Florio from PFT writes a solid piece on the unreported effects of the uncapped year. There’s a lot to take in here, so I’ll try and give some context as we go. I’d advise you all to read the whole thing though. It isn’t that long.

[The] potential uncapped year always has been characterized as a significant windfall for the players, under the presumption that the owners won’t be able to restrain themselves, and thus will overspend in the pursuit of talented players.

Note: I’m still not convinced there will be an uncapped 2010 and we believe teams, including the Jets, are erring on the side of caution so that they have adequate flexibility should a cap be put in place. Is the NFLPA trying to make players think an uncapped year will be great because there will be a spending spree, when in reality that won’t be the case?

With no salary cap, there will be no salary floor. And with far more teams currently well below the 2009 salary cap, what’s more likely to happen next year: (1) a spending spree that drives multiples franchises toward bankruptcy; or (2) a reeling in of player expenses as the teams gird for a work stoppage in 2011?

He suggests the latter. Interesting…and surely a mouth-watering prospect for the select few that are prepared to try and “buy” a title.

Apart from paying to each player the individual minimum salaries, teams aren’t required to spend in any collective minimum amount. In theory, a team could cut every player on the roster and then offer only one-year minimum-salary contracts. This would result in total player expenses of less than million. In contrast, the minimum per-team salary obligation in 2009 is 1 million.

I think the part of this quote in bold may be flawed, because as I understand it if anyone is cut during the uncapped year, the dead money arising will hit the cap in the next capped year, so no team would cut every player (if what Florio suggests above were the case, if Gholston proved to be a bust, they could cut him, which would not otherwise be financially viable due to the cap hit). However, his point that teams could spend a lot less and the gap between the top spending teams and the cheapskates will be larger is solid.

In an uncapped year, six years of service are needed to qualify for unrestricted free agency. So [if you're a player whose contract expires in 2009 with less than six years service] you’ll be a restricted free agent instead, and your team will be able to automatically hold your rights by, in most cases, tendering a one-year contract worth far, far less than the franchise tag. So, basically, you’re screwed.

This applies to guys like Kellen Clemens, Brad Smith and Leon Washington and may explain partly why the Leon thing is dragging on. I consider that the Jets are not dragging their feet on money or deciding whether they want Leon, just waiting on the cap situation. As for Clemens, this could be good news because if he plays in 2009 at all, they can perhaps sign him to a one year tender and get value by trading him. With a cap in 2010, that wouldn’t be possible without the franchise tag.

For the “Final Eight” teams in the 2009 playoffs, there are specific restrictions regarding the number of free agents who can be signed, and the money that can be paid to them.

Some people think the Cowboys and Redskins are the only teams that will spend crazy money in an uncapped year, so maybe we should all root for them to make the divisional round so that their spending is restricted. Here’s a thought: Would a team “tank” to avoid the playoffs and have a run at “buying a title” in the uncapped year?

From thejetsblog.com. Please read the complete article and let us know what you think below.