skinster
11-18-2009, 06:26 PM
Wouldn't there be alot of players released with large contracts that are not playing up to there cap number?
Id assume there will be a few more than normal, but this is not madden, this is real money being spent here. It would be hard for many owners to take a massive hit this year for the sake of their teams, especially in the recession.
Schneed10
11-18-2009, 08:23 PM
Wouldn't there be alot of players released with large contracts that are not playing up to there cap number?
Not if there's no cap, LOL.
WaldSkins
11-18-2009, 08:24 PM
Not if there's no cap, LOL.
I figured that teams would use this no cap time to drop salaries of unwanted players in case the cap returned.
Schneed10
11-18-2009, 08:27 PM
I didn't know that. I assumed that if Samuels retired, he would be entitled to the rest of the pay on his contract. Do you happen to know what the "logic" is behind this situation. If a team releases a player, the team is screwed, but the player is not - he still gets his money. Logically, I would think that if a player "releases" his team by retiring, then the player should be screwed, but the team should not be. If a player retires, why should the player AND the team be penalized for money that is not paid? It doesnt seem like this rule is in the benefit of the players union or the league.
Because the team's not taking the big cap hit for money not yet paid, the team is taking the cap hit for money already paid but not yet realized on the cap.
A player who gets a $20 million signing bonus up front in a 5 year contract has that bonus prorated per year of his contract. So the $20 million bonus counts $4 million per season. If he's due a base salary of $1 million as well, then his total cap number is $5 million.
But if a player plays one year of that contract and then retires, the team has to realize the other $16 million of the bonus money not yet counted on the cap. This outweighs the savings they realize on not having to pay his base salary.
You can see that the earlier in a contract a player is released, the bigger the cap hit.
Schneed10
11-18-2009, 08:29 PM
I figured that teams would use this no cap time to drop salaries of unwanted players in case the cap returned.
It's unlikely the players will agree to put a cap back in place once it's gone.
Lotus
11-18-2009, 08:44 PM
It's unlikely the players will agree to put a cap back in place once it's gone.
Matty said the same thing. Thank you both. I hadn't thought about it that way.
skinster
11-18-2009, 11:07 PM
It's unlikely the players will agree to put a cap back in place once it's gone.
There is no way there is not going to be some sort of cap back in place. Lets not forget that the owners are the ones that opted out of the cba in order to not pay the players so much. There is no way that the players will actually get more than they would if the original cap were in place.
GridIron26
11-18-2009, 11:24 PM
There is no way there is not going to be some sort of cap back in place. Lets not forget that the owners are the ones that opted out of the cba in order to not pay the players so much. There is no way that the players will actually get more than they would if the original cap were in place.
U actually made good point; I bet they especially don't like paying too much money on rookies..
Redskins8588
11-18-2009, 11:44 PM
Schneed what happens to the current players contracts once the league goes un-capped? Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is no cba then teams can cut players without any ramifications...
The Goat
11-19-2009, 12:00 AM
Schneed what happens to the current players contracts once the league goes un-capped? Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is no cba then teams can cut players without any ramifications...
Was thinkin the same thing myself. I could see us releasing half a dozen guys if this is the case who otherwise we'd be stuck with.