2006 Point & Laugh at the taterskins thread

[SD_Eagle5]

From PFT

WHAT IF A TEAM IS OVER THE CAP?



A league insider raised an interesting point with us on Wednesday.  If a team like the taterskins ends up over the salary cap on Friday, what's the worst that can happen?



The league can't force the 'Skins to cut players.  Instead, the league can impose fines and/or strip the team of draft picks.  But if, as in Washington's case, the owner is raking in millions in local unshared revenue (and thus can pay any fine with his "walkin' around" money) and if, as in Washington's case, they won't have the cap room to sign the rookies they draft, what's the downside to writing an easily affordable check and/or giving up their entire 2006 draft class?



From the taterskins' perspective, it becomes a basic business decision.  Either they cut everyonethey need to cut to get under the salary cap -- or they keep one or two guys we want to keep and face the potential consequences from the league office.



Given that taterskins owner Dan Snyder is one of the guys pushing hardest against expanded revenue sharing (thereby making it harder to extend the CBA), our guess is that the Commish would smack the team extra hard if 'Skins don't accept the cap consequences of a failure to strike a deal that can be blamed in part on the position that Snyder has taken regarding revenue sharing.

[PhillyPhanInDC]

From PFT

WHAT IF A TEAM IS OVER THE CAP?



A league insider raised an interesting point with us on Wednesday.  If a team like the taterskins ends up over the salary cap on Friday, what's the worst that can happen?



The league can't force the 'Skins to cut players.  Instead, the league can impose fines and/or strip the team of draft picks.  But if, as in Washington's case, the owner is raking in millions in local unshared revenue (and thus can pay any fine with his "walkin' around" money) and if, as in Washington's case, they won't have the cap room to sign the rookies they draft, what's the downside to writing an easily affordable check and/or giving up their entire 2006 draft class?



From the taterskins' perspective, it becomes a basic business decision.  Either they cut everyonethey need to cut to get under the salary cap -- or they keep one or two guys we want to keep and face the potential consequences from the league office.



Given that taterskins owner Dan Snyder is one of the guys pushing hardest against expanded revenue sharing (thereby making it harder to extend the CBA), our guess is that the Commish would smack the team extra hard if 'Skins don't accept the cap consequences of a failure to strike a deal that can be blamed in part on the position that Snyder has taken regarding revenue sharing.

[qwert246]

From PFT

Given that taterskins owner Dan Snyder is one of the guys pushing hardest against expanded revenue sharing (thereby making it harder to extend the CBA), our guess is that the Commish would smack the team extra hard if 'Skins don't accept the cap consequences of a failure to strike a deal that can be blamed in part on the position that Snyder has taken regarding revenue sharing.

It's nice to paint Snyder the bad guy and all, but according to fat lenny, it's the smaller market teams that are the problem.

The irony is that it is now a group of steadfast owners from lower-revenue franchises who would block any attempt to extend the CBA without a revenue sharing plan that accommodates their needs. There has actually been more softening by the alliance of eight to nine high-revenue teams, several league sources allowed Wednesday night, than by the lower-revenue clubs.

According to several sources, nine to 10 owners from some of the league's lowest revenue-producing franchises are adamant that any CBA extension must be accompanied by an amenable revenue-sharing plan, one that addresses their concerns about the ever-increasing disparity between the NFL "haves" and "have nots." It takes only nine votes to veto most important league proposals, and the contingent of low-revenue teams has sufficient votes to shoot down a CBA extension.

Link

[ice grillin you]

snyder is a problem for his own team not the rest of the league

[qwert246]

snyder is a problem for his own team not the rest of the league

Perhaps 5 years ago.  I don't think so much now, with regard to players and contracts.
If you're talking about fan experience at the stadium, then yes, he's still a big problem.

[ice grillin you]

no gm = problem....see the campbell trade


and dont tell me vinnie or gibbs is a gm

[phattymatty]

Perhaps 5 years ago.  I don't think so much now,

unbelievable.

[qwert246]

Geniuses

[rjs246]

Cap announced at $94.5mil. After Brunell's restructuring, where are the skins? $17mil, $20mil over? Let the blood bath ensue.

[rjs246]

But you know, Snyder hasn't hurt the team at all recently...

[qwert246]

Campbell was who they targeted.  Thay they telegraphed their play is the only thing you can say.
The Deion and Bruce Smith signings may have had Snyder's input.  But that was years ago.

You people believing Snyder is the terrible owner is like the reputation that you will get stabbed at the Linc. 
It's taken a life of its own.

[qwert246]

But you know, Snyder hasn't hurt the team at all recently...

If they banked on the CBA being extended, the odds looked pretty good at the time.  The old CBA was set up so it really would never expire.

Besides, I've seen too many 11th hour deals to realize that the possibility of something happening this morning is high.
No owner wants to be labeled as part of the group to kill the salary cap.

[rjs246]

Yeah I keep reading that. It doesn't mean anything since none of them will give a shtein five minutes after it goes away, but it's a nice little quote to have printed.

[Feva]

But you know, Snyder hasn't hurt the team at all recently...

If they banked on the CBA being extended, the odds looked pretty good at the time.  The old CBA was set up so it really would never expire.

Besides, I've seen too many 11th hour deals to stop hoping and praying for something to happen this morning.

[ice grillin you]

REPEAT: THEY DONT HAVE A GM...because snyder thinks he can run the PP operations...and that is a problem...and even if vinnie and gibbs are running the ship now then its still a problem as gibbs is not a GM and vinnie is a travesty...REPEAT: SNYDER WILL NOT HIRE A GM

end of story...to argue this is to show your true taterskins stupidity


the cap stuff is not relevant here as they have never been hurt from it and i dont believe they will be this year either...even without a deal