This is probably the "No CBA" plan . . .

[Miguel]

One more thing - the Pats like to sign their draft picks to 5 year deals. Without an extension to the CBA, signing bonuses can only be prorated over 4 years. Why would a Day 2 pick sign a 5-year deal in 2006??

 

[PATSNUTme]

We are one of the teams in decent shape.
So, we only have to let Ty Poole go and maybe Chad Brown.

We don't have to let Willie or anyone else go right now. Do we pay him the 3.5 bonus? I don't know. We don't have to cut him as we are under the cap.

But we can stand pat right now and see what developes.

 

[hwc]

For the entire league. NO. For some in the league, yes. You are greatly overstating this. There are more teams under the projected cap than over.

Miguel:

As you know better than anyone on this forum, a simple list of how much each team is over or under the cap is almost worthless without knowing who is actually under contract. For example, the Colts appear to be in decent shape, but they don't have a starting running back or a starting linebacker under contract.

It takes the kind of incredibly detailed tracking and analysis that you do as a favor to us all to really get a sense of where a single team stands. We don't get that for most NFL teams.

My assessment that the Pats will fare better than most teams is based on a belief that Belichick and Pioli are probably better than most "brain trusts" in the NFL at getting maximum production out of whatever roster they field. As your analysis has shown, they have the ability to free up sufficient cap room to sign draft picks and field a full 53 man roster.

Even looking at the incomplete cap picture that is available, the Pats appear to be in the best shape of the four teams in the AFC Divisonal playoffs last year.

 

[Ring 6]

One more thing - the Pats like to sign their draft picks to 5 year deals. Without an extension to the CBA, signing bonuses can only be prorated over 4 years. Why would a Day 2 pick sign a 5-year deal in 2006??[/QUOTE

Would it matter to the player?
I may not understand this, but isnt the proration in the teams interest?
If you sign a 5 yr deal with a 4 yr proration, assuming the $$ were exactly the same, what would be different for the player?
I think the team wouldnt want to because the cost would be higher (i.e. signing bonus is greater on a 5 yr deal than a 4).

Im not disagreeing, just not understanding, what is the disincentive to the player in your opinion?

 

[PATSNUTme]

#55 in '06: Cleveland @ $7m per yr.

How the hell do you know that? Is it just a guess? Do you have some inside info that you would like to share with the rest of us?

 

[arrellbee]

It has been noted in many of the write-ups on implications of no CBA extension that there would be a 30% rule about a limitation on how much the salary for a player can increase each year. It is one of the poison pills that were put into the last agreement.

What I hadn't quite realized was the implication on converting roster bonuses to guaranteed status thereby allowing the clubs to amortize the bonuses over several remaining cap years.

Our friends in Indy are squarely on the horns of that dilemna - in fact, it looks like they are about to be gored.

Manning and Harrison were due large roster bonuses to avoid cap hits of 17.766M and 14.4M respectively for a total of over 32M or a whopping total of 1/3 of their total cap for 2006. Wow.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060302/SPORTS03/603020441/1100

excerpts:
"At issue, for now, are roster bonuses of $9 million due Manning and $10 million due Harrison. The Colts intended to implement a normal bookkeeping maneuver that converts a roster bonus into a signing bonus and prorating it over the next four years. That would have lowered Manning's '06 cap number from $17.766 million to $10 million and Harrison's cap hit from $14.4 million to $6.9 million."

"The lack of an extension carries restrictive guidelines regarding player contracts, including the conversion of roster bonuses. According to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello, Burbank ruled such conversions are prohibited under the labor agreement if they violate the so-called "30 percent rule,'' which keeps base salaries from increasing more than 30 percent each year over the first year of the contract."

 

[arrellbee]

Looking at the Colts potential problem, I took a quick look out of curiosity to see if the Pats had any issues there.

I apologize in advance if I didn't look at Miguel's information correctly, but if I looked correctly, it looks to me like the Pats can have their cake or can eat it as they chose. They seem to be under the cap if they absorb the bonuses or incentives of Brady, Light, and Green (top 3 roster bonuses due) - or it looks at my glance that they could guarantee them and spread them over the remaining years of those contracts without violating the 30% restriction for any of those players.

I think this info is pretty much also in Miguels' 2006 offseason possibilities, but I'm sure Miguel will give the more expert interpretation if I have not gotten it straight.