Next year "uncapped"?

[NC Steeler Fan]

Am I hearing that right?

I swear I've heard several comments on NFLN about next year
being an upcapped salary year?

If that's true, what does it mean?

Thanks for any insights!

[Iron Shiek]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Just what it says. No salary cap. Teams can sign the big name Free Agents next year to even bigger contracts if they want. But there are so many intricate rules that I have no clue about regarding Restricted Free Agents and even Unrestricted Free Agents under an "uncapped year". In any event, that has to be factored into the Steelers FO's decision making THIS YEAR because our guys like Harrison/Heath/Woodley who are due to be extended soon have to get taken care of. But I've mentioned on other threads that if they take up all the money the Steelers can muster, where does it leave us at LT (assuming Max doesn't sign a long term deal like I hope he does).

[NC Steeler Fan]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Okay wait, only FA can be signed at uncapped amounts?

Soooo, that means we could resign our own FA without a cap?

Sorry, I am not trying to be dense...just wondering about football
stuff in the middle of an otherwise already busy day!

[Iron Shiek]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Here is a pretty good link that has some of the ramifications:

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-05-20-owners-labor-deal_N.htm[/url]

I didn't know that you can designate 2 players with Franchise/Transition tags under the 2010 rules if the CBA isn't reached.

[Iron Shiek]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Here's one more. Pat Kirwan really breaks it down here. He actually contends that Free Agency will probably be LIMITED rather than some crazy spending spree, so who knows. The rules are very finnicky.

Like the one that is weird is that the final 8 playoff teams are not allowed to sign Free Agents unless they lose one to free agency. And they can't sign them for more money than the player they lost signed for. Weird.

[url]http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d808736ba&template=with-video&confirm=true[/url]

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

It is by no means a guarantee, and I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. The uncapped year scenario is something I think pretty much everyone wants to avoid. It is basically an impetus to get everyone back to the bargaining table to hammer out a new CBA to prevent a potential work stoppage in 2011 (I think). The players union has said that if they go uncapped, the players will not accept a salary cap back again, so the owners d@mn well better work out their differences between the haves in Dallas and Washington and the have-nots in Buffalo and Cincinnatti and everyone in between. Of course, the player's association also still has to figure out who their long-term leader will be (Gene Upshaw died last off-season, so it is about time they work this out).

[Iron Shiek]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

I don't know though, reading this, why would player association not actually WANT the salary cap? Players have to wait 6 years under the new agreement to be eligible for unrestricted free agency instead of 4. They wait longer to get the big 2nd contract players covet. This is the best breakdown I've seen:

[url]http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true[/url]

Uncapped years would actually limit free agency
By Pat Kirwan | NFL.com
Senior Analyst


Now that NFL owners have voted unanimously to end their agreement with the players' union in 2011, they still have all of 2008 and 2009 to negotiate a new CBA before the "trigger" points that are in place to encourage negotiations would fire and things wouldn't be as we know them today.

The one factor fans have heard the most about is that 2010 and 2011 would be "uncapped" years. But there are three main trigger points that will go off in 2010 if there isn't a new CBA in place, and they may offset the fear of life with no salary cap. They are: 1) free agency will require six years of service (instead of four years in 2010 and five years in 2011); 2) teams will have three tags to use to restrict free agents instead of one tag, as they do now; and 3) teams that go deep in the playoffs could have some spending restrictions.


Lisa Blumenfeld / Getty Images
DeMeco Ryans would be a highly sought after free agent if he hit the market in 2010.

Let's take a look at the practical side of these three concepts to get a better understanding of just what they mean to the players and the clubs:

Longer to hit free agency
To get a clearer picture, let's see what this year's free-agency period would have looked like if players needed more than four years of service to reach the open market.

Let's start with the Tennessee Titans. They lost defensive ends Travis LaBoy (Arizona) and Antwan Odom (Cincinnati) as well as guard Jacob Bell (St. Louis). The three players signed for a combined total of $87.5 million ($32 million guaranteed). If the extension on time to free agency was in place, none of these players would have been free. All of them had just four years of service and would have remained Titans for upwards of two more years. The Titans would have probably changed their draft strategy and not gone after defensive linemen Jason Jones or William Hayes and could have taken a receiver or a corner.

Other players that never would have seen a big payday: Michael Turner, who signed a $34.5 million deal ($15 million guaranteed) with Atlanta, would still be LaDainian Tomlinson's backup in San Diego; Gibril Wilson would still be a Giant; D.J. Hackett a Seahawk.

Teams have gotten very smart about the type of players they pay in free agency. They target young players four or five years removed from college that are approaching the big second contract in their careers. That group would be eliminated if teams vote not to continue the current CBA and it gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011.

All you have to do to realize how lean the free agent market will be is go back and look at all the players from the 2005 draft who signed five-year deals, all the players from the 2006 draft who signed four-year deals and even players from the 2007 draft who signed four-year deals. None of these players, under the non-CBA trigger points, would be eligible for unrestricted free agency when their originals contracts expire. Here are some examples of whom it might affect if the owners choose not to continue the current CBA and a new CBA isn't negotiated:

Second-round picks from 2006 such as DeMeco Ryans, D'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh, Thomas Howard, Deuce Lutui, LenDale White, Cedric Griffin, Marcus McNeill, Greg Jennings, and Tarvaris Jackson should be the core of the free-agent market in 2010, but unless they have the ability to "void" their contracts, they will not be free as planned. They would stay with their teams as restricted free agents and it might mean two more years of service before they experience the big payday.

