The Chaos Once Free Agency Hits

[MoLewisrocks]

Makes sense.

Except for the fact that while it has been Rob's contention all along it is not actually what is predicted. The cap is predicted to shrink. The offers and counter offers to date reflect that.

Unless the new cap exceeds $130M (or approaches $140M since th cap was $128M in 2009 and in 2010 as an example the Pat's spent $135M against no cap) and unless the prescribed increases going forward top 5% (the league was proposing in the 4% range) or include a true up that kicks in earlier than 2014.... There will be chaos once FA hits because of both the cap # going forward and the # of FA (500+ if RFA rules revert to 4 years as also predicted) to be dealt with in a very small window. Owners were talking about a lengthy lockout resulting in a one year moratorium in lifting the 6 year RFA rules back in March but I haven't heard that mentioned since. Even the union might see the need to limit FA under the circumstances because they don't want to see disappointing contract #'s or volume on the heels of a new CBA coming off an uncapped season that didn't pan out as they long predicted either.

 

[Ring 6]

There will most like not be a reduced cap. The owners are looking to slow the growth of the cap, not constrict it. Most people think that the 2011 cap will be about $5 million or so higher or more than the 2009 cap.

I also don't know if there will be a lot of teams dumping players (at least not a significantly greater rate than 2009) due to salaries. I just don't think the slowed growth of the cap will force teams to shed players to get under the cap like we saw in the late 90s. At least not for a few years.

The cap growth rate slowing could very well start to have teams getting in cap jail like they did in the past, but it probably will take a few years for this to start. Many teams signed big named players to lucrative deals, but they based the structure of these deals with the expectations of the cap growing at a rapid rate year after year. That means that it will take several years of modest cap growth for the sh*t to hit the fan. Maybe if there was a cap constriction, it would happen immediately. But few expect the cap to shrink.

I think where the free agency might get crazy is if the RFA rules go back to 4 years as expected. That means there will be quite a bit of extra young players on the UFA market since all the players with 5 years of playing time who should have been UFAs last year will hit the market as well as the players who now have 4 years of playing time. Conceivably if teams take the strategy of getting younger and go crazy on the free agency market, they might shed some older players. That might happen.

But contracts have been growing much faster than that. If there is a 5% increase in 2 years, following a period where the cap was increasing around 10% a year (I do not know if that # is quite accurate, I am using it for purpose not exactness) then there are many contract signed with increasing salaries during those times, and players will be expected continued increases, and there will not be cap room.
A large part of the cap number is already accounted for and the increases WITHIN those contracts are going to have a tremendous impact on the cap.

 

[Joker]

Did someone force you to read this thread? Did someone force you to respond?

nope....you're right...makes sense to just go around in never ending circles over matters no fan has control of...speaking of which, since it has become de rigueur to expound ad nauseum on any subject the least tangential possible to the Patriots, how about an in depth lookj at the physics of the game..

In the Principal of Least Action, the differential equations of motion of a given physical system are derived by minimizing the action of the system in question. For a finite system of objects, the action S is an integral over time of a function called the Lagrange function or Lagrangian L(q, dq/dt), which depends on the set of generalized coordinates and velocities (q, dq/dt) of the system in question.

Action

The differential equations that describe the motion of the system are found by demanding that the action be at its minimum (or maximum) value, where the functional differential of the action vanishes:

Principle of Least Action

This condition gives rise to the Euler-Lagrange equations

Euler-Lagrange equations

which, when applied to the Lagrangian of the system in question, gives the equations of motion for the system.
As an example, take the system of a single massive particle with space coordinate x (in zero gravity). The Lagrangian is just the kinetic energy, and the action is the energy integrated over time:

The Euler-Lagrange equations that minimize the action just reproduce Newton's equation of motion for a free particle with no external forces:

Free particle in d=1, via Lagrangian

The set of mathematical methods described above are collectively known as the Lagrangian formalism of mechanics. In 1834, Dublin mathematician William Rowan Hamilton applied his work on characteristic functions in optics to Newtonian mechanics, and what is now called the Hamiltonian formalism of mechanics was born.
The idea that Hamilton borrowed from optics was the concept of a function whose value remains constant along any path in the configuration space of the system, unless the final and initial points are varied. This function in mechanics is now called the Hamiltonian and represents the total energy of the system. The Hamiltonian formalism is related to the Lagrangian formalism by a transformation, called a Legendre transformation, from coordinates and velocities (q, dq/dt) to coordinates and momenta (q,p):.

