Go Back   hailRedskins.com Fan Board > hR Archives and Help Desk > Archive Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #736  
Old 03-14-2012, 02:46 PM
bergiemoore's Avatar
bergiemoore bergiemoore is offline
Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 2,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinskins View Post
Maybe, but it's not clear the union would be cowed as easily now that this is all out in the open.
Florio speculated that there may be a reckoning for DeMaurice Smith over this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

In the short term, the Skins are screwed, and will continue to be screwed, owing to the timing of this action.
__________________
"It is all about attitude. I can't say why or how but it is all about attitude. We go out and do our jobs, and once you go out and do it once, you get excited so you go out and do it twice."
--Darrell Green

  #737  
Old 03-14-2012, 03:02 PM
lorimike's Avatar
lorimike lorimike is offline
Code Talker
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Swedesboro NJ
Posts: 2,283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergiemoore View Post
Florio speculated that there may be a reckoning for DeMaurice Smith over this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

In the short term, the Skins are screwed, and will continue to be screwed, owing to the timing of this action.
Lets have a little levity with this situation. We are not that screwed. We still have cap space to work with, we still addressed the receiver position, and maybe, just maybe we were saved from ourselves by this. Guys like Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks will likely be cap casualties in 3 years. This years free agent crop wasn't that good to begin with. And after next year we'll have more cap room to work with because we were limited in what we could spend this year and next year. It's not the end of the world.

  #738  
Old 03-14-2012, 03:23 PM
HAWGZHEAD's Avatar
HAWGZHEAD HAWGZHEAD is offline
Great Spirit
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darkest corner of your mind
Posts: 11,599
Default

Wonder if this move would still have been made if it was gonna put us in negative cap space
__________________
Best. Season. Ever.

  #739  
Old 03-14-2012, 03:38 PM
hockeygoalie29's Avatar
hockeygoalie29 hockeygoalie29 is offline
Healer
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Chesapeake Beach, MD
Posts: 3,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keino View Post
So it looks like we're screwed, because 28 teams stand to benefit if this were put to a vote.
My first thought too, but then again, do the owners really want to give Goodell the power to arbitrarily re-assign cap numbers as he sees fit? You'd think they'd be smart enough to see the rabbit hole they'd be opening up. Sure, it'd benefit them this time, but what if it's their team that gets docked next year?

Also, I can't see the players voting for something that takes cap space away from the two teams most known for spending money and redistributing it to teams that are known to hoard cap space.
__________________
Living the family life at my new house in Calvert County!

  #740  
Old 03-14-2012, 03:52 PM
Emmanouel8's Avatar
Emmanouel8 Emmanouel8 is offline
Medicine Man
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergiemoore View Post
Florio speculated that there may be a reckoning for DeMaurice Smith over this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

In the short term, the Skins are screwed, and will continue to be screwed, owing to the timing of this action.
If I were a player I wouldn't want Smith in charge. He just screwed over the 2 clubs that have consistently paid up to players, and let chronic cheapskates off the hook at the same time.

  #741  
Old 03-14-2012, 03:54 PM
Emmanouel8's Avatar
Emmanouel8 Emmanouel8 is offline
Medicine Man
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeygoalie29 View Post
My first thought too, but then again, do the owners really want to give Goodell the power to arbitrarily re-assign cap numbers as he sees fit? You'd think they'd be smart enough to see the rabbit hole they'd be opening up. Sure, it'd benefit them this time, but what if it's their team that gets docked next year?

Also, I can't see the players voting for something that takes cap space away from the two teams most known for spending money and redistributing it to teams that are known to hoard cap space.
The owners will never give up that kind of power, if they ever did the smart franchises will put themselves up for sale.

  #742  
Old 03-14-2012, 03:58 PM
bergiemoore's Avatar
bergiemoore bergiemoore is offline
Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 2,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lorimike View Post
Lets have a little levity with this situation. We are not that screwed. We still have cap space to work with, we still addressed the receiver position, and maybe, just maybe we were saved from ourselves by this. Guys like Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks will likely be cap casualties in 3 years. This years free agent crop wasn't that good to begin with. And after next year we'll have more cap room to work with because we were limited in what we could spend this year and next year. It's not the end of the world.
I don't think that the Skins would have gone all in for VJax or Nicks in the way that the Bucs have been. And it's possible that this decision gets overturned in the near run. But this certainly has forced them to be extremely creative with their contracts, as exampled by Josh Morgan deal. I do think it also made them act quicker on releasing other players like Atogwe and Sellers.
__________________
"It is all about attitude. I can't say why or how but it is all about attitude. We go out and do our jobs, and once you go out and do it once, you get excited so you go out and do it twice."
--Darrell Green

  #743  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:00 PM
Keino's Avatar
Keino Keino is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeygoalie29 View Post
My first thought too, but then again, do the owners really want to give Goodell the power to arbitrarily re-assign cap numbers as he sees fit? You'd think they'd be smart enough to see the rabbit hole they'd be opening up. Sure, it'd benefit them this time, but what if it's their team that gets docked next year?

