Schefter reveals the framework of the new deal

[Rob0729]

I think we're talking past each other.

The owners presumably want a right of first refusal to make free agency a little less chaotic, particularly in a year where there are so many free agents and free agency is going to happen so quickly, and it also allows the teams to be a little more coy in negotiating with their own players (e.g. the Pats might offer Light 1/3 and be willing to pay him 1/5 if they have a right of first refusal and St. Louis offers him 1/5). Players don't want it because it takes a negotiating tool away from them.

Whether the parties can agree on rules to eliminate poison pills is a really technical question that none of us know the answer to. You could get rid of most of them by agreement if you wanted to but you ultimately have to agree on a fact finder (e.g. the commisoner) who can very quickly say it's a poison pill or not.

Anyhow, right of first refusal, with no compensation, for one year isn't going to make or break the deal.

FWIW it looks like the Cowboys are the ones agitating for another chance to place franchise tags on players-the Cowboys gambled and (apparently) lost on the bet that he'd be a restricted free agent and now they want a chance to tag him. We'll see if it works. I'm not aware of any other franchise tag worthy 4 and 5 year players who weren't tagged but there could be others. Again, not a deal breaker one way or another.

I think you are missing the point. Without right of first refusal, the player can sign anywhere he wants. A new team can sign him for whatever they want and the player's old team cannot do anything to stop them if he signs them. This will at least give them a chance to match an offer that is given to a player.

A player does not sign a contract with a poison pill if he wants to return to the team. Say the right of first refusal is part of the deal for 2011 and say Santonio Holmes wants to return to the Jets, why would he sign a contract with the Redskins that has a poison pill that says say he gets a $20 million bonus if he plays more than two games in NJ in 2011? If he was going to sign a contract like that, he wasn't going to resign with the Jets if the Jets had rights of first refusal or not.

As for it being bad for the players in negotiations, I say the opposite. I say if anything it is bad for the owners. Let's use Santonio Holmes again. The Jets have made it pretty clear that he is their top priority. If the Jets have the right to first refusal, it is in Holmes' best interest to go out and try to get another contract from another team and make the Jets steal them away. Assuming he wants to stay with the Jets, he can get a team to overpay for him to try to make the contract too rich for the Jets to match. That will give Holmes his best contract possible, but he does run the risk of that team making it too rich for the Jets' blood and forces him to play elsewhere for more money.

I personally think it will force teams to make stronger offers to the players they tag with rights of first refusal because they do not want the negotiations to go long and the player to decide to shop around for better deals. Teams are definitely not going to lowball players who have rights of first refusal if they really want to keep them because if the player shops themselves around, they might have to pay more than they wanted to by matching another team's offer.

I still don't see how it is a big negative for either side than how I described. And even then, it isn't a big negative. If the player gambles that his old team would match the overpriced contract of another team and they don't, the player still gets more money than he would have if he stayed with his former team. If the owners have the right of first refusal and the player gets a poison pill contract that they cannot match, it means that they would have lost this player anyway if they didn't have right of first refusal.

 

[Shelterdog]

If the owners have the right of first refusal and the player gets a poison pill contract that they cannot match, it means that they would have lost this player anyway if they didn't have right of first refusal.

Everything you say is more or less true.

My point is that poison pills are likely to reduce the value of the ROFR so the ROFR isn't a big deal one way or another.


The owners (at least some owners) do think it's worth something or else they wouldn't be agitating for it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

After reading through the entire thread over on the Cowboys site (including a link in the final post to another thread Adam had started himself) all I gleaned was that Adam made a carry over contention that his own seperate carryover thread contradicted and when challenged on that discrepancy didn't respond, that the old formula league aggregate cap floor was due to rise to 90% of cap in 2011 anyway, we don't know how a cash floor would be calculated although it appears it was proposed to be over a three year window, that all of this is subject to interpretation and spin, that the principals let alone us mere mortals including even amateur cap gurus don't know enough about specific language or intent at this juncture to remotely predict let alone debate what a new CBA will entail or or whom it will impact adversely or even what the expired one really entailed - although we do have ample evidence as to why it will take a completed agreement with all the i's dotted and t's crossed for this thing to be over because the devil is truly in the details (and will remain even then debatable depending on interpretation and eventual application not to mention spin driven by multiple competing interests).

