CBA and Uncapped 2010 Season

if there IS a CBA Extension AND a salary cap in 2009, then we have some problems:

1. Haynesworth's cap number is something like 23M, if i remember correctly.

2. Rogers and Campbell both become free agents. Assuming we wanted to keep one or both of them, what could we do? If we had the cap space, we could extend one and franchise the other... but considering the franchise tag for either of them would be north of 12M, and the cap figure in a contract for the other one of them would be 6-8M, then what could we do? Would we be forced to let them both walk for nothing?

Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.

Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.

Thanks for the info. I remember something about a huge roster bonus or something being paid in 2010... knowing his cap figure will only be 8.8M is wonderful... pretty much makes my other questions/concerns moot...

also, i know we started this offseason something like 10M over the projected cap (which has since risen), and we had to restructure and cut alot of guys to get under the cap. What youre saying is that - even with the new contracts of Haynesworth, Dockery, and Hall... and "dead weight" like Thomas and Jansen on the roster- we are still about 20M under the 2010 cap?

If true, thats incredible. In fact, we might be better of WITH a salary cap, because we would have plenty of room to extend some of our own guys (definitely Rogers, Montgommery and Golston, possibly Campbell) and have plenty of space to sign quality free agents who would actually be hitting the market instead of staying with thier 2009 teams because they didnt have the mandatory 6 years of league service.

The main benefit every team wants from an uncapped year is to get rid of dead weight contracts. But there was a very good quote from a GM (#3 in the article) that basically said - if teams are not writing contracts with one eye on an uncapped year they are being stupid. Every contract the Skins have written so far seems to include language specifically designed to protect the team either way.

Good God.

1) Hayneworth's cap number this year is $7.0. Next year it's $8.8. Not sure where the hell you got the $23.

2) In 2010 the team has $114 million in cap fees on the books. This year the cap limit is $127 million, and if there's a cap next year it will go up by $5-8 million and end up between $132 and $135 million. The 'Skins can easily keep Rogers and Campbell next year if they choose to do so, and that's without restructuring any of that existing $114 million.

3) The chances of there being a cap next year are becoming so small that it's almost not even worth discussing points 1 and 2 above.Haynesworth's contract does contain a $23m OB next year. It's fully guaranteed. Obviously, if there's a cap next year, it's going to be pro-rated. And obviously, if there's no cap, might as well just leave it as a 2010 option bonus. In which case, his real cap number would be in the ballpark of 30 million. And it wouldn't matter one bit.

I wouldn't say that having a cap next year is unlikely. I would say that no agreement and no cap essentially guarantees some sort of labor lockout in 2011.

The main benefit every team wants from an uncapped year is to get rid of dead weight contracts. But there was a very good quote from a GM (#3 in the article) that basically said - if teams are not writing contracts with one eye on an uncapped year they are being stupid. Every contract the Skins have written so far seems to include language specifically designed to protect the team either way.

Good, we can get rid off players who are just taking up space.

Is it possible to move future dead cap money into the uncapped year? There must be some way the Redskins can use it to get well.

Haynesworth's contract does contain a $23m OB next year. It's fully guaranteed. Obviously, if there's a cap next year, it's going to be pro-rated. And obviously, if there's no cap, might as well just leave it as a 2010 option bonus. In which case, his real cap number would be in the ballpark of 30 million. And it wouldn't matter one bit.

I wouldn't say that having a cap next year is unlikely. I would say that no agreement and no cap essentially guarantees some sort of labor lockout in 2011.


Sorry Im way out of the loop this year with the NFL, Why is it that their will be a labor lock out in 2011 as a result of no cap in 2010?

Sorry Im way out of the loop this year with the NFL, Why is it that their will be a labor lock out in 2011 as a result of no cap in 2010?The owners want a cap. The players are more towards hoping for an uncapped league, but still getting a new deal. IF we reach free agency next year without a cap, the players union has confirmed that they will not go back to having a cap.

Since some owners would just spend, spend, spend in 2010 once they weren't restricted to do so, and others would cut, cut, cut all of their overpayed talent that is currently protected by cap constraints, the most common scenario would be a simple stalemate where it's no longer the interests of the owners to give into the demands of the union. Since the union would have effectively lost their credible threat (the salary cap), there is no harm left for the owners, particularly the small market owners, to lockout the players.

The teams and stadiums are still asset for the owners. The players are expenses. With no CBA in place, it's incredibly profitable for the owners to not have players on payroll. Therefore, it's a lockout because the owners would have the leverage, abscent a CBA.

The best solution would be to come to an agreement to extend the cap before this time next year. Problem is, the players union doesn't feel that they should give up any of the benefits that they won back in 2006, and the Owners thought that deal was totally ridiculous and that Tags caved. The ONLY leverage the players union has to keep the gains they made in 2006 is that 85% of the owners want to prevent an uncapped year at all costs.

Dan Snyder is probably not in that 85%.

Anyway, if you understand the concept of backwards induction, the owners didn't opt out of the CBA two years early just so they could get grabbed by the balls by the Union for an even more ridiculous deal. If they didn't think they could push the players off their 2006 gains by just a little bit, the owners would never have opted out. So, at the very basis, this becomes "how far are the players willing to go in order to ensure work into the future?"

I just hope they resolve this. I remember back in 82 and there was no football for like 7-8 weeks. It was just awful and no one wins when there is no football. Then in 87 the owners bought in the scabs. Anyone out there remember the band aid football games?? Ed Rubbert throwing to some guy (forgot his name) that broke all the Redskin single game receiving records. It was just awful. But I'll never ever ever forget that Mon night game against Dallas when Dallas had a bunch of guys cross the picket line and play and they still lost. Gibbs had Tony Robinson running the wishbone, and the defense held Dallas, Tony Dorsett and Danny White to 7 points ( I think), one of the greatest coaching jobs ever by Gibbs and Pettibone.

I just hope they resolve this. I remember back in 82 and there was no football for like 7-8 weeks. It was just awful and no one wins when there is no football. Then in 87 the owners bought in the scabs. Anyone out there remember the band aid football games?? Ed Rubbert throwing to some guy (forgot his name) that broke all the Redskin single game receiving records. It was just awful. But I'll never ever ever forget that Mon night game against Dallas when Dallas had a bunch of guys cross the picket line and play and they still lost. Gibbs had Tony Robinson running the wishbone, and the defense held Dallas, Tony Dorsett and Danny White to 7 points ( I think), one of the greatest coaching jobs ever by Gibbs and Pettibone.

I remember those games. The movie "The Replacements" is actually based on the Skins scab team of 87. I think the wr's name was Allen.

Hey, don't hope too much for a non-strike year, remember we've won 2 super bowls in strike years!