King on an uncapped year

[JoePats]

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

On one hand, as one of the top revenue teams in the league, certainly the Pat would have more resources than most teams, probably in the top 5 or 6, so they could easily outspend most clubs if they wanted to, and as long as they can spend big and operate at profit, they would.

On the other hand, the Pats are among the best teams in the league and managing the salary cap, which is how they've been among the best teams in the league for 7 years with little sign of slowing down.

However, I'd say that the increased revenues and thus increased payroll is a more significant advantage. So the answer to your question is a definate without.

 

[castlelong1]

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?

I'd answer that with a definite maybe.

 

[Miguel]

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.

And yet Peter King wrote:
"The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency. And I can tell you from talking to a few traditionally good teams at the league meetings last week, they're not happy about it." If front office personnel of good teams do not like the rules of Eight, that tells me all I need to know.have

For years you have been posting that teams don't get into cap hell

You have misunderstood my posts. I doubted that the Colts would go into cap hell just because of Manning's contracts and contracts given to Harrison, Wayne, etc. I have said several times that teams do not get into cap trouble paying Top 5 players Top 5 money. That's widely different from saying teams do not get into cap hell.

 

[Miguel]

The Rule of 8 is not carved in granite.

If the owners opt of the CBA in November, the Rules of 8 will be carved in granite for the 2010 season.

 

[spacecrime]

If the owners opt of the CBA in November, the Rules of 8 will be carved in granite for the 2010 season.

I disagree.

The rule is part of an agreement between two parties, NFL and union. If both parties agree, they can write a new rule in December that supercedes all previous rules.

 

[spacecrime]

And yet Peter King wrote:
"The purpose is very clear: The best teams are going to have tight leashes in free agency. And I can tell you from talking to a few traditionally good teams at the league meetings last week, they're not happy about it." If front office personnel of good teams do not like the rules of Eight, that tells me all I need to know.

You're quoting Peter King to validate a position?

The problem with Peter King is just what you quoted. Someone tells him something offhand in passing, and rather than look into it to see it is right or even makes sense, he extrapolates it into a grand philosophy and says, "That tells me all I need to know," and runs with it.

Anyway, I didn't say anyone would like it or not like it, only that you cannot enforce the intent of a rule, only the wording, and that teams can find ways around the Rule of 8 the same way they find ways around the cap rule.

When the cap rule went into use the first year, teams did not have the complicated tier bonus systems they have now, they didn't manipulate signing and roster bonuses the way they do now, they didn't understand how LTBE and NLTBE bonuses could totally defeat the rule about not saving cap money from one year to the next, and they didn't use re-structuring of contracts the way they do now.

The cap has had years to be tweaked and perfected, and teams still have huge workarounds. To think an untested rule will not have many loopholes is being credulous to a degree I cannot even describe.

But we shall see. All of our talk is just yapping in the wind.

Me, I'm hoping for an uncapped year. Teams with money will keep their best players for the entire careers, enticing them with high pay and GUARANTEED salaries (something rather hard to do under the cap, easy as cutting a check without a cap) to stay in the fold. They will pick up the off FA here and there, cutting the ones they don't want or buying out their contracts, and keeping the good ones for the life of their careers.

And they will hire Rule-of-8-ologists the way they have capologists now, and will get the players they want.

And the Pats and Cowboys are the two teams that are smart and savvy AND have owners with deep pockets who want to win.

 

[Miguel]

Anyway, I didn't say anyone would like it or not like it, only that you cannot enforce the intent of a rule, only the wording, and that teams can find ways around the Rule of 8 the same way they find ways around the cap rule.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. Every contract has to be approved by the Management Council.

Let's just say that I have more confidence in my understanding of the cap than I do in yours.

 

[Miguel]

To think an untested rule will not have many loopholes is being credulous to a degree I cannot even describe.

To think that the owners and the NFLPA would create the Rules of Eight as an incentive for both sides to avoid not having a CBA and have those rules being easily circumvented is being credulous to a degree I cannot even describe. It is remarkable that you claim that the Rules of Eight will have many loopholes but you can not point out one.

 

[spacecrime]

It is remarkable that you claim that the Rules of Eight will have many loopholes but you can not point out one.

So if I can't point out a loophole, then none exists? I can't point out a loophole in the US taxe laws, either. Does that mean there are none? I claim that French chefs are famous for creating gastronomic delights yet I cannot name a single French chef or even a single French dish.

I didn't say many loopholes; I said it would not be foolproof, and that it would have workarounds similar to workarounds teams have uncovered for manipulating and violating the intent of the cap rule.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.

True, but denying it over and over does not make it false, either.

To think that the owners and the NFLPA would create the Rules of Eight as an incentive for both sides to avoid not having a CBA and have those rules being easily circumvented is being credulous to a degree I cannot even describe.