 

[Uncle Rico]

After reading through the entire thread over on the Cowboys site (including a link in the final post to another thread Adam had started himself) all I gleaned was that Adam made a carry over contention that his own seperate carryover thread contradicted and when challenged on that discrepancy didn't respond, that the old formula league aggregate cap floor was due to rise to 90% of cap in 2011 anyway, we don't know how a cash floor would be calculated although it appears it was proposed to be over a three year window, that all of this is subject to interpretation and spin, that the principals let alone us mere mortals including even amateur cap gurus don't know enough about specific language or intent at this juncture to remotely predict let alone debate what a new CBA will entail or or whom it will impact adversely or even what the expired one really entailed - although we do have ample evidence as to why it will take a completed agreement with all the i's dotted and t's crossed for this thing to be over because the devil is truly in the details (and will remain even then debatable depending on interpretation and eventual application not to mention spin driven by multiple competing interests).

That's one heckuva sentence.

 

[BlueThunder]

Did Mo say that all n ONE breath ??????

 

[Rob0729]

That's one heckuva sentence.

Yeah, I'm the king of the run-on sentence on this site, but even my longest sentence on this site is about 500 characters less than his.

 

[Rob0729]

Everything you say is more or less true.

My point is that poison pills are likely to reduce the value of the ROFR so the ROFR isn't a big deal one way or another.


The owners (at least some owners) do think it's worth something or else they wouldn't be agitating for it.

I think you are overstating the possibility of the poison pill. Players are given transition tags and RFA tenders that other teams offer contracts to in most years (mostly RFAs mostly, but occassionally transition tagged players) and we haven't seen a poison pill in nearly a decade.

 

[eom]

is there any current estimate of 2012 cap assuming that reported revenue % holds up?

 

[Shelterdog]

I think you are overstating the possibility of the poison pill. Players are given transition tags and RFA tenders that other teams offer contracts to in most years (mostly RFAs mostly, but occassionally transition tagged players) and we haven't seen a poison pill in nearly a decade.

You don't see poison pills because the draft pick compensation for tagged players and RFAs is so high that they almost never get offered contracts with or without poison pills. Other than Wes Welker how many RFAs of any quality have been signed in the past five years (and he was technically traded)?

I predict that if there are transition tags with no draft pick compensation attached you'll see a bunch of poison pills because they'll be useful again, but who knows.

Anyhow it's not a big deal, just another factor in the zoo that will be free agency this year.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think you are overstating the possibility of the poison pill. Players are given transition tags and RFA tenders that other teams offer contracts to in most years (mostly RFAs mostly, but occassionally transition tagged players) and we haven't seen a poison pill in nearly a decade.

Nearly half a decade. I believe the Vikings retaliated before the league made it known while it could not presently prevent the use of them them it would frown on any future use of them. A situation the NFLPA actually complained smacked of collusion and pondered somehow filing a grievance over because they remained legal due to language contained in the CBA. I would assume they plan to remedy this in drafting the next CBA.

Seahawks let Vikings take Hutchinson for $49M - NFL - ESPN

 

[lamafist]

You are entitled to agree with him. I do not.

It's not a matter of agreement. It's a matter of him having information you do not seem interested in availing yourself to.

You are making an affirmative statement which I asked you to back up. Your response left out many details. It is not my place to research your argument, and see if the facts you left out support it. Its your argument not mine. If I make a claim, feel free to ask me to back it up, and know that my response will not be to assign you work to fill in the pieces I left out.

I've backed up my assertions. You are making your own positive assertions regarding the evidence I've provided that you're not backing up. It is possible, but not likely, that the Chiefs' pre-2000 cash-over-cap could be affecting my example. It is possible, but not likely, that the pre-2006 salary floor is throwing off my figure. You say they do. You could back these affirmative statements up; you choose not to.

