NFL Labor Talks Are Over! (1 Viewer)

[wdh76]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on. Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits. So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy. No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million. Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team? Would they do it JUST to cash in?

What we dont want is for the NFL to turn into MLB...The Yankees dont have 6 great players at 1 postion, but they have an allastar at every postion. So on and so worht for the Red Sox bla bla bla.Yes spending the most doesnt mean you will win it all, but ask fans in Pitt or KC if they look more forward to the Pirates and Royals or the Stealers and Chiefs?

 

[Beaumont]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on. Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits. So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy. No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million. Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team? Would they do it JUST to cash in?

QBs are a bad example. The revenue rich teams may have such dominant defensive and offensive lines that it makes the other teams non-competitive ... also, WR may be an example ...Lots of RBs may have success in the NFL. There is a serious dearth of good OL ...

 

[DCThunder]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

Ed Debartolo Jr would be the happiest camper of them all in this scenario. But since his 49ers won 5 Super Bowls this way and he has since been banished from the league, one would have to assume that the Snyder/Jones types will be glad to take his role.Why did Deion go to the 49ers?

Why did so many guys go to the 49ers for one yr deals?

They wanted a ring, got it and left.

They did it in Florida with the Marlins in baseball, they will do it in football.

Tom

But that didn't mean that all the other teams had scrubs playing for them as was posited in some post up-thread.

 

[fatness]

It looks like Washington and Denver are 2 of the "big-spending" teams who tried to resolve the impasse between the owners, per the Washington Times. The Times isn't always that reliable a news source, but they've done OK on Redskin reporting lately.

Link

However, the Redskins and Denver Broncos are the only teams among the eight clubs more than $5 million over the cap that also are considered to be among the hard-line, large-market teams in the internal battle on further revenue-sharing.

The Redskins and Broncos apparently had agreed to modify their positions to get a deal done to ease their cap situation for 2006. Redskins owner Dan Snyder declined to comment. Broncos owner Pat Bowlen was unavailable to comment.

 

[ffchamp1]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

Ed Debartolo Jr would be the happiest camper of them all in this scenario. But since his 49ers won 5 Super Bowls this way and he has since been banished from the league, one would have to assume that the Snyder/Jones types will be glad to take his role.Why did Deion go to the 49ers?

Why did so many guys go to the 49ers for one yr deals?

They wanted a ring, got it and left.

They did it in Florida with the Marlins in baseball, they will do it in football.

Tom

But that didn't mean that all the other teams had scrubs playing for them as was posited in some post up-thread.

Not sure I understood what you wrote but my point was that it will come down to those that have money and those that don't.With money being the overriding factor, we will then see teams jump to these loaded teams to get their ring.

I do not want this, but without a cap we are back to where we were 12 yrs ago

Tom

 

[wdh76]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

Ed Debartolo Jr would be the happiest camper of them all in this scenario. But since his 49ers won 5 Super Bowls this way and he has since been banished from the league, one would have to assume that the Snyder/Jones types will be glad to take his role.Why did Deion go to the 49ers?

Why did so many guys go to the 49ers for one yr deals?

They wanted a ring, got it and left.

They did it in Florida with the Marlins in baseball, they will do it in football.

Tom

But that didn't mean that all the other teams had scrubs playing for them as was posited in some post up-thread.

Not sure if you are refering to my post, but if so two things-The 49ers did this before the Cap (one was after)

I never said the other teams had scrubs, just that they could not build powerhouses. Again just ask fans in Pitt and KC.

 

[BlueOnion]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

You are aware that in the 1992 rookie draft, the Cleveland Browns selected Tommy Vardell with the 9th overall pick because he was deemed affordable?

 

[Orange Crush]

Before free agency began in '92, the NFL was basically a dynasty league. The only way a player switched teams was if he was traded. When a player's contract expired he could not negotiate with any team. He could accept what his team offered, or he could sit out.

The NFL without a salary cap will be much closer to MLB than it will be to pre-92 NFL.

The shake up will be real ugly. I can see A LOT of holdouts both this year and next. Lots of players will be demanding big $$ deals, 1-year deals (for this year), and guaranteed money. Teams will not be so accomodating. Especially this year with the tighter cap controls. The 6-years before earning unrestricted free agency is HUGE too. That gives the NFL a big bargaining chip. The NFLPA is screwing their own members here.

