Welcome to PatsFans.com

OPINION: Pats WANT an uncapped 2010

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by AzPatsFan, Mar 26, 2009.

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

    AzPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,184
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +224 / 20 / -10

    Kraft has let the cat out to the bag. He said in an interview that he does not fear an Uncapped year. He welcomes it, if it fixes league needs.

    This only confirms that the Patriots Strategy for a while now has been, to EXPECT and WANT an Uncapped 2010.

    a) The Owners want the Players to accept a reduced sharing percentage back to near the numbers of the previous CBA.
    b) The Owners want to end the insanity of paying unproven college kids in the Top Ten of the draft more than established NFL Stars.
    c) The Owners want a Next CBA, to assure a draft, and a CAP, and essentially all the features that lead to a balanced and competitive league.

    To mollify and entice the Players to agree, the Owners are prepared to extend the season to 18 games and thus increase total revenue intake. The larger extended season revenues, applying the reduced sharing percentage, will still give the Players more money, and won’t require them to take a cut or “give back” anything.

    In the bargaining for an extended season, the Owners will offer a bigger roster, so there are more positions in the league for each player to fill. Thus possibly extending their careers and allowing the possible added year of eating the NFL Goose’s Golden Eggs.

    When phrased like that that it is not much to ask of the NFLPA. So eventually they will get it. IMHO.

    When the current CBA was being negotiated the Owners collectively did some things on their own. They extended revenue sharing amongst the teams to include luxury boxes and VIP seats, as well as their long standing TV and gate receipt sharing. And also some NFL merchandise revenue sharing, to twist the arms of smaller teams to agree. They also agreed to give the smaller, less financially stable owners some recurring money in annual payments.

    They added some clauses to the current CBA to insert an early back-out clause, punish winning teams from signingal theUFAs, and others to prevent either side from backing out of the current CBA. But it turns out these mostly hurt the Players and not the Owners.
    Unless you are Dan Snyder and want to “Buy” a championship and you are effectively prevented by the added rules from doing so.

    The weaker teams like Ralph Wilson’s Bills and Mike Browns’ Bengals were the ones who objected to the current CBA, with its larger sharing percentage that they thought too much. It is becoming apparent that they were correct. The current deal is too lop-sided in favor of the Players. Ironically, the weaker teams and the most likely to buckle in a work stoppage, have been strengthened by that round of negotiations and self-arm twisting. Hence they will be more resolute having been proved correct. More important, more financially able to withstand the rigors of a 2011 Lockout work stoppage.

    The Patriots apparently thought long and hard about the consequences for the rejected CBA, and did some things about it. They arranged that many of their Players contracts would expire in the theoretically attractive Uncapped 2010. The Agents and players took the bait, and signed lots of deals like that.

    The Patriots found that they would be constrained from adding to their team any UFAs in such a 2010 uncapped situation. They had used that mechanism to acquire talent throughout their run of dominance.

    So they looked and found a loophole. Under the CBA Article XXI, Section 2 & 3, def b, all teams are able to sign their own UFAs, called “Prior Players” with little restriction, except for a an irrelevant restriction that turns out to be helpful, rather than a hindrance. That restriction prevents any future salary increase from being more than a rise of 30% in any subsequent year, after the first. But the Patriots expect to front-load their contracts, so that doesn’t hurt them. It does however prevent a Snyder promising some players, instant riches and others future riches. The rules prevent that.

    With their expected success, they would be prevented from signing other teams’ UFAs, under the Restrictions of the final Four, and Top Eight teams. So they have worked to assure themselves that they won’t want or need to sign other team’s UFAs. Instead they will load their own team up with UFAs that are “Prior Players”, in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Then they can re-sign in Uncapped 2010, as many of these players that they desire without have to chose whom they able to keep under Cap restrictions.

    They Can sign them ALL, if they choose. So they added players that would qualify as “Prior Players”, that they would likely like to keep Moss, Sammy Smith, and Welker in 2007; Leigh Bodden, Galloway, Evans, Taylor, Buckley, Johnson, and did not re-sign any of their own Star players becoming UFAs in 2010. They did resign the contributors that they thought worth the money, like Mike Wright and Pierre Woods.

