OFFICIAL CBA Q & A THREAD (Cap Status Link)...Please post all CBA/CAP questions here!

[dr_hefley]

I don't fully understand the implications of an uncapped year. I'm sure someone has explained it and I just missed it. It seems to me that if there were no salary cap that would benefit teams with high payrolls like the Commanders.

If somebody could show me the error of my thinking I would appreciate it.

 

[cowboys#1]

only one man knows this and that is CHUCK NORRIS!

 

[trickblue]

only one man knows this and that is CHUCK NORRIS!

and AdamJT13...

 

[VirusX]

I don't fully understand the implications of an uncapped year. I'm sure someone has explained it and I just missed it. It seems to me that if there were no salary cap that would benefit teams with high payrolls like the Commanders.

If somebody could show me the error of my thinking I would appreciate it.

Your understanding correctly. Teams such as Dallas / NY / Washington whom have bigger markets then teams like Arizona will be able to spend lets say 200 million on players; Teams like Arizona wont have that kind of cash to pony up to pay players. It becomes along the line of baseball, look at the yankee's. Plus with the leagues current ticket prices fans wouldnt want ticket prices to go up but they would to pay for these players.


Hockey ran into the problem that because of prices people stoped coming so they locked out for 1 year. I personally think it wouldnt hurt Dallas but it will hurt the league and other teams badly. Just pray the NFL has a cap next year.

And you cant forget the trades that will happen because there are no more cap penalty's to put on these trades. If you have the cash that is

 

[austintodallas]

only one man knows this and that is CHUCK NORRIS!

Behind the beard of Chuck Norris is not a chin, but another fist.

 

[Thick 'N Hearty]

John "The Geek" Clayton is an idiot. All the numbers we've seen shows Dallas $12.6 million under the cap. According to his figure, we're over by 1.2 million.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505

 

[TheHustler]

Yet Another Cap Thread....

 

[clayman]

He usually knows his stuff....this is odd and irksome.

 

[InDakWeTrust]

Behind the beard of Chuck Norris is not a chin, but another fist.

Dont turn this into another one of those threads....
I'll get it started...

Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.

In 1959 Stephen Hawking became the first and only person to outsmart Chuck Norris. He learned his lesson.

When Chuck Norris was in middle school, his English teacher assigned an essay: "What is Courage?" Chuck Norris received an "A+" for writing only the words "Chuck Norris" and promptly turning in the paper.

 

[AdamJT13]

John "The Geek" Clayton is an idiot. All the numbers we've seen shows Dallas $12.6 million under the cap. According to his figure, we're over by 1.2 million.

Notice that he's using $92 million as the cap (not the $95 million or so that the cap is expected to be), so he's correct -- for now. But we'll gain about $1.8 million from Dat Nguyen's retirement and about $9.5 million when we get rid of the bogus incentives in the contracts of Marco Rivera and Jason Ferguson. We'll also gain some from other incentives and probably cutting Derek Pagel.

 

[dr_hefley]

So if there's no cap, why do the Commanders have to cut players to "get under the cap?"

I have no idea what the Chuck Norris stuff is about, or how John Clayton figures in this converstion.

 

[Thick 'N Hearty]

Notice that he's using $92 million as the cap (not the $95 million or so that the cap is expected to be), so he's correct -- for now. But we'll gain about $1.8 million from Dat Nguyen's retirement and about $9.5 million when we get rid of the bogus incentives in the contracts of Marco Rivera and Jason Ferguson. We'll also gain some from other incentives and probably cutting Derek Pagel.

Got it. But still, that would mean we're only a couple million under the cap, not 12.6.

 

[AdamJT13]

Got it. But still, that would mean we're only a couple million under the cap, not 12.6.

We're at just over $93 million right now. Subtract Nguyen ($1.8 million) and the bogus LTBE incentives ($9.5 million), and we'd be under $82 million. If the cap is about $95 million, as expected, that's more than $13 million of cap room. There will be some other adjustments (incentive credits and charges, RFA tenders, etc.), but that's the ballpark we should be in -- before doing anything with guys such as La'Roi Glover, Larry Allen and Al Singleton.

 

[vicjagger]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2349505

 

[TheHustler]

Already posted: http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49165

 

[VirusX]

So if there's no cap, why do the Commanders have to cut players to "get under the cap?"

I have no idea what the Chuck Norris stuff is about, or how John Clayton figures in this converstion.

Uncapped 2007 not 2006, Next season would be uncapped not this season.

 

[InDakWeTrust]

Notice that he's using $92 million as the cap (not the $95 million or so that the cap is expected to be), so he's correct -- for now. But we'll gain about $1.8 million from Dat Nguyen's retirement and about $9.5 million when we get rid of the bogus incentives in the contracts of Marco Rivera and Jason Ferguson. We'll also gain some from other incentives and probably cutting Derek Pagel.

So about $10 mill from MR and JF was bogus "playing time, statistics" or other incentives that get forwarded to next years cap if they dont reach it? If so I like it and hopefully you didnt mean by cutting or restructuring both of them.

 

[AdamJT13]

So about $10 mill from MR and JF was bogus "playing time, statistics" or other incentives that get forwarded to next years cap if they dont reach it? If so I like it and hopefully you didnt mean by cutting or restructuring both of them.

Rivera and Ferguson have bogus $4.8 million LTBE incentives in 2006, specifically designed to comply with the 30 percent rule and which would have automatically voided if the CBA was extended. Since it wasn't, we'll have to do a minor restructuring of both contracts -- which should cost only about $172,000 more than if the incentives had just voided.

 

[peplaw06]

Uncapped 2007 not 2006, Next season would be uncapped not this season.

This is why I think they'll get a deal done... Even though they set a deadline for this week, it can't be a hard deadline can it?? They still have a year and a half before 2007 season starts, so they can get a deal done in time for that. I understand the implications for negotiating player contracts this year, seeing as they could load the contracts into next season if they thik there's gonna be no cap.

I think an uncapped year would be a bad idea though. Teams with the money will be tempted to stock up for that year... ahem, Commanders... then when the cap comes back they'll have a fire sale the likes of the Florida Marlins. Even if there's no cap next year, that doesn't mean the NFL will be uncapped long term, does it? Adam feel free to set me straight if I got something wrong.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

AdamJT13-

If I understand correctly, the skins are in bad shape if the CBA is not extended. I know in previous posts you stated they would probably not have to release any big name players, but what happens if none of the "big name" players want to help the front office out? I just read an article implying Brunell doesn't want to cooperate, so there is some legitimacy to this argument. If they cut them they'll get hit with high cap charges, and keeping them with the charge they have is not possible. I see some really bad things happening if the players just so "take a hike". Am I correct?