 

[Bri]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

Ed Debartolo Jr would be the happiest camper of them all in this scenario. But since his 49ers won 5 Super Bowls this way and he has since been banished from the league, one would have to assume that the Snyder/Jones types will be glad to take his role.Why did Deion go to the 49ers?

Why did so many guys go to the 49ers for one yr deals?

They wanted a ring, got it and left.

They did it in Florida with the Marlins in baseball, they will do it in football.

Tom

But that didn't mean that all the other teams had scrubs playing for them as was posited in some post up-thread.

If I'm not mistaken it's been proven that DeBartolo violated certain NFL rules in regards to paying players too

 

[BigJim®]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

 

[BlueOnion]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

Yeah, that is what is being reported. There was no progress between the NFLPA and the owners yesterday, so the owners are going to regroup and the NFLPA will regroup and they will give it one more try tomorrow.

 

[zadok]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

Yeah, that is what is being reported. There was no progress between the NFLPA and the owners yesterday, so the owners are going to regroup and the NFLPA will regroup and they will give it one more try tomorrow.

Isn't tomorrow too late? Don't all teams have to be under the cap by 4pm tomorrow? Isn't the real deadline about 2 hours from now?

 

[GroveDiesel]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

Yeah, that is what is being reported. There was no progress between the NFLPA and the owners yesterday, so the owners are going to regroup and the NFLPA will regroup and they will give it one more try tomorrow.

Unless I'm mistaken, tomorrow is too late. The deadline is 4pm TODAY!

 

[Jason Wood]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

Yeah, that is what is being reported. There was no progress between the NFLPA and the owners yesterday, so the owners are going to regroup and the NFLPA will regroup and they will give it one more try tomorrow.

Unless I'm mistaken, tomorrow is too late. The deadline is 4pm TODAY!

Not exactly. The deadline is Friday for a new labor agreement to avoid an uncapped year in 2007. Thursday is the day, without a new deal, that teams will have to assume a sub $100mm 2006 salary cap number and make cuts, wheras if the CBA was signed prior to that the cap number in 2006 is likely $103mm+

 

[ffchamp1]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

Ed Debartolo Jr would be the happiest camper of them all in this scenario. But since his 49ers won 5 Super Bowls this way and he has since been banished from the league, one would have to assume that the Snyder/Jones types will be glad to take his role.Why did Deion go to the 49ers?

Why did so many guys go to the 49ers for one yr deals?

They wanted a ring, got it and left.

They did it in Florida with the Marlins in baseball, they will do it in football.

Tom

But that didn't mean that all the other teams had scrubs playing for them as was posited in some post up-thread.

If I'm not mistaken it's been proven that DeBartolo violated certain NFL rules in regards to paying players too

From taking the entire team and their families on all expense paid trips to places like Hawaii to paying Brent Jones under the table, Debartolo did it all.Tom

 

[zadok]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

Yeah, that is what is being reported. There was no progress between the NFLPA and the owners yesterday, so the owners are going to regroup and the NFLPA will regroup and they will give it one more try tomorrow.

Unless I'm mistaken, tomorrow is too late. The deadline is 4pm TODAY!

Not exactly. The deadline is Friday for a new labor agreement to avoid an uncapped year in 2007. Thursday is the day, without a new deal, that teams will have to assume a sub $100mm 2006 salary cap number and make cuts, wheras if the CBA was signed prior to that the cap number in 2006 is likely $103mm+

Right, prior to Thursday. Hence, wouldn't today at 4pm be the de facto deadline?

 

[Autumn Wind]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on. Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits. So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy. No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million. Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team? Would they do it JUST to cash in?

What we dont want is for the NFL to turn into MLB...The Yankees dont have 6 great players at 1 postion, but they have an allastar at every postion. So on and so worht for the Red Sox bla bla bla.Yes spending the most doesnt mean you will win it all, but ask fans in Pitt or KC if they look more forward to the Pirates and Royals or the Stealers and Chiefs?

Don't forget that a higher percentage of NFL teams makes the playoffs. So there is a lot higher likelihood that a non-elite (as determined by payroll) can get in and knock out one of the big boys.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

What we dont want is for the NFL to turn into MLB...The Yankees dont have 6 great players at 1 postion, but they have an allastar at every postion. So on and so worht for the Red Sox bla bla bla.Yes spending the most doesnt mean you will win it all, but ask fans in Pitt or KC if they look more forward to the Pirates and Royals or the Stealers and Chiefs?

