Welcome to PatsFans.com

Lombardi's view of uncapped future NFL world

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by fgssand, Feb 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fgssand

    fgssand PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Interesting stuff here (following my thoughts)

    I seriously think Patriots are preparing for this and best way to do it is through the draft along with signing their own (next year).

    I think it would work to our advantage, we know how to draft AND we are a franchise that has money.

    We also have an awesome organization with great ownership, coaching and scouting, not to mention serious talent on the current team to boot.


    Watch out players...I don't think you'll win here.


    The National Football Post | National Football Post Diner News


    FROM PAUL DOMOWITCH OF THE PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS…“An uncapped system is not going to hurt us,” chimed in NFLPA president Kevin Mawae. “The sky’s the limit.” That remains to be seen. While it’s easy for Mawae and (Richard) Berthelsen to talk tough now and suggest that an NFL world without a salary cap would be a utopia for the players, the truth is that won’t necessarily be the case. While no cap would mean teams could spend as much as they wanted on free agents, it also means they could spend as little as they wanted. There would be no salary-cap ceiling or floor. For every big spender like the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, there will be a tightwad like the Bengals’ Mike Brown. Then there are the restrictions in the CBA that accompany free agency in an uncapped year. Most significant, the number of service years to qualify for unrestricted free agency jumps from 4 years to 6. In addition, the eight teams that make it to the divisional round of the playoffs are restricted as to the number of free agents they can sign the following year. The four teams that make it to the conference championship games can’t sign a free agent unless they lose one. “The biggest negative is the shift from 4 years to 6 years to be eligible for unrestricted free agency,” said longtime agent Jerrold Colton. “That is just a huge difference. There will be so many players that have either a significant delay in getting to free agency, or never actually hit it. I mean, 6 years is almost twice the average NFL playing career.”
    What fans don’t realize about the uncapped year is that it will be a bonanza for the owners, not the players. Not having to spend a minimum level will allow owners to put a budget on player costs, field very competitive teams and make money. Free agency at six years instead of four is another benefit for the owners because most players do not reach six years in the league, and those who do will be re-signed well before they hit the potential free-agent date. I realize that I’ve always been in the management part of the NFL, but when I look at the uncapped year, I see a huge benefit for the owners.
    In free agency, you should spend money on great players and spend very little on role players. Where teams make mistakes (and I’ve made them myself) is when they pay top dollar for a second-level player. Overpaying for mediocrity is a cancer for teams in the UFA market.
    Instead of spending big money for free agents, owners would benefit more if they built a first-class scouting department that could be on the cutting edge of finding players. Much like the drug companies invest millions in research and development, NFL owners should invest more money in scouting rather than view it as a way to trim costs.
  2. BPF

    BPF Rookie

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Good read, thanks. Some on this board are worried about all the unsigned players going into next offseason for the Pats but it's the same all around the league. Everryone is waiting to see what happens w/the cba.

    I completely agree that it will be much better for the owners.
  3. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    This is all uncharted territory....I agree the owners have O minimum and can low ball it and make a killing..even with a bad team bad attendance...how does it help the players?? I really think in uncharted waters..there might be a LOT of side effects that no one can predict...what teams may fair better?? Certainly the Pats...but will it be good for football?? I don't think so..and teh NFLPA is in such disarray..a CBA may never happen again...worst case..is both dumbo Goodell and the NFLPA kill football...an dmake it horrible or worse a lock out or strike...Goodell seems not to care at all...as does the NFLPA..so???? It might be enjoyable for a bit and then.....who knows... HARD to get the toothpaste back in the tube...
  4. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,781
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +19 / 1 / -1

    My Jersey:

    #24 Jersey
    I still don't think it will ever get to that....They will figure it out like they have the last few times....
  5. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    While I have no doubts that the Patriots will continue to field competitive teams without a salary cap, I can't understand anyone trying to convince themselves that the Patriots are better off abandoning a system that punished teams for making unwise personnel and salary cap moves.

    Take the Jets. They made quite a few questionable and expensive views, and if not for Favre's voluntary retirement, would be in serious cap hell right now.

    Can someone explain to me why letting them out of such a salary cap box they put themselves in would be a GOOD thing for the Patriots?

    A portion of the credit due to Belichick comes by way of his skill in making wise choices in the salary cap era. That helped make the Patriots 3 time Super Bowl winners - and created a significant and often lasting divide between the Patriots and teams that made poor choices - especially bad teams that wasted huge bonus money on top pick busts.

    Now an owner of a team that has condemned an organization to long-term cap hell can dig out of that hole simply by writing a big check.

    How is that good for the Patriots?
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2009
  6. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I think many seem to just look at teh future with the Pats situation and..not look at what will happen league wise...I agree,,,keeping some teams from cap hell..DOES NOT help the Patriots in reality....I am not sure what side effects it will all have...
  7. mayoclinic

    mayoclinic PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,376
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Well said. The salary cap favors smart teams like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. It handcuffs everyone, but gives an advantage to those smart enough to work with it intelligently, which is a small minority. It's a great advantage to the Pats, just like the draft process (where dumb teams pay a king's ransom to workout warriors from the combine like Vernon Gholston and Jamarcus Russell, put themselves in salary cap hell, and then get to do it all over again).
  8. fgssand

    fgssand PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    We are very fortunate to have a great owner, a franchise that is profitable and the best coach / GM in football.

    We will continue to thrive if agreement is reached OR in an uncapped world. I have no doubt preparations and decisions are being made for either scenario.
  9. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    As to the quality of our coach and owner... well, yeah, I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise. But what "preparations" are you talking about?

    The issue isn't what OUR organization will do - it's the fact that other teams that make perpetually stupid personnel moves suffer an adverse consequence... and under an uncapped NFL, they can erase those bad moves by writing a check.

    Compared to the current system that rewards good moves and punishes bad ones, by definition that makes things worse for the Patriots - not better.
  10. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +70 / 3 / -1

    My Jersey:

    So you've never heard of the Boston Red Sox then?
  11. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here....

    That the Patriots and a New York organization will be the only teams to spend a lot of money without a salary cap? I'd be interested in knowing what facts you have to back that up because Robert Kraft doesn't strike me as the type of guy to spend $300 million on personnel just because he can. Nor would I expect Football to parrot the team spending structure seen in baseball.

    Or are you making the point that, yes, the Red Sox have made many bad moves and haven't had to pay the price... effectively trading guys like Rentaria not to play on the team anymore, and replacing them with better players regardless of price tag?

    So you're saying that BELICHICK would the same sort of bad decisions but wouldn't have to pay the price?

    I don't think you're going to find too many people agreeing with that. Just the opposite - other teams that make poor decisions will be able to dig out of their hole just like the Red Sox have - thereby making them more competitive, just like the Red Sox.

    No one else here is suggesting that, for some unknown reason Belichick will suddenly lose his ability when the cap goes away. They're simply talking about the fact that the poor decisions that other teams make could be undone by the swipe of the corporate credit card.

    So while I like your Red Sox analogy I think it proves just the opposite of what you intended.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2009
  12. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +70 / 3 / -1

    My Jersey:

    More money than all but a small handful of teams + best coach and owner in the game = consistent advantage.
  13. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Funny - I thought we already had a consistent advantage with an owner and coach who spent wisely compared to those who didn't.

    I guess I've completely misjudged Kraft and Belichick now that you've told me they'll outspend nearly every other team - but I still think Bob Kraft might disagree with you there. He'd proably say that he's made himself a success by being frugal and spending wisely... and not by overspending compared to his competition.

    I guess in hindsight its a good thing he had the new stadium publicly financed instead of paying for it out of his own pocket, because otherwise that might limit his cashflow compared to the stupid owners who didn't foot the taxpayers with the bill. ;)
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2009
  14. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +70 / 3 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Your rejoinder is that Kraft might not spend the money? Yes, the guy who spends to the cap pretty much every year is suddenly going to become tight with the cash. Great logic.
  15. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    Yet another patented Deus "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" fabricating the assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with him thinks that Robert Kraft is a cheap mizer.

    Nor is there any "logic" in making an unsubstantiated statement that because Robert Kraft spends to the limit in a limited spending system, that he will spend an unlimited amount if the cap is lifted.

    Kraft will spend WISELY - i.e. enough to give the team to talent to win a Championship. Every year. Period. The current state of the economy alone makes any assertion that Kraft - one of the smartest businessmen around- will spend unlimted amounts completely ludicrous.

    And for those teams that don't have the same financial resources as other teams - you might see some owners gamble on borrowed funds, as there aren't too many quicker ways to improve one's team marketing picture than winning a Super Bowl.

    Just like you were wrong about Cassel not signing the tender, I think you're wrong if you don't think that Kraft and Belichick will continue to spend wisely - unlike other teams that often OVERSPEND for players even in a capped system.

