turningpoint Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 Since Stienbach and Jones are only 4th and 5th year players resepectively, we won't have to worry about them becoming FA's, cause apperently under the uncapped year, Levi and Eric won;t be UFA's they'll be RFA's and be forced to sign 1 year tenders, due to the fact that they've been playing less then 7years. It quit honestly makes no f**king sense, but hey it's in the rules.So either way IMO JONES and stieny are bengals for at least the next 2 years.If the CBA is extended, then we extend them long term, if not tender them and move on.Willie and braham on the other hand could be different. Quote
HoosierCat Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 Since Stienbach and Jones are only 4th and 5th year players resepectively, we won't have to worry about them becoming FA's, cause apperently under the uncapped year, Levi and Eric won;t be UFA's they'll be RFA's and be forced to sign 1 year tenders, due to the fact that they've been playing less then 7years. It quit honestly makes no f**king sense, but hey it's in the rules.So either way IMO JONES and stieny are bengals for at least the next 2 years.Not necessarily. Yes, if there's no CBA extension,Levi and Steinbach would be RFAs, not UFAs. But all the tender does is guarantee the bengals the right to match any offer, or receive draft picks in compensation. (I'm sure tenders for the two would be the top-dollar kind, bringing IIRC a 1st and 3rd if we chose not to match.) And also remember that 2007 would be uncapped. It's possible for a big market team to make an offer that Mikey simply can't match. Quote
BengalChamps Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 Some one please educate me on this uncapped year nonsense. To me, it sounds like the Redskins and Cowboys could turn into the NY Yankees and have a payroll that is twice the size of the Bengals. It is hard to be a fan of MLB because of this. You really dont think the Reds have a chance with their smallish payroll to compete with the big spenders. Yea I know that there is an exception every year with a small market team making it to the baseball playoffs. But generally, low payroll teams do not have a fair chance.It sounds scary to me because the Bengals have finally learned how to "play" in the current system and now it could be changed. Revenue sharing and salary caps make the NFL the best pro sports league without a doubt. NFL owners and players better realize that the popularity of their sport is at risk here. They better not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If the Bengals will be outspent on salary by the big markets, I will lose interest in them and the league. Does anyone share my belief here? Am I totally off base in what I see as a possible future? The Bengals are ON THE VERGE OF A SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP and now we are going to change the rules!!?Help me make sense of this. Quote
Riagogogoindanati Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 YEAH, I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS EITHER. SALARY CAPPING IMHO KEEPS EVERY TEAM ON THE SAME LEVEL AND ACTUALLY MAKES TEAMS BETTER BY GETTING CREATIVE WITH THEIR SPENDING. IF THE LEAGUE DOES AWAY WITH THE CAP I WILL BE PISSED................LIKE YOU SAID, THE CAP HELPS THE SMALLER MARKET TEAMS KEEP UP WITH THE BIG SPENDERS AND KEEPS EVERYONE HONEST AND IN CHECK. NOW IF THEY WANT TO CAP EACH POSITION....I MIGHT THINK ABOUT THAT. Quote
TJJackson Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 Speaking of capsHEY RIA CAN YOU TURN YOUR FREAKIN CAPS LOCK OFF WHEN YOU TYPETHANK YOU Quote
TJJackson Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 THis would quickly devolve the league into two camps1) big time teams that simply take the best players from each team each year. These teams would be the ones in the playoffs every year. These teams would rotuinely give away draft picks but wouldn't care - other teams would be developing these picks in essence for them, to be plucked away whenever they are needed.2) small time teams who earn draft picks from these losses every year, such that they become the "farm system" for the big teams - plenty of developing young players for a few years who (if they prove to be good) are routinely snatched away by the big teams. These small teams would rarely if ever see the playoffs, and would never have star players for more than a year at a time. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 All this would do in my opinion is create one thing and one thing only:NFL Strike... There will be a lock out and things will just keep getting uglier and uglier until someone finally pulls their head out of their asspiece and come to a resolution. God, I hope this gets fixed, but it's looking grim...WHODEY !!! Quote
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 Not exactly true. In uncapped years, teams are limited in the number of free agents they are allowed to sign based upon their number of wins. Quote