Don't forget that a higher percentage of NFL teams makes the playoffs. So there is a lot higher likelihood that a non-elite (as determined by payroll) can get in and knock out one of the big boys.

Don't try to justify it. This is a bad direction for the league to go. It will benefit ONLY the top 3-4 revenue generating teams and the top 5% of athletes and 0% of the fans. The NFL as an entity will be greatly devalued.

 

[Autumn Wind]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on. Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits. So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy. No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million. Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team? Would they do it JUST to cash in?

What we dont want is for the NFL to turn into MLB...The Yankees dont have 6 great players at 1 postion, but they have an allastar at every postion. So on and so worht for the Red Sox bla bla bla.Yes spending the most doesnt mean you will win it all, but ask fans in Pitt or KC if they look more forward to the Pirates and Royals or the Stealers and Chiefs?

Don't forget that a higher percentage of NFL teams makes the playoffs. So there is a lot higher likelihood that a non-elite (as determined by payroll) can get in and knock out one of the big boys.

Don't try to justify it. This is a bad direction for the league to go. It will benefit ONLY the top 3-4 revenue generating teams and the top 5% of athletes and 0% of the fans. The NFL as an entity will be greatly devalued.

You could be right. Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[fatness]

Dan Snyder has apparently split with some of the other high-dollar team owners on revenue sharing. This article is from Rich Tandler on a Resdkin board; I think you have to register (free) to read it, so I will not print it all.

Link

The Redskins are facing some very painful decisions in order to get under the league-mandated salary cap if there is no new CBA with the players association by midnight on Thursday. It appears that Redskins owner Dan Snyder is willing to forgo a considerable amount of money, perhaps as much as a billion dollars, in order to avert such a scenario........................

...................... Dan Snyder is willing to change his position on NFL revenue sharing in order to get a CBA extension done................... that would mean that Snyder has pushed some more of his own chips into the pot in this high-stakes poker game.

........................ Just to use a round number, let’s say that we’re talking about Snyder giving up 10% of the team’s revenue to go into a pot. According to Forbes, that would be about $28 million per year. Even if revenues are static, which they won’t, and Snyder owns the team for another 25 years, which is probably on the low end, he will be giving up $700 million. It’s easy to see revenue increases pushing that figure over the $1 billion mark.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Dan Snyder has apparently split with some of the other high-dollar team owners on revenue sharing. This article is from Rich Tandler on a Resdkin board; I think you have to register (free) to read it, so I will not print it all.

Link

The Redskins are facing some very painful decisions in order to get under the league-mandated salary cap if there is no new CBA with the players association by midnight on Thursday. It appears that Redskins owner Dan Snyder is willing to forgo a considerable amount of money, perhaps as much as a billion dollars, in order to avert such a scenario........................

...................... Dan Snyder is willing to change his position on NFL revenue sharing in order to get a CBA extension done................... that would mean that Snyder has pushed some more of his own chips into the pot in this high-stakes poker game.

........................ Just to use a round number, let’s say that we’re talking about Snyder giving up 10% of the team’s revenue to go into a pot. According to Forbes, that would be about $28 million per year. Even if revenues are static, which they won’t, and Snyder owns the team for another 25 years, which is probably on the low end, he will be giving up $700 million. It’s easy to see revenue increases pushing that figure over the $1 billion mark.

He realizes he could lose a lot more if a CBA isn't reached.

 

[MLBrandow]

To be fair, lots of people love PFT and lots of people don't. Pretty much like this site or any other.

Let's please drop the PFT bash / love and get back to the CBA news. Thanks.

J

At that, I think this is a very valid subject to debate in this forum, since PFT is so controversial to many of the contributers here.But this is not the point of the thread, and it is obviously tangential to the story at hand, so can one of the mods separate the posts and create a new thread? I really think this topic is worthy of its own thread, and there are a lot of people here with strong opinions on it that I think deserve to share them.

 

[fatness]

But this is not the point of the thread, and it is obviously tangential to the story at hand, so can one of the mods separate the posts and create a new thread? I really think this topic is worthy of its own thread, and there are a lot of people here with strong opinions on it that I think deserve to share them.

Some of those people have already overdone "sharing" their opinions on the subject.

 

[rockbottom895]

Can you guys please stop fighting over this? Its a non issue. Just drop it.

