This year's FA class

[patmoran2006]

With 2010 potentially becoming an uncapped year, do you expect to see a lot more FA's opting to sign one-year contracts? Especially the prime-time guys?

[Mr. Pink]

I would say it depends on the signing bonuses...

If the guaranteed money is high enough, you'll still see some long term deals.

[Ickybaluky]

With 2010 potentially becoming an uncapped year, do you expect to see a lot more FA's opting to sign one-year contracts? Especially the prime-time guys?

No. The risk of injury is too great, and there is plenty of cap room out there right now so it really isn't a limiting factor in the marketplace.

However, you will see contracts structured differently. Signing bonus money will now only be amortized for 3 years, which means a large signing bonus will lead to a larger cap number in the first year.

Because of this, the signing bonus money will be smaller in favor of other guarantees, like a guaranteed option bonus or roster bonus in the second year. Contracts have to be structured differently.

[psubills62]

With 2010 potentially becoming an uncapped year, do you expect to see a lot more FA's opting to sign one-year contracts? Especially the prime-time guys?

I think there will be fewer one-year contracts than most people expect, for a couple of reasons.

First, not many teams may be willing to offer a one-year contract. Just because a FA wants one doesn't mean he'll get one. Second, depending on what position a guy is at, he might get plenty of money in free agency this year. Like a WR will get 8-9 million per year, most likely.

That's my opinion anyway, I could be wrong, but it makes sense in my head.

[Ickybaluky]

Another reason you probably won't see 1-year deals:

Once the cap expires, players are restricted for 6 years before reaching unrestricted FA status. Thus, if a 4 year player who is unrestricted signs a 1 year contract, he would be a restricted FA after that contract expires instead of being unrestricted again.

As a RFA, the player's team could keep him by tendering him an offer on 3 levels (with varied compensation needed to sign the player), or at 110% of his prior year salary, whichever is greater.

[Stewie]

players would be stupid to do that to themselves. the old axiom has not changed: get as much money up front guaranteed as possible, as soon as you can.

FA is not going to be bonanza. the top 8 teams will be limited in how many FA's they can sign. That's 25% of the league. Players with 4 and 5 years of service are ineligible for UFA. And, all teams can retain 2 franchise/transition players instead of one.

Since no one can predict which teams will finish in the top 8 (ok.. detroit won't) .. a FA would be severly limiting the number of teams that can pay him what he wants next year. IE: as much money up front as possible.

Best to take as much as you can, the first opportunity you have. That's why as much as I hated what Jason peters did last year and may do again this year, ultimately I can't really fault him. He's one rolled knee away from that payday vanishing forever. And as a businessman, I understand that.

[bflojohn]

The theory about underclassmen was wrong already, so predicting things like one year contracts has to be taken with a grain of salt! A rookie wage scale or cap if you prefer, in 2010, was supposed to scare the 3rd year sophomores and juniors into declaring their intentions to go pro. Maybe someone like Ralph Wilson is going to be right again in the labor relations front and will position his team for the oncoming "uncapped" year to follow. Some of the aforementioned policies that take effect like franchising / transitioning players and the 6 year free agency agenda actually hinder movement, IMO.