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 It's not the cap so much as revenue sharing that keeps teams more equal. Quote
Sox Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 I'd think the owners would lock the players out before allowing an uncapped season. Quote
AbsoluteBengals Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...john&id=2332991there are a bunch of crazy rules that prevent teams from jsut buying up all the players. Quote
WillisXPress Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 No cap would cost alot of cities thier franchise.... cincy, cleveland, buffalo, KC, pit, NO, to name a few......that would suck. Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 No cap would cost alot of cities thier franchise.... cincy, cleveland, buffalo, KC, pit, NO, to name a few......that would suck. Good to see you're still around Willis. I can't see the "no cap" costing cities their teams, (maybe NO), but it won't be far off...Yeah, it would suck !!!WHODEY !!! Quote
HoosierCat Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 I'd think the owners would lock the players out before allowing an uncapped season.2007 would be uncapped but not uncontrolled. As NBT and others point out there are rules governing 2007, because the CBA will still be in force. It's if the league hits 2008 without a new deal that (as Clayton explains) it all goes to hell in a bucket. I taked a bit about why I thought the NFL wouldn't be as affected by "unlimited" money as baseball and basketball here but that assumes it even survives. Like Clayton notes, 2008 will be one big court case if there's no new CBA. Quote
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 If there's no new CBA, there will be no NFL for as long as it takes to get one starting in 2008. Quote
WillisXPress Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 No cap would cost alot of cities thier franchise.... cincy, cleveland, buffalo, KC, pit, NO, to name a few......that would suck. Good to see you're still around Willis. I can't see the "no cap" costing cities their teams, (maybe NO), but it won't be far off...Yeah, it would suck !!!WHODEY !!!I'm kickin it....lovin buckeye basketball and sabres hockey right now.....I'm not saying it "would " I geuss...but no cap means the dallas's and Giantss of the world would outbid teams like ours until we had nothing....No talent=losing teams....losing teams=falling attendance....you get the picture... Quote
ArmyBengal Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 No cap would cost alot of cities thier franchise.... cincy, cleveland, buffalo, KC, pit, NO, to name a few......that would suck. Good to see you're still around Willis. I can't see the "no cap" costing cities their teams, (maybe NO), but it won't be far off...Yeah, it would suck !!!WHODEY !!!I'm kickin it....lovin buckeye basketball and sabres hockey right now.....I'm not saying it "would " I geuss...but no cap means the dallas's and Giantss of the world would outbid teams like ours until we had nothing....No talent=losing teams....losing teams=falling attendance....you get the picture... I see where you're going... With that equation, Cincinnati should have lost the Bengals 10 years ago... WHODEY !!! Quote
TJJackson Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 Well, I do hope I am wrong on this one....But let's say each team can sign 5 FA's a year, and let's also say there are 6 teams that essentially make the big money.In essence, I'd say that this would mean the top 6x5=30 players from the remaining 26 teams would be taken, the elite, cream of the crop players.The next year, another 5 from each, and so onHow long before there are no multi-year stars on any of the havenot teams? Quote
semiotter Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 No cap would cost alot of cities thier franchise.... cincy, cleveland, buffalo, KC, pit, NO, to name a few......that would suck.Just like Baseball!!! Oh no!!!!! Quote
WillisXPress Posted February 24, 2006 Report Posted February 24, 2006 No cap would cost alot of cities thier franchise.... cincy, cleveland, buffalo, KC, pit, NO, to name a few......that would suck. Good to see you're still around Willis. I can't see the "no cap" costing cities their teams, (maybe NO), but it won't be far off...Yeah, it would suck !!!WHODEY !!!I'm kickin it....lovin buckeye basketball and sabres hockey right now.....I'm not saying it "would " I geuss...but no cap means the dallas's and Giantss of the world would outbid teams like ours until we had nothing....No talent=losing teams....losing teams=falling attendance....you get the picture... I see where you're going... With that equation, Cincinnati should have lost the Bengals 10 years ago... WHODEY !!!Word...But its not necessarily that you weren't ABLE to get bet...just some bad management and some bad luck....i'm not saying that teams are gonna pack it in overnight.... but if, year after year, you couldn't sign ANY FA's...and year after year, your former first rounders/emerging stars became FA's and went to other teams who paid more than you could possibly afford it would get dicey.I hope not (obviously) ...its not like my team is in any better position Quote
