Can someone explain the uncapped year to me?

by onthereg on Jan 1, 2010 4:25 PM CST

So from what i read it looks like players that would normally be UFA (unrestricted free agents) are now RFA (registricted Free Agents). So how will this effect us? Will teams just tender each player a one year low offer and then keep all there stars? If this is the case (which it appears to be) why don't the players agree to a cap as players won't be signing a long term deal (why would any owner lock a player up long term for big money when they can have them cheap one more year)

I think a lot of players will be released to unload cap hits this year so that should add to the talent pool. So the next questions becomes will there be a lot of sign and trade deals? Like the Pats for example will they tender Wilfork and Mankins and just trade them even if they have ZERO interest in keeping them for the huge contracts they both will get???

So that brings me to my final question. Based on all of this it looks like the talent will be very poor and with no cap do you think the draft is now that much more valuable (especially the top picks) so it would appear to me that a team like the Chiefs will have a good chance to trade down this year as teams might want to trade up to grab a premier playing as there will be very few available in free agency. No cap so a lot of owners can front load a big rookie contract and lock up say a Clausen, Suh, McCoy, or Bradford.

So i feel like all of this helps us for ONE reason. I can't see many free agents wanting to come sign with us BUT if we trade for their rights then work out a deal long term with them it could work. Plus if we are able to trade out of the 3rd pick to acquire more picks or players that would be a positive?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Basically

Unrestricted free agency will take six years for players to attain instead of four. Also, teams will have the ability to franchise tag two players instead of one. For salary, my understanding is that it will be uncapped like baseball. I don’t know if revenue sharing is part of the equation, but probably it will be to some extent.

This is all, of course, assuming that there isn’t either a strike or a lockout, which is a very real possibility. The owners don’t want an uncapped year because they simply can’t trust each other to keep costs in check with a gentleman’s agreement between them (not to mention that it would bring up issues of collusion and possibly anti-trust actions if they did implement such an agreement and stick to it). The players apparently are unwilling to submit to another salary cap. So the labor situation overall is very much in flux and nobody really knows how it will shake out.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride

by UCrawford on Jan 1, 2010 4:29 PM CST reply actions

No more revenue sharing

Owners backed out of it.

Arrowhead Pride

by Joel Thorman on Jan 1, 2010 4:39 PM CST up reply actions

No CBA - No Revenue Sharing

Boy I hope idiots don’t screw up the NFL like they did MLB. This has the potential to mess things up just like baseball. I hope greedy SOB like Jerry Jones don’t screw this great game up!

by Chief1 on Jan 1, 2010 5:32 PM CST up reply actions

Are the Chiefs one of the 8 to 12 teams?

Approximately eight to 12 lower-revenue teams have qualified on a yearly basis to draw from the supplemental pool. The $100 million fund is part of $6.5 billion in revenues shared by all clubs.

Not that this isn’t a big deal, but the change only represents about 1.5% of the total revenue sharing. There is still revenue sharing, but not subsidized rev sharing. So each team would get $200,000,000.00 from the 6.4 billion, and the 10 (average) low revenue teams would each get approximately 10 million more a piece. So the low revenue teams will be working with approximately 7 million less (100 million/32 teams = 3.125 mil)…..I hope we aren’t one of the 10 teams…. If we aren’t one of the low rev teams…we’ll actually have more revenue sharing money this year.

I might be mistaken, but it seems to me Jerry Jones comments in Minnesota were along the lines of …. teams like Green Bay and KC (smaller markets) shouldn’t be subsidizing Minnesota (a larger market)… so maybe this will be an add not a subtraction to our working revenue.

by chrisclark_dfw on Jan 1, 2010 5:57 PM CST up reply actions

I like the number crunching and the possible answer :)

yet we didn’t spend all we were required in 2009. Nice for the roster players to split :)
But WHY didn’t we spend it?
A lack of players to spend it on or maybe posturing for the upcoming 2010 season or cheap ownership?

We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram

by Steve_Chiefs on Jan 1, 2010 6:20 PM CST up reply actions

Time will tell...

Clark hasn’t been in control long enough to knowif he is conservative or cheap, but it appears he is not going to be a Dan Snyder for sure.

As for why the cap min wasn’t spent…..your guess is as good as mine. I think your reasons of lack of players to spend it on and uncertainty about the 2010 cba are more likely than cheap ownership though. I hope anyway.

by chrisclark_dfw on Jan 1, 2010 6:27 PM CST up reply actions

That's going to hurt some small-market teams

Teams like Indy, Jacksonville, Detroit, KC, Arizona, etc. are all going to have problems keeping up with the likes of Paul Hunt.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 1, 2010 8:43 PM CST up reply actions

the players are willing to submit to a salary cap

in this case the owners opted out of this cba and every cba is scheduled for an uncapped year in the final year of the agreement in order to force another agreement to come forth. the issue is how big of a percentage the players get from the nfl’s revenue pool. the players want it to be more than 60% and the owners obviously don’t

The only players I hurt with my words are the ones who have an inflated opinion of their ability. I can't worry about that.
Bill Parcells

