Would an NFL lockout for 2011 help the Skins?

[FlaSk1nsfan]

I was reading the article in the Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902860.html

And in it they talk about this being the possible last "feel good" superbowl and that the players and owners may be prepared for a lockout in 2011 and something came to mind. Could this be a good thing for the Skins? I know that Ted used the offseason and season before the NHL lockout to dump over priced players and revamp the team and look how kick ass the Caps are doing. Granted drafting #8 helped that but still. Just wanted to see if any ES's had any thoughts on this? For the record I think a lockout would suck and dont want to see it but what happened with the Caps and the NHL lockout and how Ted took advantage of it came right to mind as I read this article. HTTR!!!

[JaimeDeCurry]

The Caps organization took advantage of the lockout in the same way that NFL owners could take advantage of the uncapped year. There doesn't need to be a lockout for the 'Skins to purge their older, more high-priced guys. The Redskins can afford to eat the contracts for those guys since there won't be a hit on the non-existent salary cap.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Does anyone know if there'd be any rules against dumping high contract players two years running in this scenario in football?

If there isn't, I'd be pretty much with your line of thinking FlaSk1ns, though I'd be a little torn on two fronts.

It would absolutely suck to have a year of no football, and heck knows what we'd talk about around here; but overall it might just be beneficial to the long term good of speeding things up with this team with the chance to prune some high earning vets.

The other negative would be a break in the Shanahan regime. Let's say for arguments sake things did roll quicker than expected, and we have a half decent or better season next year; you'd rather get the following season going as soon as and keep the momentum rolling, than have the detrimental effect of a year off and lose it.

One thing for sure, it'll all be very interesting to see how the CBA play's out the next few months.

Hail.

[dahibachi]

despite being disappointed with Redskin performances in the past couple of years... i think i'd have a heart attack if the NFL went into a lockout. they better get this thing solved.

but the uncapped year would be fine... its essentially a "do over" button for all the bad contracts Snyderrato put together over the past 10 years.

[NewCliche21]

How likely is the lockout?

[RWJ]

There may be negative affects. Check out this article. This is from a former Redskins Cap expert.

http://www.csnwashington.com/01/28/10/Tandler-Uncapped-Bonanza-For-Redskins-Un/landing_redskins.html?blockID=171253&feedID=272

Those of you who think that the upcoming uncapped 2010 NFL season is going to be a huge bonanza for the free spending Washington Redskins should think again, according to a former Redskins salary cap analyst.

J. I. Halsell, who worked in the Redskins front office in 2006 and 2007 and in the NFL offices dealing with salary cap matters prior to that, says that while it seems certain that 2010 will be uncapped, the threat of potential penalties for overspending in 2011 and beyond will keep teams’ spending in check.


“You don’t know what the rules are going to be, assuming that the salary cap comes back in 2011. There might be a rule in there that penalizes those teams that ran up high team salaries in the uncapped year,” said Halsell.

So, for example, under the old formula the cap would be around $132 million this year. Teams that exceed that number will face no consequences this year, but the new CBA could call for a reduction in their cap numbers in 2011. So a team that spends $140 million this year might have $8 million knocked off of their 2011 cap. Or maybe it won’t be dollar for dollar; perhaps it will be 50% of the dead cap or some other amount being charged to 2011.

A similar penalty could apply to teams that dump veterans to avoid what would be high dead cap charges under normal circumstances. According to Halsell, the new CBA could charge all or part of 2010 dead cap money to the 2011 cap.

[Rufus T Firefly]

There may be negative affects. Check out this article. This is from a former Redskins Cap expert.

http://www.csnwashington.com/01/28/10/Tandler-Uncapped-Bonanza-For-Redskins-Un/landing_redskins.html?blockID=171253&feedID=272

Those of you who think that the upcoming uncapped 2010 NFL season is going to be a huge bonanza for the free spending Washington Redskins should think again, according to a former Redskins salary cap analyst.

J. I. Halsell, who worked in the Redskins front office in 2006 and 2007 and in the NFL offices dealing with salary cap matters prior to that, says that while it seems certain that 2010 will be uncapped, the threat of potential penalties for overspending in 2011 and beyond will keep teams’ spending in check.


“You don’t know what the rules are going to be, assuming that the salary cap comes back in 2011. There might be a rule in there that penalizes those teams that ran up high team salaries in the uncapped year,” said Halsell.

So, for example, under the old formula the cap would be around $132 million this year. Teams that exceed that number will face no consequences this year, but the new CBA could call for a reduction in their cap numbers in 2011. So a team that spends $140 million this year might have $8 million knocked off of their 2011 cap. Or maybe it won’t be dollar for dollar; perhaps it will be 50% of the dead cap or some other amount being charged to 2011.

A similar penalty could apply to teams that dump veterans to avoid what would be high dead cap charges under normal circumstances. According to Halsell, the new CBA could charge all or part of 2010 dead cap money to the 2011 cap.

At the risk of sounding like someone who thinks he knows more than an expert in the cap, I have to say that I find his scenario EXTREMELY unlikely.

Those penalties would have to be part of a new CBA and the players would have to agree to them. By and large, the uncapped year is gonna end up costing players more than owners with all the rules that go along with it (no UFA for 4-5 year players, 2 tags instead of 1, no salary floor, smaller minimum salaries, less retirement benefits, etc). The net effect is less money for players, and a loss of bargaining power for scores of players in their prime earning years. The one small offshoot to this is there might be a very small handful of teams who spend more than they otherwise would have in a capped year.

His theory revolves around the owners then coming to the players (after the rest of the CBA issues are worked out and agreed on) and saying "OK, now that we forced the uncapped year down your throats, and all the money and benefits lost to your players, now we'd like to take the one small benefit you guys recieved from this and essentially have you pay us back for it. Sorry about how bad the uncapped year was for you, but we discovered a few owners gave out a few million extra last year, now we want to eliminate that money from next year's cap so we can recover it". And having the players agree to this. I'd be nothing short of shocked to see that happen.

Also keeping in mind that all the other cap issues that need to be resolved are changes that would lower the cap to allow the owners to keep more money in the future. So the players have to agree to that first and then agree to this pay back plan. Just can't see it happening.

[isle-hawg]

A similar penalty could apply to teams that dump veterans to avoid what would be high dead cap charges under normal circumstances. According to Halsell, the new CBA could charge all or part of 2010 dead cap money to the 2011 cap.

This is disturbing if it comes about since we need to dump and restructure several Snyderatto contracts, and account for CS' likely retirement (or restructure).

The guy who stated this is an expert, but still seems kind of far fetched to me. How can you (later) penalize a team for exceeding the salary cap when there is no salary cap for the year that was collectively bargained?