Skip to content

New CBA expected to protect veterans from being cap casualties

Denver Broncos v Philadelphia Eagles Getty Images

We’re entering the final stretch of the lockout (hopefully), and yet there are still so many unanswered questions about what the new CBA will look like.

We’re hearing that one aspect of the new agreement will be very friendly to veterans with big salaries.

PFT has picked up word that the new deal is expected to protect veterans from becoming cap casualties. We also hear there’s language in the deal that good agents will exploit for veteran players.

It remains to be seen exactly what shape these rules take, and whether they will be permanent or for one year only.  But it sounds like it will be easier for teams to retain high priced veterans.

Permalink 25 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
25 Responses to “New CBA expected to protect veterans from being cap casualties”
  1. typhilly21 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:04 AM

    jerry jones’ fingerprints all over this…

  2. travispeters1 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:07 AM

    About time the vets get taken care of.

  3. paul82461 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:12 AM

    Maybe if players wouldnt demand such high salaries they could be retained and keep a tean together for years. If you have 4 great players it could run you 50% of your salary cap. The only way it would be easier is to start paying them based on there performance.

  4. rpiotr01 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:13 AM

    Who cares about all this new good stuff coming out for the players? This new CBA is crap and I won’t settle unless you pay me $10 million.

    Signed,

    Vincent Jackson

  5. sj39 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:16 AM

    Wow, I sure hope this new CBA doesn’t ruin the game too much. The cap and the tags have kept it pretty competative (at least for smart teams that spend up to the cap). Dumping overpaid vets has always been a part of roster turnover that keeps teams like the Pats on top. Many times they get re-signed at a more reasonable price.

  6. finsfrontofficeisajoke says: Jul 21, 2011 10:18 AM

    This is good and bad news at the same time. For one, it’s really heartbreaking when your favorite team loses a good leader because he’s earned the right to get paid. On the other hand, parity in the NFL is driven by this very dynamic, so fans of typically poor performing teams (read: Miami) look forward to the availability of cap casualty players to instantly improve the roster.

    One can certainly understand the benefits of such a provision to both the players and owners, but its effects on the movement of talent is something that will be interesting to see.

  7. axespray says: Jul 21, 2011 10:18 AM

    rpiotr01 says:Jul 21, 2011 10:13 AM
    “Who cares about all this new good stuff coming out for the players? This new CBA is crap and I won’t settle unless you pay me $10 million.
    Signed, Vincent Jackson”

    ^ yea’ homie…weez’ gotz ta’ keepz our dollaz’ in huge pilez’ fo’ bizniz’ yo’…I needz’ ta’ keep ma’ mansion dollaz’…. I watch scarface at leezt a thousand times….ya’ heaRd?!

    signed, Peyton Manning….my neck hurts.

  8. m2karateman says: Jul 21, 2011 10:19 AM

    It depends on the language of the clause, but I don’t think this is right. If a team can’t afford a veteran player, and they aren’t performing to the level of their deal, then the player needs to accept less pay or accept their release.

    I find it funny that veteran players often DEMAND long term deals, then get upset if they are released when they don’t meet the expectations of their inflated salaries, or hold out if they think they deserve more money a couple years into their new lucrative deal (sound familiar Terrell Owens?). You get a new high paying deal for long term to get some “security”, you damn well better be prepared to play to the level of your play.

  9. dontouchmyjunk says: Jul 21, 2011 10:21 AM

    This sounds like some version of a “soft cap”. Not liking the sound of that one bit. Look how horribly it worked for the NBA.

    A hard cap is the only way to go. If a player signs a deal with a large back end in their contract, they have to keep their own back end small enough to keep playing at a high level to earn it.

  10. melonnhead says: Jul 21, 2011 10:21 AM

    Teams should be able to have a better chance of keeping players that they’ve drafted and acquired as free agents by installing a soft cap provision to allow them room to do so. The ability to sign other teams’ draftees and free agents should fall under a hard cap provision.

  11. melonnhead says: Jul 21, 2011 10:23 AM

    I find it funny that veteran players often DEMAND long term deals, then get upset if they are released when they don’t meet the expectations of their inflated salaries, or hold out if they think they deserve more money a couple years into their new lucrative deal (sound familiar Terrell Owens?).

    —————————————————————-

    When did TO hold out?

  12. ianwhetstone says: Jul 21, 2011 10:24 AM

    paul82461 says: Jul 21, 2011 10:12 AM

    The only way it would be easier is to start paying them based on there performance.
    _____________________________________

    Well, that’s an idea that a lot of fans seem to love, but as a practical matter, how do you implement it? Are you going to base it on stats? Because if you think players are primadonnas about getting their “touches” now… I mean, just imagine. And how would you pay offensive linemen? Or cornerbacks?

    There’s simply no effective, objective, broadly-applicable way to measure individual performance in the most team-oriented of the popular professional sports.

  13. realitypolice says: Jul 21, 2011 10:35 AM

    Sounds like some version of a “Bird Exception” which the NBA has, and is looking to get rid of in their new CBA.