 

[Bri]

To be fair, lots of people love PFT and lots of people don't. Pretty much like this site or any other.

Let's please drop the PFT bash / love and get back to the CBA news. Thanks.

J

At that, I think this is a very valid subject to debate in this forum, since PFT is so controversial to many of the contributers here.But this is not the point of the thread, and it is obviously tangential to the story at hand, so can one of the mods separate the posts and create a new thread? I really think this topic is worthy of its own thread, and there are a lot of people here with strong opinions on it that I think deserve to share them.

what are the first six words in Joe's 3rd sentence?

 

[AB in DC]

FWIW, I'm not entirely convinced that Florio was wrong about this.

Florio basically wrote that the owners-players negotiations were basically done but that they need to resolve the big market owners - small market owners negotiations before anything can be done.

What do we know? (a) Owners have scheduled a special league meeting the day before the "deadline" to discuss some issues face-to-face. We don't know what these issues are, but how often do you see a last-minute meeting like this? There's got to be something that needs to be resolved at that meeting. (b) Upshaw has been making all kinds of sky-is-falling comments to the media for weeks now. Why would Upshaw be so vocal publicly? Sounds to me like he's trying to create pressure on the owners to get their house in order. If the owners were unified, this highly visible PR strategy wouldn't have much point.

 

[Marvelous]

Here is another article from PFT. As I have said in the past, PFT is very knowledgalbe and, in my opinion, accurate, on articles dealing with the CBA and salary cap ramifications. And this article is written as a report, not opinion piece.

POSTED 10:23 p.m. EST, March 1, 2006UNCAPPED YEAR 101Assuming that the powers-that-be can't get a new CBA hammered out by Friday, and assuming that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw intends to force an uncapped year, it's critical for everyone -- including most importantly the players -- to understand what a year without a salary cap really means.Here are the key points.1. There will be no limit on what teams can spend on players, but there also will be no minimum, either. Currently, teams are required annually to spend at least 54 percent of the projected Defined Gross Revenues on player costs. In an uncapped year, teams can spend as little as they choose.2. Only players with six or more accrued seasons will be eligible for unrestricted free agency. Players with three, four, or five accrued seasons will be restricted free agents. In other words, Bucs quarterback Chris Simms (who signed a one-year restricted free agent tender on Wednesday), will be a restricted free agent again in 2007. Under normal circumstances, he would be eligible for unrestricted free agency in 2007.3. All teams will have an extra transition tag in 2007. Currently, teams can use either a franchise tag or a transition tag. So next year the teams will be able to restrict two otherwise unrestricted free agents.4. The final four playoff teams from 2006 will be permitted to sign only their own unrestricted free agents. For each of their unrestricted free agents signed by someone else, they can replace them with an unrestricted free agent signed from another team.5. The next four playoff teams will be subject to the same rules as the final four. They also will be able to sign one unrestricted free agent at a first-year salary of $1.5 million or more, and one at a first-year salary of less than $1 million (not including signing bonus), with increases of no more than 30 percent of the player's first-year salary.The message here is that there are some significant limits to the cash bonanza that the players are expecting in 2007. It's another reason, in our opinion, for both sides to get the deal done.

I had not heard about items 4 and 5 before.

 

[Spiderman]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

Yeah, that is what is being reported. There was no progress between the NFLPA and the owners yesterday, so the owners are going to regroup and the NFLPA will regroup and they will give it one more try tomorrow.

Unless I'm mistaken, tomorrow is too late. The deadline is 4pm TODAY!

Not exactly. The deadline is Friday for a new labor agreement to avoid an uncapped year in 2007. Thursday is the day, without a new deal, that teams will have to assume a sub $100mm 2006 salary cap number and make cuts, wheras if the CBA was signed prior to that the cap number in 2006 is likely $103mm+

If Thursday is the deadline for the sub $100 million cap, why are teams cutting players today (Wednesday) ? Wouldn't they want to wait until they had to make moves in case a deal is reached ?

 

[Autumn Wind]

So everyone is agreed that talks have collapsed?

Sounds promising!!

Yeah, that is what is being reported. There was no progress between the NFLPA and the owners yesterday, so the owners are going to regroup and the NFLPA will regroup and they will give it one more try tomorrow.

Unless I'm mistaken, tomorrow is too late. The deadline is 4pm TODAY!

