What could an uncapped 2010 season mean for the Bears?
I thought we'd take this afternoon to get a little bit of a break from hating most of the coaching staff and all of the front office to talk about a big-picture item that everyone's heard something about, but not everyone really understands the impact of.
There's a lot of talk lately about what happens if 2010 is truly a cap-free year, and what happens if there's a lockout in '11. While the lockout is a beast altogether, there are several ways the lack of a cap could really affect the league. While this is not the most in-depth review of the subject you'll see, I've tried to cover a lot of bases. (Side Note: Have you ever tried reading the collective bargaining agreement? It is simultaneously the most boring, yet somehow interesting, yet frustrating document I've ever attempted to read.)
Let's take a look at how it affects some groups in the NFL, and our beloved Bears, after the jump...
Rookies
Generally speaking, Rookies can stand to lose pretty big. In an uncapped year, owners will be particularly hesitant to shell out big-time cash to college studs who are unproven in the NFL. Given the lack of overall first round reliability (see: Ki-Jana Carter, Ryan Leaf, Cedric Benson, many, many others) owners would much rather pay the extra money for proven talent. That being said, it can affect rookies multiple ways. The obvious, it takes away their potential to earn the big bucks, reducing the salaries they may have gotten in recent years past. They can't demand the big bucks the way Michael Crabtree did, because the first few signs of refusal will cause teams to look elsewhere. Those who think they might not get picked in the first place may continue their education and not declare altogether.
The item that's often not mentioned is that, while the money's out there and getting good, elite juniors may skip their senior year, and try to grab while the grabbing's good. This could work out for them, especially as the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is likely to include a rookie salary cap. In an uncapped year, the "slotting" system of the draft, where the biggest money goes to the earliest picks, could go out the window. You could get a guy at pick #4 getting paid more than the guy at #1. While I'm sure this would blow everyone's mind, it's definitely possible.
Free Agents
Free agents get bit in numerous ways. On one hand, those who are truly unrestricted free agents stand to possibly make a huge payday. The problem with that is the uncapped year rules states that free agents have to have six years in, instead of four. That is to say, truly unrestricted free agents have to have accrued six years in the league before they can go anywhere they want. Otherwise, free agents will be restricted, allowing teams right of first refusal for many players. This still causes the lingering problem--teams can offer the restricted free agent whatever they want, and if a team wants to retain it's top talent, it may have to pay to match, which isn't something a lot of teams will want to do. (There's a team in Chicago that doesn't like to spend money that springs to mind.) This could hurt some teams.
Realistically, what is much more likely, though, and something people don't realize--a lot of owners will like the idea of cutting payroll. During the uncapped year there's not a minimum or maximum. Most people realize there's no maximum, but few realize that there is no minimum. It's highly possible that the windfall of ridiculous payments to players doesn't happen.
In addition, teams would get to use an additional two "tags" during the uncapped year. This will reduce the free agent pool as teams can lock down an extra player at average salaries for their position. This will lead to young guys who signed four or five year deals not making it to unrestricted, and older veterans getting "tagged."
In other words, the free agent pool should be much smaller in an uncapped year.
Owners
Owners can actually stand to benefit some, but not much. It's not a secret that many rosters are full of average-quality players who make too much money. These are the biggest hindrances of the salary cap--be they veterans whose skills have diminished(Olin Kreutz?), or guys who had a few good years, got the big deal(*cough* Tommie Harris *cough*), and then went downhill. (Or got the big deal and busted right away....Cedric)
Owners will likely look to be reducing roster pay, and implementing their own personal "caps". These limits they impose could be much lower than the limits now. Older, injury prone veterans stand to lose a lot, and be nearly unsignable, as teams won't want to pay the big contracts, and can't handle the liability that big up-front contracts cover.
The other benefit to the uncapped year is the ability to dump salary counting against the cap. If they have a player who's scheduled to hit large against the cap, but only have a small guaranteed amount, this is the time they'd be able to dump them without having to take the big hit. This could be the key for some teams to get rid of their albatross. (Also known as "Jamarcus Russell")
This isn't to say that there will be no team that goes spending crazy--someone likely will.(I'm looking at you, NFC East). Just that there's a chance that shelling out tons of cash isn't going to get them anywhere.
Fans
Finally, fans don't get a fair shake, either. The chances are good that small market, cost-conscious teams could easily field some inferior teams to cut payroll. That's just not fun. In addition the general loss of talent and personnel shift could keep teams from being able to improve themselves even if they want to.
The Bears
This part is completely open to debate. In a time like this, it could be the time the Bears step to the forefront and try to fix some problems. It could be the time they try to improve the bottom line. I'd put more hypotheses here, but honestly, every time I think I know what this franchise does, it does something that either confuses me to the point of anger, or puts some kind of false hope in me.
----
I haven't covered all of the ramifications here, as the "final 8" plan could take a whole post by itself(It's the way that they keep the playoff teams from making themselves even better), but this can help you guide yourself, as you're going to start to hear about this more and more when the season ends. It could very well become a moot point, but it's worth discussing, and a nice distraction from the inept, lackluster, heartless play on the field lately.
2 recs |
23 comments
|
Comments
I just rec'd this for two reasons.
One, Patience, and two, I hate IE.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
Yeah, what he said.
Got a little bit of a spacing code inserted in there. It only affected Internet Explorer. You’re fine. Read away.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
So here's what I understand about the uncapped year.
Due to the 4 year requirement becoming 6 years and teams getting 2 franchise tags, the free agent pool becomes much smaller and much less talented. In addition, teams will be able to cut players without taking a cap hit, adding more garbage to the free agent pool while simultaneously loosening teams budget restrictions. So as a result, teams will have a lot more money to spend but a lot less to spend it on, meaning we’re going to see a lot of mediocre players get drastically overpaid.
