NO CAP IN 2007????

MEZZSKIN · Post by **MEZZSKIN** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:01 am

A Redskins fan dream might be reality. If the NFL and the players dont reach an agreement on an extension for the current CBA BY 2006..there will be no cap in 2007!!...Oh can you imagine Danny BOY THAT YEAR..But it looks like it would only be that year ..READ ON http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/s ... id=2016392

BigPig · Post by **BigPig** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:32 am

Imagine a talent arms race between Snyder and Jones in the NFC east that year.

Tagliube is going to have a hard time selling owners that have stadiums to give up money on concessions to the players. And I for one happen to side with the owners. They take the risk, build the facilities, stock it, and are expected to give up that to the players!?

They need a cap, but it needs more structure and responsiveness to the market. Also, it tends to favor the players too much IMO. If the NFLPA wants more money for them, then the players need to have less control, and assume more risk. No way a team or a coach should be leveraged by a 'disgruntled' player.

patjam77 · Post by **patjam77** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:48 am

i like the way the cap is set up in the NBA... the have a soft cap... team cannot go ver the cap unless they are willing to pay a dollar for dollar "luxury" tax... teams cannot go out and sign a FA a ridiculous amount of money like baseball but the cap doesnt keep a team from resigning their OWN players. i understand that the way the NFL is set up, it makes for a parity filled league but i hate that a team drafts a player, he becomes a fan favorite, then leaves due to the stinking cap... it has taken the fun out of being a "fan" in alot of way. see this years examples, smoot and pierce.

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:53 am

yeah... evertyone should just run out and spend whatever money they can so that when the cap is returned the following year, nobody can field a team.

:roll:

Boy and if we were really lucky.... we'd REALLY go to town and then all of us fans would get to spend twice as much on a ticket to get in.... that sounds just awesome!!!

Personally... I think it's a lot more likely that if a new CBA was NOT agreed to before 2007, there's a good chance the players would get locked out rather than the owners run the risk of operating without the steadying influence of the cap.

like it or not... fottball's cap is the ONLY one that works and is the reason that the NFL is so far and away the most profitable sport going.

My 2 cents

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:57 am

....and wouldn't that be a doozy ? A lockout ?
Worked so well for hockey, too !
I'm sure the Owner's Meetings will focus on this, at least before they all head down to Hooter's.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:29 pm

I don't want football to turn in baseball. I know that we'd be the yankees and have the best roster... But haven't we had the "best" rosters for the past few years?

I like it the way it is, I like that on any given Sunday any teams, anywhere can win any game. Thats what gives us hope in our despair...

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:32 pm

i just think we need to rework some of the cap rules. For example, in situations where the player initiates and demands a trade in the middle of a contract term, then the bonuses and salary owed should not accellerate.

It seems counterintuitive for a team to be penalized for a player who demands to be traded.

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:23 pm

i agree. and beyond that, it should become a standard rule in every NFL contract that if the player is traded/released from his contract at his request/demand, then he FORFEITS the remaining portion of his prorated signing bonus. then of course there would be nothing TO go against that team's cap.

beyond that, i agree that a cap makes sense and is the fairest way to go. but i would be curious if there were any way to do what patjam77 says and make it a bit more flexible in terms of keeping players who are already on the team.

as for a lockout- i think i would have to throw myself off a bridge! but, i don't think they'd have to worry about the same things as hockey-- people actually care about football to begin with.

washington53 · Post by **washington53** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:13 pm

haha yeah i agree with die cowboys die... especially the hockey part

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:49 pm

I'm definitely in favor of a cap. Paul Allen probably has as much money as the rest of the owners combined. The Seahawks would be the yankees, not us. Not that it matters, who wants to win just because you have all the best players? That would be boring, and that's why baseball isn't the #1 sport anymore.

I like the CBA as is except for a few things. First, accelerated bonuses. They need to rework that part. If a guy suddenly retires, demands a trade, or even if you cut him, you shouldn't be penalized so severely. I think it would make sense, at the very least, to just let the bonus to play out as if the player was still on the team, and in the case of retiring, it should just be taken off the books.

The 2nd thing is, I think that when you sign a player, he should only be able to count a certain percentage towards the total cap value at any time during the contract. That would stop these huge contracts like Manning and Vick signed from happening, and they need to be stopped.

3rd thing is that they need to put in something that encourages players to stay where they were drafted. My idea would be that you could give a drafted player an extra boost to his signing bonus that didn't count aginst the cap. Not sure how they would determine the amount of that extra bonus, but I would imagine it would be based on contract value and that say somebody like Smoot, would have gotten an extra 2 million with the contract we offered him.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:19 pm

scottskins...

Not so sure the Seahawks would be the Yankees -- we might. Danny would NOT let that guy win...

While our offseason would be even more exciting, I agree, a cap is a must to keep the sport fun and competitive.

MtSherwood7 · Post by **MtSherwood7** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:21 pm

How bout this for an idea on the cap: NO salary cap on players that teams drafted themselves or signed as free agents after draft (im talking about players who werent drafted than singed on as FA). BUT, there will be a cap on how much you can spend on regular free agents. I believe this idea will keep teams happy because they can keep the players they developed such as Smoot and Peirce. And it will also keep the players happy because they will still get payed. Under this new system, i believe that there should be no franchise tag, if a player is truly unhappy with a team and his contract has expired he should be able to leave if he wants but he will know that he may not be able to get payed as much because there is cap on free agents. What do you guys think?

SKINSLOVER · Post by **SKINSLOVER** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:31 pm

sherwood u play onda football team

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:27 pm

how bout a cap on positions? no player gets more than the said amount for his position. no new record deals, either you earn the maximum, or you don't.... ????

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:41 pm

MtSherwood7 wrote:How bout this for an idea on the cap: NO salary cap on players that teams drafted themselves or signed as free agents after draft (im talking about players who werent drafted than singed on as FA). BUT, there will be a cap on how much you can spend on regular free agents.

...or at least, some sort of cap relief for those players. such as a 25-50% of their contract doesn't count against the cap. something like that.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:37 pm

Well, you'd be telling TO that he wouldn't be making more than some other receiver who finagled the maximum deal as a free agent from a team with deep pockets.
Say, Rod Gardner.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:55 am

I think the team should be able to pay the player what they value him for, without a cap on his position. Imagine if Mark Brunell made more than Lavar Arrington, or Clinton Portis, just because he is a QB...its bad enough he got paid...he should owe us money for his performance.

The NFL is a series of franchises, it is a business decision to pay someone. Some people criticize the Vick deal on the rationale that he is not a better QB than Peyton, thus should not be paid more....but Vick has singlehandedly turned Arthur Blanks team into a marketing conglomerate, selling massive amounts of League paraphernalia, and also selling out consistently. He pays Vick more so based on that, than the value of Peyton's contract...IMO

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:45 pm

The Hogster wrote:I think the team should be able to pay the player what they value him for, without a cap on his position. Imagine if Mark Brunell made more than Lavar Arrington, or Clinton Portis, just because he is a QB...its bad enough he got paid...he should owe us money for his performance.

The NFL is a series of franchises, it is a business decision to pay someone. Some people criticize the Vick deal on the rationale that he is not a better QB than Peyton, thus should not be paid more....but Vick has singlehandedly turned Arthur Blanks team into a marketing conglomerate, selling massive amounts of League paraphernalia, and also selling out consistently. He pays Vick more so based on that, than the value of Peyton's contract...IMO

right on the money hogster. I at first was perplexed at his contract, but after reading about the numbers(especially attendance), I soon realized this just made a ton of sense for Blanks. Couldn't let the meal ticket go lol.

DaSkinz4L · Post by **DaSkinz4L** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:53 pm

There wont be a LOCKOUT!!! PERIOD!!! and they will have a cap for now and forever....

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:58 pm

BigPig wrote:And I for one happen to side with the owners. They take the risk, build the facilities, stock it, and are expected to give up that to the players!?

For the 'Skins, that is the case. But in many towns the stadium is financed by the taxpayers. They should be the one's getting the revenue back.

DeathByLinebacker#56 · Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:12 pm

Insanity will rule in 07. :twisted:

genuswine hoglover · Post by **genuswine hoglover** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:47 pm

DeathByLinebacker#56 wrote:Insanity will rule in 07.

On the contrary, I think it will get better. There will be a lockout/walkout/strike, whatever you want to call it, before insanity will prevail in salaries (assuming it is not already at the insanity point, but that is another discussion).

No cap in 2007? How convenient. If I were Danny boy, I would make sure I was on the negotiating committee and make those negotiations stall at least a season. We could release players like Brunnell and accelerate all those bonuses into 2007 to get rid of them. It would be kinda like a great big <CTRL><ALT><DELETE> for the Redskins cap issues(if not for the league as well)

BigPig · Post by **BigPig** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:42 pm

Isn't it true in the NBA that, if you have a player on your team for five years, you can pay them any amount to keep them and it doesn't count against the cap?

Also, they cap rookies salaries by round and position. I agree with the idea to pay veterans more than rookies.

That would solve alot of movement issues, and allow you to retain the guys you want.

NFLPA would never buy off on it, however.

Manchester_Redskin · Post by **Manchester_Redskin** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:14 am

Dont we usually win the superbowl in strike-shortened seasons?