Refusing to engage with the relevant information and demanding an unreasonable threshold of proof is a cheap form of argument -- "Ok, so the sun has risen in the east every morning for hundreds of years of recorded history, but how do we know it will tomorrow?"

Thats not the argument that you jumped into.
My point was that it is not a certainly that using cash rather than cap will cause the lower revenue teams to have to spend more than they did under the old system.
My argument was never that it isn't possible to spend less under this system than the old, I am sure it is, because the criteria are tremendously different. I would venture under some circumstances it would be impossible for teams not to spend more under cash floor than a cap floor and in others it would be impossible for them to.
Giving me one example is not proof of the certainty of a result.
You are kind of arguing with yourself here, because you have created an argument that has little to do with the point I made that you jumped into the discussion on.

Again, I've shown that under the previous CBA, the Chiefs payed less than what would have been possible under the proposed CBA. The owners could pay less under the previous CBA than would be possible under the proposed CBA. The minimum player expenditure is going up.

How is that not the argument?

Honestly from your response it appeared that you did. You are interchanging cap and cash in your 'math problem' and you simply cannot do that.

You're mistaken. I set X as revenue. I showed that given the changes in percentages that the cap floor in the old CBA would have been lower than the cash floor in the proposed CBA.

I trusted you would understand the really simple fact that because of the way cap considerations balance out, a cap floor of 44% of revenue will, over time, necessarily come out to be lower than a cash floor of 48% of revenue.

Apparently, you did not.

Well they certainly are not unrelated, that would be foolish to suggest.
But you simply cannot say .48 of the cap in cash is greater than .43 of the cap in cap. That may be true. It may be true more often than not, but its the equivalent of saying 12 big widgets are more than 20 little widgets. Widgets" are certainly related but the 'math problem' doesnt hold up to scrutiny.

Again, you can. Because the differential between the sum of a team's cap figure and the sum of a team's cash payroll will, over iterated seasons, approach zero. The cap considerations change *when* money from a given contract is counted, but not how much money is counted. The only permanent divergence is created through cap inflation.

That's why cash and cap cannot be interchanged when talking about one or two seasons in isolation, but can be when talking about iterated seasons.

None of that guarantees that low revenue teams will pay more under a cash floor system than under a cap floor system. In fact, it actaully says they will pay the same thing OVER TIME unless you cheat the equation by saying the league is going to raise the floor up to what the cap is.

Teams wouldn't be obligated to pay more under a cash floor system than a cap floor system if the cash and cap floors were the same. Over time, it should be about equal, depending on cap inflation. What I'm saying is that teams would be obligated to pay more under the rumored new CBA than the previous CBA.

It's not "cheating the equation" to say the league is raising the floor -- that's what Schefter is reporting. That's the compromise the players are getting for the reducing the ceiling.

The detail that every team is in a far different cap position than each other every year further indicates that in any given year there is no way you can guarantee that all low revenue teams would pay more that year under this rumor than the old system.
It would also be instructive to actually show whether teams were at the floor, since that was the old legislated minimum. If none or few teams even came close to the legislated minimum then we are really talking about a minor issue.

Ah, the old "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy, again. You like that one, it seems.

You can't be reasoned with if you require every every known detail of the NFL to be conclusively proven to you.

Again, read the example. If you pay large signing bonuses you can be far below the cap. A system that can allow a team to count all of the signing bonus paid this year toward the floor, allows it to spend a lot less in total dollars.
That example is extreme, but the point isnt in the extremity but the direction. Teams signing players to large contracts with large signing bonusses can spend less money under this rumored system than if the floor were based on the cap.
That qualifies as proving my argument because my argument is that using a cash floor does not make it a certainty that low revenue teams will spend more money than under the old system.

Sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.
And again you are mixing your made up 44% cap number with a revenue split of 46%. Again is 44 apples better or worse than 48 oranges?

You realize that's like saying that someone can pay less for a car by taking out financing because you've proven that will have to pay less money at signing, right?

