Some Talk On Opting Out Of The Cap

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,865
Reaction score
11,566
Picked this up from another board. Didn't see it posted. I guess it cam from an ESPN board but I found it somewhere else.

_____________________________________________________________

I was listening to ESPN (1050 a.m. in New York) earlier today and a guy was on (I think a beat reporter for the Raiders working for the San Francisco Chronicle) and he was trying to make sense of Al Davis' spending orgy in free agency.

The guy noted that three other teams were approaching free agency the same way and structuring contracts that were heavily backloaded in 2010: Miami, the Jets, and Cleveland.

The guy found this to be suspect since the Jets, Parcells, and Cleveland have always approached free agency with some caution.

The guy further mentioned Bill Pollian's sudden, well-publicized scathing criticisms of how the 'Cap has undernminded the intention of the draft which was to give poor teams the opportunity to acquire better players by picking at the top of the draft. The 'cap, he said, had compromised this since monstrous signing bonuses precluded teams with the worst cap situation to capitalize on their superior draft position because they had mismanaged the cap and could not afford to take an elite player. At the same time they could not capitalize on trading the pick for multiple picks because potential trading partners were scared off by ludicrous signing bonuses.

Summing it up, the guy said it's no secret that Jerry Jones, Pat Bowlen, and Robert Kraft are at the forfront of a movement to scrap the cap. He again referred back to the Jets, Dolphins, Raiders, and Browns structuring contracts which all had the biggest part of the money owed a player due the year the cap would not be in effect--2010.

He concluded, from the circumstantial evidence, that the uncharacteristic behavior of Miami, the Jets, and Cleveland in free agency suggested they believed the 'cap would not be a factor in 2010. He again mentioned the outright opposition of it by Jones, Bowlen, and Kraft as well as Bill Pollian's harsh criticism of it.

Adding it all up, the writer said the evidence is strongly on the side that already seven teams have indicated by their actions in free agency or their statements to the press that the cap was on its way out: Dallas, Denver, New England, Miami, the Jets, Cleveland, Oakland and the Colts.

Only nine owners need to vote against the current CBA to opt out of it and this guy believes only one more owner will be needed to sink the cap. He suggested, based on talks with Vinnie Cerrato that you could almost certainly pencil the Commanders in as a team who would vote to torpedo the cap--a hardly surprising possibility given the kind of spending Washington thrives on.

The writer speculated that one of the signs the cap was on life support would be Jones or another team moving into the top five, even with relatively little cap space with which to sign a blue-chip player.

It was his belief someone would dive in for McFadden knowing the cap would not be an important fact in the distribution of a large signing bonus.

The guy all mentioned he thought it was suspect that three of the teams that would likely vote to opt out had new stadiums which would open in 2010: Dallas, the Jets, and the Colts. He said Jerry wouild be adding about $125,000,000 to his own bank account the first year through sponsorships and luxury suite revenues. Jerry willalso be collecting $3.00 a car for parking privileges. This would allow him topay off his note more than 10 years early.

The guy said Jerry's masterstroke in buidilng such an incredible cash cow was sending shock waves around the league. The Giants, Jets, and Colts wil also be playiong in new stadiums by 2010 but they won't generate nearly the revenue that Jerry's will given added income from real estates sales adjacent to the stadium. In effect, barring a move like Miami made (selling 50% of the team to a guy named Ross who is worth $3,000,000,000) teams who want to compete may have to do what Wayne Huzienger did: share the wealth and look for partners.

The guy also said football players are not dummies: Baseball players make a lot more without taking the risks football players do. The union would love to see the 'cap die and be paid what the market dictates and not a socialistic system where tightfisted owners can lock up one or two players, play in outdated venues with surfaces that need to be changed for the safety of the players.

One last thing he said is players like to work for owners like Jones and Kraft because they know these guys will do whatever it takes to give them the best chance to succeed--state-of-the-art training facilities, human resource departments that worl with them to protect their careers, etc.

