echochamber

Aus: First, that EA comment made me happy as well. The EA of 5 years ago would have had us $10 mil over. Anyhoo, I think the players are sick of being bent over for the last 10 years. Upshaw has been comatose for those years, and the players have gotten dick (but it is their fault for keeping him). If they are going to continue to receive non-guaranteed contracts, shit, go for broke and get what you can. Football is the #1 money making sport in the country, yet these guys get nothing compared to baseball players. The owners simply don't want to rock the boat and want to keep stuffing their pockets, because under the current system, they can't shoot themselves in the foot. The football CBA truly is a joke. If the owners want non guaranteed deals, they have to pony up more cash. They can't have it both ways. On to the article. As far as teams cutting players to get under the 94.5 mil cap, that's a bit of a joke too. If the cap would have been raised to $101 mil as speculated once the cba was signed (the 105 number in the nfl.com article is a pipe dream), why not make that the cap # right away? Owners have only hurt themselves by saying the sky is falling and setting a low cap. Vets are not going to hurt that bad. If the next season came with no cap, they'll easily make up for what they didn't get this year. If 2008 came with no cap, big market teams will pay vets what they want. You won't stop the NFC East from spending $160 mil each. In the end, peeps who deserve the dough will get it. At this juncture, I still see this whole thing as owners casting doom and gloom over nothing. Why does the deal need to get done today? You have 2 years left on the current cba. 1 year with a cap, 1 without. Keep at it and get a deal done in a month, 2 months, 12 months, whatever. The owners are purposely making matters worse just to try to keep their cash cow pumping. I went through all this owner induced bs last year with hockey, and it's not gonna trick me this year either. Simply give the players what they deserve. I reeeeeeeeeeeally hate owners.

More on the uncapped year from PFW: Assuming that the powers-that-be can't get a new CBA hammered out by Friday, and assuming that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw intends to force an uncapped year, it's critical for everyone -- including most importantly the players -- to understand what a year without a salary cap really means. Here are the key points. 1. There will be no limit on what teams can spend on players, but there also will be no minimum, either. Currently, teams are required annually to spend at least 54 percent of the projected Defined Gross Revenues on player costs. In an uncapped year, teams can spend as little as they choose. 2. Only players with six or more accrued seasons will be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Players with three, four, or five accrued seasons will be restricted free agents. In other words, Bucs quarterback Chris Simms (who signed a one-year restricted free agent tender on Wednesday), will be a restricted free agent again in 2007. Under normal circumstances, he would be eligible for unrestricted free agency in 2007. 3. All teams will have an extra transition tag in 2007. Currently, teams can use either a franchise tag or a transition tag. So next year the teams will be able to restrict two otherwise unrestricted free agents. 4. The final four playoff teams from 2006 will be permitted to sign only their own unrestricted free agents. For each of their unrestricted free agents signed by someone else, they can replace them with an unrestricted free agent signed from another team. 5. The next four playoff teams will be subject to the same rules as the final four. They also will be able to sign one unrestricted free agent at a first-year salary of $1.5 million or more, and one at a first-year salary of less than $1 million (not including signing bonus), with increases of no more than 30 percent of the player's first-year salary.

You are correct. An uncapped 2007 year means no cap and teams could sign whoever, and cut whoever, they want without fear of going over or creating dead money with the cap. Anyways, don't worry about an uncapped year yet. I'm sure the majority of owners would lock the players out before allowing the NFC East to spend freely.

That's incuding the most recent cuts (Green, Whittle, Alexander & a street FA C). Alexander did not retire. He was suppose to, but then decided he wanted to play another year, hence getting cut. John Clayton over at ESPN has the up to date #s. The cap issue has been discussed in depth over at BBI. You can get an approximation at this link of the Giants cap situation. Good shit, pretty accurate, and a lot of fun seeing when it's best to cut certain players.

