The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

or lack thereof...

If the CBA isn't extended, and there is an uncapped year in 2007, I read where Gene Upshaw said he doesn't beleive the players would ever agree to a salary cap again.

My question to you ladies and gentlemen is that would you like to see the NFL go back to being upcapped as it pertains to our beloved Redskins?
I know this has created parody in the league but I hate it. Team are hard pressed to keep fan favorites and my beloved Skins would be able to fill their needs with ease. Snyder has created a cash cow and why should he have to share the wealth? Isn't Snyder entitled to spend his money as freely as he wants?

I'm actually rooting against this CBA getting extended.

MODS--- if this should have been combined with another thread, my apologies in advance.

If the CBA is not extended, the Skins will have to cut a bunch of players this year, as they will have no way of getting under the 2006 cap by restructuring contracts.

However, despite the competitive advantage the Skins would have in a cap-free environment, I am against a cap-less league. Not only will most games not be worth watching (see MLB) but when the Skins win, people will just say, oh, they bought that championship.

I'd rather the Skins dominate on a level playing field.

I also hope the CBA extension gets done soon. I don't want free agency put off for a month. Things are slow enough as is...

Skeletor wrote:If the CBA is not extended, the Skins will have to cut a bunch of players this year, as they will have no way of getting under the 2006 cap by restructuring contracts.

However, despite the competitive advantage the Skins would have in a cap-free environment, I am against a cap-less league. Not only will most games not be worth watching (see MLB) but when the Skins win, people will just say, oh, they bought that championship.

I'd rather the Skins dominate on a level playing field.

I also hope the CBA extension gets done soon. I don't want free agency put off for a month. Things are slow enough as is...

I understand all your points, but I just can't help thinking about how well Gibbs did when he didnt have to worry about a cap. I know it's narrow minded and selfish to a point, but I root for the Skins, not the league.

I'm afraid an uncapped NFL is gonna lead to individual team monopolies and already spoiled players will become even worse. Keep the cap

Redskins4Life wrote:I'm afraid an uncapped NFL is gonna lead to individual team monopolies and already spoiled players will become even worse. Keep the cap

I have a feeling I'm going to be in the minority here. Oh well, it was just a thought.

OK... to me then, in a perfect world, the NFL would come up with somehitng like the NBA has. It would allow teams to have an easier time to keep their own players and allow owners to go over the salary cap if they so choose if they pay a "luxury" tax. This way, a soft cap is kept and if an owner wants to spend his own money the way he wants, it allows it.

I like that idea. It should shut up those whinning small market teams but still allow the skins to spend freely.

Their wasn't a Salary Cap last time Gibbs was here, I don't see how it would be a problem if their wasn't this time!

I don't mind the cap, I think it's an understandable arrangement. What I don't like is Free Agency. The original reasoning for Free Agency was to to disallow ugly situations where players were kept off the field, handcuffed so to speak, during disagreements. I think the NFL (and its players association) went overboard - NFL teams change so much from year to year, not unlike the other major league sports. This doesn't mean it's right, though, or necessary. I wish the NFL would curtail Free Agency. I think it's BAD for the game. Yes, I miss the days when players who were drafted by a team actually had to stay on a team (unless traded, etc.).

I think that the biggest problem with the cap is that it is set too low. There has to be a cap level where teams with more fans and thus more money, can afford to pay for better players but doesn't eliminate small market teams from the equation.

Setting the right cap number where say the top spending team can pay no more than twice what the lowest team can pay on players or some proportion along those lines might work.

As much as I love the Redskins and want them to have an advantage, I also want a competitive league.

If you get rid of the cap, you also have to get rid of free agency.

Having said that, I would prefer to keep the cap, but make it simple and straightforward -- No more restructuring of contracts to push out the burden of huge contracts.

par·i·ty
1. Equality, as in amount, status, or value.


par·o·dy
1. a. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
b. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.

patjam77 wrote:or lack thereof...

If the CBA isn't extended, and there is an uncapped year in 2007, I read where Gene Upshaw said he doesn't beleive the players would ever agree to a salary cap again.

My question to you ladies and gentlemen is that would you like to see the NFL go back to being upcapped as it pertains to our beloved Redskins?
I know this has created parody in the league but I hate it. Team are hard pressed to keep fan favorites and my beloved Skins would be able to fill their needs with ease. Snyder has created a cash cow and why should he have to share the wealth? Isn't Snyder entitled to spend his money as freely as he wants?

I'm actually rooting against this CBA getting extended.

MODS--- if this should have been combined with another thread, my apologies in advance.

Why there will be a new CBA

In the current CBA, if there is no extension new rules will kick in….