He felt four teams were ready to make big waves in the draft because they had been so quiet if free agency: Dallas, The Giants, The Patriots, and Colts. Each was in a similar circumstance: they have so many players signed with huge contracts they could easily and quickly restructure five or six of them and free up between $10m and $20m in 'cap space to enter the draft with enough money to pretty much sign whatever blue-chip player they wanted. He even said as grim as things looked for the Commanders they could do the same.
 

skinsscalper

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,146
Reaction score
5,693
With all the talk from Upshaw about an imminent strike if the current CBA is vanquished, you would have to wonder what it would take to keep the players happy (league-wide) and set up a system that works. The only thing that I can think of that will keep the spending within the realm of reality would be to do what the the NBA and MLB are doing, and that's guarantee these guys' contracts. That would keep owners from spending balls out and throwing caution to the wind when signing a guy like Tommy Kelley to a 50 million dollar contract that he'll never even sniff the end of. I think that would curb some of these outrageous contracts full of funny money and outlandish numbers. In the end I think that it would work out for the players too because they know their money is a sure thing and they contract will probably be closer to a true market value. Owners will be a lot more judicious with these contracts knowing that they'll have to pay up no matter what.

I don't know if the league would set up a "luxury tax" type of structure that would penalize teams by throwing more money into a revenue sharing pool for spending over a set limit or what, but it's pretty obvious that a low number of teams (9) can upset the "balance" of a salary cap structure by opting out. That's 9 guys that can basically hold the entire league and players union by the *****. Something has gotta give and we may see the first work stoppage in the NFL in over 20 years. The prospect of that is depressing already. You would think that this small group of owners would have some type of proposal in place to bring to the players union before opting out to avoid such a situation, but I highly doubt that that is the situation. Maybe they see more fit to push the hand of the union and bring everything to critical mass before they begin to negotiate. Either way this could get very ugly.
 

MichaelWinicki

"You want some?"
Staff member
Messages
47,997
Reaction score
27,917
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
The league may go through a restructuring like we haven't seen since the merger.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
I don't quite get the dynamic going on here. Upshaw is stating owners will opt out because the owners want to pay less to the players, yet many people are saying the owners will opt out because they don't want a cap. Wouldn't a cap-less league increase the total amount of pay league-wide to the players?
 

Kangaroo

Active Member
Messages
9,893
Reaction score
1
I think it would hurt and I would quit watching football

Basically there be about 4 teams that can compete most years (Teams with lots of money)

That would kill what has grown the NFL the reason it is making money hand over fist like no one else is every team has a chance at the prize the Superbowl
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
Kangaroo;1995785 said:
I think it would hurt and I would quit watching football

Basically there be about 4 teams that can compete most years (Teams with lots of money)

That would kill what has grown the NFL the reason it is making money hand over fist like no one else is every team has a chance at the prize the Superbowl
Free agency, along with the high number of teams creating a thin talent pool, has actually created a situation that promotes dynasties. If you have a talented QB, you're going to be at or near the top every season -- the Patriots, the Colts, Pittsburgh, and now Dallas. Other teams can hit their stride at the right time and make some magic happen (Giants), but by and large, if you have a successful QB, you'll have a successful team. In other words, it's not easier to build an all-around good team now, so those that get a top notch QB are going to be at the top for years. We just happened to stumble into getting a top notch QB. If we were still putting out Bledsoes or Hensons, we'd be a borderline playoff team.
 

DavyBaby

Active Member
Messages
133
Reaction score
46
theogt;1995758 said:
I don't quite get the dynamic going on here. Upshaw is stating owners will opt out because the owners want to pay less to the players, yet many people are saying the owners will opt out because they don't want a cap. Wouldn't a cap-less league increase the total amount of pay league-wide to the players?
I think the dynamic is more between the small vs. big market owners. The last CBA had profit sharing aspects that Jones and other big market teams found difficult to accept. Thus, many (large market) owners want to scrap the current CBA primarily on these grounds.

In the meantime, Upshaw is more than happy to take advantage of the situation between the owners in order to get rid of the salary cap entirely. Plus, a few owners would be like to "spend their way" to a championship regardless of the overall consequences to the league.

So these are the "dynamics" as I see it.

Overall--even though Dallas would benefit, I would hate to see the salary cap scrapped and see the
NFL move in the direction of MLB with the huge payroll disparities between clubs and constant year-to-year player movement.

Teams like the pirates are basically farm systems to the big market teams. This would be the fate of Green Bay and Jacksonville in a salary cap free world.

Go Cowboys--but I want to see a competitive league structure.

Did any of this make sense?
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
DavyBaby;1995794 said:
I think the dynamic is more between the small vs. big market owners. The last CBA had profit sharing aspects that Jones and other big market teams found difficult to accept. Thus, many (large market) owners want to scrap the current CBA primarily on these grounds.

In the meantime, Upshaw is more than happy to take advantage of the situation between the owners in order to get rid of the salary cap entirely. Plus, a few owners would be like to "spend their way" to a championship regardless of the overall consequences to the league.

So these are the "dynamics" as I see it.

