UFA -vs- RFA

[RashanGary]

What's the difference?
Players are players and the goal is to get better right?

Well, the answers are; BIG DIFFERENCE and NO

Here's why:

The UFA market is set up in such a way that all 32 teams can make a free bid at the player. Maybe 6 teams really NEED this player so you have 6 teams throwing numbers around and the player is going to the highest bidder. Teams know that they have to outbid everyone else so the bids get higher and higher, approaching cap damaging amounts. I think we all know this here but sometimes we get caught up in doing whatever it takes to get better now but not realizing that the small, short term gain is accompanied by bigger long term problems as the Waskington Redskins can attest.

The RFA market is controlled with tenders that allow a team to not have to bid but rather let other teams bid and then get the oppertunity to match. This takes away some of the competition, lowering the price. Also, teams get multiple tenders that force teams to give up valuable draft picks along with whatever the financial bid is to secure the player. The draft picks alone disuade most teams, so the restricted player is left either playing for one year deal that gives no long term security or taking a discount to aviod injury risk. Many of these contracts turn into team friendly deals over the long haul and open up $$ to spend else where.

This, IMO, is the preferred way to sign players.

The moral of the story is that we can get by with Bubba and Marquand untill the draft brings us a Greg Jennings or Darryn Colledge to replace them. If not a Greg Jennings or Darryn Colledge, maybe a Cullin Jenkins is on the roster ready to explode or an Aaron Kampman *ie Underwood*, ect... Sure, we might be a little better now by improving 1 of the 24 positions on the football field, but what happens when we have to give up Mike Wahle because we signed Joe Johnson 2 years earlier? It has long term pains that I prefer not to deal with.

As fans, lets take off the gimme gimme goggles and take a look at the big picture. We're not going to be that much better with so and so from Jacksonville so lets not take the short term bait with the long term bite. Let's not get all frustrated at non decisions and focus on the big-picture.

[HarveyWallbangers]

No question that FA is fool's gold, but I'd like to a FA or two supplement the roster. I don't want a roster filled with FAs, but I'd take a couple of FA starters. I'd be cool with an offseason similar to the 2006 offseason. Obviously, the major onus is on drafting well.

[RashanGary]

No question that FA is fool's gold, but I'd like to a FA or two supplement the roster. I don't want a roster filled with FAs, but I'd take a couple of FA starters. I'd be cool with an offseason similar to the 2006 offseason. Obviously, the major onus is on drafting well.


The biggest holes seem to be Safety and RB followed by TE and WR.

I'd expect 2 of the 4 to get filled and IMO that would be a pretty good off-season if they don't blow up like Lecharles Bently or Lavar Arrington.

Soemtiems you have to take the risk, but I prefer not to if at all possible. I'm a little bit of an extremist when it comes to FA spending. I don't think my view is 100% correct, but I think the right answer is alot closer to my "VERY FEW FA" stance than it is to the "Get yoru playmakers through FA" crowd.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I agree with the origninal poster.

It should be noted that teams are doing a good jaob at the RFA level so that there are few prime UFA candidates.

There are probably only a half dozen free agents that will gain a lot in free agency. Most free agents are free agents because they were overpaid or injured.

The lack of quality UFA's shows that the league is doing a good job in managing personnel.

[Patler]

I agree with the origninal poster.

It should be noted that teams are doing a good jaob at the RFA level so that there are few prime UFA candidates.

There are probably only a half dozen free agents that will gain a lot in free agency. Most free agents are free agents because they were overpaid or injured.

The lack of quality UFA's shows that the league is doing a good job in managing personnel.

Don't forget that the salary cap has gone up by almost 50% in just the last 5 years. It was $75 million in 2003 and $80 million in 2004. Just two ywars ago it was only $85 million. The result is that for the last 5 years teams don't necessarily even have to be great cap managers to keep their best FAs. The increased ceilings have made money available for them.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree with the origninal poster.

It should be noted that teams are doing a good jaob at the RFA level so that there are few prime UFA candidates.

There are probably only a half dozen free agents that will gain a lot in free agency. Most free agents are free agents because they were overpaid or injured.

The lack of quality UFA's shows that the league is doing a good job in managing personnel.

Don't forget that the salary cap has gone up by almost 50% in just the last 5 years. It was $75 million in 2003 and $80 million in 2004. Just two ywars ago it was only $85 million. The result is that for the last 5 years teams don't necessarily even have to be great cap managers to keep their best FAs. The increased ceilings have made money available for them.


Can the money train continue at this pace? I can't fully comprehend how it got here, much less continue on. You would think at some point GM's will have to deal with a more static salary cap. It'll be interesting to see who rises to the top then.

[Patler]

Can the money train continue at this pace? I can't fully comprehend how it got here, much less continue on. You would think at some point GM's will have to deal with a more static salary cap. It'll be interesting to see who rises to the top then.

With the new TV contracts kicking in, and some yet to be negotiated, the end is not in sight. The 2008 or 2009 caps could skyrocket, according to some predictions. Some say mid-$130 million range, and possibly as high as $150 million within 5 years.

[Scott Campbell]

So the N.M. Dragons franchise fee is likely to get pretty expensive. I hope B can line up our financing.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Can the money train continue at this pace? I can't fully comprehend how it got here, much less continue on. You would think at some point GM's will have to deal with a more static salary cap. It'll be interesting to see who rises to the top then.

With the new TV contracts kicking in, and some yet to be negotiated, the end is not in sight. The 2008 or 2009 caps could skyrocket, according to some predictions. Some say mid-$130 million range, and possibly as high as $150 million within 5 years.

Not only is there a new round of stadium construction in the NFL, parking and concessions and other traditional rip offs but the big revenue producer is media exploitation.

NFL network, Direct TV's Sunday ticket, plus the NFL field pass is no longer a free service. The NFL website and team websites do not yet require payment for use by registered users.
There is a large archive of games that can be downloaded for a fee that is not being exploited. Eventually live games will be pay per view.
The media and broadcasters(middlemen) will eventually be cut out. Go ahead and put your financed purchases on your NFL credit card.

Prices and rip offs will continue until enough customers leave that it begins to curtail revenues.

The Packers have been very successful with the best Pro shop in the league, the Atrium, stadium tours, Fan fest, Family Night. All local revenue producers make one of the nicest practice facilitities/team headquarters in the league.

Teams like the Vikings that have a small outdated stadium without parking revenues. They have very low local revenue and players salaries take a huge bite of revenues. The Vikkings cannot afford good coaches to compete or as nice practice facilities. The higher salary cap hurts such teams.