100 of the top potential free agents off the market.

In addition, yet another "poison pill" extends eligible potential free agents to SIX years and not the current 4/5. That takes yet huge group of potential FA's off the market.

I am very confident that NE front office will have their arms around the entire situation (look for Wilfork to be extended this summer) and "work it" better than most if not all other teams anyway.

 

[Kontradiction]

Am I the only one who does not want an uncapped season in the NFL? The league introduced the salary cap for a reason and it should be kept that way. I do not want the NFL to turn into MLB.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Oh no! The crypt-keeper has written our eulogy. Shocking!

The Crypt-Keeper? Hell, I thought he was the Crypt-Kicker!

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Further, there will be very little free agent talent around at that time as another of the "poison pills" are that teams will get 2 transition tags and 1 franchise tags - that alone will take 100 of the top potential free agents off the market.

Not really, since transition tags only confer right of first refusal; if you decide not to match, you get nothing. (In other words, they're nearly useless, and, AFAIK, will remain so.)

 

[JoeSixPat]

We're doomed!

Doomed I say!

Most of the Pats' player contracts expire in 2010-2011!

We're dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed!

I think the point of this may be the ability to replace players before that.

No question the Pats will be looking to resign or replace quite a few players over the next few years. Now let's say you're a free agent in 2009. What is the incentive for you to sign an affordable long term contract in 2009 in a market where teams are still subject to the salary cap, as opposed to waiting until 2010?

And in that situation how many people think that the Patriots front office would outspend all other teams to sign players? I'd like to think that many existing Pats and non-Pats want to play here for a chance at a ring - but its going to be a feeding frenzy without a cap in 2010, with players knowing this chance to cash in might never come around again, and owners knowing that THIS might be their one and only chance to sign all the players they need to make a desperate push for a championship.

Aside from the fact that the Patriots have thrived in an environment that punishes teams for unwise signings and rewards teams for making the right moves, I don't see an uncapped year as just a wildcard - its an entire DECK of wildcards.

I view it as vital to the long term success of the Patriots that this issue get worked out before an uncapped year, as once the genie is out of the bottle its going to be very difficult to put it back in and go back to a salary cap.

But the bottom line that no one seems to understand is the prospect of an uncapped 2010 has a significant impact on signings in 2009 - and I don't think its too early to be concerned about next season.

 

[Metaphors]

Besides the reasons already mentioned, Clayton leaves the impression that just because a player is signed, he will happily show up and play out his contract. If you think holdouts are a problem for teams now, just imagine if an uncapped year throws the salary structure out of whack. Everyone will want to renegotiate their deals. The draft classes of 2005 and 2006 that are RFAs instead of UFAs will likewise be pissed and not report.

Upshaw is being completely disingenuous through all of this rhetoric. He claims to represent the players but defends positions that will actually hurt the players.

Lose the salary cap? The top players benefit from this but they aren't hurting under the current system. The vast majority of players will see their pay actually decrease as owners balance their payroll to maximize profit...not to put the most competitive product on the field.

Rookie pay scale? The players Upshaw represents actually WANT this but he flatly refuses to give in.

So who benefits most from Upshaw's positions on the issues? The big time agents who represent most of the top talent in the league (including incoming top draft picks).

So back to the original point of the thread...I think it is highly doubtful that an uncapped season will become reality. Everyone (except the power-broker agents) will suffer in this scenario. As the time gets closer and Upshaw begins to dig his heels in, you will see more rumblings from the players to oust him.

If an uncapped year actually happened, the only teams that would suffer in the short-term would be the ones with low operating revenues like Green Bay, Jacksonville and Buffalo. With LA as the only untapped market, talk of contraction would naturally result. Longer-term, about half the league would fall behind as the revenue sharing policy would be revisited due to higher operating costs for the Cowboys, Redskins, Patriots, etc.

This scenario is a killer for the players and they know it. If they did allow it to happen, teams would have to survive longer than just 2010 to be viable. The Patriots are in a great position to do just that. So are a handful of other teams. The rest of the league? Not so much.