Dollar for dollar, cash spent is eventually paid off against the cap. Outside of the effects of cap inflation, over the course of seasons, cash and cap become the same. You keep trying to pretend as though cap and cash are less related than they are. You say they're apples and oranges, when they're pretty clearly both grown from the same seed -- making them more like plums and prunes?

Just because you can't/won't do the math to compare them doesn't mean nobody else should.

I understand the math just fine, it just isnt math that is applicable to my comments, which you clearly did not understand.
It is virtually impossible in a capped league for a team to continue to spend 100% of the cap number in cash without exceeding the cap, unless the league has different policies and practices than the NFL regarding signing bonusses, cuts, amortization and accelration of signing bonusses, retirements, etc.

Again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

It's not a matter of agreement. It's a matter of him having information you do not seem interested in availing yourself to.




I've backed up my assertions. You are making your own positive assertions regarding the evidence I've provided that you're not backing up. It is possible, but not likely, that the Chiefs' pre-2000 cash-over-cap could be affecting my example. It is possible, but not likely, that the pre-2006 salary floor is throwing off my figure. You say they do. You could back these affirmative statements up; you choose not to.

Refusing to engage with the relevant information and demanding an unreasonable threshold of proof is a cheap form of argument -- "Ok, so the sun has risen in the east every morning for hundreds of years of recorded history, but how do we know it will tomorrow?"



Again, I've shown that under the previous CBA, the Chiefs payed less than what would have been possible under the proposed CBA. The owners could pay less under the previous CBA than would be possible under the proposed CBA. The minimum player expenditure is going up.

How is that not the argument?



You're mistaken. I set X as revenue. I showed that given the changes in percentages that the cap floor in the old CBA would have been lower than the cash floor in the proposed CBA.

I trusted you would understand the really simple fact that because of the way cap considerations balance out, a cap floor of 44% of revenue will, over time, necessarily come out to be lower than a cash floor of 48% of revenue.

Apparently, you did not.



Again, you can. Because the differential between the sum of a team's cap figure and the sum of a team's cash payroll will, over iterated seasons, approach zero. The cap considerations change *when* money from a given contract is counted, but not how much money is counted. The only permanent divergence is created through cap inflation.

That's why cash and cap cannot be interchanged when talking about one or two seasons in isolation, but can be when talking about iterated seasons.



Teams wouldn't be obligated to pay more under a cash floor system than a cap floor system if the cash and cap floors were the same. Over time, it should be about equal, depending on cap inflation. What I'm saying is that teams would be obligated to pay more under the rumored new CBA than the previous CBA.

It's not "cheating the equation" to say the league is raising the floor -- that's what Schefter is reporting. That's the compromise the players are getting for the reducing the ceiling.




Ah, the old "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy, again. You like that one, it seems.

You can't be reasoned with if you require every every known detail of the NFL to be conclusively proven to you.



You realize that's like saying that someone can pay less for a car by taking out financing because you've proven that will have to pay less money at signing, right?

Dollar for dollar, cash spent is eventually paid off against the cap. Outside of the effects of cap inflation, over the course of seasons, cash and cap become the same. You keep trying to pretend as though cap and cash are less related than they are. You say they're apples and oranges, when they're pretty clearly both grown from the same seed -- making them more like plums and prunes?

Just because you can't/won't do the math to compare them doesn't mean nobody else should.




Again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible.

It really doesn't matter what you say, or how right you are. He's just gonna keep typing until one post after you stop.

 

[Shelterdog]

Again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Yup. If it's true that the cash floor will be close to the cap max then teams will have to perpetually balance players whose cash payments exceeds their cap value (for example guys who got signing bonuses on long term deals that year) with guys whose cap value exceeds their cash received (guys in later years of contracts who received signing bonuses at the beginning of their contacts), and contracts will be restructured from time to time accordingly.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not a matter of agreement. It's a matter of him having information you do not seem interested in availing yourself to.

No it is a matter of misusing the info. Amount of cash spent does not prove whether teams spent to the cap.

