bmw800 Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 So, since we were one of the last 8 teams left this year, it means that if there is an uncapped year (which seems increasingly likely, since there would have to be a new CBA by March 1 in order to avoid one) we cannot sign any free agent until one of our free agents signs with another team, and we can't sign them for any more money than the guy we lost. This is going to be a serious infringement on our ability to improve ourselves through free agency, since we don't have any guys hitting free agency who are going to command enough money to let us land a top flight FA. Its my understanding of the rule that even if a player were to retire (Mason, Pryce, or Reed for example) we would not be able to sign a free agent to replace them, since they did not sign with another team (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this). As a result, its going to be building through the draft again, since we really have no means to sign FAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 Sounds about right. Look at it this way though, it really would not matter if we were not allowed to sign a free agent in an uncapped year because all of the good free agents will be RFAs anyways. Thus, we will have to trade to get that big name receiver. If there is an uncapped year, Miles Austin, Malcolm Floyd, Vincent Jackson, Braylon Edwards, Antonio Bryant, and Brandon Marshall are all UFAs. If there is a capped year, all of these guys with the exception of Bryant is a RFA. If that is the case, the Chargers are sure to keep Jackson and Floyd under their tenders, and the Cowboys and Jets will definitely keeps Austin and Edwards. Marshall will most likely be shopped, but will cost us a first rounder, I assume. Anquan Boldin and Dwayne Bowe are also other guys who may be available through trade. We will have our options, but lets hope there is a new CBA. Here is a good article summing up the situation: http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vmax Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 An uncapped year will screw the Ravens. The most they can spend on 1 player would be around $3.4 mil a year...that is not #1 WR or CB money.Plus, like you said, they have to have another team sign one of their players first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 An uncapped year will screw the Ravens. The most they can spend on 1 player would be around $3.4 mil a year...that is not #1 WR or CB money.Plus, like you said, they have to have another team sign one of their players first. At first I thought an uncapped year would screw us, but look at it this way. An uncapped year could be an opportunity for Bisciotti to open up his checkbook and sign Gaither, Grubbs, Ngata, Edwards, and anyone other of our deserving guys to long-term deals without having to worry about the CAP. If that is the case, we can then trade for a receiver and sign him to a long-term deal not worrying about the cap. It all comes down to how much Bisciotti wants to spend, and the impression we have received this far is that he trusts Ozzie to do whatever he wants to put the best team on the field. Even if there was a new CBA, guys like Vincent Jackson, Brandon Marshall, and Miles Austin would surely be franchise by their respective teams, making them essentially restrictive free agents anyways. So while we may not be able to sign free agents in an uncapped year, the bottom line is that there will be a very weak free agent class anyways. Ozzie is going to be able to do his work no matter what the situation is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 From Ravens com, we have 47 people under contract for 2010, 5-12 young players with a slim change of making the roster. 17 RFAs most of them pretty much in the mix for next year. (Only eigth I think if they make it a capped year). Then there is the draft, so if it will be an uncapped season, draftpick from 2005-2006, would not be easily availble + two kind of tags. I believe FA will be booooooring. Unless there would be more trades??? We will have eigth FAs; Mason, KW, Tyree, LJ, Edwards, Bannan, Walker, Ivy. In an uncapped year we would have, both a Franchise tag and a Transition tag, actually one of those players I would consider using such a tag, the transition tag, Dwan Edwards.. Thoughts? As for draft/FA: Most positions seems clarified. Urgent needs: TE; either one solid FA or a high draftpickWR; one vet starter and one high draftpickCB; One starter DE, LBer and safety depending of Ray and EDs health and FB and kicker is obviously other areas we should be considering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 At first I thought an uncapped year would screw us, but look at it this way. An uncapped year could be an opportunity for Bisciotti to open up his checkbook and sign Gaither, Grubbs, Ngata, Edwards, and anyone other of our deserving guys to long-term deals without having to worry about the CAP. If that is the case, we can then trade for a receiver and sign him to a long-term deal not worrying about the cap. It all comes down to how much Bisciotti wants to spend, and the impression we have received this far is that he trusts Ozzie to do whatever he wants to put the best team on the field. Even if there was a new CBA, guys like Vincent Jackson, Brandon Marshall, and Miles Austin would surely be franchise by their respective teams, making them essentially restrictive free agents anyways. So while we may not be able to sign free agents in an uncapped year, the bottom line is that there will be a very weak free agent class anyways. Ozzie is going to be able to do his work no matter what the situation is. For now I am with Max. I am not sure, that is the case, their should be consequenses if 2011 will be capped again. The advantage is we can keep Clayton, Chester, Terry, Moll, DW, QS, Landry, F. Washington and Koch.. Except for Koch and possible Landry I would say the rest of them is hardly no brainers, for depth great though. Another good thing we could dump Pryce, McGahee, Rolle.. Then again why should we? They migth be better than most, well for a future capped year it migth make sense. I believe Our situation would be fare better with a capped year, we are finally done with deadmoney (JO and McNair), our capsroom is pretty solid if they should make a deal, well it is probably not to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 For now I am with Max. I am not sure, that is the case, their should be consequenses if 2011 will be capped again. The advantage is we can keep Clayton, Chester, Terry, Moll, DW, QS, Landry, F. Washington and Koch.. Except for Koch and possible Landry I would say the rest of them is hardly no brainers, for depth great though. Another good thing we could dump Pryce, McGahee, Rolle.. Then again why should we? They migth be better than most, well for a future capped year it migth make sense. I believe Our situation would be fare better with a capped year, we are finally done with deadmoney (JO and McNair), our capsroom is pretty solid if they should make a deal, well it is probably not to be. From what I am hearing, if the CAP goes it will be very difficult if not impossible to bring it back in the future. Even if they did, it would have to be at a substantially higher number than ever before. Owners are not going to agree to a low cap after an uncapped year where they have spent money on their team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 ... how do backloaded deals work in all this, though? Foxworth's contract was worth 4-5m a year, right? But how much of that was in 2009... and how much in his later seasons? NFL contracts are notoriously backloaded. So say we want a guy who demands 8m a year... but only technically have 3 mil to spend... sign him for 3m in 2010, 5m in 2011, 10m in 2012?? Not that it makes for sound long-term finances... but it's interesting. How do signing bonuses fit in? 3 per year for 6 years... 30m signing bonus. There's your 8m per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincac Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Wouldn't it be possible to front-load contracts so that most of the cap hit came in this uncapped year and put us at a cap advantage in the future. I know in the NBA a few players (Kirk Hinrich comes to mind) have frontloaded deals, so it should be possible in the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Wouldn't it be possible to front-load contracts so that most of the cap hit came in this uncapped year and put us at a cap advantage in the future. I know in the NBA a few players (Kirk Hinrich comes to mind) have frontloaded deals, so it should be possible in the NFL. With long-term extensions for our own guys that would probably be a good idea. The point dc was making is that under the former collective bargaining rules, we would only be able to sign one free agent in an uncapped year for about $3 million. So what dc was saying was could we pay the guy $3 million this year, then maybe $6 million next year, and so on. If I had to guess, there are probably years stating how large of a contract you are allowed to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.