Welcome to PatsFans.com

PFT: CBA rules update

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by DefenseRules, Feb 19, 2009.

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

    DefenseRules Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    9,940
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +106 / 2 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    ProFootballTalk.com - 14 PLAYERS ASSIGNED FRANCHISE TAG; CBA RULES UPDATE

    Some interesting rules. Things are definately changing in the NFL.
  2. alamo

    alamo praedica numerum! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -0

    That's a nice list of the changes, but it's worth pointing out that absolutely none of it is "news", every point on the list has been reported before and most have been mentioned on patsfans.

    It also a strange combination of "last capped year" (2009) and "uncapped year" (2010) rules, and leaves out some of the 2010 rules on free agency. Most notably the "Final Eight" stuff and the fact that 4th and 5th year players won't be unrestricted FAs, but will be RFAs (not Exclusive Rights FAs as are 2nd and 3rd year players) so the change might be as widespread as it looks.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  3. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

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

    I know a lot of the uncapped years and the possible non CBA situation has been discussed...a few things to ME of note that I do NOT believe were ever mentioned....The first is about vet team incentives that only 3 could be in a contract and HAD to be tied to playing time..I don't know how many contracts are tied to these sorts of things OR how this could impact future contracts...BUT I found that interesting...maybe mentioned before...but if it was it was quietly not discussed much..IS THAT important going forward??? (Thought I would point that one out...) Also...was that a LOT of benefits would not be mandatory....I wonder when this kicks in?? And really 1---how much these programs really cost teams...(are we talking a few million a year...or???) and 2--that they are not mandatory meaning some teams could have their own benefits so that players COULD shop around for better benes....again..the richer teams could offer better ones.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  4. xmarkd400x

    xmarkd400x Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Good post.

    Doesn't this really look bad for the up-and-coming NFL players? Why the heck on god's green earth are salary increases limited?
  5. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    It's an incentive to force the NFLPA back to the negotiating table.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  6. xmarkd400x

    xmarkd400x Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,746
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Good point. That whole deal appears to work out exceedingly well for owners.

    Imagine the draftees of round 2 and lower (32 teams * 6 rounds = the majority of your NFL players).

    They could all be signed to 5 year non-guaranteed (like they are now) contracts. Assuming they even got the maximum 30% raises and a 750k starting salary, their schedule would look like this:

    Year 1: 750k
    Year 2: 975k
    Year 3: 1.27M
    Year 4: 1.65M
    Year 5: 2.14M
    Year 6: RFA

    The goal of the players union is to compensate the players as much as possible. The owners have a very good power play here, and they will probably make good use of it.
  7. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,608
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +392 / 5 / -5

    Actually, I think Florio is misinterpreting the relevant rule:

    Also, (A) each team only has two tags available for 2010 (i.e., two transition OR one transition and one franchise), and (B) NLTBE incentives count against the cap as soon as they are earned, not immediately.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  8. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

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

    Thanks for that clarification..I wonder what impact THAT CHANGE would have?? Not knowing the details of many contracts or even the use of that..I am just curious about that?? It may just be a rule they stuck in..which might have little impact...OR maybe the other way arouns.
    What about madatory benefits for players?? That makes sense that without a CBA..no agreement teams would NOT HAVE to have any...but how much would they save?? I wonder again about teams having their own benefits and how players might be attracted to teams that had them..over others?? (Where as now..it's league behefits across the board.)
    It does seem to work BETTER for the owners...with no cap an dno base..pulling salaries down a team could make larger profuts...no??? Are there any real pluses for players in all of this?? It seems more on details that..players will have less.
  9. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

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

    While this is more specific in nature...I wonder what in Billy Yates's contract needed to be changed because of the possibility of the uncapped year?? Just a curiosity as to detail possibilties...I think the fact that the Pats have not extended many is because of this possibility.
  10. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,608
    Likes Received:
    173
    Ratings:
    +392 / 5 / -5

    I believe Reiss said it had something to do with incentives. . . .
  11. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,168
    Likes Received:
    120
    Ratings:
    +332 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    My guess is that Yates had reached some escalators in his contract that would have increased his 2009 salary that the Pats did not find acceptable so they had to release Yates. Otherwise, they could have simply redid his existing contract by removing the incentives.
  12. PatsFan37

    PatsFan37 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    #37 Jersey

    I'm pretty sure I read that opinion somewhere else, as well. Maybe Reiss' blog or his mailbag. Makes sense.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>