I've backed up my assertions.

No, you havent. You have shown a possible scenario, while leaving out variables.

You are making your own positive assertions regarding the evidence I've provided that you're not backing up. It is possible, but not likely, that the Chiefs' pre-2000 cash-over-cap could be affecting my example. It is possible, but not likely, that the pre-2006 salary floor is throwing off my figure. You say they do. You could back these affirmative statements up; you choose not to.

I am not at all making affirmative statements in that regard.
I am simply saying your evidence is not convincing without all the facts.
You can stop there if you wish, but IMO you are missing facts needed to draw your conclusion.

Refusing to engage with the relevant information and demanding an unreasonable threshold of proof is a cheap form of argument -- "Ok, so the sun has risen in the east every morning for hundreds of years of recorded history, but how do we know it will tomorrow?"

I am not refuse to engage in anything. I am saying that there are flaws in your argument that leave me unconvinced. I have a reasonable level of certainty that if those flaws were exposed you would be wrong. That is enough for me. If you wish to dig deeper, feel free. I dont have the time to chase the fireflies of your argument.

Again, I've shown that under the previous CBA, the Chiefs payed less than what would have been possible under the proposed CBA. The owners could pay less under the previous CBA than would be possible under the proposed CBA. The minimum player expenditure is going up.

How is that not the argument?

You are mixing cash and cap. No matter how many times you want to do it, it is still not correct.
I clearly explained why that is not the argument. Again, I have no doubt that it would be easy to find an example where a team would have been allowed to spend less under the old system than the rumored one. You are vociferously arguing as if my position is that you couldn't.
My position is that a cash floor will not necessarily cause low revenue teams to spend more than a cap floor did.

You're mistaken. I set X as revenue. I showed that given the changes in percentages that the cap floor in the old CBA would have been lower than the cash floor in the proposed CBA.

But the cash spent under a cap floor system is not a percentage of revenue. You cannot compare a percentage of revenue to a percentage of revenue when one system is not based upon that.

I trusted you would understand the really simple fact that because of the way cap considerations balance out, a cap floor of 44% of revenue will, over time, necessarily come out to be lower than a cash floor of 48% of revenue.

Apparently, you did not.

I understnad that simple fact. I also understand that if the Patriots went 19-0 last year they would be the best team ever. That does not mean they were the best team ever.
You made up an argument and then when i disagree with the structure of the argument, you insult my ability to understand the conclusion?

Again, you can. Because the differential between the sum of a team's cap figure and the sum of a team's cash payroll will, over iterated seasons, approach zero. The cap considerations change *when* money from a given contract is counted, but not how much money is counted. The only permanent divergence is created through cap inflation.

That's why cash and cap cannot be interchanged when talking about one or two seasons in isolation, but can be when talking about iterated seasons.

So? You are using one set of team figures, making assumptions for what you don't know, ignoring whether they even operated at the floor, above it or at the cap, pretneded that factors that affect the cap didnt affect it, and when all is said and done, your answer to whether:
A cash floor system will cause low revenue owners to spend more than a cap floor system, the best you can do after inventing what the floor would be is argue that over a long period of time the difference would approach zero.
Why am I not convinced?

Teams wouldn't be obligated to pay more under a cash floor system than a cap floor system if the cash and cap floors were the same.

That is not necessarily true either, because you AGAIN are mixing cash and cap and they are calculated very differently.

Over time, it should be about equal, depending on cap inflation. What I'm saying is that teams would be obligated to pay more under the rumored new CBA than the previous CBA.

If your argument is that if the cap floor is 60mill and the cash floor is 100mill then you would spend more under the 100mill system, well, duh.
That has nothing to do with whether a cash floor would mandate higher spending than a cap floor. It says a cash floor that is higher than the cap floor will end up costing more money.
If that is what your argument has been all along, you need to learn to be more clear and save pages of us talking about 2 different things.
It seems you have been arguing with yourself.

It's not "cheating the equation" to say the league is raising the floor -- that's what Schefter is reporting. That's the compromise the players are getting for the reducing the ceiling.

