ESPN: Upshaw tells Agents to Prepare for an Uncapped 07

If that's the case, and looking at the current cap numbers, this is what the Jets future looks like....



Later...

 

Upshaw is blowing smoke.

 

This calls for another song from deathbyjets, a song of sorrow.

 

I'm a little lost here fellas. Maybe you can help me out. How is an uncapped year damaging? What are the pros and cons? Why is it bad for the Jets? for the league?

Educate me guys......

 

This will never happen, the owners will lock-out before they give into an uncapped NFL.....

 

Well it is bad for the leauge because then you have teams that overspend, which in turn drives up the costs of players, then an unbalanced leauge where teams can have 2 starting O-lines, like the redskins had in there hay day. I mean froma Jets standpoint uncapped would help us because of our cap problems but in the whol it is bad for the leauge

 

It is my opinion that Gene is saying this at this time in order to take a hardline stance due to the looming March 3 deadline. I would imagine (I don't know it this is true) that the deadline could be extended with the approval of the Players Union. But they would want compensation and thus Gene is putting forth the hard stance as a bargaining chip. Because there is now way that an uncapped year is beneficial to the majority of the players in the short term. Below you will find some the rules that would be applied to an uncapped year. I hope this helps the discussion.

1. If 2007 is uncapped, then qualifying free agents can be paid as much as can be negotiated. This sounds great for the players, but who are the qualifying free agents?
2. The rules to become a free agent change in an uncapped year. To become free, a player will need six years of service instead of four years and his contract has to be expired.
3. A player with five years of experience who under capped season rules would have been free, will now be a restricted free agent if the club decides to designate him as restricted. Quality players with five years of service will be restricted and not many teams will be willing to surrender high draft picks for them. A player waiting for his big 'free agency' contract with a nice fat signing bonus will probably play for a one-year salary with no signing bonus and risk a career ending injury.
4. The same rules apply to players with four years of service to those players with five years as mentioned in point No. 3. The group of potential free agents will be significantly reduced in 2007 because of the loss of four- and five-year players. The best players from the 2002 and 2003 draft classes will not be moving around too much in 2007.
5. If that isn't bad enough for the players hoping to hit the market, each club will also get an additional 'transition tag' to protect an older veteran. As long as the club offers a player in this category a one-year contract for the average of the top 10 players at his position, the franchise retains his rights unless another club wants to give significant draft compensation. Figure the top 32 veterans (one per club) who was supposed to hit free agency will now be tagged.

 

I thought that only with the franchise tag that the other team had to give compensation?

 

There is another thought that I would like to add to this discussion. The onus of the CBA is on the owners. They have a decisive division among them, and the biggest sticking point is revenue sharing. This is probably the only time that I actually agree with owners such as Jerry Jones of the Cowboys. He has done an absolutely fabulous job of creating ways to generate revenue. Why should he and the other owners who are actively trying ways to generate money have to share this revenue with other owners who do absolutely nada to promote their franchise and who do absolutely nothing to try to find other avenues to generate more revenue for their franchise. Jerry has been waiting for this time to come around and address this issue. They do not feel that they should have to share revenue that they are generating through their vigorous efforts with owners who could do the same but choose not to. He is right in my opinion. This right now is the biggest stumbling block with the CBA. If those other owners wish to reap those benefits then they need put forth those same efforts. The revenue sharing should not include revenue that is generated outside of the normal revenue (tv contracts, etc.)

 

That is still the case, but the rules to become a free agent significantly change and not to the players benefit. Thus it is not beneficial to the players to have this uncapped year. A lot of guys who were counting on this to be their big pay day will no longer qualify to be a free agent.

 

You're such a damn troll. Yeah, you'll contribute to a conversation here or there, but then you always go back to just trolling. It's amazing they let you hang here. If a Jets fan acted this way on a Phins site I'm sure he wouldda been 86'ed by now.

 

I'm going to take a stab and say, reading comprehension is not your strong suit?

As for the article itself, I don't claim to be a salary cap expert or anything [little help jetsin2004] but I do believe '07 would not be a fully uncapped year as there will still be signing restrictions in place to prevent only the top revenue earning teams from splurging on the free agency market. I believe '08 is the real year to watch for. I'm going by second hand information however, and of course this is all contingent on the CBA not being extended. Which at the end of the day I think still gets done for the good of the leauge. But probably not by the deadline.

 

I'm praying they work out a deal....praying.