PDA

View Full Version : The rules in an uncapped yr.


cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 01:11 AM
No cap means teams can spend whatever they want, but also small market teams can spend as little as they want. The current cap has a minimum.

Instead of 4 years, a player need 6 yrs to be an unrestricted FA.

Teams can use the franchise tag, and 2 transition tags. So basically you could lock up one players rights, and get right to match on 2 others.

Playoff teams reaching the final eight spots only would be able to sign a free agent if they lose one of their own, and the final four teams could sign only one free agent for every two they lose.




Sorry if someone already pointed all this out I had not read the part about the winning teams being limited in FA. IMO it would make for a boring offseason of little movement, not the free for all people seem to think.

Elway777
09-11-2009, 01:47 AM
So we own the rights to Marshall for another year.

Taco John
09-11-2009, 01:53 AM
Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

BroncoMan4ever
09-11-2009, 02:40 AM
i think this will get resolved before the uncapped year. the players are under the thinking that they are going to get paid if the NFL goes uncapped, but the moment it is possible for teams to begin going bare bones on the finances in paying players you are going to start seeing teams slashing payrolls and not putting forth anywhere near the best possible product on the field, and teams like Washington, Dallas and Oakland playing the NFL like the Yankees and Red Sox play baseball, mega contracts to the best players in the league that no one else can dream of matching. also with teams not being capable of either competing with the top financially sound teams or just wanting to cut costs as much as possible the players are going to suffer in their attempts to get paid.

if the league goes uncapped, the players will be the biggest losers in the scenario.

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 03:06 AM
Oakland not making money and Davis not rich by NFL owner standards.

But even with money if those teams finished in the playoffs they can't really sign anyone unless they lose FA. So you lose a star to sign a star makes little sense.

It could be good for Broncos though if we miss playoffs. We could then sign whoever we want.

In fact some big winning teams may not match offers on RFA or try to resign other big names because they need to lose a player to get into the market and target players they covet.

It really does sound like there are tons of angles us fans are ignorant or in the dark about.

Marshall may be better off getting what he can get now. Broncos might want to think about locking up Kuper as well.

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 03:07 AM
so Bronco man you think it will get resolved before next off-season? I think you are the only one who does. It sure doesn't sound like they can iron out everything that soon.

The players union rep is now saying players may never agree to a cap again.

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 03:08 AM
Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

Just pointing out how it might not be the free for all you had talked about in some other threads.

Good input though.

CHANGSTER
09-11-2009, 03:18 AM
Oakland not making money and Davis not rich by NFL owner standards.


I foresee Al Davis selling off part of the team if the league goes uncapped. He's done it before.


I also agree that as a whole players will get less money than they are now rather than more. Most teams are pained to spend to the minimum as it is.

Garcia Bronco
09-11-2009, 05:40 AM
Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

But Lenny. You will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.

Atwater His Ass
09-11-2009, 06:01 AM
we need more threads about this since there isn't like a million billion already delineinating the specifics of an uncapped year.

BABronco
09-11-2009, 06:30 AM
we need more threads about this since there isn't like a million billion already delineinating the specifics of an uncapped year.

yeah... and while were at it we could use some more whiny bitchy nitpicking.

Hercules Rockefeller
09-11-2009, 06:43 AM
so we own the rights to marshall for another year.

2

baja
09-11-2009, 06:48 AM
Oakland not making money and Davis not rich by NFL owner standards.

But even with money if those teams finished in the playoffs they can't really sign anyone unless they lose FA. So you lose a star to sign a star makes little sense.

It could be good for Broncos though if we miss playoffs. We could then sign whoever we want.

In fact some big winning teams may not match offers on RFA or try to resign other big names because they need to lose a player to get into the market and target players they covet.

It really does sound like there are tons of angles us fans are ignorant or in the dark about.

Marshall may be better off getting what he can get now. Broncos might want to think about locking up Kuper as well.

Don't tell lex this he will root for the Broncos to lose and miss the playoffs. ;D

baja
09-11-2009, 06:50 AM
Just pointing out how it might not be the free for all you had talked about in some other threads.

Good input though.

I don't think he is sleeping well.

Taco John
09-11-2009, 07:22 AM
Just pointing out how it might not be the free for all you had talked about in some other threads.

Good input though.


What kind of man reads offense into a Ghostbusters reference?


And I still think that it's going to be relative pandimonium.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-11-2009, 07:46 AM
Don't tell lex this he will root for the Broncos to lose and miss the playoffs. ;D

yeah, but he's going to do that anyway.

TonyR
09-11-2009, 08:21 AM
yeah, but he's going to do that anyway.

You beat me to it. As if he needs another reason to root against the Broncos.

But back to the topic at hand, my biggest concern would the the NFL turning into MLB. The few "haves" dominating the the league, that being the large market franchises and those with the free spending, billionaire owners. The Broncos would not fare very well in such a scenario.

broncosteven
09-11-2009, 09:19 AM
...
It really does sound like there are tons of angles us fans are ignorant or in the dark about.
...