The discussion isnt whether raising the floor makes teams spend more money, the discussion is whether a cash floor makes teams spend more money than a cap floor.

Ah, the old "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy, again. You like that one, it seems.

Well do you want to continue from an ignorant point of view?
You are writing pages and pages about what happens if a team wants to spend the bare minimum and have yet to show a team spending the bare minimum.

You can't be reasoned with if you require every every known detail of the NFL to be conclusively proven to you.

The pertinent ones are pretty important.
Do you really think whether there are teams skirting the salary floor is not pertinent to what will happen if there is a cash floor? You are speaking in hypotheticals when you can get real facts, but choose not to.
Dont give the facts. I dont care. But if you leave out pertinent information I cannot accept your argument.

You realize that's like saying that someone can pay less for a car by taking out financing because you've proven that will have to pay less money at signing, right?

Not even close. It is saying that if you put down a downpayment you will pay a greater amount of cash in year one, but if you divide the cost over the term it will equal the same every year. Just like cash cost vs cap cost.

Dollar for dollar, cash spent is eventually paid off against the cap.

key word

Outside of the effects of cap inflation, over the course of seasons, cash and cap become the same. You keep trying to pretend as though cap and cash are less related than they are. You say they're apples and oranges, when they're pretty clearly both grown from the same seed -- making them more like plums and prunes?

They are entirely different when looking at the 2 means of counting expenditures on payroll in a season.
Look at the Patriots year by year cash cost, and then their year by year cap cost. You will see the difference.

Just because you can't/won't do the math to compare them doesn't mean nobody else should.

Why bother doing math that isn't real?

Again, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible.

Oh I understand it. And I understand your arrogant condescending attitude too. If your point of being on this board is to keep restating your argument, ignore thye actual points in the response, then sling condescending insults and deliver the lame attitude that anyone who disagrees with you doesnt understand you then please feel free to not respond to any of my posts.
I have no interest in explaining things so you can ignore them and write back to feeed your ego.
I have not insulted you one single time in this thread, and you have made personal insults your pattern. If that is who you are, I am done.

 

[Joker]

 

[BlueThunder]

Amazing........I almost posted those same Gifs yesterday JO

LMAO

 

[Patspsycho]

 

[Observer]

I have got to commend AndyJohnson for being the undisputed master, chairman, 10th degree black belt, supreme leader, president, chancellor of typing on this forum. Are there any challengers?

:youtheman:

 

[plk]

Dollar for dollar, cash spent is eventually paid off against the cap. Outside of the effects of cap inflation, over the course of seasons, cash and cap become the same.

I have no idea why people have so much trouble understanding this. It is really very simple and very basic. (Even Mike Reiss has at times said things that suggest that he does not understand it.)

If it were up to me, people would have to pass a test demonstrating that they do understand this fundamental concept about the salary cap before being allowed to post here.

 

[Joker]

I have no idea why people have so much trouble understanding this. It is really very simple and very basic. (Even Mike Reiss has at times said things that suggest that he does not understand it.)

If it were up to me, people would have to pass a test demonstrating that they do understand this fundamental concept about the salary cap before being allowed to post here.

A Patriots fan on a Patriots fan board "have to pass a test demonstrating that they do understand this fundamental concept about the salary cap before being allowed to post here"???????

who died and appointed you Sanctimonious Self Important Bloated D-Bag Of The Century...?

I, for one, cannot STAND this round and round, incessant blather about money and the Patriots...it infects seemingly every thread on this board lately and it is people like you, with your condescending, snotty accountant's attitude that are most responsible. How about this...YOU petition to get your own precious little "salary cap" page here and then you and your money mad friends can amortize and soft and hard cap all day and night. Until then try to realize SOME FANS, and let me re-emphasize this, some PATRIOT fans, can't stand any of this money talk crap.How about YOU keep your big mouth clamped about who should or shouldn't "be allowed" to post here" and just live with it, like some us have to live with YOUR pecuniary dissertations.