Overall--even though Dallas would benefit, I would hate to see the salary cap scrapped and see the
NFL move in the direction of MLB with the huge payroll disparities between clubs and constant year-to-year player movement.

Teams like the pirates are basically farm systems to the big market teams. This would be the fate of Green Bay and Jacksonville in a salary cap free world.

Go Cowboys--but I want to see a competitive league structure.

Did any of this make sense?
Yeah, that makes sense, and I was going to put something about revenue sharing in my first post, but what I still don't get is why Upshaw is so against opting out of the agreement. Perhaps it's just a ploy and he truly is for opting out because of the no-cap situation.
 

NorthTexan95

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
2,482
theogt;1995758 said:
I don't quite get the dynamic going on here. Upshaw is stating owners will opt out because the owners want to pay less to the players, yet many people are saying the owners will opt out because they don't want a cap. Wouldn't a cap-less league increase the total amount of pay league-wide to the players?

The only thing I can think of right off the bat is there is a league minimum as well as a cap. Perhaps more teams would spend less.

Also, if there's no cap would that change free agency in anyway? Perhaps the owners would try to institute the rules like they were before the cap? I dunno ... doesn't make a lot of sense.
 

Tobal

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,336
Reaction score
328
This is so simple to fix and I just can't understand why it seems so hard for such intelligent men to grasp...

Structured Rookie Slots

Why do the guys who have not paid thier dues and proven anything get so damn much?
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,865
Reaction score
11,566
Dallas, the Jets, and the Colts. He said Jerry wouild be adding about $125,000,000 to his own bank account the first year through sponsorships and luxury suite revenues. Jerry willalso be collecting $3.00 a car for parking privileges. This would allow him topay off his note more than 10 years early.

Like him or not. If Jerry pulls this off, hes a Genius.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,865
Reaction score
11,566
Tobal;1995813 said:
This is so simple to fix and I just can't understand why it seems so hard for such intelligent men to grasp...

Structured Rookie Slots

Why do the guys who have not paid thier dues and proven anything get so damn much?

Thats a good idea but as far as opting out goes, I think the owners who make tons of money just want to keep it all for themselves. Can't blame them.
 

Kangaroo

Active Member
Messages
9,893
Reaction score
1
theogt;1995792 said:
Free agency, along with the high number of teams creating a thin talent pool, has actually created a situation that promotes dynasties. If you have a talented QB, you're going to be at or near the top every season -- the Patriots, the Colts, Pittsburgh, and now Dallas. Other teams can hit their stride at the right time and make some magic happen (Giants), but by and large, if you have a successful QB, you'll have a successful team. In other words, it's not easier to build an all-around good team now, so those that get a top notch QB are going to be at the top for years. We just happened to stumble into getting a top notch QB. If we were still putting out Bledsoes or Hensons, we'd be a borderline playoff team.

A great QB has always been the key to a dynasty that has always been the case Green Bay Bret Starr and Bret Faver, Steelers: Bradshaw; Cowboys Rodger and Troy; 49ers Joe Cool

What we are going to end up with a team like the Colts draft a Peyton manning once he becomes a fa and they groom him a big market comes in and has a Franchise QB who has a contract the other team can not even remotely pay

yea that just makes the league better
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Whoever the guy on the radio was, I don't think he knows too much about the cap. First of all, the teams he mentioned HAVE NOT been structuring contracts to dump a lot of money into "an uncapped 2010." In fact, a lot of the contracts they've given out have a lower cap hit in 2010 than in 2009 or 2011. If you compare those contracts to any contracts signed in any other season, they're structured exactly the same way. He probably just looked at the base salaries and notices that, for a lot of them, 2010 is higher than in 2008 or 2009. But that's only because they're getting a huge bonus this season and another roster bonus or option bonus in 2009. Let's use Calvin Pace as an example. The Jets signed him to a six-year deal worth $42 million. His base salaries are $750,000 in each of the first two years, then $3.75 million in 2010. The guy on the radio must think they're planning on an uncapped 2010, right? Well, no. He got an $11 million signing bonus this year, and he has a $9 million roster bonus due in 2009. That's why his base salaries are so low in the first two years. And in 2010, he doesn't get any such bonus.

Secondly, he talks about teams needing cap room to sign high draft picks, which is ridiculous. Jamarcus Russell's cap number last season was less than $3 million. The Raiders used more of their cap on guys such as Barry Sims, Terdell Sands and Warren Sapp than they did on Russell last year. You don't need cap room, you need CASH -- and confidence in your scouting department to draft the right player before you commit to him long-term.