 

[JoePats]

Am I the only one who does not want an uncapped season in the NFL? The league introduced the salary cap for a reason and it should be kept that way. I do not want the NFL to turn into MLB.

No you're not...I agree. I also think that losing the cap will hurt the league's revenue but at this point that's simply speculation on my part.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Oh nos no Bruschi in 2010??? I'd be pretty damn surprised if either he or Vrabel figure into our plans after that anyways.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

That's it everyone, start looking for another team to root for. We're done here. Let's pull the plug on this puppy right here and now.

 

[Metaphors]

But the bottom line that no one seems to understand is the prospect of an uncapped 2010 has a significant impact on signings in 2009 - and I don't think its too early to be concerned about next season.

Fair point if the league ceased operations after the 2010 season. Assuming they continue to play, a team needs the resources to compete in 2011 and beyond. Players can only take advantage of a cap-less environment if they actually hit the market. The Pats are one of a handful of teams that are flush with non-shared revenue to succeed in the long-term.

 

[NEPatriot]

ESPN always has a lot of negative things to say about Pats. I'm not surprised to see it. We will not be screwed because we are the top 3 richest NFL team and BB always plans for the future.

Between now and 2010, the contract between the league and players will be discussed. Nobody knows what will happen in 2010.These idiots at ESPN don't know what the hell they are saying again because they like Tomase draw their own early conclusion based on what they saw or heard .

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

ESPN always has a lot of negative things to say about Pats. I'm not surprised to see it. .

Slight understatement considering lately that ESPN stands for
Eternally Scapegoating Patriots Needlessly

 

[NEPatriot]

Considering the hatred which ESPN has for Pats recently, I wonder if their Pats articles have any real value in it.?

 

[fgssand]

Not really, since transition tags only confer right of first refusal; if you decide not to match, you get nothing. (In other words, they're nearly useless, and, AFAIK, will remain so.)

True, but with no salary cap - and NE being in a good financial position, barring a ridiculous offer - why wouldn't we match offers for players we choose to retain.

That is the point, most teams will match, meaning the free agent pool is reduced substantially between three tags per team and the free agent extension to 6 years.

There won't be that much talent out there to go after.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Am I the only one who does not want an uncapped season in the NFL? The league introduced the salary cap for a reason and it should be kept that way. I do not want the NFL to turn into MLB.

I respect your opinion about not wanting "the NFL to turn into MLB," which is shared by many. However, I disagree as follows.

First of all, in general, I think that Free Markets are superior to managed Markets. But, that's philosophy.

Second, I think that teams like the Sawx and Yankees are good for the game. People like to see them play and love to watch them lose.

Third, there are some high salary teams who have made a lot of bad decisions and are fielding a lousy or mediocre product (Dodgers, Tigers), so having money doesn't translate into winning.

Finally, if we look at the 2007 Playoff teams as ranked by Total Salaries, the Indians were 24th, the Diamondbacks were 26th, the Phillies were 13th and the Rockies were 25th. To everyone's delight, the Indians ousted the Yankees from the Playoffs while paying their players less than ONE THIRD the money. This year the Rays are leading the AL East and clock in at 29th, the Marlins are leading the NL East and they're 30th, the Diamondbacks are ahead in the West and are 23rd. So, low salary teams more than hold their own.

 

[Disco Volante]

Am I the only one who does not want an uncapped season in the NFL? The league introduced the salary cap for a reason and it should be kept that way. I do not want the NFL to turn into MLB.

I'd be fine with it.

The Pats are right in the top 3 for richest franchises right now I believe, we'd only have to worry about the Cowboys and Skins who'd beat up on each other and only meet us once every 4 years anyways.

I'd have no problem with parity going way as long as it favors us. We’ve seen what BB does with the cap, I’m sure he can be just as effective without one.

 

[Grizzafted]

just..out of curiousity, because i didnt follow this.

we're not actually looking at a situation with a permanent lack of salary cap are we?

because in that case i won't be watching the NFL anymore.