New CBA Will Let Us Keep Our Heroes

[flutie2phelan]

Have read stories in several out-of-town papers that the CBA renewal is getting done ... and that redefinition might well bring the cap to 100 mil or beyond during its first year. That's the sort of rumor that doesn't usually produce smoke without at least a smoldering fire behind it.

Got to wondering how things would play out if that be true.
My main finding: for a couple of years, all clubs will find it easier to hold onto their free agents.

A salary cap of 100 million would be nearly a 20% jump from 2005's 85 mil. That is, on average, players will get 20% more. Same number of men. Same quality athlete. Just more money spread around amongst 'em. But players who have signed longterm contracts recently won't see any of that windfall.

Perhaps rookies would do better ... but the new CBA may tighten first-rounder pay scales. Almost all that new money will fall to those players who re-negotiate old contracts, or do new ones, during the next few years. After that, a rising tide shall have lifted all boats ... players will feel that the new wage scale is their proper entitlement ... and essentially all contracts fall under the new terms.

But before everyone adjusts their thinking and their feelings to the new wealth ... before the wage inflation becomes embedded ... special players will be able to get special deals. GMs will feel flush.

Would Larry Izzo or Chad Scott be able to promote a 20% raise? I doubt it. But the money will be there, to be spent on someone.
I imagine that management will be willing to offer, say, Big Sey 30% more than they would find prudent today.
Givens, 25% more ... enough to break the psychologically significant 4 million dollar mark.
Neal and Ash ... enough more to bring them back.
Ditto, even the more difficult cases of Branch, Koppen, and Graham.

This because ... even though in their heads (and their agents' heads) they KNOW that the club has more money to toss around ... it will take a couple years for them to get over the sneaking feeling that they are STEALING from the team. Just as it takes a little while for a lottery winner ... a TF-er ... an entrepreneur having his IPO ... or one of the Mrs. Trumps winning her divorce ... at least a short while to catch her breath and settle down ... so, too, ballplayers will feel lucky enough to be in the NFL at all when the new CBA takes effect, that they won't hold out for the richest bargain possible. They'll be more inclined to accept a golden offer from the home team.

Or so it would seem.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, you are correct that free agents will be the receipient of much of the money. I would point out that much will also go to extend players so that can get their payday a year early.

But let us suppose that you are correct and that free agents will be the biggest gainers if the cap goes to $100M. Why would we be in better position to sign our free agents?

1) With more money available, the price of these free agents will go up. If the few free agents are sucking up the extra $160M ($5M per team), then they will understand that they can demand much more. Even if they don't figure it out, the bidding wars will show them the truth.

2) With an extra $5M of breathing space, some teams that weren't going to compete might be better able to compete in the free agent market.

As I've said before, I don't believe an increased cap number increase the patriot's ability to sign free agents. Also, even if we could get free agents at greatly increased salaries, it is not clear that we should, messing up the salary structure for players coming to free agency next year. Will it really help to give Givens $4.5M to give Branch a starting point next year? Better to extend Branch now!

However, I do think that there is some additional ability to restructure and extend players, e.g. Brady.

 

[flutie2phelan]

Your exit line is very interesting. That's an angle that hadn't occurred to me.

However, I do think that there is some additional ability to restructure and extend players, e.g. Brady.

Why would we be in better position to sign our free agents?

1) With more money available, the price of these free agents will go up. If the few free agents are sucking up the extra $160M ($5M per team), then they will understand that they can demand much more. Even if they don't figure it out, the bidding wars will show them the truth.

2) With an extra $5M of breathing space, some teams that weren't going to compete might be better able to compete in the free agent market.

Regarding your second point, the reason why they "weren't going to compete" is that already they were at, or below, the old cap. To retain their own FAs and otherwise avoid cap carnage ... could be expected to soak up essentially all the newly available cap space, leaving them - as before - out of the bidding wars for other people's FAs.

Although going from 85 to 100 allows each team 15 million more ... my deep idea was that ... windfall psychology, operating on the new FAs, will subtly incline them to accept a better offer than they heretofore expected from their home team. For this short period, until everyone adjusts their internal computers to the new price levels, i'm hypothesizing that the players and their agents fall short of acting like a rational, fully informed homo economicus. The point of my post was to highlight this conjecture.

Postscript: like you, i want Branch extended THIS pre-season. A new CBA should open that window of opportunity.

 

[fgssand]

Your exit line is very interesting. That's an angle that hadn't occurred to me.





Regarding your second point, the reason why they "weren't going to compete" is that already they were at, or below, the old cap. To retain their own FAs and otherwise avoid cap carnage ... could be expected to soak up essentially all the newly available cap space, leaving them - as before - out of the bidding wars for other people's FAs.

Although going from 85 to 100 allows each team 15 million more ... my deep idea was that ... windfall psychology, operating on the new FAs, will subtly incline them to accept a better offer than they heretofore expected from their home team. For this short period, until everyone adjusts their internal computers to the new price levels, i'm hypothesizing that the players and their agents fall short of acting like a rational, fully informed homo economicus. The point of my post was to highlight this conjecture.

Postscript: like you, i want Branch extended THIS pre-season. A new CBA should open that window of opportunity.

I agree with both of you.....restructure Brady's deal. Sign Seymour and get Branch's deal done. Also could be a good time to look at Koppen's and a few others deals. We should take care of our core players and keep this thing together with that nucleus for years to come.

 

[mgteich]

Exactly. The best use of the extra money is on extensions of Brady (also get the extra couple of years to 7), and whoever else we can get to extend from: Branch, Seymour, Koppen and even Samuel and Graham.

Givens is very much a different issue. BTW, I think Davis will be a fine #2 if given the chance. I'm concerned much more with Branch than Givens.

We shouldn't waste much extra money on the inflated auction the first year of the CBA will bring. The patriots have an overall salary structure and it does include giving windfalls to free agents in the first year of CBA agreements.

I agree with both of you.....restructure Brady's deal. Sign Seymour and get Branch's deal done. Also could be a good time to look at Koppen's and a few others deals. We should take care of our core players and keep this thing together with that nucleus for years to come.

 

[hwc]

If the cap goes up that much, look for large increases in the vet minimum salaries to soak up a big chunk of it.

 

[LA Pats Fan]

Supply & Demand

Your Basic Premise - teams able to keep there own FA may not be true.
With the Cap going up ALL teams will now have more money to bid for the same free agents.

If you are 5 M under the cap and another team is 10 M under - you maybe unwilling to spend 4 M to keep your guy.

If you are 15 M under and another team is 20 under - you may be unwilling to spend 12 M to keep the same guy.

Each teams bank account got better so the bidding this year will be higher....

The ability to keep your own will not change. The price to pay to do so will...

 

[jimmyjames]

Jerry Rice rule?

Something that has been batted around, but I have heard nothing about as of late was some sort of "Jerry Rice Clause" that would keep a portion of the salaries of long time vetrans and perrenial pro bowlers from counting against the cap as a way for teams to hold on to fan favorites and prevent owners from having to make very difficult business decisions about cutting players who can still contribute, but are past their prime.

Anyone heard anything about this? I think this would be very cool. What would the criteria be for qualification? 10 years on the same team? A certain number of pro bowls?