NFLPA's DeMaurice Smith tells agents to 'collude'

[squire12]

Quote

NFLPA's DeMaurice Smith tells agents to 'collude' on offers to ensure teams not limiting salaries with reduced cap, source says

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30963821/nflpa-demaurice-smith-tells-agents-collude-offers-ensure-teams-not-limiting-salaries-source-says

Going to be interesting to see how FA plays out.   

Will there be the typical frenzy early on?

Will the top 1-2 tier of UFA players get there big paydays?

How will the reduced cap affect the depth starters and back of the roster players?

 

This ultimately feels like asking players to "hold the line on salaries" but once someone breaks and goes to get theirs, there very well could be some left with veteran minimum deals or no deal at all.   I think the top 1-2 tier of players will get there big  payday (maybe a slight % reduction vs typical years), but the lower tier/depth and back of the roster players will be squeezed.   Limited cap space and limited roster spots 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

dont you kind of have to limit offers with a reduced cap though?....what am I missing here?

[squire12]

38 minutes ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

dont you kind of have to limit offers with a reduced cap though?....what am I missing here?

I think the premise is Smith is asking the players and the agents to "hold their ground" on not letting the teams use the reduced cap as a means to attempt to sign players to "low ball offers".  

I agree, there is finite cap space and finite roster spots.  Teams that are over or near the cap will need to be very frugal with their spending, thus limiting the pool of teams pursuing FA.  Those teams with cap space will be in a position to potentially have more options to fill holes and thus it becomes a market that favors those teams with more players to pick from.  

[iknowcool]

You follow this advice and you're gonna be left holding the bag.

[Forge]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

Will there be the typical frenzy early on?

 

I forget where I read it, but I know I saw somewhere in an article that from the looks of it people in the NFL were projecting free agency to go off just as normal. 

[squire12]

10 minutes ago, Forge said:

I forget where I read it, but I know I saw somewhere in an article that from the looks of it people in the NFL were projecting free agency to go off just as normal. 

I think the big name UFA will get theirs and likely will do so early.   Just not sure the middle tier type players will find the robust market there is in previous seasons with less cap space to be had.  More teams in a bargain shopping mentality looking for good deals

[Danger]

I mean... offering lower salary for 2021 alone I could see.

[3rivers]

3 hours ago, squire12 said:

I think the premise is Smith is asking the players and the agents to "hold their ground" on not letting the teams use the reduced cap as a means to attempt to sign players to "low ball offers".  

I agree, there is finite cap space and finite roster spots.  Teams that are over or near the cap will need to be very frugal with their spending, thus limiting the pool of teams pursuing FA.  Those teams with cap space will be in a position to potentially have more options to fill holes and thus it becomes a market that favors those teams with more players to pick from.  

Smith means well for the players, but the reality is there is less $ spend. I can see some players holding their ground and getting what they normally would, but most others will as a result not get what they normally would. Or am I missing something? I can't see how what smith says can apply and be a reality for most of  the UFA's. 

I would expect there to be more cap casualties this year , it should shake up the rankings somewhat. Still expect Brady to be near the SB again next year though.

[FalconFan13]

I think you might see quite a few more 1 year deals than in years past.  They will get something nice with incentives they can reach for this year and then go back into FA next year with a bigger cap hopefully and go for their big contract.   Maybe im wrong but i think i would go that route if i was gunning for a bigger payday.

[VigilantZombie]

This seems like kind of a dirt bag move.  These players want to be on a winning team by there also want their money and we are in a situation that the NFL had no control over as far as a pandemic Yeah when it comes to business the rich want to stay rich as in the players dont give a damn about what the situation needs. This situation needs compromise from both sides I would expect that the big game where they keep coming out and saying they want to stay at a particular place will end up on another team as a result of selfishness.  I am by no means suggestion that people should be taking the league minimum or anything like that but I did think that is possible to negotiate a contract that escalates in future years rather than putting it all into the 1st year to balance the cap But that requires players to accept less guaranteed money up front

[ramssuperbowl99]

11 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

dont you kind of have to limit offers with a reduced cap though?....what am I missing here?

It's a 1 year blip, most large NFL contracts are spread out over multiple years, and the NFL salary cap has ridiculous inflation (> 5% yearly).

Financially savvy teams will be able to limit the impact of this pretty well. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

4 hours ago, FalconFan13 said:

I think you might see quite a few more 1 year deals than in years past

I would expect that for rebuilding teams, but for win now teams I would expect more deals with a low year 1 cap number and a spike in year 2. Cap space is going to be at such a premium this year, teams will throw a second year on to distribute some of a hit to next year when it matters less.

[ET80]

8 hours ago, 3rivers said:

Smith means well for the players, but the reality is there is less $ spend.

But lets admit - this less money is still an artificial construct. NFL teams still turned a profit from this season based on TV contracts/revenue. Maybe not as big a profit as previous years, but a profit nonetheless. Creating a shorter ceiling for the cap isn't based on actual dollars lost - just the perception of monies lost. All 32 teams ended in the black, thanks to the Network dollars.

The cap has always been an artificial construct for owners to say "welp, I can't pay you anymore so... good luck!" which is OK, all things considered (nobody wants a Yankees or Dodgers). But to restrict standard growth to said cap because you didn't make as much money as you anticipated? (Not even you operated at a loss, you flat out turned less a profit you anticipated...) I'm not a fan of that.

But, that's just me.

[soflbillsfan]

I think him saying collude is not necessary as they always do. Players who are seeking multi year deals will still get paid the expected amount they would in any year as the contract can be manipulated and given the cap hit in other years while still getting their signing bonus and upfront guarantees in which it will then be placed through out multiple years. If for say JJ watt was given a 3 year deal worth 30 mil and 15 is guaranteed the team can easily have a cap hit of $1 mil in 2021 and make up for it in 2022 and 2023 by having 14 mil in 2022 and 15 mil in 2023. The issue veterans are going to have are the one year deals as they wont get the expected 5 mil instead it will be around 1 mil. If you are expecting more cuts to happen I do not see it being a thing unless it is impossible to get them to restructure the deal in which 2021 base salaries are placed as signing bonuses and pushed to 2022 or they just flat out extend that player in which they will then be able to push back the money. This is just an extra blip that a good gm can navigate around with ease. If it wasnt for the tv rights and expectations that were already said by Goodell that they project to be back to the normal cap in 2022 I dont see this year's cap issues that big of a deal signing FA unless you are a team that is well over the cap before the time comes for FA. 

[squire12]

27 minutes ago, ET80 said:

But lets admit - this less money is still an artificial construct. NFL teams still turned a profit from this season based on TV contracts/revenue. Maybe not as big a profit as previous years, but a profit nonetheless. Creating a shorter ceiling for the cap isn't based on actual dollars lost - just the perception of monies lost. All 32 teams ended in the black, thanks to the Network dollars.

The cap has always been an artificial construct for owners to say "welp, I can't pay you anymore so... good luck!" which is OK, all things considered (nobody wants a Yankees or Dodgers). But to restrict standard growth to said cap because you didn't make as much money as you anticipated? (Not even you operated at a loss, you flat out turned less a profit you anticipated...) I'm not a fan of that.

But, that's just me.

that is a fair view.  

Just happens that the CBA between the owners and the players states 48% (or whatever the specific number is) of revenue is what determines the salary cap.  

If the owners really wanted to hold that line, then the cap would likely be much less than the $180M that is being projected