Can someone post this insider story?

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Sun May 03, 2009 11:02 pm

The title of the article is "Super Bowl for sale". It's about what the season would look like if there was no cap in 2010.

Thanks

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Sun May 03, 2009 11:48 pm

Here you go...

Here at ESPN Insider, we are big on the intersection of athletics and sci-fi. And nothing gets us cranked like futuristic dystopian sports.That's why we're complementing Seth Wickersham's Mag piece on real-world free-agency implications of the NFL's possible uncapped 2010 season with this fantastical proposition: What happens if there is no CBA, and the league really plays without a salary cap the season after next?

First, some reality.

Disclaimer 1: The uncapped year, a possibility outlined by Seth Wickersham in ESPN The Magazine, probably won't happen. Or it wouldn't in a sane world. Forget what a lockout in 2011, which would almost certainly follow the uncapped year, would do to the business. On a football level, too many teams have spent the past several years creating cap room for themselves. At the start of the offseason, some 20 teams had payrolls that were at least $20 million below the $127 million salary cap for 2009. Nine teams were $30 million or more under the cap. Under a functioning CBA, they could spend it on free agents to improve now, or roll over some of that room to build for future years. Who are they? The $30 million club consists mostly of smaller-market teams like Tampa Bay, Arizona, Kansas City and Tennessee. Allowing an uncapped year basically undoes their long-term planning.

Disclaimer 2: The free-agent pool won't be that big. As Seth points out, the owners dropped some poison pills into the current CBA, making that uncapped season tougher for players, or win-now owners, to swallow. An uncapped year would mean players must have six years of service to become unrestricted free agents, rather than four. Teams could tag two players instead of just one. And in the uncapped year, the best teams won't be serious bidders; all playoff teams would be restricted from signing the UFAs, and the final four NFL playoff squads could sign a free agent only if they lost one.

Reality is all well and good, but it's no fun. What happens if the worst transpires, and the NFLPA and the owners can't reach an agreement? Who wins? Logic dictates that teams with the tightest cap situations, the most money to burn and the least recent success would be the most likely to manage the uncapped year like they were AIG -- spend with no conscience, party it up and ignore future consequences.

Plenty of teams face cap issues, with the Jets and Saints actually over the line for 2009 at the start of this offseason. The Colts had issues, too. (You pay a price for Peyton.) Meanwhile, lending credence to old maxims about fools and money, the Raiders ranked 28th in the NFL in cap room. Then there's Jerry Jones, who will pay any price, bear any burden for a first-round playoff ouster.

But none of those teams fits our bill. The Saints are in a tiny market. The Colts make the playoffs every year. The Raiders haven't shown the eye for talent to make any worthwhile signings, no matter how much they spend. And Jerry Jones? The NFL's version of Monty Burns is laden with debt because of his new stadium, and sounds eager for a lockout. He's saving his money for whatever comes after a labor stoppage.

We need a team desperate for a title, somebody in love with headlines and someone who will raid the bank like Dillinger.

Our futuristic dystopia needs Dan Snyder. The Redskins are always kicking the cap can down the road, living right on the edge of it, so they've got nothing to gain from renewing CBA cap rules. They just went out and signed some lux-box talent in Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall, shoving their salaries into the uncapped year already. All Washington must do to sate its free-agent appetite is miss the playoffs. Not a problem. The Skins just jettisoned a bunch of old guys and must fill too many holes to contend this year.

Snyder is the one who could make a one-year run at the rich crop of defensive linemen and linebackers (Karlos Dansby, Terrell Suggs, Richard Seymour, Vince Wilfork, Casey Hampton, Aaron Kampman, Julius Peppers), grab a DB or two (Leigh Bodden, Ryan Clark, Terrence McGee), a fiery leader (Hines Ward), a clubhouse cancer (Terrell Owens) and, if by some fluke they're not franchised, a franchise QB in Eli Manning or Philip Rivers. Or both! Or he could just sign 2010 UFA-to-be Jason Campbell. Oh, right. He already has him and doesn't want him. Just offer up a bunch of one-year deals that are too lucrative to turn down and Snyder could have it all (for a year).