Not exactly. The deadline is Friday for a new labor agreement to avoid an uncapped year in 2007. Thursday is the day, without a new deal, that teams will have to assume a sub $100mm 2006 salary cap number and make cuts, wheras if the CBA was signed prior to that the cap number in 2006 is likely $103mm+

If Thursday is the deadline for the sub $100 million cap, why are teams cutting players today (Wednesday) ? Wouldn't they want to wait until they had to make moves in case a deal is reached ?

Some teams (like Oakland) would be over the $100+ million cap too, so cutting was going to happen either way. Can't speak for all cuts though.

 

[AB in DC]

On a related note, this is a week old, but I found Dr. Z's comments interesting:

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

 

[BlueOnion]

On a related note, this is a week old, but I found Dr. Z's comments interesting:

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

After listening to PTI last night and more pointedly Wilbon, I think there might be some truth to this. Wilbon pointed out all labor agreements are reached in the final hour; everything before that is posturing.

 

[thayman]

yeah a lot of this happens at the "11th Hour". Still doesn't do much for my stress level though. Stupid NFL, screwing around with the value of my Fantasty Football team......

 

[zadok]

On a related note, this is a week old, but I found Dr. Z's comments interesting:

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

After listening to PTI last night and more pointedly Wilbon, I think there might be some truth to this. Wilbon pointed out all labor agreements are reached in the final hour; everything before that is posturing.

Aren't the cuts from yesterday/this morning evidence that no deal is forthcoming?

 

[thayman]

On a related note, this is a week old, but I found Dr. Z's comments interesting:

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

After listening to PTI last night and more pointedly Wilbon, I think there might be some truth to this. Wilbon pointed out all labor agreements are reached in the final hour; everything before that is posturing.

Aren't the cuts from yesterday/this morning evidence that no deal is forthcoming?

I've heard unoffically, from talk radio that the Cheifs and the Redskins would be the best indicator as to if a deal is done or not. Merely speculation, but the thought around DC has been if nothing is going to get done, then that is when you would see the Skins and Cheifs cutting players. Right now the Skins are reworking some contracts, but havnen't cut anyone yet.

 

[diesel7982]

On a related note, this is a week old, but I found Dr. Z's comments interesting:

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

After listening to PTI last night and more pointedly Wilbon, I think there might be some truth to this. Wilbon pointed out all labor agreements are reached in the final hour; everything before that is posturing.

Aren't the cuts from yesterday/this morning evidence that no deal is forthcoming?

Who was cut yesterday that wouldnt have been cut otherwise?

 

[thayman]

On a related note, this is a week old, but I found Dr. Z's comments interesting:

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

After listening to PTI last night and more pointedly Wilbon, I think there might be some truth to this. Wilbon pointed out all labor agreements are reached in the final hour; everything before that is posturing.

Aren't the cuts from yesterday/this morning evidence that no deal is forthcoming?

Who was cut yesterday that wouldnt have been cut otherwise?

Good point, but I think you have a couple of teams that are probably entering a bit of panic mode. Maybe cutting a player or two prematurly. Mike Anderson kind of surprised me, as did the Dolphins cutting Sam Madison

 

[zadok]

On a related note, this is a week old, but I found Dr. Z's comments interesting:

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

After listening to PTI last night and more pointedly Wilbon, I think there might be some truth to this. Wilbon pointed out all labor agreements are reached in the final hour; everything before that is posturing.

Aren't the cuts from yesterday/this morning evidence that no deal is forthcoming?

Who was cut yesterday that wouldnt have been cut otherwise?

Milloy and Adams?Buffalo was already under the cap before cutting them and I thought they were going to release Moulds to free up space...

 

[fatness]

I've heard unoffically, from talk radio that the Cheifs and the Redskins would be the best indicator as to if a deal is done or not. Merely speculation, but the thought around DC has been if nothing is going to get done, then that is when you would see the Skins and Cheifs cutting players.

Right now the Skins are reworking some contracts, but havnen't cut anyone yet.

The Redskins will be cutting some players regardless of whether there's an agreement or not, probably Walt Harris, Matt Bowen, Cory Raymer, Tom Tupa, possibly John Hall and James Thrash. If the cuts extend beyond those guys, it may be an indication no agreement will be reached.