This happens every year.

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 11:34 AM
What kind of man reads offense into a Ghostbusters reference?


And I still think that it's going to be relative pandimonium.

I missed that LOL!!!

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 11:36 AM
we need more threads about this since there isn't like a million billion already delineinating the specifics of an uncapped year.

Really because I had not heard the part about how playoff teams can not sign FA unless they lose FA's.

Then again then you are right the Oman never discusses something twice.

My bad.

gyldenlove
09-11-2009, 11:44 AM
The 2 biggest rules in an uncapped year are:

1. No salary floor, you can spend as little as possible and the Glazers in Tampa and whoever owns the Cardinals are already looking forward to bringing you teams with total salaries of less than 50 million.

2. 25% raise cap, players can only increase their annual take by 25% compared to this year. So that means if you have a low salary this year, you are screwed for next year. This could actually make franchise tags somewhat tricky since for many players the tags would exceed the 25% rule and I believe that would make the tag salary lower.

BroncoMan4ever
09-11-2009, 11:55 AM
so Bronco man you think it will get resolved before next off-season? I think you are the only one who does. It sure doesn't sound like they can iron out everything that soon.

The players union rep is now saying players may never agree to a cap again.

i just think at the latest it will be fixed after 1 uncapped year, because no one will want to endure another year. but i truly think before next season. uncapped year is a burden to the players and the players union should know that. the owners are also going to lose money

plus if an uncapped year does happen and lets say you are a Jaguars fan, you are going to be forced to sit through truly mediocre football as a small market team like that is definitely going to spend as little as possible on players, and because of that, revenue dollars from those teams will drop, and force big market teams to have to share their profits with them and have teams like Dallas and Washington bringing in less money. Jerry Jones is pissed how much he has to share now while the league is working well, he is going to want to kill someone when he has to share an even bigger chunk of his money.

no way will this last long if at all.

Man-Goblin
09-11-2009, 11:58 AM
Biggest impact of no cap: every bad contract in the league will be teminated with no cap ramifications.

I still think there will be a lockout before we get there, tho.

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 02:33 PM
i just think at the latest it will be fixed after 1 uncapped year, because no one will want to endure another year. but i truly think before next season. uncapped year is a burden to the players and the players union should know that. the owners are also going to lose money

plus if an uncapped year does happen and lets say you are a Jaguars fan, you are going to be forced to sit through truly mediocre football as a small market team like that is definitely going to spend as little as possible on players, and because of that, revenue dollars from those teams will drop, and force big market teams to have to share their profits with them and have teams like Dallas and Washington bringing in less money. Jerry Jones is pissed how much he has to share now while the league is working well, he is going to want to kill someone when he has to share an even bigger chunk of his money.

no way will this last long if at all.


I agree because after the uncapped yr you will either get a new deal or a lockout. They can't just operate under the rules that will be in place next yr indefenitley.

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 02:35 PM
The 2 biggest rules in an uncapped year are:

1. No salary floor, you can spend as little as possible and the Glazers in Tampa and whoever owns the Cardinals are already looking forward to bringing you teams with total salaries of less than 50 million.

2. 25% raise cap, players can only increase their annual take by 25% compared to this year. So that means if you have a low salary this year, you are screwed for next year. This could actually make franchise tags somewhat tricky since for many players the tags would exceed the 25% rule and I believe that would make the tag salary lower.


Didn't know that part of it thanks.

How do you see the playoff teams operating since they can't sign players unless they lose players? IMO it could mean all the good players on the good teams get resigned? or tagged? It may not make for much talent actually hitting the pool.

baja
09-11-2009, 02:43 PM
Biggest impact of no cap: every bad contract in the league will be teminated with no cap ramifications.

I still think there will be a lockout before we get there, tho.

Never thought about that the owners must be praying for the "No Cap year"

Player's agents should be speed dialing all there clients about this...

Bronco Yoda
09-11-2009, 09:37 PM
Well, something has to be done with capping the rookie contracts. They are way out of hand.

ton80
09-11-2009, 11:10 PM
so Bronco man you think it will get resolved before next off-season? I think you are the only one who does. It sure doesn't sound like they can iron out everything that soon.

The players union rep is now saying players may never agree to a cap again.

I would kinda sorta expect the players rep to say something like that. I've never had to negotiate anything of this magnitude, but taking an extreme position, knowing the entire time that you will have to move from that position as negotiations advance, makes sense to me.

Archer81
09-11-2009, 11:13 PM
I doubt they wont reinstitute a cap. It actually helps give these players 100 mil contracts. If I were the player reps, I'd push for better retirement care/packages as a trade off for reduced % of revenue going to player pay.

:Broncos:

cutthemdown
09-11-2009, 11:15 PM
I would kinda sorta expect the players rep to say something like that. I've never had to negotiate anything of this magnitude, but taking an extreme position, knowing the entire time that you will have to move from that position as negotiations advance, makes sense to me.

I think he was saying that would be what they feel if there is a lock out 2011.