Pats726 said:
Top teams are resticted in signing UFAs...as well as signing bonus money going out being not extended as far...There have been discussion of this in the past...last summer I believe...
I don't think restricted signings of free agents is limited to top teams. I think the rules will apply equally to all teams. (Otherwise, you are right, that would hurt Kraft and the pats.)
Besides, there are two sides to the story. If we can't sign other teams FAs, they can't sign ours, either. We get to keep Givens.
The signing bonus question you refer to is for one year only, the first year. And that will not hurt teams much. All teams will be in the same boat, unable to spend money that year. That will hurt the players, not the owners. If the owners can't pay, the players don't get paid.
After 2006, extending signing bonuses will not be an issue, the problem won't exist under a league with no cap.
Teams will be free to sign playes for as much or as little as they want.
The only thing that will hurt owners coming out of this that I can see will be if there is a strike. Other than that, owners will be in control of their revenues.
The players uniion is nuts if they think holding out for guaranteed salaries will make the players more money. They seem to think the owners will give out the same sixed contracts as they do now, and that is totally stupid. The contaracts will be smaller. They will have to be to protect the owners against players not performing and being dead money. They see baseball contracts and want that size, but baeball plays 162 games in a season, vice 16, and the money income for the owners to spend jsut isn't there.
No, no CBA means that owners can pay what they want. There will be a couple guys (Jones, Snyder) who will think they can buy a Lombari, and there will be a few teams that will have a $30 million dollar payroll. And there will be a few teams that will do like they are now, manipulating the system for what works best (Pats and Steelers come to mind.)