Free Agent Targets

[tynimiller]

Not for being over the cap though but trying to circumvent the salary cap by offering benefits to players without accounting for it in cap hits.

Yeah I edited my comment:

You need to keep reading after this page...Article 14 Section 6 Sanctions - outlines precisely what penalties/sanctions will be imposed should a team be found in violation.

*Edit, wait it appears that is for violations only to Section 1 (a) or (b)

Either way I am still not wrong. A team can choose to go over the cap, but that would be a breach of the CBA and therefore if I understand the CBA correctly would be subject to expulsion from the league at the very worst, or crippling sanctions if found to be breaches of contract styles outlined in Article 14.

Which to be fair is BREAKING the cap

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which to be fair is BREAKING the cap

It's breaking the rules of the salary cap but doesn't result in a team being over it.

 

[tynimiller]

It's breaking the rules of the salary cap but doesn't result in a team being over it.

How so? The very reason this Section 6 exists is if a team structures a deal in a way to circumvent the cap - which is breaking the cap...aka going over it. No?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How so? The very reason this Section 6 exists is if a team structures a deal in a way to circumvent the cap - which is breaking the cap...aka going over it. No?

Whatever, I'm done discussing the topic with you. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that teams aren't allowed to be over the cap at any point during the league year, something that was your original claim.

Instead of admitting that you were wrong about it in the first place you prefer to move the parameters of the discussion to fit your narrative in a random way while completely ignoring that the only example you were able to bring up from the last 20 years happened in an uncapped season.

Fine, have at it, I'm not interested anymore though.

 

[tynimiller]

@captainWIMM oh come on, seriously it is a valid question no?

Wouldn't structuring a contract to circumvent the cap as outlined in the Section 1, and sanctions for such violations outlined in Section 6 of Article 14 not be a team attempting to go over the cap?

I claim to know just enough to be deadly, and with that I could be completely wrong and would admit so in a heartbeat.

I'm not moving ANY goal posts, someone asked if a team can go over the cap, and honest to God the answer is yes - at the risk of a death sentence to the franchise at worst, or insanely crippling sanctions if the violation getting over the cap is found to be in Section 1 of Article 14?

I truly think it is merely a semantical between us, yet I believe we are saying the same thing - you wouldn't say a team can be over the cap, because they would cease to function either by expulsion or if a contract structure issue face such severe sanctions and fines no owner would do it in their right mind.....while I would say sure a team could, but would face incredible sanctions/fines or expulsion. Unless I completely have not understood the CBA agreement I've read, which 100% fully could be possible - not an attorney or an agent or anyone which would have any reason for one to believe my interpretation of the document more than the next person.

No?

 

[Poppa San]

... and this is why we have a new rule.

From the sidelines it appears both posters are debating the same side of the argument just using different terms. Two people divided by a common language as it were.

 

[tynimiller]

... and this is why we have a new rule.

From the sidelines it appears both posters are debating the same side of the argument just using different terms. Two people divided by a common language as it were.

Yup I fully admit purely appears semantical

 

[scotscheese]

... and this is why we have a new rule.

From the sidelines it appears both posters are debating the same side of the argument just using different terms. Two people divided by a common language as it were.

lets face it neither uses English as their first language

 

[tynimiller]

lets face it neither uses English as their first language

LoL this made me laugh. It is my first language, just won't say I'm fluent LOL

 

[Deleted member 6794]

... and this is why we have a new rule.

From the sidelines it appears both posters are debating the same side of the argument just using different terms. Two people divided by a common language as it were.

Just for the record, in this case I was solely using facts to support my argument while tyni tried to circumvent them by moving parameters.

 

[scotscheese]

LoL this made me laugh. It is my first language, just won't say I'm fluent LOL

Americans speak English?

Just for the record, in this case I was solely using facts to support my argument while tyni tried to circumvent them by moving parameters.

you are unbelievable. again, pot, kettle, black

 

[thequick12]

How so? The very reason this Section 6 exists is if a team structures a deal in a way to circumvent the cap - which is breaking the cap...aka going over it. No?

I haven't read all that yall been saying...but to me you answered your own question with this statement

If a team structures a deal in an unallowed way to circumvent the cap, it would not result in the team being over the salary cap. As the whole point of circumventing something like a salary cap would be so you remain beneath it. I do get what you're saying but to me they could be punished for that like you said but they wouldn't be over the cap, they'd be punished for using means not allowed by the cba, to stay under the cap

 

[tynimiller]

I haven't read all that yall been saying...but to me you answered your own question with this statement

If a team structures a deal in an unallowed way to circumvent the cap, it would not result in the team being over the salary cap. As the whole point of circumventing something like a salary cap would be so you remain beneath it. I do get what you're saying but to me they could be punished for that like you said but they wouldn't be over the cap, they'd be punished for using cba illegal means, for lack of better term, to stay under the cap

So circumventing it would only be in a case to stay under? Not resulting in an overage?