In any case, a Snyder 2010 campaign couldn't be worse than what the team has managed so far in his tenure. Planning more than six months ahead would also show more foresight than he ever has. And it makes sense given the parlous state of the future. As we said, an uncapped season in 2010 portends a lockout in 2011. And as for the following season ...

Hate to break it to the league, but the NFL might have some real problems in the 2012 playoffs, given that the Mayans say the world will end on Dec. 21 of that year.

Go for it, Dan! Win now!

Scratch that.

Wait 'til next year!

Luke Cyphers is a senior writer for ESPN The Magazine.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon May 04, 2009 12:13 am

Thanks CanesSkins. I hope it doesn't happen. The NFL is rolling along too well to mess it all up with a lockout...

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:43 am

See how quick they assume that Snyder will repeat his past failures?

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:17 am

Gee, who saw that coming? As soon as I saw the title, I could have written the article myself. :roll:

I've got a deadline and nothing to write. I think I'll write how Dan Snyder wants to buy a championship.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:27 am

JansenFan wrote:Gee, who saw that coming? As soon as I saw the title, I could have written the article myself.

I've got a deadline and nothing to write. I think I'll write how Dan Snyder wants to buy a championship.

QFT

Bob 0119 · Post by **Bob 0119** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:40 pm

JansenFan wrote:Gee, who saw that coming? As soon as I saw the title, I could have written the article myself.

I've got a deadline and nothing to write. I think I'll write how Dan Snyder wants to buy a championship.

I was impressed that he didn't mention Snyder until the ninth paragraph.

I knew it was coming, but I began to think that maybe he would be one of the first "journalists" to finally give Snyder a break and focus on other teams for a change.

But no, he just went along with the herd and blasted him anyway.

Y'know, Snyder's not as dumb as people give him credit for. Even he knows that even if there is an uncapped year, it won't stay uncapped for long.

If his master plan was to go nuts during the uncapped year, then he could get everyone he wants right now, and just set them up with ridiculous contracts right now that pay out in 2011.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:07 pm

I knew it was coming, but I began to think that maybe he would be one of the first "journalists" to finally give Snyder a break and focus on other teams for a change.

Wont happen until we start winning.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:39 pm

So now we understand why Snyder has not really tried to make the team any better offensively this year - the benefits for not making the playoffs will enable Snyder to be a lot more aggressive in acquiring a host of talent next year :shock:

now I begin to see why we did not address the offensive concerns from last year :wink:

way to go Snyder - smooth move :twisted:

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:52 pm

all kidding aside - there is no way the owners or the players will allow this to happen :wink:

I also agree with both Scott's assertion that most of the media will always assume that Snyder is only interested in "buying" a championship AND tcwest's thoughts that the media is still not believing the evidence that Snyder is not making the same old mistakes :wink:

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:43 pm

If we win it all, everyone will say Snyder bought the championship.

Scottskins · Post by **Scottskins** » Mon May 04, 2009 9:23 pm

I could live with that ;-)

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:22 am

Deadskins wrote:If we win it all, everyone will say Snyder bought the championship.

Not everyone, I'll be saying: HTTR

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:27 am

Deadskins wrote:If we win it all, everyone will say Snyder bought the championship.

I would agree, but the media are not going to look at anything Snyder does in a positive light. We all can see that Snyder is not the same as he was but that view would not be shared by many in the media and especially not any of the local press

I am looking forward to the Redskins winning another Super Bowl but I'm sure there will be many fans and media types who will not want Snyder to get any credit for anything :wink:

I would be very surprised if Snyder is looking ahead and planning for an un-capped period in the NFL - I'm sure he's considering how to manage things IF it does come about but I do not think that there are many (players or owners) who really think that is going to happen.

Snyder is probably one of the better businessmen amongst the NFL owners and he's certainly aware of how bad that situation would be for the NFL, the players and the advertisers who are the biggest contributors to the NFL :wink: