|
|
 |
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Silent majority Scope of free-agent market appears to be changing
A month into the softest free-agent market on record, the prevailing feeling inside the NFL is dangerously close to unanimous. If there is a message to be conveyed to the players, their agents, and the fans regarding this year's lack of movement and blockbuster deals, it is simply this: Get used to it. There will be no more Washingtons of 2000. This year's modest level of activity will be the norm. For the foreseeable future, the clubs will continue to hold the hammer, salary-cap money will be tight, and player signings will be limited outside of retaining one's own free agents. Take it or leave it sounds so harsh, but it's not all that far from the mantra of the moment. "I think things in the next few years are going to be very similar to the way things were this year," Tennessee head coach Jeff Fisher said. "Teams are going to push [the cap] to the limit every year, but when they do that, most teams are going to have to make some adjustments to the bottom line. "But players are starting to accept that they're probably better off staying where they are, and playing in the same system. The difficulty is that clubs put themselves in a position where they can't afford to keep all of their good players. If there's a lesson to be learned by the players this year it's don't take it personally, because it's about making financial decisions." Last year at this time, the Redskins were making headline after headline with their financial decisions. The buy-now, pay-later approach favored by owner Daniel Snyder produced a star-studded roster that approached $100 million -- a record for a professional sports team. It also produced an 8-8 record, and spawned the financial bloodletting that cap-strapped Washington has had to endure this offseason. From Super Bowl contender to pretender in one short year, that's the Redskins' reality. It is not a model that ever will be copied in the imitate-success-mad NFL. "When they did that last year, everyone watched it," Seattle general manager/head coach Mike Holmgren said. "I did. And everyone had an opinion on how that would work. And OK, this was the result. I don't think people will do that any more. I don't foresee it."
The cap is all about making costly choicesHolmgren likes to bring salary-cap economics down to the level of the everyman. You don't have to pay for everything in cash in today's world, but you best be judicious about whipping out the plastic.
"It's kind of eye-opening to a lot of people, but there were a number of situations where in essence you charged for your players," he said. "You used a credit card and you charged, and then all of sudden you've got to pay the bill. "And everyone knows the rules. Everyone knows what could happen. You've got a decision to make: 'Am I willing to do that for this window of opportunity? Maybe I can get to the Super Bowl. Is it worth it?' Those are the things you have to decide as an organization, because you know at some point, it's going to get ugly." Ugly? The bill came due for a bunch of teams this year in the ugliest of fashion. As of Wednesday, eight teams had at least $10 million of dead money on their salary-cap rolls, with a ninth at $9.8 million (Tennessee). That's salary-cap room devoted to players who are no longer on the roster. Dallas, with the $10 million Troy Aikman hit, leads that painful parade at $20.2 million of dead money. Kansas City has $18.7 million, Minnesota $16.8 million, Buffalo $15.1 million, San Francisco $12.6 million, Washington $10.7 million, Miami $10.1 million, and San Diego, thanks to Ryan Leaf, checks in with $10 million. Even commissioner Paul Tagliabue, whose view of the NFL is always rose-colored, noted at the league's annual meeting last week the self-defeating madness of having salaries rise annually by an average of 40 percent, while the salary cap grows by only 10 percent or so. Any way you do the math, fiscal restraint had to enter into the picture. "The two things we all know about the salary cap is it's going to work, because there's no alternative," said Redskins head coach Marty Schottenheimer, who inherited the cap mess in Washington. "And secondly, the cap puts people in the NFL in the position where you have to make choices. You have to."
Doing it the Green Bay wayIf there's an emerging blueprint that many teams adhered to this season in free agency it was a commitment to re-signing their own coveted free agents and free-agents-to-be, locking up players who might present an expensive free-agent decision down the road. Next came rampant restructuring of veterans' deals to make them more cap friendly and long-term manageable, with the last option to fill a need being modest forays into the buyer's market. Green Bay was a fine example of this approach. Gone are the days of wooing Reggie White to Titletown. Instead, the Packers concentrated on and succeeded in re-signing key players like free safety Darren Sharper, kicker Ryan Longwell and linebacker Nate Wayne. Brett Favre signed a helpful restructured deal, and low-cost agreements were struck with a number of role players, the biggest names of which were quarterback Doug Pederson and nose tackle Gilbert Brown. The Packers looked to the draft for answers in trading backup quarterback Matt Hasselbeck to Seattle in exchange for picks, and lost only one significant free agent that they hoped to re-sign: guard/tackle Ross Verba. All in all, it was not a bad first-time success ratio for head coach/G.M. heir apparent, Mike Sherman. "I think there will always be teams that will want to go get a certain player in free agency," Sherman said. "That will always exist. But statistics prove out that those free-agent players don't produce to the level that they produced prior to their free agency. "More coaches are probably more aware of the fiscal responsibility that goes along with the position, in planning for the future. A lot of coaches don't think that far ahead because it's a win-now situation in all jobs. But you can't mortgage the future for the present, that's for sure. Because you'll end up losing." While the players and agents lost out this year, some coaches believe the fans and the game will win out if free agency movement remains as limited as it has been in 2001. "Maybe you'll see more guys do more deals to stay where they are before free agency period hits," Tampa Bay head coach Tony Dungy said. "You're going to see less and less money out there. You're going to see less mega-deals, and that will help the game. "I think movement is a negative for the game. This may be good in the long run, in that it keeps people where they are, with some continuity. You're most valuable to the team that you have played for, I have no doubt about that." Don Banks covers pro football for CNNSI.com.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
