Redskins lose $36 million in cap space

[OrioleMagic]

When a player wants to be paid $14M over 2 years, there are various ways to structure that contract. One might be a signing bonus of $4M and salaries of $4M, $6M and $8M in a three year, $22M deal that will really be for two years. That would save cap $ in Year 1 of a straight 2 year deal where the guy was paid $7M salary each year.

If, in 2010, the Skins took the same player and agreed to $10M salary in Year 1 and $4M in Year 2, the player is receiving the same $, but cap space has been created in Year 2.

Skins are happy. Player is happy. It's all in the contract structure - that is creating an unfair advantage in future years.

What's collusion got to do with it?

Seems to me, the collusion is when the owners agree NOT to allow this to happen.

[OrioleMagic]

They don't want to give the players more money. More cap space = more money to the players. That's the whole point of the mandate during 2010.

I see that. But why dock the bad teams AND give the space to the good teams? Why not one or the other?

[Miller192]

You can get to 89% of the cap very easily by signing expensive free agents, or by renegotiating existing contracts to move the cap hit up. Players have no problems getting their money earlier rather than later.

Cap carry over really has nothing to do with my scenario. You overspend by paying players artificially high salaries in the uncapped year, and pay them less in subsequent capped years. This yields team cap flexibility in subsequent years, which all teams consider a good thing. This is true whether the teams carry the unused cap over or not.

You said a team could spend 40MM going forward and I responded to that by saying that's it's not going to possible because 89% of the team's spending has to be in cash. You can't "move a cap hit up" to get to 89% of the cap. It has to be in cash, dead money doesn't count.

Not carrying over excess cap is going to be a detriment to a lot of teams who want to take a large cap hit.

[CrimsonTribe]

When a player wants to be paid $14M over 2 years, there are various ways to structure that contract. One might be a signing bonus of $4M and salaries of $4M, $6M and $8M in a three year, $22M deal that will really be for two years. That would save cap $ in Year 1 of a straight 2 year deal where the guy was paid $7M salary each year.

If, in 2010, the Skins took the same player and agreed to $10M salary in Year 1 and $4M in Year 2, the player is receiving the same $, but cap space has been created in Year 2.

Skins are happy. Player is happy. It's all in the contract structure - that is creating an unfair advantage in future years.

What's collusion got to do with it?

Think about it this way:

1. The CBA, by its terms, allowed teams to take large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary. Hence uncapped.

2. By the terms of the CBA, any team could have taken large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary.

3. If all of the teams took large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary, this would shift a ton of revenue to the players in the form of past or future salaries. This is a huge benefit for the players and something they bargained for.

4. Since any team could have taken large cap hits in 2010 to free up past or future salary, there is no unfair competitive advantage created in the absence of a league mandate.

5. Despite the lack of an unfair competitive advantage, the league mandates that teams should not take large cap hits in 2010 because it would create an unfair competitive advantage. Essentially, the league manufactures the unfair competitive advantage with the mandate.

6. The real reason for the mandate was to prevent large cap hits in 2010, which would shift large amounts of past and future revenue to players in the form of past or future salaries.

7. But the players bargained for the uncapped year in 2010, which would have allowed large cap hits in order to free up past and future salaries and thus shift large amounts of past and future revenues to them.

8. Therefore, the league owners colluded to keep revenue from shifting from the players in the form of past and future salaries by concocting this "unfair competitive advantage" and the mandate not to use the uncapped year to the fullest.

9. The Cowboys and Redskins ignore this trumped up bull, use the uncapped year to free up future salaries and are penalized two years later for not breaking any actual rules.

[CrimsonTribe]

I see that. But why dock the bad teams AND give the space to the good teams? Why not one or the other?

To get the players to agree by keeping the same amount of overall cap space.

[nadecir]

You said a team could spend 40MM going forward and I responded to that by saying that's it's not going to possible because 89% of the team's spending has to be in cash. You can't "move a cap hit up" to get to 89% of the cap. It has to be in cash, dead money doesn't count.

Not carrying over excess cap is going to be a detriment to a lot of teams who want to take a large cap hit.

I meant to imply that a team could go into an offseason with a low cap number for the next year, and then find good, beneficial ways to increase the team payroll and cap during the offseason. I never meant to imply that a competitive team would want to lower its cash outlay; just to give it flexibility to sign free agents or front load existing contracts. Front-loading contracts is not smart from a financial perspective, but it was done to take advantage of the uncapped year to lower cap numbers in subsequent years.

One of the reasons the Redskins were below the cap this season is that they were able to offload Albert Haynesworth cap hit in the uncapped season. The Cowboys structured Miles Austin's negotiated contract signed in September 2010 to take advantage also - $17 million salary in uncapped 2010, $685,000 in capped 2011, and $1.15 million in capped 2012. Austin's numbers are base salary numbers, not including his bonus. Dallas used the uncapped 2010 season to take most of the cap hit for Austin's total contract.

[Miller192]

CrimsonTribe is hitting on a lot of great points here.

The spirit of the uncapped year was to encourage both sides to reach agreement to get a new CBA done. An uncapped year potentially hurts the players as no salary floor is maintained while it also allows higher revenue generating teams the ability to spend more on player contracts.

The owners essentially circumvented the agreement while the players bear a greater burden now of two year of essentially no cap growth.

[fansince71]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post?id=36923

Dan Graziano sums it up.

[CrimsonTribe]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post?id=36923

Dan Graziano sums it up.

If what the NFL did in 2010 was secretly tell its teams not to overspend in an uncapped year, then it engaged in an act that's illegal in any other industry. If that’s what happened, it’s collusion, plain and simple. It’s a bunch of businessmen who operate all of the businesses in a given industry getting together to limit the earning potential of the workers in that industry. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of labor law would classify that as collusion.
...
Effectively, the league found a way to excuse itself for engaging in an illegal act and got the players to sign off on it. The only people who are suffering are the teams that decided, two years ago, not to go along with the illegal plan by which the league was ordering its teams to abide. The whole thing reeks of witch-hunt impropriety, from the fact that teams (such as Jacksonville and Tampa Bay) that drastically underspent that season because there was no salary floor aren’t being punished for the impact that had on competitive balance to the troublesome fact that the chairman of the aforementioned NFL Management Council is the owner of the Giants, who play in the same division as the two teams being docked.

Boom, roasted.

[hoosiers]

I just don't connect the dots to the point of collusion.

What irks me is the following:
- the timing stinks - this far into preparation for the 2012 season and taking cap $ off the table right before free agency
- the amount stinks - why so much?

[mweb]

Boom, roasted.

I don't even think you need a basic understanding of labor law to figure out that this was collusion.

[mweb]

I just don't connect the dots to the point of collusion.

What irks me is the following:
- the timing stinks - this far into preparation for the 2012 season and taking cap $ off the table right before free agency
- the amount stinks - why so much?

Your suggestion of the owners deciding upon a acceptable limit of spending during an uncapped year is collusion.

[ccbird]

It will be fun watching Snyder and Jones battle the League if they choose to do so.

[allstar1579]

It will be fun watching Snyder and Jones battle the League if they choose to do so.

I'm thinking if there are 2 owners you want to battle in the NFL, those 2 are at the bottom of the list.

[mweb]

I'm thinking if there are 2 owners you want to battle in the NFL, those 2 are at the bottom of the list.

Meaning from the NFL's perspective?