Amortization. Currently, signing-bonus money and salary money can be spread over the length of a contract. A $15 million signing bonus on a five-year contract would create a cap charge of $3 million per year. Beginning in March, amortized bonuses can be spread across no more than four years. That same $15 million signing bonus spread over only four years results in an annual $3.75 million cap charge. Amortization is critical in signing first-round draft picks, especially players in the top 10 who traditionally earn double-digit signing bonuses.

Signing bonuses are certain to decrease, and teams in the best salary-cap shape would be at a huge advantage by using high salaries early in the contract or roster bonuses to lure top talent. Teams who play cap roulette each year — Denver and Oakland project to be more than $28 million over the ’06 salary cap — won’t be in good shape.

Limited salary increases. Unable to divide a signing bonus into as many portions, teams could — see Redskins, Washington — choose to “backload” player contracts. Naturally, a club could propose a contract with little signing bonus but write in a $20 million base salary in 2007, the uncapped year. In anticipation of just that, the NFL closed that loophole. With no CBA in place, a salary cannot increase by more than 30 percent over what it was in 2006. Were the contract signed next March, Bills WR Eric Moulds’ deal wouldn’t fly. Moulds makes $1.5 million in base salary this year. He’s due $6.089 million in 2006, an annual salary increase of 306 percent. Under the parameters outlined by the CBA for March, Moulds could earn a maximum of $1.95 million.

June 1 means nothing. Teams can to cut players on or after June 1 to delay any salary-cap hit to the following year. For example, Kurt Warner was released by St. Louis after June 1, 2004. Even though he later signed with and played for the Giants in ’04, Warner counted almost $7 million — the amortized portion of his contract — against the Rams’ salary cap this season because he was cut after June 1. This coming March, because there is no salary cap in ’07, any player a club releases will result in an immediate cap hit.

Free Agency won’t be as free: Right now, restricted-free-agent status goes to veterans with three accrued seasons, and a fourth season results in unrestricted free agency. That’ll change in March. That’s because if the CBA is not extended, it states that starting in 2007, players need five accrued seasons to reach restricted free agency and six to be unrestricted. Javon Walker, Ed Reed and John Henderson — first-round picks in 2002 with five accrued seasons — would only be restricted free agents if there in no extension. Being RFA gives their current team the right of first refusal, and player with fours years wouldn’t even be on the market. Those guys would all be UFAs in March 2007 assuming the same system sticks should the CBA be extended.

The Final Eight Rule. As in 1993, the final eight playoff teams in 2006 would be limited in free agency the following season. The CBA says, “each of the four clubs that participated in the NFC and AFC championship games in the prior league year shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any UFA to a player contract except any UFA who acquired that status as a result of waivers; any UFA who was under contract to said club on the last day of the last league year.” The other four teams who make the NFL’s final eight but don’t pass to the championship games are less limited but are restrained shoppers based on the amount of salary they can take on. They can sign one player with a first-year salary of $1.5 million or more and any number of players with a salary of no more than $1 million.

Here's a twist on what could happen if there IS a new CBA...

The revenue-sharing debate among NFL team owners has become so combative that a group of owners of the most prosperous franchises has threatened to take legal action if a revenue-sharing plan they don't like is forced upon them.

Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney said yesterday that the threat has been made by a group of six to nine teams. Rooney said he regards it as "an idle threat" that will not be carried out by the clubs, which he did not identify.

Some Owners Could Sue if Forced to Share

Anyone doubt what side "the Danny" comes down on this

I'm starting to think the Skins could get royally screwed here.

If there is no CBA, they can't do what they wanted to do in terms of restructuring contracts. So 2006 becomes a nightmare; the league will just start voiding contracts to make us cap compliant.

But then a CBA will eventually be reached, so 2007 isn't an uncapped year.

March 3 isn't that far away.

I think the Skins were banking on a CBA being in place.
Hopefully, I'm wrong.

skins81 wrote:If there is no CBA, they can't do what they wanted to do in terms of restructuring contracts. So 2006 becomes a nightmare; the league will just start voiding contracts to make us cap compliant.

But then a CBA will eventually be reached, so 2007 isn't an uncapped year.

March 3 isn't that far away.

I think the Skins were banking on a CBA being in place.
Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Contracts can still be restructured but proration is limited to 4 years-
Every scenerio that I've done has taken into fact that there may be no CBA extention and the Redskin can still get under the cap without taking a big hit in talent.

March 3rd is the start of the new season but if you are over the cap you have 5 days to get under it before the NFL steps in

You'd think the Skins would be first in line for a new CBA, but "the Danny" is one of the main holdout in the profit sharing talks - until that's complete there is no way to get a CBA extention

If NFL Players Association director Gene Upshaw has his way, the Seahawks and other teams might have trouble re-signing players for some time to come. According to ESPN.com, Upshaw has told agents to avoid signing contracts until March 12.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/se ... 2453c.html

This might get interesting.