    Just TRY to comprehend that in an uncapped system, it's not only what the PATRIOTS spend that you need to factor - it's the fact that OTHER teams no longer need be hindered by the consequences of their unwise spending.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2009
  16. fgssand

    fgssand PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    With the potential for an uncapped year starting next season - I would think they are looking at the next next few years with "what if" scenarios in mind. Not unlike how they dove into cap management and found ways that have become SOP today, such as NLTBE's / LTBE's and moving around cap dollars with flexibility.

    I am sure they have thoroughly researched every aspect of what uncapped years mean and how they should do business. Could be trying to stockpile draft choices (if they feel that would be the way to go) or how they deal with contracts thinking eligibility for free agency goes from 4 to 6 years. I am not saying they are going to operate assuming that will be the case, but they cannot make moves in a vacuum without considering what it could mean.

    My whole point is that stupid organizations will continue to make stupid moves no mater what arena they operate in while our organization, by it's very nature will succeed.
  17. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +70 / 3 / -1

    My Jersey:

    I'm not saying everyone else is wrong, as you well know. I'm pointing out simple realities and trying to apply those current realities to a possible future. The Patriots bring in top tier money and have the best coach in the game. They spend to the cap almost every year. Making Brady one of the highest paid players in the NFL, paying Moss $9 million per, etc.... are not exactly examples of Kraft refusing to pony up for quality players. If you hear players talk you hear about how well they are treated when it comes to food, facilities and the like. I think all of that would combine to give the team a decided advantage year after year if there were no salary cap. You disagree with that. Now, get back to me when being "spending wisely" and outspending other teams are mutually exclusive. Until then, your argument isn't logical because "spending wisely" does not preclude one from spending a lot.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  18. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    There aren't many teams who've been able to manage the cap as successfully as the Pats plus WIN and/or contend so consistently. JMO but I don't see them suddenly going insane, signing every superstar out there just because they're uncapped. Some teams will though,I'm sure, and we know who they are:singing:

    The uncapped year comes at a great time for the Pats though, considering all the players we've got coming due after 09 like Big Vince, Sey, and Vrabes among others. No cap might allow the Pats some wiggle room should they decide to keep some of these guys, plus re-tag Cassel if the situation rolls in that direction.
  19. mayoclinic

    mayoclinic PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,376
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    That is probably a very wise and profound view of things, and likely true. Murphy's Law will likely hold true - make it harder for an idiot to screw it up, and a bigger idiot will just come along.
  20. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I must have been imagining it when thinking back to player after player after player that the Patriots refused to overpay to bring back... and that other teams DID overpay for... and THAT'S in a salary cap situation.

    Your assessment that the Patriots, now and in a non-capped system, will typically be the highest bidder for services seems somewhat off the mark.

    I don't expect a non-capped year to be the Wild West of the NFL. If it comes down to a bidding war on a player now, and in an uncapped system, I don't expect Kraft will be the one to over-pay or consistently be the highest bidder.

    And you continue to fully ignore the fact that teams that make poor fiscal choices will no longer be penalized for such moves. How is that better for the Patriots?
  21. Jimke

    Jimke Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Bob Kraft and most of his fellow owners opted out of the CBA

    because they thought that the players were getting too high a

    share of total revenues. This would indicate to me that Bob Kraft

    wants to pay less for players than he is now. I'm sure that he is

    willing to pay more than Buffalo or Cincinnatti for players but not

    as much as he is currently.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  22. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I agree - but apparently we're in the minority on that view. Deus points out that even though the Patriots are privately financing their stadium while other teams have public financing, the Patriots are of a small handful of teams that will spend more than most of the other teams.

    There's no question this would help keeping FAs we might not normally be able to keep - but I think Seymour's made clear he wants to test the waters.

    Yes - but the idiots now have no fiscal consequence for idiot moves.

    Draft a Ryan Leaf? Sure you wasted a top draft pick - but you're no longer constrained by his wasted salary cap figure either. Write the check, cut the player and keep bringing in new guys until you've found someone who isn't a turd.

    I prefer the system where they get saddled with the turd and the salary cap implications. That's worked very well for the Patriots. I find it difficult to advocate a change from what's worked so well.

    Again I agree - but Deus clearly believes that Bob Kraft wants to spend much much MORE on players - especially compared to other teams. In that view, I suppose he must think's Krafts concerns of the players getting too high a percentage of revenues is a smokescreen.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  23. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,236
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +33 / 0 / -1

    My Jersey:

    My understanding was that the problem was not the share going to the players, but rather issues involving the revenue sharing between teams.

