Jump to content
SportsWrath

The NFL Nuclear Winter is upon us. THE CBA Discussion


Recommended Posts

Something I dont understand is the uncapped year of 2007. So there will be salary cap and teams are free to spend whatever they want? Gene Upshaw has started that if this comes to be (uncapped year), don't ever expect a salary cap again. How could the do this? I think the NFL is making a big mistake. Sometimes you have to give in to the other sides demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jets will probably cut Mawae said WFAN yesterday.....Giants are 21st in Revenue ranking.....I dislike the cap...Patriots have won 3 of 5 anyway...fuck parity I want the best teams money can buy on the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Something I dont understand is the uncapped year of 2007. So there will be salary cap and teams are free to spend whatever they want? Gene Upshaw has started that if this comes to be (uncapped year), don't ever expect a salary cap again. How could the do this? I think the NFL is making a big mistake. Sometimes you have to give in to the other sides demands.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff guy!!

 

So we are a day closer and talks have broken off again!!!

 

I expect there now will be no CBA. That means this year (Friday morning at 12.01) there will be a low cap 94.5 mill and then 2007 will be NO CAP. It is a plar opposite thing we are facing.

 

As everyone is saying...the players need to tell Upshaw to sign. They have the most to lose out of all of this. I don't see why they don't get it. No Cap, no insurance (can you imaging the insurance premiums on these guys...and they will have to do it themselves!!), 6 years before you are a free agent....I mean surely this has to sink in!!

 

Keep in mind...Upshaw is not the bible on Player representaion. When there is no CBA then where does that leave him in the scheme of things...NO WHERE. He has no position as he curerntly knows it. There are no players to represent...and more importantly ANYONE else is free to represent groups of players. As he said himself the NFLPA will be decertified.

 

Echo you are dead right. The quality of DT that will be available by tomrorow will be MUCH better than Clancy!! EA needs to take a chill pill and watch the blood flow.

 

It is going to be a hell of a wake up tomorrow!!

Edited by AussieGiant
Link to post
Share on other sites

It good to see EA say this on BBI.

 

"We don't know the cap count," Accorsi said. "We're preparing for every possibility. I'm preparing for the worst case. We have a plan for every number in one-half a percentage point increments. We know what we'll do if it's $92 (million), we know if we know if it's $92.5 (million), all the way up. We've been prepared all along."

 

That is very comforting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

 

Since when can Jamaar Taylor return punts?

 

According to Accorsi, the Giants have closer to $6 million in cap space. That's more than enough to bring back inexpensive guys like Morton, Tyree, and Whitfield and have space left over to bring in a couple solid FAs.

 

Address starting holes in the draft? Please ... you cannot seriously accept that as a reasonable course of action. Also, it appears as though our starters at OLB (Emmons and Torbor) are already in place for 2006.

 

Good point about some hidden positives in the lack of a salary cap: teams can essentially erase salary mistakes in 2007, as there would not be ramifications.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Clayton is wrong, but the site you linked to (authoredd by ttb) is an excellent resource.

 

Giants beat writers recently reported the Giants to have approximately $6 million in cap space. I tend to believe Accorsi leaked to them, as is his custom, which is why I expect their report to be more accurate than Clayton's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clayton is wrong, but the site you linked to (authoredd by ttb) is an excellent resource.

 

Giants beat writers recently reported the Giants to have approximately $6 million in cap space. I tend to believe Accorsi leaked to them, as is his custom, which is why I expect their report to be more accurate than Clayton's.

 

ttb has verified all of clayton's #s today on bbi.

Edited by echochamber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clayton has just updated cap #s. He has the Giants now listed at $5.8 mil under. Money was money on that one. With that revision, I would now take a DT, S, backup QB or vet CB in FA, LB, HB and whatever else in the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to keep the cap simply from preventing the chance of us becoming a lower tier team by spending money during the new stadium's building and for other teams to get stronger during that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys so we are a day further along and FA has been delayed until Monday.

 

This is getting very interesting.

 

Echo,

 

You really don't seem to like owners hey :P

 

I personally think the NFL is much better than Baseball and the NBL. I stopped watching the NBL because of the whole labour striking and lack of cap.

 

As for baseball, well you have no real competition due to the economics of the situation...and ECONOMICS should not be preventing competition...it is after all a SPORT not a goddamn Pty/Ltd internationally listed company.

 

I'm not saying that these sports aren't a business, BUT I am saying these sports shoud govern themselves to the extent that economics don't determine the outcome before a ball is even on the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok guys so we are a day further along and FA has been delayed until Monday.

 

This is getting very interesting.

 

Echo,

 

You really don't seem to like owners hey :P

 

I personally think the NFL is much better than Baseball and the NBL. I stopped watching the NBL because of the whole labour striking and lack of cap.

 

As for baseball, well you have no real competition due to the economics of the situation...and ECONOMICS should not be preventing competition...it is after all a SPORT not a goddamn Pty/Ltd internationally listed company.

 

I'm not saying that these sports aren't a business, BUT I am saying these sports shoud govern themselves to the extent that economics don't determine the outcome before a ball is even on the field.

 

 

 

I totally agree !! In baseball you can only think of a hand full of teams that will compete.

 

If you dont have a system that gives all teams a fair economic chance to get the players

that they need to compete than the sport has lost its equality and balance.

 

I dont watch the NBA or MLBaseball because of that reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...