Is it time to start worrying about our cap?

As I understand it, if a new collective bargaining agreement isn't agreed to by the fall of 2006 then no salary cap will be in place for the 2007 offseason-the catch is that there will be fewer free agents that year because, while players are usually UFAs after their 4th year now, it would go up to 6 years now.

I think one of the sticking points actually is that the NFLPA wants teams like the Redskins and Cowboys to contribute a larger portion of their local revenues or something like that.

Ok, so this no cap thing isn't set in stone.

Its set in stone untill that possible carve out a new deal. Don't expect a new deal without some major changes to the system as it stands. The Redskins are actually in a great position here with there local revenue being the highest in the league, the possiblity of maxing out the cap and going beyond it for 2007, and a HOF players coach in place. Also Dan has done his part in actively pursuing the agents not the players over the years. So the players have been steered to DC first since it is a players place and the money ain't bad.

Way to go Dan!!!

I did some quick analysis on 2006 the other day. We do have some issues but we're not dead yet. I listed about $35M in potential savings I see on the 2006 cap, so I think we have room to maneuver.

Actually this offseason will give us a much clearer picture of where we'll be in 2006.

Right now there are still too many questions:
- Smoot gone?
- Samuels restructure or gone?
- Coles gone?
- new free agents?

Put it this way, if you take away Samuels and Coles from 2006, we're at like $90M, so let's wait and see.

As I understand it, if a new collective bargaining agreement isn't agreed to by the fall of 2006 then no salary cap will be in place for the 2007 offseason-the catch is that there will be fewer free agents that year because, while players are usually UFAs after their 4th year now, it would go up to 6 years now.

I think one of the sticking points actually is that the NFLPA wants teams like the Redskins and Cowboys to contribute a larger portion of their local revenues or something like that.

This is my understanding as well. They are arguing over the local revenue stuff. Right now there are certain revenue streams that do not get shared like luxury boxes, etc. Supposedly these revenue inequalities result in about a $100M difference between the bottom teams (Ariz) and the top teams (Skins).

And by the way I will NEVER cheer for a non-capped year, even though the Skins would probably benefit most. Take it from an Expos fan.

Well being from Washington, thanks for the baseball team. Looks like it will have plenty of support here unlike in Montreal.

Well being from Washington, thanks for the baseball team. Looks like it will have plenty of support here unlike in Montreal.

You're, um, welcome. I hope you guys support it. Your track record isn't exactly exemplary.

Ok blame us for owners that took the team out of town for cash. Griffth to Minnisotta and Short to Dallas. This also was before big TV contracts and luxury boxes. The fans went ans watched, cheered and loved the Senators. So our track record should not be questioned. Greedy owners should take the blame on that one.

Fair enough. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

And you can add me to the loyal National fan base.