Uncapped questions

[Rxdoxx]

The more I read, the more things I don't understand, so I've got some questions if anybody knows.

First from BF's breakdown

The team may not trade for a player who they would have been otherwise unable to sign based on the above prohibitions.

Does this affect the UFA slot also or just limit a trade?
Meaning we can sign one mid-UFA but can we also trade for one that we "could have signed" in addition? Or does one eliminate the other?

Secondly, can we match an offer, sign our RFA to it and then trade him?

And thirdly,
All the focus I have seen is on upward spending. Is there any minimum limit that must be met?
I don't know about Bidwell these days, but he had a reputation as a tightwad.
Or toss in Lerner or Rooney or......
Is there a possibility that a team can go way under what this past year's cap dictated?
I can envision a greedy owner making a money grab, and I don't think that the other owners will protest since it will put even more pressure on the union when players see a team or two with a payroll well under this past year.
We have focused on what the Snyders might do, does uncapped allow the opposite to happen?

[Raveninwoodlawn]

The more I read, the more things I don't understand, so I've got some questions if anybody knows.

First from BF's breakdown


Does this affect the UFA slot also or just limit a trade?
Meaning we can sign one mid-UFA but can we also trade for one that we "could have signed" in addition? Or does one eliminate the other?

Not totally sure, but I'm 95% sure that the exception is for one player and one player only, no matter how he is acquired. If, for example, you had visions of us trading for Marshall, and then signing Peppers as an UFA, no, that can not happen.



Secondly, can we match an offer, sign our RFA to it and then trade him?

Again, not sure. I do believe there is a restriction somewhere as far as time a time period between signing a player and then trading him. But I'm not sure...sorry.


And thirdly,
All the focus I have seen is on upward spending. Is there any minimum limit that must be met?
I don't know about Bidwell these days, but he had a reputation as a tightwad.
Or toss in Lerner or Rooney or......
Is there a possibility that a team can go way under what this past year's cap dictated?
I can envision a greedy owner making a money grab, and I don't think that the other owners will protest since it will put even more pressure on the union when players see a team or two with a payroll well under this past year.
We have focused on what the Snyders might do, does uncapped allow the opposite to happen?

This I do know the answer to. No there will be no spending floor. I think early on, it was thought that without a cap, it would be a free for all...but I think over the last 2 or 3 months, as the uncapped year became more and more of a reality, most of us began to realize that many teams...many more than we might have thought, are probably going to decrease spending. I can still see the Redskins and Cowboys making a big signing or 2, but on the whole, most teams aren't going to just start throwing money out there. That is why the Owners really don't care about the uncapped year and you can see the players starting to panic a little when we thought it would have been the other way around.

[B-more Ravor]

Does this affect the UFA slot also or just limit a trade?
Meaning we can sign one mid-UFA but can we also trade for one that we "could have signed" in addition? Or does one eliminate the other?

I'm not exactly sure of the answer on this one because it can be read two ways: (1) it applies to UFAs only and prohibits a "sign and trade", whereby a team signs a UFA and then tries to trade him to a Final 8 team or (2) it applies to all players and prohibits a Final 8 team from trading for a player that it would not be able to sign as a FA because of the Final 8 prohibitions.


Secondly, can we match an offer, sign our RFA to it and then trade him?

Yes. The Final 8 provisions don't apply to RFAs anyway, but there's no prohibition to re-signing players (be they UFAs or RFAs). The only prohibition would possibly be trading that player to a Final 8 team, if (2) above is how the Final 8 plan is interpreted.


And thirdly,
All the focus I have seen is on upward spending. Is there any minimum limit that must be met?

No, there is no spending floor and the NFLPA is very concerned about this because it's very possible that some teams - anticipating a work stoppage in 2011 - will not spend as much as they otherwise would have had to with a Cap, with the goal of creating a "strike fund" of surplus cash.

[Rayvens52]

Not totally sure, but I'm 95% sure that the exception is for one player and one player only, no matter how he is acquired. If, for example, you had visions of us trading for Marshall, and then signing Peppers as an UFA, no, that can not happen.




Again, not sure. I do believe there is a restriction somewhere as far as time a time period between signing a player and then trading him. But I'm not sure...sorry.



This I do know the answer to. No there will be no spending floor. I think early on, it was thought that without a cap, it would be a free for all...but I think over the last 2 or 3 months, as the uncapped year became more and more of a reality, most of us began to realize that many teams...many more than we might have thought, are probably going to decrease spending. I can still see the Redskins and Cowboys making a big signing or 2, but on the whole, most teams aren't going to just start throwing money out there. That is why the Owners really don't care about the uncapped year and you can see the players starting to panic a little when we thought it would have been the other way around.

I would think they would be stuck just like us for being in the final 8, meaning Jerry will not be able to spend like crazy.