Also, I can't see the players voting for something that takes cap space away from the two teams most known for spending money and redistributing it to teams that are known to hoard cap space.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can see the teams viewing this as an isolated, vacuum type thing made possible by the uncapped year. I can also see the players looking at the prospects of the cap going down for every team and joining in, even though the "sanction" gives cap room to teams that won't consider using it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinsSwag2 View Post
Long will never start for us and neither will the kid from stanford. We fot fleecsd .....moses wont start either there is a reason he fell so far. Sosorry this draft has disaster written all over it
Just so I don't forget, I intend to remind the above poster about this quote.

  #744  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:03 PM
bergiemoore's Avatar
bergiemoore bergiemoore is offline
Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 2,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmanouel8 View Post
If I were a player I wouldn't want Smith in charge. He just screwed over the 2 clubs that have consistently paid up to players, and let chronic cheapskates off the hook at the same time.
To be fair to Smith, he screwed over 2 clubs that consistently pay in order to keep the salary cap from dropping below 2011's cap. The league was threatening to lower the cap to 118 mil, costing the players around 83 mil this season in salaries. Don't ask me how taking 46 mil from the Skins and Cowboys make up for 83 mil, but that's apparently what happened.
__________________
"It is all about attitude. I can't say why or how but it is all about attitude. We go out and do our jobs, and once you go out and do it once, you get excited so you go out and do it twice."
--Darrell Green

  #745  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:04 PM
bergiemoore's Avatar
bergiemoore bergiemoore is offline
Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 2,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keino View Post
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can see the teams viewing this as an isolated, vacuum type thing made possible by the uncapped year. I can also see the players looking at the prospects of the cap going down for every team and joining in, even though the "sanction" gives cap room to teams that won't consider using it.
This could also be seen as evidence of collusion the next time the players sue the NFL for anti-tust violations.
__________________
"It is all about attitude. I can't say why or how but it is all about attitude. We go out and do our jobs, and once you go out and do it once, you get excited so you go out and do it twice."
--Darrell Green

  #746  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:11 PM
Emmanouel8's Avatar
Emmanouel8 Emmanouel8 is offline
Medicine Man
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bergiemoore View Post
To be fair to Smith, he screwed over 2 clubs that consistently pay in order to keep the salary cap from dropping below 2011's cap. The league was threatening to lower the cap to 118 mil, costing the players around 83 mil this season in salaries. Don't ask me how taking 46 mil from the Skins and Cowboys make up for 83 mil, but that's apparently what happened.
That's being a little short-sighted IMHO. Also there's a difference between a cap and what's actually being spent. My guess is when the skins/boys are in the mix more money is being put into the pool, which is where i'd focus my attention longterm.-

  #747  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:18 PM
bergiemoore's Avatar
bergiemoore bergiemoore is offline
Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 2,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmanouel8 View Post
That's being a little short-sighted IMHO. Also there's a difference between a cap and what's actually being spent. My guess is when the skins/boys are in the mix more money is being put into the pool, which is where i'd focus my attention longterm.-
I agree with you, but that's the barrel the Executive Committee bent him over.

I'm very interested in seeing what comes out of any potential lawsuits/arbitration. I also think this muddies the waters for any future dealings concerning the profit sharing, etc., where the owners must come to agreement between themselves.
__________________
"It is all about attitude. I can't say why or how but it is all about attitude. We go out and do our jobs, and once you go out and do it once, you get excited so you go out and do it twice."
--Darrell Green

  #748  
Old 03-14-2012, 07:53 PM
Red Bear Red Bear is offline
Ghost Dancer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 3,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWGZHEAD View Post
Wonder if this move would still have been made if it was gonna put us in negative cap space
it put the cowboys in negative cap space, they cut newman to get back under


Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeygoalie29 View Post
My first thought too, but then again, do the owners really want to give Goodell the power to arbitrarily re-assign cap numbers as he sees fit? You'd think they'd be smart enough to see the rabbit hole they'd be opening up. Sure, it'd benefit them this time, but what if it's their team that gets docked next year?

Also, I can't see the players voting for something that takes cap space away from the two teams most known for spending money and redistributing it to teams that are known to hoard cap space.
1. Goodell had to get union approval to do it. Of course now its in the CBA he may not depending on the terms of the deal.

2. An excellent point that i alluded to earlier myself, well maybe not exactly but i said something similar

  #749  
Old 03-15-2012, 01:57 AM
Skinzmanforlife Skinzmanforlife is offline
Runner
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmanouel8 View Post
The owners will never give up that kind of power, if they ever did the smart franchises will put themselves up for sale.
The owners never gave up that power. The 30 other owners wanted this due to the cowgirls and skins spending habits. The problem I have is that I personally dont believe Roger Goodell or any of the other owners think these sanctions will hold up. There is a reason why this was announced 24 hours prior to free agency beginning instead of a month ago. To slow the spending this year so neither of them get Mario Williams or one of other prized free agents.

Lets face it, for this to hold up, 30 owners, 1 commissioner, and an entire sports league have to admit to collusion against the players. And then the leader of the players union has to admit that he cares more for the cheapskate style owners than he does for the players he is supposed to represent.

If all of this is upheld, I will be shocked beyond belief.

  #750  
Old 03-15-2012, 02:19 AM
colkurtz's Avatar
colkurtz colkurtz is offline
Spirit
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dublin, PA
Posts: 9,357
Default

What a surprise. The NFL hates Dan Snyder even more than Dan's friend and mentor Jerry Jones. Money can't buy you friends.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |