PDA

View Full Version : Playoff teams will be limited in free agency in uncapped year


meangene
01-02-2010, 04:57 AM
Part of an article from Legwold this morning:

And the least discussed item in the uncapped year is what you have asked about. The final eight playoff teams - basically the teams that are in the divisional round games -- will only be able to sign a free agent next season when they lose one of their own players in free agency.

And the final four playoff teams - from the two conference championship games - will only be allowed to sign half as many players in free agency as they lose. Not sure what happens there if a team loses three or five guys, but some in the league have explained to me they expect to be able to round up - sign three if they lost five, etc

What that will mean for the Broncos if they don't make the playoffs is they wouldn't be limited in how many players they could sign, but they would be limited in that many players will be restricted free agents instead of unrestricted. And they will be limited to whatever budget the organization lays down without a salary cap or salary minimum for '10.

If they do somehow make the postseason and advance to the divisional round, they would have to abide by all of the parameters of the uncapped year, including the signing limit.

But overall, that looks very restrictive to me and not sure the free agency season will really reflect that there is no salary cap next season, except in the rare cases of an elite player with more than six years in, who is in the open market.
__________________________________________________ ___________

First I have heard of this. It will be interesting to see how this affects our offseason if we happen to get into the playoffs. It could be a benefit if we don't.

Killericon
01-02-2010, 06:23 AM
This is the most insane thing I've ever heard. What if we cut a bunch of players who don't get signed elsewhere(not that that would ever happen to the Denver Broncos...)? Does "losing" a player in Free Agency mean that they have to sign elsewhere, or can they just be cut?

meangene
01-02-2010, 09:20 AM
Yeah, it does leave a lot of questions. I assume if you cut a player then you really don't lose him in free agency. If you don't tender an offer and the player signs elsewhere I am guessing that still counts as losing that player. What if you put a relatively high tender offer on a player and then work out a trade for him? Is that a free agent loss? Doesn't sound like it. Playoff teams that don't have valued free agents who sign elsewhere relatively quickly could really get screwed. If we end up making the playoffs, I can see this really affecting some of our decision-making with whom to make offers to. By not tendering some players we make them more attractive to other teams and increase our flexibility. I can envision teams letting certain players go just because they prefer to sign a particular free agent. A whole lot of new factors arise in the free agency market if this kicks in like it appears it will. On the other hand, if we don't make the playoffs I can see it helping us by giving us flexibility that the playoff teams don't have.

Paladin
01-02-2010, 09:29 AM
And that's why making the playoffs this year may be good for the fan's ego, but not necessarily the best thing for an average team looking to get better in FA . I would like to see the Brocnsc win Sunday, but not make th eplayoffs. That would mean some possibility of geting some help without running ionto League imposed (insane) restrictions.

Beantown Bronco
01-02-2010, 09:30 AM
I've seen the full UFA and RFA lists for this upcoming offseason. What did I see?

Not much. Some nice names in RFA, but absolute dog crap in UFA. And of those nice names in RFA, there's really nobody I'd care to sign at any position if they were given the "high" tender with the exception of perhaps Wilfork. I don't think teams are going to be sitting there wishing they lost more of their own FAs so that they could sign 7 new FAs instead of 6. The quality just isn't there IMO.

ayjackson
01-02-2010, 09:38 AM
When do we know if it's uncapped? Is it the start of the NFL year (~ March 1)?

meangene
01-02-2010, 09:50 AM
I've seen the full UFA and RFA lists for this upcoming offseason. What did I see?

Not much. Some nice names in RFA, but absolute dog crap in UFA. And of those nice names in RFA, there's really nobody I'd care to sign at any position if they were given the "high" tender with the exception of perhaps Wilfork. I don't think teams are going to be sitting there wishing they lost more of their own FAs so that they could sign 7 new FAs instead of 6. The quality just isn't there IMO.

I could see these restrictions affecting whether or not teams tender their RFA or how high of a tender they put on them. They may be faced with more either / or decisions. I think teams will be letting more of their RFA go than in the past simply because there will be so many more of them.

gunns
01-02-2010, 09:57 AM
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=88066

Beantown Bronco
01-02-2010, 11:24 AM
I could see these restrictions affecting whether or not teams tender their RFA or how high of a tender they put on them. They may be faced with more either / or decisions. I think teams will be letting more of their RFA go than in the past simply because there will be so many more of them.

I don't see the dilemma personally.

In an uncapped year, it would be downright retarded to give the low tender instead of the high tender to any RFA on your roster that you have any interest in keeping. Why? It's VERY cheap (not much more $ than the lower tenders and MUCH cheaper than the franchise tag) and it gives you the ability to match any offer the RFA may receive from another team. There's no downside, unless someone decides to break the gentlemen's agreement currently in effect and try to poison pill you (but this is also a risk when you lower tender them anyway, so it doesn't apply here).

cutthemdown
01-02-2010, 11:34 AM
I don't see the dilemma personally.

In an uncapped year, it would be downright retarded to give the low tender instead of the high tender to any RFA on your roster that you have any interest in keeping. Why? It's VERY cheap (not much more $ than the lower tenders and MUCH cheaper than the franchise tag) and it gives you the ability to match any offer the RFA may receive from another team. There's no downside, unless someone decides to break the gentlemen's agreement currently in effect and try to poison pill you (but this is also a risk when you lower tender them anyway, so it doesn't apply here).

About half the NFL will look to spend way less on the roster this yr. Uncapped also means not minimum salary cap. Watch some teams spend about 50 million on there team to save money.

Doggcow
01-02-2010, 11:43 AM
10 posts and people haven't started flaming eachother. Wtf is this forum coming to?

Lev Vyvanse
01-02-2010, 11:45 AM
10 posts and people haven't started flaming eachother. Wtf is this forum coming to?

**** you retard.

baja
01-02-2010, 12:18 PM
Part of an article from Legwold this morning:

And the least discussed item in the uncapped year is what you have asked about. The final eight playoff teams - basically the teams that are in the divisional round games -- will only be able to sign a free agent next season when they lose one of their own players in free agency.

And the final four playoff teams - from the two conference championship games - will only be allowed to sign half as many players in free agency as they lose. Not sure what happens there if a team loses three or five guys, but some in the league have explained to me they expect to be able to round up - sign three if they lost five, etc

What that will mean for the Broncos if they don't make the playoffs is they wouldn't be limited in how many players they could sign, but they would be limited in that many players will be restricted free agents instead of unrestricted. And they will be limited to whatever budget the organization lays down without a salary cap or salary minimum for '10.

If they do somehow make the postseason and advance to the divisional round, they would have to abide by all of the parameters of the uncapped year, including the signing limit.

But overall, that looks very restrictive to me and not sure the free agency season will really reflect that there is no salary cap next season, except in the rare cases of an elite player with more than six years in, who is in the open market.
__________________________________________________ ___________

First I have heard of this. It will be interesting to see how this affects our offseason if we happen to get into the playoffs. It could be a benefit if we don't.

If this is true we (any marginal team really) would be better off to not make the playoffs given we have an unrealistic chance of making any noise if we do get in. Considering there will be eight teams limited in signing free agents because of supply and demand there will be some good deals available and I would rather have the unlimited opportunity of signing players than make the playoffs this season where we have little chance of advancing. Could this have something to do with McD benching Marshall? I doubt it but who knows...

meangene
01-02-2010, 12:20 PM
I don't see the dilemma personally.

In an uncapped year, it would be downright retarded to give the low tender instead of the high tender to any RFA on your roster that you have any interest in keeping. Why? It's VERY cheap (not much more $ than the lower tenders and MUCH cheaper than the franchise tag) and it gives you the ability to match any offer the RFA may receive from another team. There's no downside, unless someone decides to break the gentlemen's agreement currently in effect and try to poison pill you (but this is also a risk when you lower tender them anyway, so it doesn't apply here).

Aside from teams having the option to greatly reduce their payroll in the uncapped year and dumping salaries, here is what I could see happening. Teams who are restricted in free agency could decide to give themselves more flexibility by making their RFA more attractive to other teams by either not tendering or putting a lower tender on them. Teams in that position will be making a lot of choices whether they want to keep Player A enough to give up pursuing Player B in free agency. Plus, after this coming season, you really don't know what will happen with the CBA for the following year. If you tender a bunch of your players to get them on the cheap for one year, what happens when they all become free agents the next year. I see the tenders more as a negotiating tool to try to sign the guys you really want to keep long-term or to try to get some compensation for quality guys you decide to let go. I think there will be some surprises with guys not being tendered or tendered lower than one might think. I also see more trades involving tendered free agents for something less than what the tender would call for. The free agency landscape will be very much different with these restrictions and the lack of cap. The rules teams have been working under in free agency will have changed. It is an opportunity for those teams who best figure out how to adapt to gain some advantage.

meangene
01-02-2010, 12:23 PM
If this is true we (any marginal team really) would be better off to not make the playoffs given we have an unrealistic chance of making any noise if we do get in. Considering there will be eight teams limited in signing free agents because of supply and demand there will be some good deals available and I would rather have the unlimited opportunity of signing players than make the playoffs this season where we have little chance of advancing. Could this have something to do with McD benching Marshall? I doubt it but who knows...

The best thing may be to win our final game and not make the playoffs?

Cool Breeze
01-03-2010, 10:46 PM
Part of an article from Legwold this morning:

And the least discussed item in the uncapped year is what you have asked about. The final eight playoff teams - basically the teams that are in the divisional round games -- will only be able to sign a free agent next season when they lose one of their own players in free agency.

And the final four playoff teams - from the two conference championship games - will only be allowed to sign half as many players in free agency as they lose. Not sure what happens there if a team loses three or five guys, but some in the league have explained to me they expect to be able to round up - sign three if they lost five, etc

What that will mean for the Broncos if they don't make the playoffs is they wouldn't be limited in how many players they could sign, but they would be limited in that many players will be restricted free agents instead of unrestricted. And they will be limited to whatever budget the organization lays down without a salary cap or salary minimum for '10.

If they do somehow make the postseason and advance to the divisional round, they would have to abide by all of the parameters of the uncapped year, including the signing limit.

But overall, that looks very restrictive to me and not sure the free agency season will really reflect that there is no salary cap next season, except in the rare cases of an elite player with more than six years in, who is in the open market.
__________________________________________________ ___________

First I have heard of this. It will be interesting to see how this affects our offseason if we happen to get into the playoffs. It could be a benefit if we don't.

I guess this means we can sign who we want now...