Sir Psycho Sexy

Since it was first negotiated in 1992, the labor agreement between the NFL and its players' union that is based on the existence of a salary cap contained a provision that erased the salary cap from the final year of the deal. The goal was simple -- to give both sides a strong incentive to finalize an extension at least a year before the expiration of the agreement.

For more than a decade, league observers assumed the disappearance of the salary cap would benefit the players since teams would have no spending restrictions and presumably would not be able to control themselves. (Otherwise, a salary cap never would have been needed.) As the date on which the cap will evaporate approaches, however, the uncertainty cuts both ways, just as the folks who drafted the original CBA envisioned.

The fact that fewer teams have had trouble staying under the salary cap in recent years strongly suggests that spending won't go haywire on March 5. The reality that owners seem to be embracing the scuttling of the salary cap -- and the salary floor -- hints that more than a few of them will spend less, not more.

Increasing the likelihood of a non-spending spree are the restrictions that will apply. By moving the minimum qualifications for unrestricted free agency from four years to six, more than 200 players who would have been unrestricted free agents will now be restricted free agents, which will make it easier (i.e., cheaper) for teams to retain their rights.

The "final eight plan" has an impact as well, limiting the ability of franchises who made it to the divisional round of the playoffs to corner the market. For the final four teams -- the Colts, Saints, Jets, Vikings -- an unrestricted free agent may be signed from another team only after an unrestricted free agent is lost (players in the unrestricted category this offseason include Vince Wilfork, Karlos Dansby, Richard Seymour, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Chad Clifton and Keith Bullock).

Even after a team loses one of their own unrestricted free agents, the contract given to the player the team signs will be limited generally by the magnitude of the contract received by the player who left. If, for example, Saints backup quarterback Mark Brunell signs a minimum-salary contract with a new team, the Saints won't be able to then break the bank for Panthers defensive end Julius Peppers.

(Similar restrictions apply to the teams that lost in the divisional round, but each is permitted to sign one big-money unrestricted free agent.)
None of these restrictions apply to restricted free agents, meaning the Colts, Saints, Jets, Vikings, Cowboys, Chargers, Ravens, and Cardinals can freely pursue, for example, Jets receiver Braylon Edwards or Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman. But signing restricted free agents requires compensation via draft picks, and most of the highly-skilled restricted free agents likely will carry the highest tender, requiring a first-round pick and a third-round pick to change hands.

Still, when the signing period starts, some teams won't be able to help themselves. After all, everyone once again is 0-0, and teams that can't win from September through December can generate interest (and sell tickets and jerseys and hats) in March by plunking down big money on a big-name free agent.

But while the low supply should result in even greater demand, conventional wisdom suggests that, for the most part, the money won't be flowing like it has in past years. The players' union likely will claim that the reduced spending has more to do with the plans for a lockout and less to do with a desire to put together competitive football teams. This could trigger not only a claim the owners are engaged in collusion but also a P.R. assault aimed at sparking a fan revolt against franchises that aren't trying to get better by signing available veterans.

In past years, for example, players like Brett Favre publicly complained about their teams' failure to make a splash in free agency. This year, the union could instigate more widespread griping in the hopes of getting the media and fans to pressure owners to spend.

For now, the precise manner in which free agency will unfold in the uncapped year remains unclear. The only sure thing, however, is teams won't be spending each other into the red in the hopes of buying the silver trophy that most recently went to the Saints.

Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and is a regular contributor to Sporting News. Check out PFT for up-to-the minute NFL news.

"May God have mercy on those who doubted his Saints."

exile

It is a darn good thing we don't need any free agents. And remember, essentially we have two extra picks in the draft this year (Arnoux, Vaughn). And we can consider Jamaal Brown a free agent pickup. How's that for optimistic?

Rugby Saint II

This could get ugly.

stockman311

This is the first year that I can ever remember that I don't want to sign any unrestricted free agents anyway. We have Chip Vaughn and Stanley Arnoux coming back from injury as well as veterans Jammal Brown, Heath Evans and Billy Miller. Our main objectives should be locking up Sharper to a two year deal and Fujita to a three year deal, then drafting OLB, DL, and DE in any order. Aside from that we have right of first refusal on any deals signed by our RFA which means if we want to keep them, then another team cannot pilfer them from us. IF we don't want to keep them at a higher price tag, then we get even more draft picks as compensation.
As I have said before, if you love the Saints, an uncapped year could not have come at a better time in order to keep our championship team together. Not such good news for the players on the team that were looking to cash in, but they are going to have to learn to live in the world of fiscal responsibility that the rest of us live in now.

My two cents.

SaintPauly

What are our trade for picks options? I mean, let's say, WORSE CASE SCENARIO, that Bush won't restructure, and he wants out. Could we trade him to say, Seattle, for a first rounder? Or possibly a 2nd, or a 3rd?

Don't get me wrong, I want to keep Reggie, if he restructures.

stockman311

The best we get for Reggie in trade would be a 2nd rounder IMHO.

With no salary cap though, it's highly doubtful Reggie goes anywhere this year. Next year maybe depending on how he plays next year and if he stays healthy and if we have a football season in 2011.

SaintPauly

I honestly don't see Bush asking for a trade. I mean, that would be a freaking apparition, after winning the superbowl. I hope he restructures. Now Grant on the other hand.... What could we get for him? A sixth, maybe a seventh rounder? A washing machine maybe?

stockman311

No no. Bush would be an absolute moron to ask for a trade. That's not happening. The Saints either agree to keep paying him his scheduled salary or trade him. They won't cut him and get nothing in return IMHO.

SaintPauly

What about Grant?

stockman311

Grant is toast. Not worth $4MM a year with two arm injuries and 31 years old. I really think DE is our pick in round 1, DT in round 2, and OLB in round 3.