And lastly, he might be surprised to find out that NFL players get a larger percentage of revenues than any other sport. If the cap goes away and the owners let the market dictate what players get paid, some teams might spend more, but on a league-wide basis, the players certainly will end up getting LESS money overall than they're getting right now.
 

Big Dakota

New Member
Messages
11,876
Reaction score
0
MichaelWinicki;1995708 said:
The league may go through a restructuring like we haven't seen since the merger.


I think you are exactly right. There's a come to Jesus meeting coming here, and IMHO it's won't be easy and probably won't come without all sides, owners, players and fans, losing something. But hopefully, after the dust settles, we'll have another 20 years of peace.
 

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,278
Reaction score
45,637
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
UPSHAW SEES A LOCKOUT COMING
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 12, 2008, 12:40 p.m.

NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw says he believes the owners are setting the stage for a lockout that could threaten the 2011 NFL season.

“That’s where we’re headed. They’re going to try to lock us out,” Upshaw tells Lester Munson of ESPN.com.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement is set to expire after the 2010 season, and the owners and the players appear far off from any type of negotiations that could lead to an agreement to extend labor peace beyond 2010. The owners think they gave up too much during the last round of negotiations.

“They think [the current deal] is too rich for the players, and they want to take some back,” Upshaw said.

Adds union attorney Jeffrey Kessler, “The problem is that the owners could not agree among themselves on how they would share their revenues. The high-revenue teams do not want to share money they earn in their markets, and the low-revenue teams are unhappy about everything. So they find a place to agree — they try to get it back from the players.”

The 2011 season might feel like it’s a long way off, but the owners and the union should be addressing these issues now to avoid a labor stoppage.
 

skinsscalper

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,146
Reaction score
5,693
Kangaroo;1995838 said:
A great QB has always been the key to a dynasty that has always been the case Green Bay Bret Starr and Bret Faver, Steelers: Bradshaw; Cowboys Rodger and Troy; 49ers Joe Cool

What we are going to end up with a team like the Colts draft a Peyton manning once he becomes a fa and they groom him a big market comes in and has a Franchise QB who has a contract the other team can not even remotely pay

yea that just makes the league better


This I agree with to an extent. However, there are teams that are notoriously frugal and have little interest in growing their franchise knowing that they can continue to exist by living off the NFL teet of revenue sharing.

This was brought up by Jones during the last CBA bargaining negotiations. In fact there was a leak of some of the goings on behind closed doors about a back and forth between Jones and the owners of the Bengals. Cincinnati's owner basically said that he didn't have the money generating power that some of the other teams in the league had. Jones countered by saying that the Bengals didn't put everything necessary into the marketing of their team despite having a new stadium. Jones then challenged the Bengal's owner to sell the naming rights to his stadium rather than sticking with the nostalgic "Paul Brown Stadium". Jones offered to buy the naming rights to the Bengals' stadium on the spot. Predictably, they declined the offer.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
AdamJT13;1995858 said:
If the cap goes away and the owners let the market dictate what players get paid, some teams might spend more, but on a league-wide basis, the players certainly will end up getting LESS money overall than they're getting right now.
Thats interesting that you think that would be the case as it would clear up my confusion over the deal. But why do you think that is the case? Are there a lot of teams bumping against the league minimum every year?
 

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,278
Reaction score
45,637
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
theogt;1995913 said:
Thats interesting that you think that would be the case as it would clear up my confusion over the deal. But why do you think that is the case? Are there a lot of teams bumping against the league minimum every year?
If I had to hazard a guess, I think its because just as there is a salary cap as far as the maximum a team can spend. There is a salary floor as to the minimum a team can spend. If the cap goes away, there will probably be teams who won't pay near as much as they're required to on minimum. For example, I think it's Tampa Bay who had almost $50million in cap space. They need to spend almost $30m (IIRC), just to get to the salary floor.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
WoodysGirl;1995931 said:
If I had to hazard a guess, I think its because just as there is a salary cap as far as the maximum a team can spend. There is a salary floor as to the minimum a team can spend. If the cap goes away, there will probably be teams who won't pay near as much as they're required to on minimum. For example, I think it's Tampa Bay who had almost $50million in cap space. They need to spend almost $30m (IIRC), just to get to the salary floor.
Thats why I asked if there were a lot of teams who bumped up againt the minimum. ;)

As for Tampa, I think Adam has speculated before that the 85% minimum applies to the pre-adjusted cap for each team, so Tampa may not be that far under.
 
Top