So let's see. The owners and the NFLPA created a cap rule and said that teams cannot transfer unused cap money from one year to the next. Yet that rule is easily circumvented.

Why do you think think that the rule of 8 will be ironclad and have zero workarounds, and will perform exactly as intended and no one will think of anything they can do? It just doesn't make sense to me that no one will think of type of simple measures teams now use to manipulate the cap rules.

If that is what you believe, then it is what you believe, and we can agree to disagree that no one will ever think of anything. As I said, were just yapping in the wind. It will be the way it will be, no matter what you or I say.

Let's just say that I have more confidence in my understanding of the cap than I do in yours.

As well you should. Perhaps you could help me out a little.

Is it true that the owners and NFLPA wrote in the cap rules that you cannot transfer money from one year to the next?

Is it true that a team can work around this rule and violate its intent by using LTBE incentives?

Do you still say that rules made by the owners and NFLPA cannot be circumvented?

To think that the owners and the NFLPA would create the Rules of Eight as an incentive for both sides to avoid not having a CBA and have those rules being easily circumvented is being credulous to a degree I cannot even describe.

 

[Miguel]

Is it true that the owners and NFLPA wrote in the cap rules that you cannot transfer money from one year to the next?

No.

Is it true that a team can work around this rule and violate its intent by using LTBE incentives?

See above.

Do you still say that rules made by the owners and NFLPA cannot be circumvented?

See above. Do you think that the Management Council will approve a contract that circumvents the CBA?

 

[Miguel]

I didn't say many loopholes

Please reread your posts.

 

[Miguel]

The owners and the NFLPA created a cap rule and said that teams cannot transfer unused cap money from one year to the next.

http://www.nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?fmid=181&lmid=231&pid=0&type=c

is the online version of the CBA. Where in the CBA is this rule??

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Me, I'm hoping for an uncapped year. Teams with money will keep their best players for the entire careers, enticing them with high pay and GUARANTEED salaries (something rather hard to do under the cap, easy as cutting a check without a cap) to stay in the fold. They will pick up the off FA here and there, cutting the ones they don't want or buying out their contracts, and keeping the good ones for the life of their careers.

Keep in mind one important fact: "an uncapped year" is, from the NFLPA's point of view, equivalent to saying "ending the salary cap forever."

Miguel--the way I understand things, the Final Eight Plan (the official name for it) is a poison pill on the owners' side alone; the poison pill for the NFLPA is that it takes longer to become a UFA. Am I mistaken here?

 

[spacecrime]

Let's just say that I have more confidence in my understanding of the cap than I do in yours.

As well you should. Perhaps you could help me out a little.

Is it true that the owners and NFLPA wrote in the cap rules that you cannot transfer money from one year to the next?

No.

WOW! I never realized that transferring cap money from one year to the next was possible. Holy Crap! That changes everything.

Is it true that a team can work around this rule and violate its intent by using LTBE incentives?

See above.

Well, if it is permitted, then obviously teams do not have to work around it. So, what was the point of the Pats and others giving impossible incentives to fringe players using up the remainder of this year's cap and then getting it "refunded" the following year?

Let's just say that I have more confidence in my understanding of the cap than I do in yours.

Gotcha. I forgot.

Do you still say that rules made by the owners and NFLPA cannot be circumvented?

See above. Do you think that the Management Council will approve a contract that circumvents the CBA?

Not now, not after being enlightened.

But....

I still have a hard time believing that teams are allowed to transfer money from one cap year to the next.

Is it true that the owners and NFLPA wrote in the cap rules that you cannot transfer money from one year to the next?

No.

Are you really really really sure?

Let's just say that I have more confidence in my understanding of the cap than I do in yours.

Gotcha.

 

[spacecrime]

Miguel--the way I understand things, the Final Eight Plan (the official name for it) is a poison pill on the owners' side alone; the poison pill for the NFLPA is that it takes longer to become a UFA. Am I mistaken here?

I'm just a cap dope, and I'm sure to be corrected, but let me throw this out:

It seems to me that restricting the best 8 teams in the NFL from competing for free agents would severely lower the price a FA could command, and the trickle-down would have the effect of all FAs making less money than they would have in a open FA market. To me, that would be a bit of a poison pill for the NFLPA to take, and will likely cause a ruckus among the players when it happens.

 

[jbhiggy]

I apologize if anyone posted this already but... If the NFL dumps the cap permanently, they might as well dump the Bills and every other small market team. They would not be able to compete with teams from Boston, NY, Chicago etc.

This is the reason I want a cap in baseball so bad, Im a Sox fan through and through, but what is the point in having a team that can't sign any marquee free agents and has to get rid of their good young talent as soon as they become free agents.

