Lack Of Salary Cap May Hurt Vereran Players

[KatsAzz]

I just thought of this today, but the lack of a salary cap may hurt veteran players seeking a contract in an unexpected way.

The salary cap had an exception for veteran players that was used several times last year, by teams trying to replace injured players during the season. The exception allowed teams to sign veterans to contracts exceeding the veteran minimum amounts, but they would only count against the salary cap at the veteran minimum (I can't remember the exact numbers). Without that incentive, teams might prefer to sign younger players.

I'm really interested to see if some teams attempt to sign players to less than minimum contracts (probably only after the final camp cuts). Without a salary cap, the minimum's don't really apply. Would some player accept a $200,000 salary to play, rather than around $360,000, as opposed to staying home, and making nothing? Can you imagine the players union outcry against the league, team, and signing player if this happens? The union might go on strike, blackball the player, or blacklist the team, if it were to happen.

[rayzor]

it's hurting a lot of players. those guys that were up for a big payday because they were going to be hitting the market have to wait another year or two...that is money lost in the short and long term. they have to strike while the iron is hot and when they are finally able to hit the market they may have only a lukewarm iron.

good point on the older vets, though. lots of salary dumping is going to be taking place. richardson set the tone and others are going to follow suit. the reality of the 2011 lockout is going to cause teams to take some cost cutting measures as well.

imo, the older vets are going to be the ones that will help get a new deal pushed through and they will also be the ones to push for a rookie payscale because they are often hurt by the outrageous salaries paid to untested early pick rookies. they eat up a lot of cap and the older vets are the ones who get the short end of the stick.

[PantherBob]

I just thought of this today, but the lack of a salary cap may hurt veteran players seeking a contract in an unexpected way.

The salary cap had an exception for veteran players that was used several times last year, by teams trying to replace injured players during the season. The exception allowed teams to sign veterans to contracts exceeding the veteran minimum amounts, but they would only count against the salary cap at the veteran minimum (I can't remember the exact numbers). Without that incentive, teams might prefer to sign younger players.

I'm really interested to see if some teams attempt to sign players to less than minimum contracts (probably only after the final camp cuts). Without a salary cap, the minimum's don't really apply. Would some player accept a $200,000 salary to play, rather than around $360,000, as opposed to staying home, and making nothing? Can you imagine the players union outcry against the league, team, and signing player if this happens? The union might go on strike, blackball the player, or blacklist the team, if it were to happen.

Funny, this post was on another forum word for word. Are you "faithandtruth" or do you like to borrow other peoples thoughts?

[KatsAzz]

Just a thought. As we all know, the Panthers have went on a major youth movement. But looking around the league, I see this happening at most teams - dropping still performing players in their early 30's for unproven ones in their early 20's. With so many teams doing this, the common assumption has been that they are cutting their payroll to bank more money. And I do think there is some of that. But...thinking about it more deeply, I believe its a strong signal that the owners feel there will be a lockout next year. In other words, if this is an uncapped year, then save payroll and make as much profit as possible, because next year you'll have no revenue. An additional piece of info supporting this is knowing that a player in his early 30's will play this year, then sit out a year. So, paying large salary to be carried over into years when a player may have passed his "sell by" date doesn't make a lot of sense and affects future caps as well.

I truly believe that the way teams are having fire sales is the strongest signal yet that owners believe that there'll be a lockout next year.

[Snake]

If the owners lockout then no one gets payed and you will see the union melt like ice cream on a hot summer day. If there is a strike then the younger players are the ones that probably cross over first. That's also why I will be surprised if any one picks moose up cause he is high up in the players union.

[TrueBlackandBlue]

vererans need to stop whining... stupid vererans

[magnus]

pretty much everyone but the union suggested this would be the case if the season was uncapped. Even the union panicked at the last minute and tried to make 2010 extended under 2009's numbers.

[Lumps]

If the owners lockout then no one gets payed and you will see the union melt like ice cream on a hot summer day. If there is a strike then the younger players are the ones that probably cross over first. That's also why I will be surprised if any one picks moose up cause he is high up in the players union.

Agreed... there will be no lockout just a bunch of old vets who have already been dumped by their team 2 years ago wanting more money. There will be no lockout and if there is it wont last 30 days. No one is happy when no one is getting paid.

I don't think vets should get more jsut becasue they are a 'vet'. They should make sure their performance on the field lines up with their salary but nothing more. If a team wants to take a chance and give a contract to a rookie so be it. But I do believe there should be an overall cap, it would be horrible to see football turn to baseball.

[Mjphillips86]

I don't understand why everyone is soo worried about a potential lockout. There is way to much money tied up in the NFL for that to happen.