Knowledge is confidence. And confidence lets you play fast.
Bill Parcells

by kcguy on Jan 1, 2010 4:39 PM CST up reply actions

Last I had heard

The Players Association said that if there wasn’t a new CBA in place (which there won’t be) and if they go into the uncapped year, that they would never agree to another salary cap. There are a lot of owners from bigger markets that would prefer not to have a salary cap as well, so I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we have seen the end of the salary cap in the NFL.

by ChiefDJ on Jan 1, 2010 4:47 PM CST up reply actions

i know they've said it but i think they also like to hit free agency sooner and generally have more options to make more money. the current system does that better

the owners are a completely different story. several of them don’t like to share revenues to subsidize smaller markets. it’s a shame as this was always something lamar hunt fought for.

The only players I hurt with my words are the ones who have an inflated opinion of their ability. I can't worry about that.
Bill Parcells

Knowledge is confidence. And confidence lets you play fast.
Bill Parcells

by kcguy on Jan 1, 2010 5:00 PM CST up reply actions

So what does a lockout gain

a completely new NFLPA or no NFLPA?

We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram

by Steve_Chiefs on Jan 1, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions

Good question

But I’d like to see one. Clean out a lot of the bad blood, and get something fresh in there. I wouldn’t want it to last very long, maybe even not into the start of the regular season, but I think it needs to happen.

by burntorangehorn on Jan 1, 2010 8:45 PM CST up reply actions

I Don't Think The Problem Is The Union

Gene Upshaw was about the most conciliatory player rep head in any major sport and the owners still weren’t happy with him. The NFLPA hasn’t really engaged in any nasty tactics with the owners…the problem is that the owners got pissy with sharing a guaranteed percentage of the revenue with the players. And now the owners are going to find out just how little they can trust each other without a salary cap. You think Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder is going to hold the line on cost containment when they think they can buy a championship, even if it screws everyone over by inflating costs for journeyman players (the group that got screwed the most by the salary cap)? Please…they’ll spend more than ever on salaries. Upshaw was completely right when he told the owners they were stepping in it by opting out. They were just too stupid to listen. :)

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride

by UCrawford on Jan 2, 2010 3:31 PM CST up reply actions

NFLPA Will Still Be Around

In some form or another. The players will always collectively bargain for an industry that lucrative.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride

by UCrawford on Jan 2, 2010 3:27 PM CST up reply actions

u can

fran tag 3 players not 2

okay i have cereal palsy arhrtis and chronic fatiue as well i have a grea life loveing folks some days are better that other days i got a make a wish in 2001 saw my favorive team the broncos was the trip of the lifetime i wish everyone couild gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that ok but i bleed organ and bule reseident broncos fan for ap lol

by j-man on Jan 1, 2010 9:05 PM CST up reply actions

Thanks

It will be an interesting month that is for sure.

I forgot about the 2 franchise tags that is huge.

by onthereg on Jan 1, 2010 4:33 PM CST reply actions

1 franchise and 2 transition tags

The only players I hurt with my words are the ones who have an inflated opinion of their ability. I can't worry about that.
Bill Parcells

Knowledge is confidence. And confidence lets you play fast.
Bill Parcells

by kcguy on Jan 1, 2010 4:40 PM CST up reply actions

I thought there was something in the fine print about ceilings on player salary increases.

Maybe I’m wrong, but ‘way back last summer, it seems like I read something about a 20% ceiling, or some such. Not sure to which players this applied, or if I’m just totally full of shit, here.

Prediction for '09: Chiefs are looking like a .500 team, especially considering Denver's inattention to D-Line, Chokeland's disarray, and a San Diego team that looks like it's on the decline. With a weak schedule, Chiefs steal a few and win between 7 and 9 games, and if .500 or better, will contend for supremacy in a weak division.

by hmills110 on Jan 1, 2010 5:28 PM CST reply actions

The Owners I Believe Have Talked About Internal Controls

Problem with that is that they’ll run afoul of antitrust legislation if they get caught implementing anything with teeth. Congress has shown lately that they’d just love to get balls deep in regulating the NFL.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride

by UCrawford on Jan 2, 2010 3:33 PM CST up reply actions

But that's the extent of it? Thx for the knowledge.

by hmills110 on Jan 2, 2010 5:12 PM CST up reply actions

Congress will do anything for facetime and to keep from doing anything productive :(

We Will kick at least 4 Teams Asses in 09. Almost there :)
And Succop will be the Key in two of them. Skins & Raiders! Pittsburgh Sweet!
" Think and talk positive football off the field." Hank Stram

by Steve_Chiefs on Jan 2, 2010 5:23 PM CST up reply actions

I Would Prefer Them To Be Less "Productive"

To them, productivity means passing laws that few of them ever bother to read before voting which almost invariably have disastrous consequences for taxpayers. Honestly, I’d prefer it if they just sat there and did nothing all day for a paycheck. They’d do far less damage.

Moderator - Arrowhead Pride

by UCrawford on Jan 2, 2010 8:34 PM CST up reply actions