    They expect to re-sign their big Stars then, in Uncapped 2010. It seems certain that the contracts will probably be created without future hypothetical Cap consequences, by not including signing bonuses the same money will be roster or good-conduct, completion bonus pre-payments. Seymour, Wilfork, Neal, and Mankins, Kaczur, Hobbs, Gostkowski, Warren and Hochstein and perhaps others are in an apparent UFA situation. But in an uncapped year, Mankins, Kaczur, Hobbs, Gostkowski are not UFAs but RFAs. The Patriots can resign all with no loss.

    Oh, and they would extend Brady too! When the next CAP returns, annual salaries would represent most of their cap. CAP Heaven! Then they can sign the future UFAs, like Peppers, with little CAP concern in subsequent Capped years.

    The only thing to upset the applecart would be the early acquiescence by the NFLPA to the Owner’s demands. That would make 2010 a Capped year. But the Patriots have covered that somewhat. The Big Three stars Seymour, Wilfork and Neal would barely cost an additional $9 million per annum to keep. The could tag Mankins and fight for the rest.

    But a super majority of the Owners is needed to accept any such agreement and Kraft could be obstinate, if necessary.

    The Patriots expect the NFLPA will resist agreeing to the owner demands in 2010 due to
    a) the mirage of Free Agency
    b) the need for DeMaurice Smith to appear tough and tenacious.

    But they believe the players will cave in 2011-2012.

    By then, the Pats will be in CAP heaven and their dynasty can be assured of another decade.

    It also answers the puzzling question of why they took so little for Matt Cassel in such a hurry. The Montana-Young QB process kept the 49ers competitive for a long time in the uncapped years. But it is apparent the Patriots do not expect but a brief interlude of Uncapped years before a CAP resumes. That might answer the nagging question, “Why not keep two good QBs in an uncapped environment?".

    The puzzle pieces all start falling into place. Brilliant! :):cool:

    Last edited: Mar 26, 2009
  2. SeanBruschi54

    SeanBruschi54 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Pats WANT an Uncapped 2010.

    Can someone some this up? Im in class i dont have time to read it all.
  3. CampPen33

    CampPen33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: Pats WANT an Uncapped 2010.

    They know what they are doing! That is for sure.

    I never doubted anything for a minute. We always have questions as to why they do things certain ways, and it always seems to work out in the end.
  4. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,476
    Likes Received:
    528
    Ratings:
    +1,329 / 15 / -11

    Disable Jersey

    Re: Pats WANT an Uncapped 2010.

    Yah. Read my sig.
  5. CampPen33

    CampPen33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: Pats WANT an Uncapped 2010.

    Basically, there would be a CAP again in a year or two.

    There will be more games in the new agreement.

    The teams will be allowed to have bigger rosters.

    That they expect to resign there big stars in an uncapped 2010 season, and extend Brady too.

    That would leave follow-on years' CAP hits as annual salaries. Leaving CAP space to sign future UFA's.
  6. HEY BRO! WHAT UP?

    HEY BRO! WHAT UP? Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    4,370
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Re: Pats WANT an uncapped 2010

    I have been trying to explain this all off season. While many freak out about an uncapped season, I was one of the few that agreed it would benefit the Pats. Bit market teams want it to be uncapped. The Pats are one of the top franchises in all of sports. Top franchises make more money meaning they can sign whoever the hell they want. A perfect example is the Yankees in baseball. If 2010 is uncapped, the Pats will be able re-sign their own players with ease. If they don't get Peppers this off season, they sure as hell will be able to out bid Carolina next season. In addition, Carolina is in a small market so they don't come close to the revenue teams like the Pats, Jets, Giants, Redskins and Cowboys make.

    One more thing. One loop hole the Pats can use to get Peppers this season is promise him a huge deal after next season (2010 off season) but request for him to take a deal that would fit him under the cap.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2009
  7. CampPen33

    CampPen33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: Pats WANT an uncapped 2010

    That is so the point! The Patriots will benefit from this so much, because they have such a large fan base and make so much money!