 

[thequick12]

So circumventing it would only be in a case to stay under? Not resulting in an overage?

I mean that is the definition of the word circumvent...

 

[tynimiller]

I mean that is the definition of the word circumvent...

I guess I read that sanctions and fines part for any violation of the cap, but I hear ya. Essentially that doesn't matter though, as if you're team is over the cap at the start of the year, you're in violation of the CBA period anyways.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Essentially that doesn't matter though, as if you're team is over the cap at the start of the year, you're in violation of the CBA period anyways.

Your team can't be over the cap at the start of the year.

 

[Poppa San]

Capocalypse might be a moot point.
https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/nfl-salary-cap-might-not-crash-after-all

One agent said the expectation is the cap for 2020 will at least remain steady. Another agent said he expected it to touch $200 million. Another was planning for $195 million.
“Why go from $175 million for 2021 and then raise it to $220 million in 2022? That just doesn’t make any sense,” he said. ...
... All three agents said teams are using the potential for a dramatically decreased cap as a scare tactic to get their upcoming free agents to sign for less money than they might otherwise. One of those agents has told teams he would not negotiate on behalf of any of his players until the cap is officially set.

Posted by Mike Florio

That’s the obvious takeaway from a new report, courtesy of CNBC’s Jabari Young, that the NFL wants to “finalize frameworks” of new TV deals before setting the 2021 salary cap.

This implies that the league could be inclined to shift some future earnings toward 2021, potentially bumping up the salary cap. It’s currently expected to land in the range of $180 million per team. It’s possible that, if the money to be earned under the next wave of contracts represents a sufficient increase in revenue, some of that money could be moved around in order to make more money available to all teams in the coming season.

 

[tynimiller]

Capocalypse might be a moot point.
https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/nfl-salary-cap-might-not-crash-after-all

Posted by Mike Florio

Yeah there's been numerous sources that have stated projected reduction isn't nearly as severe as originally thought. While 175M was rumored for awhile, most are stating 185 or so is the bottom. I sense many are arguing to flat line it for a year knowing 2022 is going to explode, but something tells me we will see a reduction of somekind - I feel we have to.

 

[tynimiller]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[tynimiller]

So with the floor being 180 - I am now changing my thought process we may very well see a frozen top cap same as last year.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

Wentz to Indy... Keeps him out of the North as Chicago was sniffing around. Probably works out best for Wentz to be with *****. If he pans out, Indy could make some waves in the AFC. He's got the arm still, accuracy needs some tuning.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Capocalypse might be a moot point.
https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/nfl-salary-cap-might-not-crash-after-all

While it would definitely help if the salary cap was set close to $200 million for 2021 the Packers would still have to make some moves to create cap spce.

 

[GleefulGary]

So.

Tre Boston got released again.

He has been a pretty decent safety lately despite being cut by everybody, and he’s signed cheap lately.

I think it’s worth checking him out, signing him go play safety and using Savage as the nickel. Savage plays better the closer to the LOS he gets, and it somewhat reduces the need at CB.

 

[ARPackFan]

Capocalypse might be a moot point.
https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/nfl-salary-cap-might-not-crash-after-all

Posted by Mike Florio

Every dollar counts at this point but I think the cap staying near $200M is wishful thinking on the part of players and their agents. If the 2021 cap was calculated by the negotiated language of the CBA it would be closer to $160M (See article). According to Overthecap there are 19 teams under the $180M number and if I am a GM for one of these teams I want the chaos created by a low number because of the likely buyers market for FA talent.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30923265/nfl-increases-2021-salary-cap-minimum-180-million

"Sources familiar with the negotiations told ESPN that the final number is likely to be between $180 million and $185 million, though almost certainly on the lower end of that range."

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So.

Tre Boston got released again.

He has been a pretty decent safety lately despite being cut by everybody, and he’s signed cheap lately.

I think it’s worth checking him out, signing him go play safety and using Savage as the nickel. Savage plays better the closer to the LOS he gets, and it somewhat reduces the need at CB.

FWIW, according to PFF Boston had his worst season in the NFL by a decent margin in 2020.