Big time CB now a free agent (Nnamdi Asomugha contract voided)

[MikeO]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6004943

He is going to want Revis type money

[fyo]

He is going to want Revis type money

He's better, IMHO, so I hope we give it to him

[Phishfan]

The new CBA is going to address skyrocket contracts (this is my expectation not fact). I expect teams that address contracts moving forward the same as they have in the past will be crippled financially (Mannings cointract with the Colts may cause some problems as well).

[fyo]

The new CBA is going to address skyrocket contracts

Salary cap?

If that's what you mean, I certainly agree... a cap is like to be be an integral part of the new CBA, just like it had been for 15 years before this season.

I don't, however, think that the CBA will do anything (new) to prevent or limit mega-contracts. Rookie mega-contracts... yes... but not for veteran players.

If the Dolphins have managed their contracts wisely in this cap-free year, they have moved a good portion of money forward in the form of bonuses, freeing up cap in the future. As an owner, you wouldn't want to do this for players that might get cut, but there are plenty of bread-and-butter players that have contracts ripe for restructuring.

[Phishfan]

I expect to see the the salary cap actually decrease some rather than increase. I expect to see a combination of rookie contract maximums as well as a lower increase than usual for existing players. Huge contracts could have a crippling effect on a team's overall cap (during the Colts game I heard them say the Colts could expext to have 15% of their cap tied up in Manning alone). It isn't going to limit the contracts individually, but it is likely to change how teams sign players to them.

Pure speculation though.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I expect to see the the salary cap actually decrease some rather than increase. I expect to see a combination of rookie contract maximums as well as a lower increase than usual for existing players. Huge contracts could have a crippling effect on a team's overall cap (during the Colts game I heard them say the Colts could expext to have 15% of their cap tied up in Manning alone). It isn't going to limit the contracts individually, but it is likely to change how teams sign players to them.

Pure speculation though.

I strongly doubt it. 

I have not heard that any owners are pushing for that.  The union would certainly oppose it.  Nor would it make a whole lot of sense.  If the Colts feel Manning is worth 15% of the team's payroll, that is their business.  If they don't that is their business too.  Manning is FA this year.  Some team is going to pay him what they feel he is worth. 

Also the net affect of having such a system would harm parity.  Of all the sports, the NFL has the best system for parity, and while each individual team does its best to maximize itself there are several things that keeps the teams roughly equal.  One of which is each team has a maximum number of dollars and can use that money to bid for the FA the team feels represents the best value. 

Lets for a moment assume we have an individual cap on players.  In order to it not to be pointless it means that it is lower than some players would be worth on the open market.  Lets say we have a player is worth to multiple teams more than his max salary.  Where is he going to play?  New England? New Orleans? Atlanta?  etc.-- All possible candidates, every team is going to pay him the max salary, why not go where I got a shot at a ring.  Locations to be avoided -- Carolina, Miami, Oakland, Buffalo, etc.  So the net result would be diminished parity.     

[Phishfan]

Also the net affect of having such a system would harm parity.  Of all the sports, the NFL has the best system for parity, and while each individual team does its best to maximize itself there are several things that keeps the teams roughly equal.  One of which is each team has a maximum number of dollars and can use that money to bid for the FA the team feels represents the best value. 

Lets for a moment assume we have an individual cap on players.  In order to it not to be pointless it means that it is lower than some players would be worth on the open market.  Lets say we have a player is worth to multiple teams more than his max salary.  Where is he going to play?  New England? New Orleans? Atlanta?  etc.-- All possible candidates, every team is going to pay him the max salary, why not go where I got a shot at a ring.  Locations to be avoided -- Carolina, Miami, Oakland, Buffalo, etc.  So the net result would be diminished parity.     

I think you misunderstood me a bit based on this. All I'm saying is the cap isn't going to grow at the pace it has in the past. The rookie contract limits, which owners and the union both want, would account for that itself. You haven't heard owners speak about the growing salary cap? The possible addition of two more games may counterbalance this theory though since the players will take the position of more games meaning more money.

[MikeO]

The Union wants rookie contract limits so the Vets can make more money. Still the same money in the pot. Just being passed out differently

[fyo]

The Union wants rookie contract limits so the Vets can make more money. Still the same money in the pot. Just being passed out differently

That "pot" is going to be a huge obstacle to a new CBA. The owners want it smaller, but the union can hardly cave... hard to figure out how they are going to make it work (although I'm sure they will).