I'm ready to defend my position in a forthcoming barrage of responses....no matter what anyone thinks...because I'm right...if there IS a right or wrong about any of this...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Except for the fact that while it has been Rob's contention all along it is not actually what is predicted. The cap is predicted to shrink. The offers and counter offers to date reflect that.

Unless the new cap exceeds $130M (or approaches $140M since th cap was $128M in 2009 and in 2010 as an example the Pat's spent $135M against no cap) and unless the prescribed increases going forward top 5% (the league was proposing in the 4% range) or include a true up that kicks in earlier than 2014.... There will be chaos once FA hits because of both the cap # going forward and the # of FA (500+ if RFA rules revert to 4 years as also predicted) to be dealt with in a very small window. Owners were talking about a lengthy lockout resulting in a one year moratorium in lifting the 6 year RFA rules back in March but I haven't heard that mentioned since. Even the union might see the need to limit FA under the circumstances because they don't want to see disappointing contract #'s or volume on the heels of a new CBA coming off an uncapped season that didn't pan out as they long predicted either.

A seriously complex situation for the NFLPA*. If the cap does not grow as say the top third of cap spenders planned, AND the vesting to FA accelerated, then the number of FAs could increase while the available market and money for their services decreases. Obviously the NFLPA* must be aware of this and setting negotiation goals appropriately. I would suggest that they defer for one season any earlier vesting of FA status just to allow a softer landing for the now impatient existing FAs.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Well, you called them low profit teams.
Now you are implying they have spent to the salary cap floor, which I do not believe is correct.

The Bengals don't even have a GM, so to say that they're notoriously cheap is kind of an understatement. That said, they are fairly close to the bottom of the league in player spending as well.

First relevant source that I found on Googling:
Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap | ProFootballTalk
2009-10 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com

 

[Ring 6]

The Bengals don't even have a GM, so to say that they're notoriously cheap is kind of an understatement. That said, they are fairly close to the bottom of the league in player spending as well.

First relevant source that I found on Googling:
Team-by-team salary cap numbers, if there were a salary cap | ProFootballTalk
2009-10 NFL Salaries by Team - USATODAY.com

Again, I was responding to the original point that he said they were low profit teams.
Also as far as the cap, you may be correct, but 09-10 numbers when there was no cap are really not relevant, and the other link is payroll, which varies widely from year to year, often due to cap constraints, so are not a good example.
A list of cap expenditures year to year would be needed.

 

[BradyManny]

FWIW - the Pats seem to be in as good position as anybody for whatever the new CBA brings.

Kraft, as expected, wisely kept the team reined in to around what the cap would have been last year.

As of now, the Pats are at $113 million with plenty of fat they could trim if they wanted (Kaczur, TBC, Page to name a few) - or may have the luxury of retaining even if slightly overpaid. That $113 also includes Mankins at the franchise tag, and hopefully they reach a deal with him that puts his cap hit this year under the current tag.

Either way, whether the cap goes down slightly, stays where it was, or goes up slightly - the Pats will be situated well.

Once they resign Mankins - and that is the key to the offseason - anything added to their roster will be gravy. And they'll have some flexibility to take some chances on who that gravy is.

The Jets, meanwhile, are at 100 million with seemingly half their roster from last season unsigned.

 

[patriot lifer]

Players with 4 accrued seasons are free agents. Let the fun begin.

opcorn:

 

[italia44]

nope....you're right...makes sense to just go around in never ending circles over matters no fan has control of...speaking of which, since it has become de rigueur to expound ad nauseum on any subject the least tangential possible to the Patriots, how about an in depth lookj at the physics of the game..

In the Principal of Least Action, the differential equations of motion of a given physical system are derived by minimizing the action of the system in question. For a finite system of objects, the action S is an integral over time of a function called the Lagrange function or Lagrangian L(q, dq/dt), which depends on the set of generalized coordinates and velocities (q, dq/dt) of the system in question.

Action

The differential equations that describe the motion of the system are found by demanding that the action be at its minimum (or maximum) value, where the functional differential of the action vanishes:

Principle of Least Action

This condition gives rise to the Euler-Lagrange equations

Euler-Lagrange equations

which, when applied to the Lagrangian of the system in question, gives the equations of motion for the system.
As an example, take the system of a single massive particle with space coordinate x (in zero gravity). The Lagrangian is just the kinetic energy, and the action is the energy integrated over time:

The Euler-Lagrange equations that minimize the action just reproduce Newton's equation of motion for a free particle with no external forces:

Free particle in d=1, via Lagrangian

The set of mathematical methods described above are collectively known as the Lagrangian formalism of mechanics. In 1834, Dublin mathematician William Rowan Hamilton applied his work on characteristic functions in optics to Newtonian mechanics, and what is now called the Hamiltonian formalism of mechanics was born.
The idea that Hamilton borrowed from optics was the concept of a function whose value remains constant along any path in the configuration space of the system, unless the final and initial points are varied. This function in mechanics is now called the Hamiltonian and represents the total energy of the system. The Hamiltonian formalism is related to the Lagrangian formalism by a transformation, called a Legendre transformation, from coordinates and velocities (q, dq/dt) to coordinates and momenta (q,p):.

I'm ready to defend my position in a forthcoming barrage of responses....no matter what anyone thinks...because I'm right...if there IS a right or wrong about any of this...

Timmy?.....Timmy Geitner?......Whatcha been up to,Bro?:singing:

 

[Deus Irae]

Sidney Rice will be a UFA.


Perhaps Bill could call him and his agent...

 

[Joker]

Timmy?.....Timmy Geitner?......Whatcha been up to,Bro?:singing:

...about ten trillion in the hole....

 

[patsfan13]

We know that the Front office has a plan. They have goals and will stick to those.

I don't feel a great need for another WR. I want a full TC with Price and Tate getting reps. We don't need 4 great WR's almost al the time we will have 2TE's and 2WR on the field. I think the young RB will give a boost to the running game along, hope Faulk is back to mentor the young guys. The Chaos may help us keep M Light. The D is pretty well set getting back injured players + maturation of the young player = very good D. I don't see a FA OLB, I expect breakout year for Cunningham + I think E Moore will be a factor in the pass rush.

 

[italia44]

...about ten trillion in the hole....

........"a trillion here,a trillion there.'pretty soon you're talking about serious money":rocker:

 

[E Belichick Unum]

nope....you're right...makes sense to just go around in never ending circles over matters no fan has control of...speaking of which, since it has become de rigueur to expound ad nauseum on any subject the least tangential possible to the Patriots, how about an in depth lookj at the physics of the game..

In the Principal of Least Action, the differential equations of motion of a given physical system are derived by minimizing the action of the system in question. For a finite system of objects, the action S is an integral over time of a function called the Lagrange function or Lagrangian L(q, dq/dt), which depends on the set of generalized coordinates and velocities (q, dq/dt) of the system in question.

Action

The differential equations that describe the motion of the system are found by demanding that the action be at its minimum (or maximum) value, where the functional differential of the action vanishes:

Principle of Least Action

This condition gives rise to the Euler-Lagrange equations

Euler-Lagrange equations

which, when applied to the Lagrangian of the system in question, gives the equations of motion for the system.
As an example, take the system of a single massive particle with space coordinate x (in zero gravity). The Lagrangian is just the kinetic energy, and the action is the energy integrated over time:

The Euler-Lagrange equations that minimize the action just reproduce Newton's equation of motion for a free particle with no external forces:

Free particle in d=1, via Lagrangian

The set of mathematical methods described above are collectively known as the Lagrangian formalism of mechanics. In 1834, Dublin mathematician William Rowan Hamilton applied his work on characteristic functions in optics to Newtonian mechanics, and what is now called the Hamiltonian formalism of mechanics was born.
The idea that Hamilton borrowed from optics was the concept of a function whose value remains constant along any path in the configuration space of the system, unless the final and initial points are varied. This function in mechanics is now called the Hamiltonian and represents the total energy of the system. The Hamiltonian formalism is related to the Lagrangian formalism by a transformation, called a Legendre transformation, from coordinates and velocities (q, dq/dt) to coordinates and momenta (q,p):.

I'm ready to defend my position in a forthcoming barrage of responses....no matter what anyone thinks...because I'm right...if there IS a right or wrong about any of this...

I am as proud of my C- in Differential Equations as I am any other grade I got throught my college career. Can you please apply Euler-Lagrange equations to massive particle the size of Kevin Faulk and give us an idea how he will move in 2011?

 

[cstjohn17]

The D is pretty well set getting back injured players + maturation of the young player = very good D. I don't see a FA OLB, I expect breakout year for Cunningham + I think E Moore will be a factor in the pass rush.

I think they bring in some help at OLB, they have a track record of spending money on the position (Colvin, Thomas).

The WR market looks pretty good, Floyd, Rice, Steve Smith (Giants) are free agents. Steve Smith (Panthers) and Chad Jackson could be made available via trade and Vincent Jackson might be able to be pried away from San Diego (although it would cost a fortune).

Just the thought of free agency is exciting! Wahoo! Double Wahoo!

 

[patsfan13]

Without the mini camps and so on it would be tough to get LB who is not familiar with the system integrated into the D.

 

[Rob0729]

Except for the fact that while it has been Rob's contention all along it is not actually what is predicted. The cap is predicted to shrink. The offers and counter offers to date reflect that.

Unless the new cap exceeds $130M (or approaches $140M since th cap was $128M in 2009 and in 2010 as an example the Pat's spent $135M against no cap) and unless the prescribed increases going forward top 5% (the league was proposing in the 4% range) or include a true up that kicks in earlier than 2014.... There will be chaos once FA hits because of both the cap # going forward and the # of FA (500+ if RFA rules revert to 4 years as also predicted) to be dealt with in a very small window. Owners were talking about a lengthy lockout resulting in a one year moratorium in lifting the 6 year RFA rules back in March but I haven't heard that mentioned since. Even the union might see the need to limit FA under the circumstances because they don't want to see disappointing contract #'s or volume on the heels of a new CBA coming off an uncapped season that didn't pan out as they long predicted either.

Based on the current proposal, I don't think I am wrong. Under the current proposal the players will get 48% of total revenues. In 2009, they got 50.06% according the the NFLPA. In 2009, the total revenues for the NFL was about $8.2 billion (from what I can tell). This year it is expected to be about $9 billion. So the players are taking a 2% pay reduction as far as what percentage of the total revenues they will be getting, but since 2009, the total revenues have increased by 9%. So based on my very basic calculations, the cap will go up because the decrease in percentage of the total money they will be getting is less than the increase in total revenues generated. The cap this year should be higher than it was in 2009.

The cap shouldn't shrink in 2011 from 2009, but the growth will be less than it would have been if the CBA wasn't negotiated. It might be as much as 4-6% less than what it could have been, but it will be higher. In fact, numbers leaked yesterday about the new CBA, the cap could be higher than I thought. But the rate of growth of revenues over the last two years is higher than the reduction in percentage that the players seem to be getting in the next deal.

 

[cstjohn17]

Without the mini camps and so on it would be tough to get LB who is not familiar with the system integrated into the D.

I am not buying that. There would be some learning curve but a veteran professional athelete would be able to pickup the system. At first things might be scaled back but BB adjusts the scheme and call playing based on personal anyway.

The issue at OLB is possibly related to scheme, but IMO it has more to do with a lack of play makers. In the end pass rushing is about defeating blocks, even with all the schemes in the world sooner or later you have to beat the person in front of you. This takes talent, I would rather have a play maker who understand 70% of the scheme than some JAG that knows every responsibility. Especially on 3rd downs.

 

[Deus Irae]

Without the mini camps and so on it would be tough to get LB who is not familiar with the system integrated into the D.

So Markell Carter was a wasted draft pick?

 

[Observer]

I am as proud of my C- in Differential Equations as I am any other grade I got throught my college career. Can you please apply Euler-Lagrange equations to massive particle the size of Kevin Faulk and give us an idea how he will move in 2011?

The Lagrangian method cannot be applied to Faulk because his presence violates the law of conservation of number of running backs on the roster. Faulk might be moving to a team with lower running back potential or he would have to dissipate some running-backness and assume some other role.