    In any case, I don't think spending would change significantly one way or the other.
  24. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +70 / 3 / -1

    My Jersey:

    With regards to overpayment, that is, as you know, in the eye of the beholder. Some players that would seem to clearly have been overpaid include Beisel and Starks. Players that were arguably overpaid include Samuel and Law. All teams overpay

    Given that I never made this assessment, I don't know that I need to give this a serious response. However, it's basic math that a team that has $5 million dollars in disposable revenue can spend more than a team that has $1 million dollars in disposable revenue.

    That's your take on it. History shows Kraft to be willing to pay premium dollars for premium performance.

    I'm not ignoring any such thing. Any team that makes poor fiscal choices will be penalized, and every team will make poor fiscal choices, just as every team makes such mistakes with a salary cap in place. When teams make those mistakes, they lose that money. Some teams, such as the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots, will have more money to cover those mistakes in an uncapped situation. On the other hand, smaller market teams like Buffalo and Green Bay will not be able to make up for similar similar mistakes, because their budgets won't be nearly as large as the budgets of the bigger teams. This same thing happens in baseball, where the Red Sox can outspend just about any team except the Yankees and, as a result, they can bounce back from mistakes like the Renteria signing and still be competing year after year much more easily than a team like Pittsburgh could.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  25. Jimke

    Jimke Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The small team owners would like the total revenue of all teams added
    to the pot and divided equally. This way owners that didn't agressively
    tout their product would benefit from owners like Bob Kraft who do
    a good job merchandizing their product.

    One of Kraft's gripes is that the players now get 60% of the revenue
    from the luxury boxes. Part of this money is used to pay off the NFL
    loan towards building Gillette Stadium.
  26. fgssand

    fgssand PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    This is especially true because with any kind of a decent year, we will only be allowed to re-sign our own FA's anyway - one of the many "poison pills" found in the uncapped futureworld.
  27. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    :ugh:

    Look - this isn't rocket science. Maybe these two words will help.

    Dead - Money.

    Take the Lions last year. $15.2 million in "dead money" hitting their salary cap,

    In 2008 there were 13 players no longer with the Lions who still counted significantly toward the cap. Six of them were starters from 2007 who were no longer on the roster, but still counted heavily against the team's cap: Edwards, Shaun Rogers, Fernando Bryant, Kenoy Kennedy, Damien Woody and Kevin Jones.

    It's not just about "losing money" - it's about how that "dead money" impacts a team by effectively lowering their salary cap. And the Lions didn't just get hit with the cap hit of those they parted ways with - then they had to hire and pay guys to take their place.

    There's plenty of other examples - Look at the Raiders. Lots of huge "mistake" contracts that, if not for the salary cap hit, I'm sure players would be immediately cut. But let's just say if they cut Javon Walker next season, his dead cap space, along with that of DeAngelo Hall, would total $20 million in 2009. And once again, they need to pay other players to take their places.

    Do you know how much dead cap space Oakland or Detroit will have in an uncapped year?

    None! There's no Cap! The Raiders aren't put in a cap disadvantage as they are now. And clearly Al Davis has no problem spending a lot of money - he spent $10 million more than Bob Kraft to put that turd of a team on the field... its just that right now he's constrained from making cuts by the salary cap. That's no longer the case in an uncapped NFL.

    And you don't see the elimination of teams' dead cap space as a signficiant change in the NFL? :wha:
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
  28. NoCal Patriot

    NoCal Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    In this case The Players should watch what they wish for since I think an uncapped season will create two classes of players.There will be that "Haves" who will cash in big time and this will be 6 to 10 players on most teams and the "Have Nots" which will be the rest of the roster and they will be earning less than they imagine right now.The Owners when in comes to money are not stupid and they will do everything in their power to anticipate their costs.
    Some Playeres will cash in but most will be hurt.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2009
  29. PatOnTheArse

    PatOnTheArse Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The playoffs would improve because the richest teams would have a monopoly on the best players. However, the regular season would be far worse off.

    The attendences of the less wealthy franchises would be harmed. Most sides have one special player. If you took away these special players from twenty of the poorer teams then I cant see large attendences.

    An uncapped world would mean that there would be four/five franchises that can win the superbowl at the start of the season. That would be terrible. English soccer has become very ordinary and defensive because there are four teams far ahead of everyone else.
  30. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +70 / 3 / -1

    My Jersey:

    If it's not rocket science, why are you missing the blatantly obvious? Assuming no salary cap exists....

    Team A: Post expense revenue: 100 million dollars for spending on players

    Team B: Post expense revenue: 200 million dollars for spending on players.

    Now, assuming a reasonable level of fiscal responsibility for both teams, which team has is better able to shrug off a lousy contract over the course of time and still be capable of signing top flight free agents?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page