NFL uncapped -- Good or bad in your eyes?

Definitely helps the Redskins so I like it. I think most teams have money and fans that will support them so they can afford to get some players if there were no cap. I don't see it becoming baseball, firstly because it is more popular and also because there is more parity in football than baseball. Any given Sunday with any weird bounce the game can change and emotion/intensity is much more of a factor.

I don't think it's as simple as "there's no cap, go spend freely." There are a lot of triggers in place that really limit team's ability to spend in an uncapped year, for one thing the number of unrestricted free agents will be greatly reduced. Also, I'm pretty certain there are other owners out there who will spend as much, if not more than, as Snyder with no cap.

I don't think it's as simple as "there's no cap, go spend freely." There are a lot of triggers in place that really limit team's ability to spend in an uncapped year, for one thing the number of unrestricted free agents will be greatly reduced. Also, I'm pretty certain there are other owners out there who will spend as much, if not more than, as Snyder with no cap.

But isn't that a good thing? Player movement is one of my, and other fans I believe, biggest gripes. I hate to see the constant rotation of players from team to team. A player gets developed and then gets lost to another team. Oh well, time to mothball another jersey. Every year we see "salary cap casualties". I'm not looking for us to go and try to buy a championship like the Yankees, but I would like to see us be able to spend freely to keep our own players. To me, the salary cap and unrestricted free agents have led to impatience and lack of development of players. Hell if things don't work out we can always sign a FA. As has been mentioned before, some teams don't even spend what they're allowed. Some only spend what they HAVE to because there is a floor. I personally don't care what they spend or what their motivation is, but an owner who wants to win championships shouldn't be financially restricted from doing so. You should be able to pay your players what you want, and without so many UFA's there would be less movement and players holding your team hostage because someone else is now offering you more money and you're free to go with no obligation to the team that drafted and developed you. Rozelle wanted parity and now we've got one of the cheapest owners in the NFL with his team in the Super Bowl (Cardinals). Fine. The players and coaches earned it. But I don't want my owner restricted in what he can spend so we can be on an even keel with the Bidwells of the NFL. Why should the weakest link set the standard that we should go by?

But isn't that a good thing? Player movement is one of my, and other fans I believe, biggest gripes. I hate to see the constant rotation of players from team to team. A player gets developed and then gets lost to another team. Oh well, time to mothball another jersey. Every year we see "salary cap casualties". I'm not looking for us to go and try to buy a championship like the Yankees, but I would like to see us be able to spend freely to keep our own players. To me, the salary cap and unrestricted free agents have led to impatience and lack of development of players. Hell if things don't work out we can always sign a FA. As has been mentioned before, some teams don't even spend what they're allowed. Some only spend what they HAVE to because there is a floor. I personally don't care what they spend or what their motivation is, but an owner who wants to win championships shouldn't be financially restricted from doing so. You should be able to pay your players what you want, and without so many UFA's there would be less movement and players holding your team hostage because someone else is now offering you more money and you're free to go with no obligation to the team that drafted and developed you. Rozelle wanted parity and now we've got one of the cheapest owners in the NFL with his team in the Super Bowl (Cardinals). Fine. The players and coaches earned it. But I don't want my owner restricted in what he can spend so we can be on an even keel with the Bidwells of the NFL. Why should the weakest link set the standard that we should go by?

All good points. All I was trying to say is there is a misconception among many fans that the rules of free agency will be exactly the same without a cap so the only difference would be that the owners could spend whatever they want. And for Redskins fans, that means Snyder can go out and get any free agent out there. But, as I said, because of several triggers in the clause that would impact free agency, that scenario is kind of utopian.

I don't think it's as simple as "there's no cap, go spend freely." There are a lot of triggers in place that really limit team's ability to spend in an uncapped year, for one thing the number of unrestricted free agents will be greatly reduced. Also, I'm pretty certain there are other owners out there who will spend as much, if not more than, as Snyder with no cap.

Exactly. People seem to think that with an uncapped year everything will stay the same as it is now with free agency. Teams in essence get a 2nd franchise type tag, it takes longer for drafted players to hit FA, etc. Teams will have a MUCH easier time retaining players. In my opinion and uncapped league makes drafting MUCH more important. For instance, before the salary cap era, how much player movement was there? Hardly any I believe.

I do think we'll see an increase in trades since you won't be wrecking your cap for years to come by trading players around.

If the current CBA expires, do the triggers contained in it and referenced above (i.e. 2nd franchise tag, longer time before becoming an UFA, etc) run until a new agreement is signed? Or do they expire after a set number of years?

If the current CBA expires, do the triggers contained in it and referenced above (i.e. 2nd franchise tag, longer time before becoming an UFA, etc) run until a new agreement is signed? Or do they expire after a set number of years?

I think the former

in all reality its a bad thing. the competion would dwindle and the skins would be like the yankees getting everyone that they could which doesnt always work but it make other teams horrible. fans wouldnt go to the games where small market teams are cuz there would be no point an than you would have teams going bankrupt cuz the cash isnt flowing NOT GOOD. just increase the salary cap for now like 15 more mill.

Bad!

There needs to be a minimum salary cap as well. These low spending teams take all the television and ticket money and leave it in their pocket.