 

[thayman]

I've heard unoffically, from talk radio that the Cheifs and the Redskins would be the best indicator as to if a deal is done or not.  Merely speculation, but the thought around DC has been if nothing is going to get done, then that is when you would see the Skins and Cheifs cutting players. 

Right now the Skins are reworking some contracts, but havnen't cut anyone yet.

The Redskins will be cutting some players regardless of whether there's an agreement or not, probably Walt Harris, Matt Bowen, Cory Raymer, Tom Tupa, possibly John Hall and James Thrash. If the cuts extend beyond those guys, it may be an indication no agreement will be reached.

Thrash kind of surprises me...I always thought Gibbs said he was one of those core redskins to build around. I thought they should of let Hall go last year. I loved my boy Nick Novak. Tupa is also kind of disappointing. I love a big punter that loves to tackle return men

 

[Jason Wood]

RE: why did the Broncos cut players yesterday...that's a great question. Mort said that Bowlen's move to cut Pryce and Anderson really changed his view on whether this labor situation was going to resolve itself. He said Bowlen is a big revenue owner and very influential in the ownership group, and for him to make those moves a day earlier than he theoretically had to was proof positive that Bowlen sees little chance of an amicable resolution before tonight's deadline.

Also, as to diesel's point...while most of these players would've been candidates for release, in the cases of several [Pryce, Mawae, Anderson], their teams were working feverishly to redo their deals and retain them from most accounts. Pryce, in particular, had a strong season last year and will be scooped up in a heartbeat.

 

[redman]

I think that there is a lot of alarmist thinking going on.  Even if there is no salary cap, there will still be roster size limits.  So the idea that there will be several "super teams" and other teams with no stars is crazy.  No team, is going to have six QBs and pay them each $10 million.  Why would QBs 2-6 agree to sign with this team?  Would they do it JUST to cash in?

Ed Debartolo Jr would be the happiest camper of them all in this scenario. But since his 49ers won 5 Super Bowls this way and he has since been banished from the league, one would have to assume that the Snyder/Jones types will be glad to take his role.Why did Deion go to the 49ers?

Why did so many guys go to the 49ers for one yr deals?

They wanted a ring, got it and left.

They did it in Florida with the Marlins in baseball, they will do it in football.

Tom

You're still ignoring the fact that you can't build a NFL champion team in one year like you can in MLB. The core of that 1994 49'ers team had been there for years - Young, Rice, Watters, etc. - and had developed together, enabling guys like Deion to be plugged into a position with an already formed team around him. In addition, that 49'ers team and the Dallas team that won the following year were the last Super Bowl champions build primarily before the cap went into being. I don't think it's coincidence that you're having to go back that far to find an example for your argument.

 

[Franknbeans]

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

KING: That's a good question. The 2006 season will be like every season we've had since the salary cap began in 1994. But the 2007 season will be an uncapped year, which means all players will have a chance to make more money than they would in a normal year. But the one thing that not enough fans are focusing on right now -- and I don't believe players are focusing on it either -- is that in this uncapped year, players will have to have six years of NFL service to become a free agent rather than the current four. That will limit the number of free agents out there significantly. The uncapped year won't be the bonanza that players might think.

SI.com: How will this affect free agency?

KING: Free agency kicks off at 12:01 a.m. EST on Friday. And if there isn't a new deal, it will severely limit the amount of money this year's free-agent crop can earn. Too many teams have to make drastic cuts simply to get to the cap number, never mind spending additional money on free agents. In other words, it's a very bad year for Shaun Alexander to be looking for a six-year, $50 million contract. As I wrote in Monday Morning QB this week, only four teams -- Minnesota, Cleveland, Arizona and Green Bay -- have more than $20 million to spend in free agency this year. And so those teams could be shopping at Neiman Marcus and paying Target prices.

 

[BlueOnion]

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

Good information. I think most people care because if the cap goes away, the liklihood of it coming back are slim to none.

 

[Franknbeans]

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

Good information. I think most people care because if the cap goes away, the liklihood of it coming back are slim to none.

but does that necessarily lead to an inferior product on the field?SI.com: Are you saying that the NFL is not going to become like baseball, with tremendous difference in teams' ability to put competitive teams on the field?

