The NFL 2011 Offseason/Strike/Lockout Thread

[stevew]

I think this should be a step toward player safety. I'd be in favor of some way to make special teams plays count more towards a pension.

[wade moore]

I've said on here for the last couple of years that at some point we're not going to have kickoffs and everyone will start at the 20.

I still think that happens, even if it's not for another decade or two.

[GrantDawg]

I guess they dropped the provision that touchbacks would be brought back to the 25?

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I guess they dropped the provision that touchbacks would be brought back to the 25?

Yes

Haven't read it anywhere, but listening to the radio they alluded to only passing "half" the original idea.

[jbergey22]

I think rule changes like this should be voted on now and not put in place for 3-5 years. Its really not fair to the teams that have Devin Hester and other great returners.

[stevew]

Devin Hester has returned 19 kickoffs in his past 32 games. You meant to say Josh Cribbs.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by stevew

Devin Hester has returned 19 kickoffs in his past 32 games. You meant to say Josh Cribbs.

Thanks Steve.

Yes. I forgot how dumb the Bears can be and not have him return kicks.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Sagging pants get Dalas Cowboys' Dez Bryant banned from shopping mall - NFL - SI.com

[Warhammer]

I heard it wasn't the sagging pants, but his lying about it to the mall authorities that got him banned.

[Young Drachma]

Former New York Jet Wayne Chrebet Enjoys Second Career As Morgan Stanley Adviser

Maybe Tiki Barber should've gone this route. I saw an ad on FB for this and was like "wait, what?" so I googled and saw that he's indeed working for Morgan Stanley now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I vaguely knew there might be some issues, didn't have a clue they were anything like what he describes here though. I appreciate the absence of much that sounds like excuses, just some pretty candid admission about some serious problems. Hope he makes it.

New York Jets QB Erik Ainge opens up about his years of drug abuse and his ongoing battle with addiction and mental illness - ESPN New York

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I vaguely knew there might be some issues, didn't have a clue they were anything like what he describes here though. I appreciate the absence of much that sounds like excuses, just some pretty candid admission about some serious problems. Hope he makes it.

New York Jets QB Erik Ainge opens up about his years of drug abuse and his ongoing battle with addiction and mental illness - ESPN New York

Yeah, just read that. Heck of a story and I'm glad he's got a support system. Quite the cautionary tale to put it mildly.

[Galaxy]

At least Ben Roethlisberger will be tying the knot. Some gems in the article:

Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger confirms plans for July wedding - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

[Matthean]

He said his engagement is not a ploy to rebuild his public image. ''We were kind of on and off for five years - almost six years now - so I've known her for a while. It's not like a random new person. We dated a while ago; we have been friends ever since,'' Roethlisberger told the Post-Gazette.

And yet it reads exactly like him needing a girl in the picture so he grabs somebody he has known for some time, but obviously wasn't good enough to be dating at the time of the incident.

Harlan lives with her parents, and Roethlisberger said they are not living together until they're married because of their religious beliefs.
''People can say that it is whatever, but people who know and can see and are around us and know me, know that it's something special when you find that person, and I'm extremely lucky," he said.

You kind of wonder where his beliefs were when he was putting himself in the situations he was.

[Matthean]

Oh, and I'm sure there is a draft thread, but McShay has Newton going #1 in his latest mock. Unless he has done some recent workouts that alter what he did before, he still needed a lot of work, or at least so it seemed.

[Ksyrup]

I believe McShay and The Hair both have him going #1. If that's the case, I assume that projection has more to do with what they're hearing about the Panthers than anything he's done at his workouts.

[stevew]

Couple of scheduling gems came out over the past week.

Weeks 2 and 4 feature no divisional matchups, teams at home in week 2 are on the road for week 4, and vice versa.

Week 3 games feature teams that share a bye week later on in the season.

NFL controls hotel rooms in Indianapolis for the week of the SuperBowl, plus the week afterward. Plus the bye week before the SuperBowl could easily be skipped.

Seems like the drop dead starting date is October 16th for playing a 14 week season. I'm guessing implementation of replacement players will become a real option somewhere around September 25th.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Police say Miami Dolphins wide receiver Brandon Marshall stabbed by wife - NFL - SI.com

[SirFozzie]

Apparently today's decision lifting the lockout was an unabashed home run for the players, and we all thought that the stay would be automatic.. Lester Munson at ESPN doesn't think so:

"In these 89 pages, Judge Nelson wrote the opinion that the players and their lawyers dreamed of a few weeks ago. She gave them everything that they need now to make the injunction stick and to end the lockout. She did not write this opinion for us at ESPN. She wrote this opinion for the judges on the higher court, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. When they read it, they are going to be very reluctant to give the stay that the owners want.

"The NFL wants everybody to think this is a labor dispute. Well, it is not any more. It is an antitrust case. Judge Nelson explained all of that. The NFL had four basic arguments. She destroyed each one of them. The owners basically went 0-for-4. Now, they are going to have to come up with something new in order to impress the 8th Circuit and try to get the lockout back in effect. I don't think they are going to be able to do it. I think the lockout may have come to an end today."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Lester Munson at ESPN doesn't think so... It is an antitrust case. Judge Nelson explained all of that.

