2011: Capped or Uncapped?

[CoCo]

I realize this is yet to be determined but I was wondering if knowledgeable folks could chime in on what they believe are the key factors that will determine this for 2011. Presumably owners will insist on a cap for most years of the pending CBA.

In my own mind I'm thinking that the players would be in favor of uncapped years in order to allow the teams with cash available to spend at will without being limited by the cap in that year. Simlarly I suspect free agents would win by getting front-loaded contracts that are more cap friendly in later capped years.

For the owners I'd think its a competitive balance issue amongst themselves. Those with the cash or willingness to push beyond the cap would probably support uncapped years. Cash poor teams, or tightwads, wouldn't be as supportive.

Can someone knowledgeable enlighten us on this issue. I suspect it could be a significant issue for Dallas in 2011 and what FA spending might look like for Jerry.

 

[Hostile]

Pretty sure it will be a capped year with escalator clauses in the CBA.

 

[speedkilz88]

There won't be a deal unless it's capped.

 

[The30YardSlant]

There won't be football next year without a cap, so hopefully capped :laugh2:

 

[CoCo]

Ok, maybe I'm missing some background on the current deal. 2010 was uncapped, correct? That was an agreed to part of that larger CBA, correct?

So why the staunch belief that there will be no uncapped years in a new CBA?

To clarify I am only asking about 2011, not every year of the next CBA. I already presumed a hard cap as the norm for the new deal. Maybe my answer lies in why the last deal included an uncapped year.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Ok, maybe I'm missing some background on the current deal. 2010 was uncapped, correct? That was an agreed to part of that larger CBA, correct?

So why the staunch belief that there will be no uncapped years in a new CBA?

To clarify I am only asking about 2011, not every year of the next CBA. I already presumed a hard cap as the norm for the new deal. Maybe my answer lies in why the last deal included an uncapped year.

Because once you get past all the media posturing, the owners have the players over a barrel and the owners will not want any part of uncapped seasons that will drive up player salaries. The owners can outlast the players, and once the reality of no football starts becoming more real the players will fold.

There is almost zero chance that the owners will ever agree to any deal with the words "uncapped" in it

 

[CoCo]

Because once you get past all the media posturing, the owners have the players over a barrel and the owners will not want any part of uncapped seasons that will drive up player salaries. The owners can outlast the players, and once the reality of no football starts becoming more real the players will fold.

There is almost zero chance that the owners will ever agree to any deal with the words "uncapped" in it

And yet they apparently did just that in the last CBA for the 2010 season.

I get the general reason why owners want a cap and players don't. But 2010 appears to be some anomoly to that general rule.

 

[speedkilz88]

Ok, maybe I'm missing some background on the current deal. 2010 was uncapped, correct? That was an agreed to part of that larger CBA, correct?

So why the staunch belief that there will be no uncapped years in a new CBA?

To clarify I am only asking about 2011, not every year of the next CBA. I already presumed a hard cap as the norm for the new deal. Maybe my answer lies in why the last deal included an uncapped year.

The uncapped year was only agreed to in an opt-out situation. It was suppose to force the sides to get a deal done sooner but still allow another season of football. Although it was uncapped which was thought to be helpful to the players, it also was highly restrictive on players with less than 6 yrs. That part was extremely helpful to the owners. With a new cba unrestricted free agency is after 4 yrs so they will all be capped.

 

[The30YardSlant]

And yet they apparently did just that in the last CBA for the 2010 season.

I get the general reason why owners want a cap and players don't. But 2010 appears to be some anomoly to that general rule.

2010 fell under the "Final League Year" clause of the previous CBA, and everybody just assumed when it was agreed upon that a new agreement would be reached prior to 2010 because it always has been in the past. The "Final League Year" has been in every CBA since the late 80s and never before has the league come within a year of it before a new one was agreed upon.

Also, the 2010 uncapped year wasnt a "true" uncapped season as it was very restrictive and based around the numbers of years a player had been in the league.

 

[CoCo]

Thank you. That was the info I was missing.