We have virtually no cap room if the cap is indeed set at $94.5-$95.5 mil. As of right now, we have around $3.5 mil in cap space. That wil be going to resigning Kendrik Clancy & Chad Morton, and tendering (or exntending) David Tyree. I just hope EA doesn't get stupid with Clancy's deal. if the CBA is not worked out by midnight, there will be plenty of options at DT, so EA better not give him any more than $1 mil/year. Morton? Eh. I'd like to see Jamaar Taylor (if he can stay healthy) get a shot. I don't like wasting a roster spot on a KR/PR who can't play 3rd or 4th WR or 2nd 3rd string HB. I was also reading we may tender Ponder. That's just stupid, imo, if we resign Morton. It's one or the other as far as I'm concerned. You can't waste a roster spot on someone who only returns kicks. Any starting holes we have, namely S, WLB, SLB, CB, will be addressed in the draft. Any FA signing will be for depth. LT will not be addressed until next year when releasing LP won't be as big a burden in dead money against the cap. HOWEVER, if next year goes uncapped, and this is key and one of the reasons I wouldn't mind the cap going the way of the dodo and simply using revenue sharing, we can get out of some questionable EA signings for nothing. We could release LP, Emmons (may be gone anyway), Robbins and Toomer from their deals, and if Strahan and Tiki finally show their age, we can renegotiate or cut them. Of course, there would be no cap hit with no cap

Thanks for clearing that up Seph. However, I don't think salaries would get that blown out of proportion. In the end, players will want to play, and will go wherever they get the chance. I think the big problem would come draft time. Unless the 80s version of FA was implemented, you'll have draftees demanding trades left and right to go to the team who pays them the most. Expansion over the last decade could also create a whole bunch of have nots I suppose. I still like the idea of no cap. Parity has not made the game any better. Chris Mortensen said it best in a chat he just did: Allen (NC): Any new news with the CBA? What are they thinking?! Isn't this really going to hurt the players? They could end up playing for less money, only the stars would get the big bucks. They lose their 401k and insurance. It sounds like the players are the one to lose everything. What are the owners going to lose? Chris Mortensen: (12:15 PM ET ) Good questions..don't know if I have all the answes. But the players will only have a tighter money market this year...after this year, there will be plenty of money. Sure, big stars may get more but there will be plenty to go around...and no salary cap can work for the players. There will be another CBA at some point and that will address benefits...in the uncapped year '07 under this current agreement, owners do not make their annual contribution to most of the benefit funds but the following years will certainly be negotiated with those things in tact. Could there be a strike/lockout in '08? Sure but a deal will get done at some point. Owners will lose the safety net of cost controls but good management, scouting, coaching will still rule in this league - perhaps more than ever. That may not be a bad thing. It's not a very good league right now in terms of quality of game and the current system is a contributor to that demise. which was followed up with this: Clint, Ohio: Please clarify your statement: "It's not a very good league right now in terms of quality of game..." Chris Mortensen: (12:20 PM ET ) The league is a bad league right now. The quality of play is marginal at best. Too many rookies and young players are forced onto the field too early. The pereception of parity - that a team can turn it around in one year - creates an owner and public unrest when things don't go right. That triggers too many firings, too many changes, and that affects the game. It's one reason why quarterbacks struggle in this league, too. Deep subject. I agree totally.

Player movement wasn't nearly as rampant because you could spend what was needed to keep players you drafted. Now, you get penalized for sound drafting by losing all your players to FA. I truly can't remember players from lower income teams being poached by rich teams. It seems everyone kept their players. Since you could keep your players, I felt the quality of games was vastly superior to what you see today (of course this was over 15 years ago so my memory could be a little faded on this topic). The championship teams from that period would absolutely decimate todays teams. It would be like pro versus college. I may be partial to that era as well because the NFC East was absolutely dominant. By having the major free spending teams like Dallas and Washington in the division, it makes the Giants a better team since they have to keep up. I'm not sure how ticket prices were affected by no cap during this period. Of course, by doing this, parity would go out the window to an extent. But I look at it this way, the Steelers won a bunch of SupaBows in the 70s, with no cap. GB won 'Bows, with no cap. Free spending does not instantly make you a good team. Look at the Skins for the last decade prior to this year. Maybe a luxary tax I could live with. Anyhoo, I don't really care which way this all goes. Upshaw and Tags are not as stupid as Gary Bettman, so I have no doubt an agreement will be reached. The sky is falling talk is all posturing. I simply don't get the bad vibes from this that I got pre-hockey lockout.

I'm all for doing away with the cap, and returning to 80s style football. That being said, an agreement will be struck soon. Upshaw is being a drama queen.