Did I get that right?
To a large degree...sorta.
Teams actually have 3 tags to use—one franchise, and two transitions. Franchise being the one we all know and love, where they have to pay based on the salaries of others at that position.
The Transition tags are kind of their way of making unrestricted free agents restricted. It gives the club right of first refusal to any player who’s tagged. This means of the truly unrestricted free agents, the best of the best will likely get the transition tags.
As far as the mediocre players getting drastically overpaid, that sort of depends on which clubs. The freewheeling money clubs like Washington and Dallas will likely overpay some mediocre players. For the most part I expect the market to even itself out fairly well. (fingers crossed)
Not all players cut will necessarily be garbage, but they’ll go into the free agent pool and have their salaries adjusted to what they should’ve been all along, for the most part. In the long run it should bode well for owners, as salaries will level themselves out a bit, and they should be set up for whatever new CBA they come up with later on.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
Rookies
Couldn’t rookies stand to bennefit from this? I mean, with the additional tags and smaller free agent pool won’t the small market teams have to completely rely on the draft to improve? I would think it would make it easier for a top pick to hold out since the team will have few other options.
Yes and no.
That’s where it gets the trickiest. This is likely the last time the rookies will have a chance to earn those big contracts(given the strong possibility of the rookie salary cap), and some very likely will.
However, large contracts for unproven talent will make owners skittish in some instances. If I can get an average player with experience for three million a year, or I can pay an unproven young kid three million a year, but I also have to give him a sixteen million signing bonus….I’m going to think harder about that average player.
That’s not to say that there won’t be rookies who get big contracts, but I think we’ll find that a lot of players don’t get quite as good a deal as they would’ve in the middle years of the CBA.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
Hmmm
Yeah but how much of a cap are we talking about? Has that been discussed at all? I don’t seem to see that anywhere.
I haven't seen much talk of a solid number anywhere I've looked.
but league-wide over the past year or two, ownership and front offices have been discussing how they draft system is pricing itself out of existence. (some supporting evidence here)
They don’t like giving money to players who haven’t earned it any more than we like seeing money go to players who haven’t earned it, but both side definitely has their points.
In the linked article, (granted, nearly two years old) the NFLPA took a pretty hard stance against it, arguing that rookie contracts then set up veteran pay scales later on. While I could see this being somewhat true, I would think they’ll bend on that point to some degree (and likely feeling is they will)
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
Given that signing bonuses are prorated over the life of a contract
so as not to take up all of the cap space in one year, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the signing bonuses would be affected as well.
I don’t think the inherent idea is to cap rookies off to save money—I think it’s to spread the wealth around the player pool a bit.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
I was wondering also...
Since it is an uncapped year, can a team use this time to do a roster purge?
Can, say the Bears, drop players without having to pay a contract and take no hit?
That’s not true!!! WHY THE F*CK WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU AHOLE!! Ok maybe your right but you gotta give a little something here for it to work. I don’t know what I’m going to do this is the worst thing I’ve ever read, this day could not get any worse. Fine, F*ck it, you’re right.
by Ditkavsworld
Rookies are not uncapped
At least, maybe not. See this article by SI’s Don Banks.
Basically, there is currently a rookie salary pool/cap in place in the NFL, which says that teams can only spend a certain amount of money total on their rookies. And even if there is an uncapped year, the CBA gives the owners the option of keeping the rookie pool (or not). If they keep it, then rookies will be bound by the same rules as always.
I see this working out a lot like the MLB.
Big, premium names will be bought by big market teams who can offer huge signing bonuses. While some mid-market teams will get to keep their players with the franchise and transition tags, smaller market teams won’t, because they won’t have the cash to pay 3 players contracts worth the top guys in the league.
If the rookie pool does stay, there won’t be many changes. In fact, I see a lot of juniors declaring before a rookie cap is instituted. If the rookie pool doesn’t stay, again it will be like the MLB. You will see some small market teams trade out of the top 5 or 10 because they won’t be able to afford risking huge money like that. Big market teams will know that, and screw the small market teams out of a good deal when they try and trade down.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how I see it.
I agree with part.
There may be a lot of Juniors that try to come out, but again, teams, especially the smaller market teams that end up with early draft picks, will be hesitant to open their wallets to unproven even younger guys.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
Nice work Kev!
Question…If a team wants to sign a restricted free agent, is there a draft pick involved as compensation to the other team? Ex…Bears make an offer for Brandon Marshall, who will be a restricted free agent. Broncos don’t match our offer for say $8mil per season. What, if any, draft pick do the Bears give the Broncos?
I believe that it's like an other restricted scenario
I haven’t seen any words suggesting otherwise anywhere. Depends on the tender by the original team, among others factors. For example:
Team declining to match offer sheet. Carolina Panthers cornerback Ricky Manning, Jr. was a restricted free agent in the 2006 offseason. Based on the tender placed on Manning by the Panthers, the team would receive a third-round pick in the NFL Draft if Manning signed with another team. On April 21, the Chicago Bears signed Manning to an offer sheet – a five-year contract worth up to $23 million. Although the Panthers had a full week to decide if they wanted to match the offer sheet, they announced on April 24 that they would not match. At this time, Manning became a member of the Bears and the Panthers received a third-round draft choice in the 2006 draft from Chicago.
I haven’t seen any wording suggesting it’s different, but if I do I’ll definitely come back to here and addend it.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves

by 