scott91575 Posted February 25, 2006 Report Posted February 25, 2006 This is NOT like baseball. In baseball the major revenue is local $ from local tv and radio (nationwide for the ones with their own networks). In football, the major revenue is the national contract that is spread equally amongst the teams. Thge disparity will be there, but nothing like in baseball.The only thing I worry about is the owners that are willing to take millions of dollars in losses since an NFL team is a side hobby, not a $ maker like Mike Brown. Small markets won't be killed, only teams with family ownership that relies on the revenue in football. Quote
HairOnFire Posted February 25, 2006 Report Posted February 25, 2006 I'm surprised most of the conversation is about the potentially uncapped 2007 season and the greater chance of lockout/strike in 2008. More interesting to me is the idea that FA begins in just 7 days and if there is no agreement the Bengals are in far better position than most teams. Consider... If their is no agreement two of the Bengals most important FA's, Levi and Steinbach, won't become unrestricted free agents as early as first thought. The upside of that is obvious, as is the idea that both of those players should have greater incentive to restructure and extend their existing contracts sooner than later. Teams in poor cap shape THIS season will be absolutely crippled as their options for massaging the cap become severly limited. Last, teams with plenty of cap space this season will be prevented from offering backloaded contracts filled with years nobody believes the player will be around for and money unlikey to be earned. Instead, all bidding teams will be limited to offering Mike Brown style contracts. I'm talking about reasonable length, as no FA contract offer can be longer than 4 years, and heavily frontloaded, as no salary may increase more than 30% from one year to the next. Quote
HoosierCat Posted February 26, 2006 Report Posted February 26, 2006 I'm surprised most of the conversation is about the potentially uncapped 2007 season and the greater chance of lockout/strike in 2008. More interesting to me is the idea that FA begins in just 7 days and if there is no agreement the Bengals are in far better position than most teams. Consider... If their is no agreement two of the Bengals most important FA's, Levi and Steinbach, won't become unrestricted free agents as early as first thought. The upside of that is obvious, as is the idea that both of those players should have greater incentive to restructure and extend their existing contracts sooner than later. Teams in poor cap shape THIS season will be absolutely crippled as their options for massaging the cap become severly limited. Last, teams with plenty of cap space this season will be prevented from offering backloaded contracts filled with years nobody believes the player will be around for and money unlikey to be earned. Instead, all bidding teams will be limited to offering Mike Brown style contracts. I'm talking about reasonable length, as no FA contract offer can be longer than 4 years, and heavily frontloaded, as no salary may increase more than 30% from one year to the next.I actually did touch on that in the thread on the NFL board I referenced earlier:The first thing that strikes me -- and I've been mulling this over for a while now as I read up on the whole CBA thing -- is that not having an extension might actually be an advantage for the Bengals in FA this year. Many of the financial tricks of the trade that teams routinely use to outmaneuver the Bengals in FA negotiations won't be available. At least for this year, the other 31 teams will be forced to play by something close to "Mike Brown rules."OTOH, I expect that if there's no new deal, we will see a lot of 1-year FA deals (probably with "no tag" clauses) this year, and that's another thing the Bengals have never been keen on.One thing to note is that contracts can still be "backloaded." The key change is that bonuses, in particular signing bonuses, can only be spread over 4 years. But you can still, as Wayne just did in Indy, sign a longer deal (his was 6 years) and who knows what is in those final two years in the way of salary or boni?The other thing that occurs to me is, if it looks like no CBA deal is in the offing...well, who really cares about the cap? If there really are 9 teams dedicated to blocking any expansion of revenue-sharing, then the "cap hit" beyond this season doesn't matter a whit...because there's no more cap and likely never will be again.I really do think this will get resolved with an CBA extension in the next few days...if it doesn't it may very well never be resolved at all. Quote
Sox Posted February 26, 2006 Report Posted February 26, 2006 As per Foxsports.http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5361662 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.