KING: That's exactly what I'm saying. In baseball, the Yankees can spend $210 million on players, while a team in its own division, Tampa Bay, spends about $35 million. In the NFL, even if Daniel Snyder takes in $300 million over the course of the year and buys up five premier free agents every year, even the teams at the bottom of the financial totem pole -- e.g., Buffalo, Jacksonville -- will have $160 to $170 million of gross revenue to play with. Obviously, it won't be as egalitarian a system as the one the league has now. And it won't be as good a system, but we're not headed for any sort of football Armageddon. And don't let anyone tell you differently.

 

[BlueOnion]

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

Good information. I think most people care because if the cap goes away, the liklihood of it coming back are slim to none.

but does that necessarily lead to an inferior product on the field?

Depends on what you value as an NFL fan. If you support Green Bay, does a big market buying all your star players after 6 years in the league an inferior product? If you like a competition, does seeing the majority of the same teams make the playoffs an inferior product?

 

[Franknbeans]

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

Good information. I think most people care because if the cap goes away, the liklihood of it coming back are slim to none.

but does that necessarily lead to an inferior product on the field?

Depends on what you value as an NFL fan. If you support Green Bay, does a big market buying all your star players after 6 years in the league an inferior product? If you like a competition, does seeing the majority of the same teams make the playoffs an inferior product?

Personally, I like parity. I like that it's not the same teams every year in the Superbowl. Always have, always will and that goes for my beloved Steelers as well. As for a big market team buying all of the star players after they've been six years in the league... I think that will be a smaller issue for teams that draft well. After six years a lot of players are well onto the downsides of their careers with the possible exception of the quarterback position. I say bring it!

 

[Beaumont]

but does that necessarily lead to an inferior product on the field?

SI.com: Are you saying that the NFL is not going to become like baseball, with tremendous difference in teams' ability to put competitive teams on the field?

KING: That's exactly what I'm saying. In baseball, the Yankees can spend $210 million on players, while a team in its own division, Tampa Bay, spends about $35 million. In the NFL, even if Daniel Snyder takes in $300 million over the course of the year and buys up five premier free agents every year, even the teams at the bottom of the financial totem pole -- e.g., Buffalo, Jacksonville -- will have $160 to $170 million of gross revenue to play with. Obviously, it won't be as egalitarian a system as the one the league has now. And it won't be as good a system, but we're not headed for any sort of football Armageddon. And don't let anyone tell you differently.

The real difference between the NFL and MLB is the NFL teams dont have revenue disparity due to separate TV deals ... spending should never get out whack in the NFL like it is in MLB ...

 

[BlueOnion]

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

Good information. I think most people care because if the cap goes away, the liklihood of it coming back are slim to none.

but does that necessarily lead to an inferior product on the field?

Depends on what you value as an NFL fan. If you support Green Bay, does a big market buying all your star players after 6 years in the league an inferior product? If you like a competition, does seeing the majority of the same teams make the playoffs an inferior product?

Personally, I like parity. I like that it's not the same teams every year in the Superbowl. Always have, always will and that goes for my beloved Steelers as well. As for a big market team buying all of the star players after they've been six years in the league... I think that will be a smaller issue for teams that draft well. After six years a lot of players are well onto the downsides of their careers with the possible exception of the quarterback position. I say bring it!

I agree with you, we want the same thing. I am skeptical about the 6-year thing. I think it will only apply if the NFLPA does not decertify itself as a union and all indications I have heard is this will be the NFLPA's course of action of a CBA is not reached.

 

[Bri]

ESPNNews just had a "breaking news report" which essentially said much of what you already know. Tags said "it's as dire as dire can be" Jerry Jones says it's rare that all the owners agree on something. There's an NFLPA meeting next week to discuss the current situation including decertifying the union.

The negotiations disagreed on 4% of revenue which is 240 mil

 

[GroveDiesel]

One of the things that some people seem to be forgetting, is that with no CBA, player salaries can only increase 30% when they become FAs. So teams with deep pockets won't just be able to offer guys $80M guaranteed contracts. If you made $1M last year, then you can't make anymore than $1.3M this year, no matter who offers it to you.

Gene Upshaw has threatened to de-certify the union to try to avoid all of the "poison pills" in the CBA for the players. The threat is that they will then sue the NFL if they try to go to anything other than a wide open free market. But I'm not so certain that a court would allow them to de-certify in the first place, and even if they were allowed, I'm not sure that the judge would rule that they were then not subject to the "poison pills" in the CBA. Otherwise, what would be the point of the "poison pills" anyway?