Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

matttyl

Members
  • Content Count

    16,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by matttyl

  1. Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.Elaborate how it is pro-competitive for clubs to agree to not use 2010 to deal with cap issues?The point of a salary cap (and salary floor) is to provide a level playing field. Taking to its logical extreme, if Dallas and Washington structured contracts to give them salary caps that were 50% higher than everyone else in the league, that wouldn't provide a level playing field.Washington gave Haynesworth a $21M bonus, which is one of the reasons he signed with Washington instead of everyone else. The other teams factor that sort of thing into their salary cap management, and decided that a $21M bonus (combined with his other benefits) was too cost prohibitive. The Redskins were able to cut him -- due to the uncapped year -- and not have his $21M ever count against the cap. The uncapped year was an unfortunate outcome for the NFL and the NFLPA. It was a one-year problem that everyone recognized was going to be fixed soon. So the NFL decided to not let teams with contracts take advantage of a one-year cap-free system to screw with contracts for the next 10 years. The Cardinals, for example, could have elected to give Larry Fitzgerald a $120M contract over 8 years, with $85M coming in year 1 and $5M coming in years 2 through 7. But then the Cards would have Fitzgerald costing an absurdly low amount every year for the next seven years, in years with a salary cap. That would give ARI an unfair advantage over everyone else. Of course, the Jets could do the same with Revis. And then the Bucs could have with Freeman. And on and on. But this sort of gaming the system wouldn't be equitable or in the best interest of anyone but the winners of such a game. So the owners and the commissioner decided that no one would dump contracts or restructure contracts in such an anti-competitive way. If the Packers had Rodgers costing them 1% of their salary cap for the next 6 years, that wouldn't be fair. The big money teams/richest owners could afford to do this by paying a ton of money upfront, which is exactly what Jones and Snyder did. But that circumvents the entire idea of having a salary cap if the big money owners get to field better teams because they have more cash. If you think the salary cap is a good idea because it promotes competition, then this does the same thing in the same way. I completely agree with the vast majority of what you say. One flaw, though....there wasn't a cap in 2010. The Redskins didn't break any rules.
  2. Grove, Greg, and E_Smith...thank you for elaborating far better than I on this matter. My "fandome" of the Skins is really hampering my ability to fully articulate my thoughts this evening....
  3. In the end it sounds like at least 28 teams are pissed that they weren't smart enough to, well, not break any rules....
  4. Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.You are allowed and encouraged to collude as an NFL owner. That's how things like schedules are created. You aren't allowed to collude in a way that's anti-competitive. This seems to have been a pro-competitive behavior, or at worse, neutral.I'm talking collusion in a legal sense, as in having to do with $. Of course the teams are allowed to communicate in an effort to set schedules and the like.
  5. I'm not saying the Skins or Cowboys wage fixed, what I'm saying is that everyone else did. Quote from Washington Times - "According to the source, owners were displeased by how the Redskins and Dallas Cowboys restructured contracts to dump salary into the uncapped 2010 season."Meaning, they didn't comply with our "agreement" to fix wages, so we're going to punish them.
  6. Oh my bad, I hadn't heard that they did this. Please link to your source. TIA.I can link you as a source when you said "The NFL said don't do X" a few posts back.When they said "don't do X", they are setting salaries - aka wage fixing. In so doing quite obviously "limited open competition", again, the NFL said don't do X according to you. Also in so doing they obtained an objective (wage fixing, saving $) which is in fact forbidden by law.Again, from the (limited) information we have right now, this is very cut and dry. The NFL had some "secret handshake" to enforce a pseudo salary cap that didn't exist. 30/28 teams agreed (colluded) to comply.
  7. They didn't agree to it, that's the entire point of this. Where have you seen that any team (1, 2, 28, 30, or 32) agreed to anything? Oh, and "agreeing" to not pay players in a free market system (uncapped year) is against the law. What law? show it.By your thinking the NFL and NCAA had no right to refuse entry to Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams. The law is wage fixing, look it up. And yes, they had no legal right to refuse them.
  8. Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the word:Direct quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.Which parts? Apparently 28 teams "agreed to comply" (can we agree with that verbiage?) to "set prices", "limit open competition", and they in effect "obtained an objective forbidden by law".No law forbids the agreeing to spend less.Is this a joke?! Yes there is, it's called "wage fixing", and if you don't think it exists why don't you ask the Houston based offshore drilling companies that paid $75M in damages for doing it.
  9. They didn't agree to it, that's the entire point of this. Where have you seen that any team (1, 2, 28, 30, or 32) agreed to anything? Oh, and "agreeing" to not pay players in a free market system (uncapped year) is against the law.
  10. Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the word:Direct quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)Nothing of what you said above matttyl is correct.Which parts? Apparently 28 teams "agreed to comply" (can we agree with that verbiage?) to "set prices", "limit open competition", and they in effect "obtained an objective forbidden by law".
  11. This is a bit of a stretch, but the $46M given to the 28 teams (the players) is ALL given in 2012. The $46M taken away from the Cowboys and Redskins is spread, or at least can be, over 2012 and 2013. So if both the Redskins and Cowboys both choose to take 100% of the hit in 2013, then that's no longer a 2012 "wash" as you're describing, it's a $46M gain in 2012 for the players.Then the Skins and Boys can both take their hits in 2013 when I believe there is no salary floor and the cap is suppose to go up quite a bit, so depending on what other teams do the Cowboys can still be one of the biggest 2013 spenders even with the hit.
  12. Doesn't matter if they were told or weren't. Collusion IS the agreement, no matter who agrees and who was part of the process. The "agreement" itself as you call it was against the law, if that's the argument you want to take.
  13. Your name fits, "Comedian" if that's your argument. If you really don't know the meaning of the word:Direct quotes of the meaning - "It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices...""Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage."I see 3 things which occurred which are listed.1) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "set prices" (set salaries)2) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "limit open competition" (it was in fact an uncapped year, was it not?)3) 30 (or 28) NFL teams did agree to "obtain an objective forbidden by law" (objective was to spend as little as possible and require others to do the same and effectively "cap" an uncapped year)
  14. Collusion among the owners against the NFLPA, not collusion among 30 owners against 2 owners. As has been mentioned, if the NFLPA signed off on this, there may not be anything Washington and Dallas can do.This is what totally gets me as well. Why would the NFLPA agree to penalize the two owners who traditionally spend the most money?!Answer - by bribing them and spreading the "penalty" across 28 other teams. The NFLPA is going to get that money back in one year what the Skins and Boys are "out" over the next two.
  15. Yes it is, you said yourself two posts ago - "30 out of 32 teams obeyed". Sounds like "agreement" to me.
  16. Your choice of words "all of the other rules" means that what they were being "told" to do was itself a "rule". The NFL didn't have the authority to enforce that rule (likely why it was apparently never on paper and only verbal), which is why they allowed the Haynesworth and Hall deals to go through.
  17. Seems like the penalties were agreed upon by the owners. Jerry ans Snyder decided to ignore it.Which was the legal thing to do. The other 30 teams committed COLLUSION, which I've been saying all along. Your choice of the words "agreed upon by the owners" proves that what it was!The NFL approved the reworked deals of Haynesworth and Hall, but now two years later they can come back with this?!
  18. Here is the final line of that article...Kudos to two teams protecting their Cap future that have not previously operated with such forethought. The uncapped year, of all things, has spurred the Cowboys and Redskins to operate more prudently in their Cap management.So if Andrew Brandt, with his knowledge of all things financial in the NFL thinks these moves were "prudent" and made to "protect their cap future", was totally wrong....then the entire situation is just ####.
  19. EXACTLY! So if they aren't "violations", what are they?
  20. So it all comes down to effectively capping an uncapped year, on paper, and if the other 30 owners agreed to them (aka COLLUSION)? That's what you're saying?
  21. Again, I'm fairly certain that all franchises were aware of the uncapped season and any penalties that would come from contract shenanigans.And I'm fairly certain (though I could be wrong) that ALL contracts have to be agreed on by the NFL. So how could they approve them back in 2010, but then say two years later that they are no good?
  22. I'm fairly certain that this information was clearly communicated to the franchises and the penalties of it as well.I'm not questioning that it was told to the teams. I'm saying that I never heard it - whether it was just me missing it, or because the public at large wasn't told - and without that bit of knowledge, it seemed odd to me that most teams were not doing what the Skins and Cowboys did.It was not my intention to you, it was that nearly every team played to the uncapped unspoken rules except for these two franchises. COLLUSION, plain and simple.
  23. If he truly believed in his talent he would've locked him up long term. Two years says they question his future. Do you think Graham, Gronkowski, Davis or Witten would take that deal? Of course not. Finley is far from elite.Also, how do you know that this 2 year deal wasn't presented to Finley as the ONLY other option to being franchised? Up against the franchise tag, ANY NFL TE would have taken this contract. As such, you really can't look at this deal as a negative for Finley and say that it doesn't show the team has faith in him, they are running a business and have to do what's best for it.
  24. If he truly believed in his talent he would've locked him up long term. Two years says they question his future. Do you think Graham, Gronkowski, Davis or Witten would take that deal? Of course not. Finley is far from elite.Gronk is playing for less than $500k this year, Graham less than $550k. Davis is only guaranteed $4.1M this, and nothing over the last 3 years of his deal. I'd say any of those 3 would be smart to do so, though I'm sure at least the first two would garner far more. I don't pretend to fully understand all the workings of NFL contracts and their rules...but Green Bay signing him to a TWO year deal rather than just franchising him for ONE tells me something, especially when that would have been cheaper.
  25. So, who's going to roll with him this weekend against a Suh-less Detroit Lions teams who already wasn't all that great against the run? If so, are you doing it out of necessity, or because you think he can repeat what he did last night?