IF 2007 is a Cap-less year (1 Viewer)

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

I'm not sure if this was brought up, BUT.......if there isn't an agreement and labor peace for X# of years, then why can't teams start thinking big ,and load contracts up for 2007 NOW?

Example, Indy, with EDGE. Why don't they offer him a nice 3-4 year deal, where he makes close to what he made last year but in 2007 he gets a huge bonus kick-in, as in a one-time signing bonus or roster bonus? If there is a labor agreement, then Indy has the right to cut him and if there isn't then Edge gets his money and has a chance to win a SB with Indy next few years.

 

[msommer]

Because Edge wants the money NOW, not next year.

There are two sides to every negotiation.

If anything I'd expect teams to be less creative if 2007 is a cap free year.

'You want a raise? Well, sod off then"

 

[diesel7982]

I'm not sure if this was brought up, BUT.......if there isn't an agreement and labor peace for X# of years, then why can't teams start thinking big ,and load contracts up for 2007 NOW?

Example, Indy, with EDGE. Why don't they offer him a nice 3-4 year deal, where he makes close to what he made last year but in 2007 he gets a huge bonus kick-in, as in a one-time signing bonus or roster bonus? If there is a labor agreement, then Indy has the right to cut him and if there isn't then Edge gets his money and has a chance to win a SB with Indy next few years.

Why on earth would Edge agree to a bonus that he won't likely get?

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

Because Edge wants the money NOW, not next year.

There are two sides to every negotiation.

If anything I'd expect teams to be less creative if 2007 is a cap free year.

'You want a raise? Well, sod off then"

The way I hear things is Washington is going to make the Yankess look like a minor league team with the way they'll spend the bucks next year.EDGE will still get SOME money plus he'll get a very good chance to win a SB. Where can he go where he'll get the bucks and have a better chance to win? Not Pittsburgh, not Cinny, not Baltimore, not Miami, not Denver, not Chicago, not Dallas, not Philly. Maybe NE or maybe Seattle or maybe Minnesota. I'd think he's better off staying but then he's greedy isn't he?

 

[Mungo Burrows]

They envisioned this kind of thing when they put the uncapped year into the plan, and made provisions to prevent teams from trying to take advantage of it.

This is from Profootballtalk's discussion of the uncapped year. I have no reason to think their interpretation is wrong, since Florio is a lawyer and he can presumably understand the terms of the CBA.

The more confusing issue -- and one on which we've seen very little elaboration -- is the 30 percent rule. This means that a player's "Salary" (i.e., everything except signing bonus) cannot increase by more than 30 percent from the last capped year of the CBA (i.e., 2006) into the uncapped year (i.e., 2007) and any future years.

So if a player signs, for example, a four-year contract with a $1 million signing bonus and a base salary of $550,000 in 2006, the player's compensation in 2007 can be no more than $715,000 -- including base salary, roster bonus, workout bonus, etc. The 2008 maximum compensation is then $880,000. And so on, with a maximum increase each year of only $165,000.

My take on this is that if the temptation existed to load contracts into the uncapped year, too many teams would get themselves into a position where they NEEDED the uncapped year to get through, and thus would prevent them from being willing to agree to the extension to the CBA with a Cap because they would otherwise be gutting their rosters. In a way, it protects the owners from themselves.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

Verrrrry interesting info there, thanks.

Somehow I still think teams like Denver and Washington will find a loophole somewhere to get around this.

 

[BlueOnion]

Because Edge wants the money NOW, not next year.

There are two sides to every negotiation.

If anything I'd expect teams to be less creative if 2007 is a cap free year.

'You want a raise? Well, sod off then"

The way I hear things is Washington is going to make the Yankess look like a minor league team with the way they'll spend the bucks next year.

No salary cap <> no revenue sharingIf the cap goes away, the playing field will still be more level than unlevel. Even if there wasn't a salary cap this past season, the Green Bay Packers would still get a 100+ million in revenue sharing from national revenue streams. That would not include their local revenue streams.

 

[CanadianNFLJunkie]

NFL Network had our guy Adam on there last night. The one big point that he made was teams with cap problems this year will be hurting next year and teams with lots of cap space will be at a big advantage next year.

 

[Orange Crush]

Even if people head into this free agency year thinking 2007 will be uncapped, that could still change.

Jerry Jones got bit in the ### when free agency first started. At the time the CBA went for several years with the last year uncapped. So he structured all of his stars' contracts to have large bonuses etc in the uncapped year. Of course, the CBA was extended turning that year into a capped year, and the Cowboys underwent the first cap purge of the free agent era since guys like Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, and Troy Aikman refused to give up a penny of what was promised to them.

So if teams remember their history lessons, then they will not assume 2007 will be an uncapped year until March 2007 roles around without a new collective bargaining agreement in place.

 

[MLBrandow]

Verrrrry interesting info there, thanks. 

Somehow I still think teams like Denver and Washington will find a loophole somewhere to get around this.

Let your player go and resign him to a landmark deal