    Go us.
  8. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,647
    Likes Received:
    177
    Ratings:
    +422 / 5 / -5

    Re: Pats WANT an uncapped 2010

    You're forgetting something that AZ mentioned: if the Patriots are as good as we think they can be, they won't be able to spend unlimited amounts of money. They will, of course, be able to lock up their own players long term, but they won't be able to go out and sign other teams' players.

    On the flip side, that might also be why they were willing to let Leigh Bodden sign a one-year, no-franchise-tag contract—if he turns out to be the next big thing at CB, and they can't resign him, that gives them the ability to sign a big-ticket player to replace him.
  9. bigdgp

    bigdgp Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Great analysis. My brother and I were having this exact conversation just a few weeks ago talking through the issues and coming to the same conclusion (very admittedly, not nearly as in depth and organized as you laid it out here). It really begs people to realize that while most people are worried about what new wrinkle is going on for the team right now that the management and ownership have already laid the foundation in place to continue their level of success going forward. I can't believe the players are walking into this situation and I hope for their sake that the new NFLPA Pres. has the sense about him to be able to negotiate out of the gate rather than stonewalling just for posturing's sake...

    DGP
  10. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    13,276
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +372 / 0 / -1

    While the NFL will get additional revenue from one or two more games, the NFLPA is going to expect a corresponding increase in salary per game. Add in the cost of an increased roster and more players being paid who are on IR, and my initial reaction is that this would not be a financial windfall for NFL owners. Also keep in mind the extra regular season game would most likely mean one fewer preseason game, and owners are already charging season ticket holders full price for that scrimmage. In other words they would be getting the same gate receipts, but larger television broadcast fees and more concession sales.

    On the other hand the NFL has always proven itself to be a very well run business. Though I don't see that much of a financial advantage, I am sure they have run a thorough revenue/expense analysis as to whether or not another game or two would be profitable.

    Or it could be a smokescreen for something else, as well; e.g., "okay, we'll drop the demand for two more games if you concede to roll back the salary cap percentage by 2%", etc.
  11. CampPen33

    CampPen33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How do you feel about the extra games? What about the "developmental league" the commissioner brought up? The smokescreen concept is interesting.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2009
  12. WhiZa

    WhiZa Rookie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,043
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Considering the Pats are the 3rd most valuable team in the NFL, I'm all for it. Based on this Forbes list the NFC East has 3 teams in the top 4.

    NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com
  13. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    No worries. I don't think this is going to happen.
  14. eom

    eom Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,588
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -1

    didn't realize jets, texans, colts, and bears would all be in the top 10.
  15. KingChre

    KingChre Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Excellent analysis AZ, I think you have summed it up as well as possible. I've been reading up on the current CBA, and the conditions of its expiration. And I have been singing this point to my friends that have been "stressing" over it.

    I don't see it as any coincidence all of these players are expiring in the uncapped year, the Patriots have too much history of using the cap to their advantage, they have almost always been one step ahead of everybody else when it comes to managing the cap. Why would this be any different?

    The Kraft family, Belichick, and his finance team are masters of the modern day cap. And I see this as being 100% beneficial to them. I think I even recall Kraft saying something along the lines of one of the main reasons he picked Bill is because of his knowledge of the salary cap, and how crucial that would be in the modern day NFL. Turns out he was rather precient on that one.
  16. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,184
    Likes Received:
    98
    Ratings:
    +224 / 20 / -10

    I want to add a clarification. Certainly the owners get to keep gate receipt and pay players, or scrubs little in preseason games. But the big money is TV. There is no comparison for a local TV preseason game revenue and a regular season national revenue. So the owners income would go up.

    But it seems they would be willing to trade some of that money to the players, for the reduced percentage sharing. Doing that would ensure many clubs from running in the red occasionlly, as is apparently happening, now. It would stabilize the League.

    We speak of expanded rosters. it would cost the owners zilch to allow all 53 players to play instead of an "active" 47. Add a few real players to say 55-58. And then increase the taxi squads to 10 or 12 costs little.

    Reform IR to mean half a season plus, or the "next season" before you can return. Include the playoffs in the definition of the "next" season. Players injured in the first half of the season might heal and be available to resume playing in the second half of the season and playoffs, or Super Bowl. Perhaps add a second bye week fro more extended rest.