 

[flasox27]

I am in favor of what benefits the Pats and Sox period.I trust the Kraft feels the same way. I couldn't give a crap less about what happens to small market teams and their fans especially after how they trested us this past season. I hope we give them something real to resent us for.:rocker:

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm just a cap dope, and I'm sure to be corrected, but let me throw this out:

It seems to me that restricting the best 8 teams in the NFL from competing for free agents would severely lower the price a FA could command, and the trickle-down would have the effect of all FAs making less money than they would have in a open FA market. To me, that would be a bit of a poison pill for the NFLPA to take, and will likely cause a ruckus among the players when it happens.

No, it's usually the cellar dwellers that start handing out stupid money on contracts, so preventing the top teams from signing shouldn't make a huge difference. A difference, certainly, but not a large one.

The express purpose of this rule, IMO, would be to prevent the best teams from adding players such as Adalius Thomas.

 

[spacecrime]

Keep in mind one important fact: "an uncapped year" is, from the NFLPA's point of view, equivalent to saying "ending the salary cap forever."

Well, people and organizations do not always do what they threaten to do, and when something is said during a negotiation it is not necessarily what they will do.

All you can count on is that teams and oranizations generally work toward their own best interests. If the players think they are better off without a cap, no, it might not come back. But if they think they were better off with the cap, then they might go back to one, no matter what they said last year.

It depends on what they want, and what they will hve to give up to get it.

No, it's usually the cellar dwellers that start handing out stupid money on contracts, so preventing the top teams from signing shouldn't make a huge difference. A difference, certainly, but not a large one.

True. Stupid contracts is a reason why they are cellar dwellers. But there is a level money playing field now for them to give away money. Will revenue sharing exist without a cap? Will Jerry Jnes and others give teams money to buy players while they are locked out from signing FAs?

But to answer your question, or at least give my thoughts, anytime you have 24 bidders for a player rather than 32, you can expect the final price to be lower. Now, since the general concensus is that without a cap, there will be less competition because the teams with deep pockets will retain all their good players forever, and once they add a FA, they will never have to cut him due to the cap. So not only are less teams bidding for a player, it is the teams without money who will be bidding. I can't see how this will not effect FA salaries.

The express purpose of this rule, IMO, would be to prevent the best teams from adding players such as Adalius Thomas.

That is my understanding, also. The best teams get to keep their top players as long as they won't without limitation on salary, but adding FAs will not be as easy.

 

[spacecrime]

It is remarkable that you claim that the Rules of Eight will have many loopholes but you can not point out one.

I have thought of half a dozen. Some are convoluted. Here are the two simplest ones (not the best, just the easiest to explain.

1.a. Trade players for draft picks. As time goes on, the good teams need never lose a player to FA, their team will get better and better. The lower half of their roster will be looking better than some of the dog teams. Trade journeyman players for fifth, sixth, seventh round picks. Get a lot. Find the occasional Givens/Koppen-quality guy, and hope to snag a Brady/Dan Hampton quality guy.

1.b Trade for another teams UDFA that shows tremendous promise. Give up one of those sixth or seventh rounders you acquired in 1.a. for a UDFA. Not a problem with rule of 8 because you can trade for a guy you could afford to sign, and UFDAs are not expensive.

2. The jaguars draft a guy in the second round. Four year contract. He turns out to be a terrific player. Should have gone in the first round, maybe a top ten pick. But he has a second round pick salary.

After two years, the Jags realize they will never afford him when he hits free agency. After two seasons, they trade him to the Patriots. Jags get a new draft pick so they get another player cheap for four years. The Patriots get a good player. Since they can afford his salary easily it does not run afoul of the rule of eight. They keep him for two years. Then, of course they can pay him what they want and can keep him forever.

3. (just thought of this) Rich owners lobby to allow trading cash for players. Rich teams like this because they have the cash. If there are teams that are truly cash poor, then the owners will vote in such a rule.

And I'm just a cap dope. Teams have smart lawyers working for them. There are so many ways to work around any brand-new, never tested rule when you have smart lawyers working for you.

One thing you can be sure of: there will be new rules made which we do not now, cannot now, envision. This will be a HUGE change, and the situation will not be stable until things shake out, a matter of years.

Rules which you now say are carved in granite will be done away with if it interferes with the money flow. The teams that don't have money will want some. The teams that have money want to spend it. The NFLPA will go with whichever way the players get more money.

No rule will survive the onslaught of the combined players, rich owners and poor owners.

It will be an exciting time.

ps And I still don't think the currect cap srules say you can move any money you didn't spend this year into a future cap year. I still think you are wrong on this one. I still think the only way to do it is with the type of tricky workaround that teams will be using for the rule of eight.

Is it true that the owners and NFLPA wrote in the cap rules that you cannot transfer money from one year to the next?

No.