PDA

View Full Version : This years FA and next years uncapped FA



steeler_george
02-25-2009, 02:13 PM
I was just thinking, wouldn't it be smarter for a FA this year to sign a one year deal, to cash in on next years FA?

Is that what Stark was thinking?

If so, I could see our and other's FA doing that move...

Take for example Washington, we all agree that he dramatically improved over the years, lots of potential, but still a lot of questions loom over him. His drops, would he be able to handle the 2nd WR (sort of disappeared when Ward /Holmes were out)

Iron Shiek
02-25-2009, 02:20 PM
I was just thinking, wouldn't it be smarter for a FA this year to sign a one year deal, to cash in on next years FA?

Is that what Stark was thinking?

If so, I could see our and other's FA doing that move...

Take for example Washington, we all agree that he dramatically improved over the years, lots of potential, but still a lot of questions loom over him. His drops, would he be able to handle the 2nd WR (sort of disappeared when Ward /Holmes were out)


If you are referring to "uncapped year" or non-CBA NFL, then they would have to consider how many years of service in the league they have though. You wouldn't become an UFA until your 6th year of service under next year's rules (as opposed to becoming an UFA until you fulfill 4 years of service).

RuthlessBurgher
02-25-2009, 02:21 PM
And Starks wasn't thinking anything. Max had no choice in the matter. The team placed the transition tag on him last year and the franchise tag on him this year. He didn't request it or anything like that.

steeler_george
02-25-2009, 02:35 PM
[quote="steeler_george":1tuhx6r3]I was just thinking, wouldn't it be smarter for a FA this year to sign a one year deal, to cash in on next years FA?

Is that what Stark was thinking?

If so, I could see our and other's FA doing that move...

Take for example Washington, we all agree that he dramatically improved over the years, lots of potential, but still a lot of questions loom over him. His drops, would he be able to handle the 2nd WR (sort of disappeared when Ward /Holmes were out)


If you are referring to "uncapped year" or non-CBA NFL, then they would have to consider how many years of service in the league they have though. You wouldn't become an UFA until your 6th year of service under next year's rules (as opposed to becoming an UFA until you fulfill 4 years of service).[/quote:1tuhx6r3]

:Agree sort of lost me...

Help me out here, in 2010 a team can pay any FA any amount they desire, right? Or, is there still going to be restrictions to their pay.

Iron Shiek
02-25-2009, 02:40 PM
It truly is uncapped. So owners can pay what they want to the players. However the restrictions come in on "who" will be free agents. There are a ton of stipulations that come up regarding the rules on which players are UFAs and which teams are allowed to sign players.

Check out this thread:

http://www.planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5638

I posted some good articles by Pat Kirwan that lays out the major differences between capped and uncapped.

RuthlessBurgher
02-25-2009, 02:48 PM
And a new CBA could still be worked out in the mean time, because I don't think either side necessary wants to work under the uncapped scenario. I don't think we will see an uncapped year...it is just a hurdle that is there to try to get everyone back to the bargaining table.

Oviedo
02-25-2009, 02:49 PM
Interesting will be the teams that sign a bunch of players under the "uncapped" rules and then the NFL and players a year later agree on a CBA and then those teams are all over the new cap.

I'd like to see a new CBA with a rookie Salary structure like the NBA and the ability of team to exempt one or two long term veterans (5-7+ years with the same team) from the team's cap calculation.

If they don't get a new CBA this will become a big mess just like MLB.

RuthlessBurgher
02-25-2009, 04:05 PM
Interesting will be the teams that sign a bunch of players under the "uncapped" rules and then the NFL and players a year later agree on a CBA and then those teams are all over the new cap.

I'd like to see a new CBA with a rookie Salary structure like the NBA and the ability of team to exempt one or two long term veterans (5-7+ years with the same team) from the team's cap calculation.

If they don't get a new CBA this will become a big mess just like MLB.

I doubt we will see the Larry Bird rule in the NFL, but there definitely needs to be a re-working of the rookie salary structure. Picking at the top of the draft is more of a burden than an advantage due to the obscene level of compensation for those top rookies (no unproven rookie should get a salary commensurate with an All-Pro veteran in his prime, which tends to be the case now with top 5 picks).

LasVegasGuy
02-25-2009, 05:26 PM
And Starks wasn't thinking anything. Max had no choice in the matter. The team placed the transition tag on him last year and the franchise tag on him this year. He didn't request it or anything like that.


I think the NFL needs to consider changing the name of "Franchise tag" to "trying to sign tag"


Franchise + Starks = Oxymoron. This guy is hardly someone we can't live without.

TallyStiller
02-25-2009, 08:57 PM
We shouldn't kid ourselves. There won't be an uncapped year - once that happens, they won't be able to get a cap back in place. The union is in complete disarray after Gene Upshaw's death. Leaderless union + owners set against no cap = lockout. It is, I fear, almost inevitable at this point. The rest of the league doesn't want to see Jerry and Snyderbrenner go Yankees and Red Sawx on them, and there's nobody on the union side to even begin to negotiate with. Many owners thought the last deal was a bad one rammed through on them at the 11th hour by Tagliabue in an effort to avoid a legacy damaging strike... but he likely only delayed the inevitable. Unless the union gets it's act together, there may not BE a 2010 season.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
02-26-2009, 10:54 AM
I'd like to see a new CBA with a rookie Salary structure like the NBA

I agree, and I don't see how this can be an issue. Obviously, it is something the owners will want. At this point many owners don't want to be picking at the top because of the high cap figures associated with the gamble.

And the union shouldn't want it. The union represents players who are in the NFL, not college players yet. Those who are already in the league should want lower cap values on rooks so that there is more to go around to them. If the union opposes this then it is grandstanding for the sake of creating conflict with the owners. They might want to use it as a bargaining chip to get more elsewhere, but both sides should eventually agree on this.

Ironically, the only ones who should be opposed to it are franchises like the Steelers. Teams who rarely pick in the top 10. They get to sit back and watch teams like Cleveland hold their breath every year as they hand out another monsterous signing bonus and pray that the player can live up to it. A bad signing of a top draft pick can damage a team for years to come.