The 2007 draft, especially in the second and third rounds, already has a number of budding stars such as Justin Blalock, Trent Edwards, Eric Wright, James Jones, Tony Ugoh, Samson Satele, Sidney Rice, Steve Smith, David Harris, Zach Miller, LaMarr Woodley, Brandon Mebane, and Arron Sears, to name a few. All are scheduled to be free in 2011, but all would fall short of the five years of service required under the trigger points.

There are at least another 30 to 50 quality young players from later rounds of the '06 and '07 drafts who will not see free agency -- players such as Elvis Dumervil, Willie Colon, Dawan Landry, and Antoine Bethea from 2006, and Marshal Yanda, Kevin Boss, Michael Bush, Cliff Ryan, and Tanard Jackson from '07.

Three tags instead of one
Currently, a team can put either a franchise tag (average of the top five salaries at his position) or a transition tag (average of the top ten salaries at his position) on any one player on the club to protect the team from losing the unrestricted free agent. If the NFL gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011, teams will have use of one franchise tag and two transition tags. So not only would none of the young players with less than six years of service be free, but now the top three players who are eligible for free agency on a roster can be protected.

If this situation existed in 2008, a team like Pittsburgh -- which used a transition tag to retain OT Max Starks -- could have also tagged Alan Faneca with either a transition or franchise tag if it so desired. If every team in the league used one or two tags, not even the three they would possess, it could take another 40 quality free agents off the market.

There is speculation teams would not overuse this trigger because so many of their quality younger players would not be free to depart.

Playoff restrictions
If the league gets to the point of an uncapped year, people are afraid that deep-pocket owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder will come in and buy a championship. If the aggressive owners already have playoff teams, there will be restrictions on how much money they can spend. The formula may slide with the number of players they lose in free agency, but the plan is designed to not let teams buy a championship. The truth is, the first two triggers aren't going to leave too many players available to acquire anyway.

Time will tell, but I think the NFL and the NFLPA will negotiate a new CBA before we ever get to 2010. I also believe a number of the players looking at the prospect of 2010 and 2011 being uncapped and preventing them from being free agents will try to sign long-term extensions with their teams in the near future.

And don't think all the trigger points favor the clubs, because there are other things -- like the end of the NFL draft in 2011 -- which the league doesn't necessarily want to see. And the emergence of a new league could complicate matters. If the owners decide not to continue the CBA this week, all is not lost. There is time, and there are triggers in place, to get this solved.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Yeah...none of that should happen...there are too many negatives on both sides. They will get working on the new CBA to prevent this. Could you imagine no draft? If teams were just bidding on all of the rookies (like they do with the UDFA's that don't get taken in the 7 rounds now)? Ugh...what a mess this all would be (although there would be no more mock drafts, so I'm sure some of you would like that! )

[Mister Pittsburgh]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

I read somewhere that a lot of the assistant coaches are being signed to one and two year deals recently in case there is a lockout. They don't want to be paying an entire coaching staff to have nobody to coach. I guess from what the article said they will keep some people to prepare for the draft but not an entire staff. I forget where i read that but will post the link if i think of it.

[Iron Shiek]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Yeah...none of that should happen...there are too many negatives on both sides. They will get working on the new CBA to prevent this. Could you imagine no draft? If teams were just bidding on all of the rookies (like they do with the UDFA's that don't get taken in the 7 rounds now)? Ugh...what a mess this all would be (although there would be no more mock drafts, so I'm sure some of you would like that! )

Well it seems the NFLPA would need a leader before they can start negotiating. I wonder what has taken so long to select Upshaw's successor.

But I agree with you RB...I see no way that anybody wants any of this to happen. NO DRAFT???? What would Mel Kiper do then? ESPN would have no choice but to fire his a$$ since that is all he does for them... Maybe with no draft he can get something right for a change.

[Steelgal]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

What would Mel Kiper do then?

Maybe he'll have to time to find a real barber and get a new doo

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

I read somewhere that a lot of the assistant coaches are being signed to one and two year deals recently in case there is a lockout. They don't want to be paying an entire coaching staff to have nobody to coach. I guess from what the article said they will keep some people to prepare for the draft but not an entire staff. I forget where i read that but will post the link if i think of it.

They were talking about that on Sirius NFL Radio yesterday, but the hosts pooh-poohed it, saying that except in the case of a select few "lifers" (think guys like LeBeau or Indy O.C. Tom Moore), two year deals for assistant coaches are pretty much standard practice, so thinking that these types of contracts are because of a potential lockout is just some reporter making a big deal out of essentially nothing.

[Iron Shiek]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

I read somewhere that a lot of the assistant coaches are being signed to one and two year deals recently in case there is a lockout. They don't want to be paying an entire coaching staff to have nobody to coach. I guess from what the article said they will keep some people to prepare for the draft but not an entire staff. I forget where i read that but will post the link if i think of it.

They were talking about that on Sirius NFL Radio yesterday, but the hosts pooh-poohed it, saying that except in the case of a select few "lifers" (think guys like LeBeau or Indy O.C. Tom Moore), two year deals for assistant coaches are pretty much standard practice, so thinking that these types of contracts are because of a potential lockout is just some reporter making a big deal out of essentially nothing.

A.K.A

[NC Steeler Fan]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Gee, I'm glad I asked the question, I learned a lot!

Thanks guys!

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: Next year "uncapped"?

Gee, I'm glad I asked the question, I learned a lot!

Thanks guys!

Yeah, like we know what we are talking about here. If we are your trusted source for information on collective bargaining negotiations...yikes!