ESPN Says We're The #1 Most-Screwed Team In Case Of Uncapped 2010

[Miguel]

Check that - Teams will be provided with TWO transition tags and one franchise tag.

Incorrect.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/25/mmqb/2.html

 

[Urgent]

The Pats will be one of the 'have's' in an uncapped year.

As a high-revenue team, they will be able to keep their own players.
The one guy on their current 2010 free agent list that they need to keep is Wilfork.
Use one of the tags on him.

Then apply another to, say, Watson.

They benefit from Mankins, Kaczur, and Hobbs getting pulled out of free agency.

Then, based on the situation, they can deal with Seymour. Another tag is available, or they can simply negotiate in an un-capped market. Also, recognize that those tags are based on previous (UNCAPPED) year's salaries, so they will certainly be used.

They might get caught in the Top Four corner, unable to compete in the first round of free agency, but that simply means the team will be good enough that it is coming off an AFC Championship Game, and the situation is stacked toward keeping teams together.

The only teams who are screwed are the low revenue ones. They will set internal caps that will prevent them from keeping their top free agents. Not the Pats.

Leading an article pointing out that the Pats may not be able to keep Bruschi and Vrabel three years from now just makes you look foolish.

 

[NormZauchin]

Besides the fact that I think at that point we'll be ready to move on from Seymour and perhaps even Vrabel if need be (it hurts to say), our owner isn't afraid to fork over cash to put out a winning team. If anything, aren't we more likely to retain these players in an uncapped scenario? They like playing here, they like winning, and our owner has the money to pay them.

Good point. The Patriots franchise is one of the three in the NFL that is worth the most. (The Cowboys and the Redskins are the other two.) For ESPN to assert that a businessman with Kraft's acumen will not be able to leverage his investment to find and hold the players BB needs is insane. With no cap, think of the Patriots as the Yankees with a smart owner.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

To me I think this is moot for 2 reasons.

1 Its at least 3 yrs till serious talk...

2 This will never come to be, because the nfl will not kill the golden goose, its going to take some time, but there will not be no salary cap, and no lockout..

As that red neck says- get r done, or they will get r done

 

[Frezo]

To me I think this is moot for 2 reasons.

1 Its at least 3 yrs till serious talk...

2 This will never come to be, because the nfl will not kill the golden goose, its going to take some time, but there will not be no salary cap, and no lockout..

As that red neck says- get r done, or they will get r done

I agree that they have to get it done. Suppose there was no cap for two years and some teams spent like drunken MILFs at a Filene's sale. Then a cap is put in place and these teams find themselves 10 or 20 mil over. How does the league rectify that?

 

[JoeSixPat]

To me I think this is moot for 2 reasons.

1 Its at least 3 yrs till serious talk...

2 This will never come to be, because the nfl will not kill the golden goose, its going to take some time, but there will not be no salary cap, and no lockout..

As that red neck says- get r done, or they will get r done

Hopefully you're right - but again I stress, the impact on a teams's ability to sign free agents to long term contracts is affected well before the final negotiations break off or reach a settlement.

And as to the notion that the Patriots are among the richest teams, I wouldn't bank on Kraft changing from one of the most econmically balanced organizations to one of the biggest spenders, even if he CAN afford it.

That's just not how he does business - also don't forget he self financed the stadium and he has to pay that mortgage as well, unlike other teams.

Overall I'd have to think that there are a lot of marginally successful teams that don't have the wealth of the Patriots that would mortgage the future and put players on their "credit card" for the chance to win a Super Bowl and recoup such an investment many times over.

I just don't envision a situation where the Patriots are consistently outbidding other teams - I expect it will be the other way around. And I really don't discount the fact that the Patriots thrive in a capped environment when every strategic move is that much more important.

In an uncapped system a team can make tons of mistakes and just cover it up by cutting players and signing new ones - in other words, they can cover up mistakes with money. Right now teams can't do that and that's part of the reason why the Patriots have such an advantage.

These aren't insignificant advantages and disadvantages we're talking about here - an uncapped year drastically changes the face of the NFL and I question whether Pandora can ever be put back in the box once the system migrates to an uncapped system.

 

[HSanders]

What, has ESPN already figured out how the Pats will be at such a disadvantage that they will have to violate the NON salary cap somehow?
Lombardi had an interesting take on how to cope with an uncapped year:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...strategy/index.html?eref=fromMySIScreenServer

I agree that ESPN's take is foolish at best. The Pats don't try to outbid people NOW....and they are consistent contenders. I don't think that will change if there is an uncapped year. Granted, I don't want to see the NFL capless. It's a weird business in that a totally free market actually lowers the product as a whole competitively speaking IMO since it divides the league into "haves and have nots". Blowouts aren't that much fun to watch on a consistent basis. ICompetitive games have better ratings also I would think. I think that division would lead to less competitive games and a lower product value myself.

 

[stinkypete]

Link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=3415387

See the PFT article about the logistics of the uncapped year. The conditions the CBA places on the uncapped year will severely limit player movement. There will not be free flowing money that year. Many high profile free agents may have to take hometown discounts.

 

[JoeSixPat]

See the PFT article about the logistics of the uncapped year. The conditions the CBA places on the uncapped year will severely limit player movement. There will not be free flowing money that year. Many high profile free agents may have to take hometown discounts.

I think you've misread the conclusion of that article. They didn't say there will not be any free flowing money or that high profile free agents will have to take hometown discounts.
They merely raise the point that in the uncapped year itself, there are guidelines set by the CBA.

I think you've also misunderstood some of the points. They make clear that players under contract cannot simply hold out for a new deal for unlimited money - that they are limited by a 30% increase... and that certain teams are constrained from activity in free agency by whether or not they lose a player in free agency.

The end result - and the point of the article - is that this first uncapped year won't be a wild west without any rules and with money flowing freely - there are some rules... but that doesn't mean the nature of the salary capped NFL hasn't changed DRAMATICALLY.

And of course, one cannot assume that a cap will return or what the new CBA will be, if indeed there is one at all.

The bottom line for the Patriots is, as BB would say - it is what it is... the players under contract are the players under contract - the rest of them have no real incentive to sign long term deals now if they think they can do better in 2010. Not all will hold out to wait and see what happens but some will.

And the bottom line for the Patriots is that we do better in a salary cap environment that rewards teams that make smart moves - because we have a smart GM. Without a salary cap, teams that find themselves in salary cap hell will be much better off.