    Larger squads might mean more player rotations, and fewer iron man performances, adding to overall Player health.


    Now lets get really speculative.

    In regard to the QBs health. Why not evolve into multiple QB starters?

    At the time of Cy Young, baseball teams had a star pitcher and a few others, and he pitched. Satchel Paige used to brag of pitching double headers. Baseball advanced to the idea that you need more than a single star in a pitching rotation.

    The same could apply in football. What is wrong with a say Brady/Cassel rotation where the backup plays or points for certain types of teams. Against Tampa 2 Defenses the Coach likes to use QB X; against Man-to-man Defenses he uses QB Y. Like baseball managers using lefties and righties, or power and junk pitchers for various adversaries.

    Small rosters and short seasons don't need that, but things change as rosters enlarge and seasons grow.

    What about a single wing tailback against small, good pass rushing, but poor rush defense teams, as your third rotation QB? Tim Tebow could build a career on that, alone. Rushing records would fall.
  17. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

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

    My questions for AZ are...and I am still digesting all said of the original post....BUT....
    1-----What if they DO get a CBA done...and there is no uncapped year...are the Pats screwed?? OR with all the FAs up in 10...can they worj what is going on to their advantage??
    2----Also what effect will the lockout have on this strategy that you believe they have???
  18. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    I see AZ is one of those who believes if he shouts it it must be true.

    I believe what the PATS want is a better CBA with a cap. In effect, the old status quo plus a couple of guaranteed money give backs. The uncapped season wasn't something they just came up with, it was the opt out in any final CBA year absent an extension. The PATS actually brokered the crappy deal that landed everyone in this predicament just to avoid 2006 being the last capped season and 2007 being an uncapped season...

    The PATS didn't find a loophole they could exploit in 2010, the final 8 plan is a poison pill provision of this expiring CBA crafted after those contracts you cite that expire in 2010 were negotiated...All those contracts you think they preplanned for 2010 were negotiated at a time when they either thought either 2007 would be the uncapped year or the CBA would be extended through 2012 (like the TV deal).

    Expanding the regular season won't net players a thing. The wear and tear over time will cost them a season per career and the extra revenue generated per season will be gobbled up by the expanded rosters it would take to play ...Owners still want to renegotiate the sharing of the pie %.

    The owners in agreeing to share expanded revenue with each other found themselves stuck sharing it with the players too. And they were so focused on their own internal dispute the NFLPA picked up a few more plums and didn't give back a damn thing - it was a one sided negotiation. Tagliabue was more concerned about retiring without a work stoppage on his epitaph than saving ownership from themselves and Upshaw took that opportunity to re-write his own soon to be epitaph. That's the problem... In order to mollify the have nots and avert an uncaped year and a potential work stoppage they opened pandora's box in front of the NFLPA and now they are pulling out all the stops to present a united front in an effort to get the damn thing closed again...

    Bob Kraft wants a league with fixed costs and profitability. And he doesn't want to be punished for being a superior marketer or bound to underwrite those unwilling to make similar efforts on their own behalf. He wants to be able to own a winning franchise that is a financially stable and successful business venture based on the quality of his product and his management. He doesn't believe that investments outside the collective in which his capital is all that is at risk should automatically benefit either Ralph Wilson or Mike Vrabel...

    If there is a lockout in 2011 he'll be eating all the bonus money he paid out to frontload contracts as you perceive him doing in 2010 at a time when his revenue stream drops from in excess of $250M to around $30M (along with every one else, the new Direct TV deal that will pay even if games aren't played - while the debt service on his stadium and construction of Patriot Place still has to be accounted for with no broadcast TV revenue or gate receipts or anscillary revenue from marketing or his own programming.

    Yeah, he's positively gleeful about an uncapped 2010... Couldn't have planned it any better...

    Some of you are easier to spin than a cheap plastic top.
  19. Isaac

    Isaac Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Excellent thread, a lot to chew on.

    Is there a firm deadline when it will be determined if 2010 will be capped?
  20. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    This isn't right. The owners are the ones who wanted inactive players. It affects retirement money which is part of the benefit plan they pay for.

    did you mean ensure or prevent?

    Last edited: Mar 26, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>