    The rule, named after Larry Bird, allows teams to designate one player that they exceed the cap to sign.

  14. capslockkey says: Jul 21, 2011 10:41 AM

    The article heading should be changed to “New CBA expected to protect overpaid and underachieving veterans from being cap casualties”. Doesn’t matter how big your contract is, if you are playing up to the level of your deal, you aren’t going to be a cap casualty. Well thank God now the Roy Williams of the league will be protected.

  15. m2karateman says: Jul 21, 2011 10:42 AM

    melonnhead says:
    Jul 21, 2011 10:23 AM

    When did TO hold out?
    ——————————————————–
    How soon we forget.

    Do you not remember the Eagles fiasco? He signed a 7 year deal worth $42M and the following year after they went to the SB, he starting complaining about his contract. He basically forced the Eagles to release him because of his mouth and antics, and his threats to hold out because he felt he was underpaid, even though he signed that deal just a year earlier.

    And I didn’t even mention how that asshat screwed over the Ravens during that whole situation……

  16. crimhollingsworth says: Jul 21, 2011 10:57 AM

    I hope the NFL is not borrowing failed ideas from the NBA.

  17. jcg23 says: Jul 21, 2011 11:04 AM

    With the floor raising so high, they will have to have some sort of a soft cap from year to year or teams won’t be able to keep a player for a year without having to release them.

  18. lucky5934 says: Jul 21, 2011 11:06 AM

    So we are now protecting overpriced talent whos efforts on the field dont match up with their compensation? How is that beneficial to running an organization? If i was the owners I would only agree with that if the NFLPA made it mandatory for no player holdouts who are under contract. Then both sides agree to honor all contracts, for better or worse.

  19. rbirving says: Jul 21, 2011 11:16 AM

    Would make sense if it for this season only. Given that there will be a short window prior to the season and coming off an uncapped year, it makes sense to make allowances for veterans with existing contracts. It won’t make sense if it allows agents to manipulate it to get bigger contracts for Free Agents.

    After this year, I certainly hope we’re back to the hard cap. It’s the difference between the NFL and all other pro leagues. It stops teams from becoming the NY Yankees of the NFL, and buying up all the stars.

  20. rbirving says: Jul 21, 2011 11:25 AM

    Also, some seem to be interpreting this as the teams would “have to” keep the player and their high priced contract.

    It would allow them to, if that was the teams desire, and not break the cap this year.

  21. BroncoNick says: Jul 21, 2011 11:32 AM

    As much as I love the idea of this right now especially for my Broncos with guys like Dawkins and Champ. I still don’t want the NFL to become like the MLB. Keeping a hard salary cap keeps the field competetive. I just know that if they start finding loop holes or have a soft cap then that competetive nature is going to go away. BUT if this is something where it’s for minimum salary vets, or it is just for a few guys on your team (i.e. Dawk, Champ) then I am all for it.

  22. melonnhead says: Jul 21, 2011 11:38 AM

    Do you not remember the Eagles fiasco? He signed a 7 year deal worth $42M and the following year after they went to the SB, he starting complaining about his contract. He basically forced the Eagles to release him because of his mouth and antics, and his threats to hold out because he felt he was underpaid, even though he signed that deal just a year earlier.

    —————————————————————-

    Yeah he did threaten to hold out but he showed up to training camp on time if I remember correctly (and I do) and played hard through the season until the Eagles suspended him for four games (after 47 catches for 763 yards and 6 TDs in 7 games) and then deactivated him for the rest of the season. Also if I recall correctly (and I do), TO would have been satisfied if the Eagles had guaranteed 2006 roster bonuses (totaling $7.5 million).

  23. petedutcher says: Jul 21, 2011 12:54 PM

    Make the length of a rookie contract manditory, then only make 50-75% of the second contract count against the cap./ Players get their money, teams stay together, cap hit is reduced.

  24. j0esixpack says: Jul 21, 2011 1:02 PM

    The Devil is in the Details – but I’ve always held that teams should be given a certain amount of roster or cap exemptions that can be used to retain high caliber character guys that serve as a role model for other younger players.

    I’m thinking of guys who have worked hard, stayed out of trouble off the field, and continue to contribute on the field and in the locker room.

    It would be a win win for the organizations, owners, and players, both young and old if such high caliber players were somehow allowed to extend their careers a bit further

  25. CKL says: Jul 21, 2011 1:21 PM

    rbirving says:
    Jul 21, 2011 11:16 AM
    Would make sense if it for this season only. Given that there will be a short window prior to the season and coming off an uncapped year, it makes sense to make allowances for veterans with existing contracts. It won’t make sense if it allows agents to manipulate it to get bigger contracts for Free Agents.
    _________________________________
    I agree, I think this season could see some reasonable exceptions due to the nature of missing all the offseason work for players etc. I am very curious how with the new cash minimum requirements as far as not much of it being allowed to exist as dead money how that will work with guys whose cap #s are prohibitive enough for the next year such that teams may want to cut them. Maybe solving this is part of that equation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!