Seems as though Munson is talking out of his ass there. From the wire stories

What Nelson didn't do on Monday, however, was tackle the issue of the antitrust lawsuit filed last month when the union broke up. That, she wrote, "must wait another day."

[SirFozzie]

There was a part of her decision that stated that it was likely to be dismissed by the NRLB, though

[SirFozzie]

Judge Nelson lifts lockout, NFL players win in labor dispute - Michael McCann - SI.com

Judge Nelson is noticeably dismissive of the NFL's unfair labor practices charge. In fact, she writes that, "it is likely, if not inevitable, that the NLRB will dismiss that charge now that the Players have exercised their right to abandon the collective bargaining framework of labor law in order to pursue individual contracts." While the NLRB need not rely on Judge Nelson's advice, her comments are telling.

[digamma]

My third year of law school, I was a teaching assistant in a legal writing class. Michael McCann was one of my students. I'd totally take everything he says with a grain of salt. Unless you like it. Then, I'll take credit for teaching him everything he knows.

[SirFozzie]

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0425/judge_nelson.pdf

The Full decision..

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Any future negotiations will occur during talks to settle the lawsuit just filed by several NFL players. Likely included in that lawsuit is a request for a preliminary injunction which, if granted (and most assume it will), will prevent NFL owners from locking out players and will allow/require the NFL to operate under rules from prior years or to establish new rules for the NFL off-season.

There is precedent for this decertification procedure. After the 1987 strike, the players decertified and litigated through the courts over a period of several years. The outcome was the collective bargaining agreement in 1993 which was extended multiple times with slight changes up until today.

In short, the NFL will most likely have an off-season beginning as soon as tonight or as late as Aprilish and will not miss any games while the process is hashed out in the courts.

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Nah. If the judge deciding the case (who may not be Judge Doty) grants the injunction, it will most likely be to operate under rules as they were for the 2011 NFL Calendar year. Owners will not be able to unilaterally change the rules unless it would have been allowed under the old CBA.

In other words, the owners/players will act as if there was still a CBA in place.

EDIT: If the injunction is not granted, however, the owners have no reason to end the lockout until games are missed or Players cave.

Yup.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Judge Nelson is noticeably dismissive of the NFL's unfair labor practices charge. In fact, she writes that, "it is likely, if not inevitable, that the NLRB will dismiss that charge now that the Players have exercised their right to abandon the collective bargaining framework of labor law in order to pursue individual contracts." While the NLRB need not rely on Judge Nelson's advice, her comments are telling.

This'll be fun. Let the players sign their own contracts with whoever, do away with the draft entirely, and let the entities all work as independent teams. Then see how happy the players are when the NFL's popularity bottoms out. MLB might even become relevant again!

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

MLB might even become relevant again!

Slow down there, pally.

You can't have America's Pasttime without "past."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This'll be fun. Let the players sign their own contracts with whoever, do away with the draft entirely, and let the entities all work as independent teams. Then see how happy the players are when the NFL's popularity bottoms out. MLB might even become relevant again!

If the NFL ran without a salary cap, free agency rules and draft, I would abandon the league.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This'll be fun. Let the players sign their own contracts with whoever, do away with the draft entirely, and let the entities all work as independent teams. Then see how happy the players are when the NFL's popularity bottoms out. MLB might even become relevant again!

The union is still going to collectively negotiate. Ya, that seems like a total scam and I don't understand it, but from everything I heard, the union still exists, and still acts, they just call it something else now.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This'll be fun. Let the players sign their own contracts with whoever, do away with the draft entirely, and let the entities all work as independent teams. Then see how happy the players are when the NFL's popularity bottoms out. MLB might even become relevant again!

YEah, those bastard players who want to make money! How dare they! Why, the NFL's ability to collectively make up shit as they go along is the way to go!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by molson

The union is still going to collectively negotiate. Ya, that seems like a total scam and I don't understand it, but from everything I heard, the union still exists, and still acts, they just call it something else now.

But the players want to go after individual contracts according to what I quoted, which goes completely against everything else mentioned.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

YEah, those bastard players who want to make money! How dare they! Why, the NFL's ability to collectively make up shit as they go along is the way to go!

The things I mentioned are what make the NFL a competitive league and have helped build it into the cash cow it is today, a cash cow that was handing BILLIONS over to its players every season. When Jerry Jones has all the top talent sequestered in Dallas and the league contracts to 16 teams, we'll see how many of those players are still making the big bucks they are making today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

If the NFL ran without a salary cap ... I would abandon the league.

And I might actually find it interesting again.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But the players want to go after individual contracts according to what I quoted, which goes completely against everything else mentioned.

The idea the judge referenced is kind of a legal fiction though, at least in football. The judge refered to the "right to abandon the collective bargaining framework of labor law in order to pursue individual contracts"....But the players didn't really decertifiy so they could operate as individuals, they decertified so they could sue....but they're still acting like a union. There will still be collective negotiation, there will still be a new CBA eventually. And in reality, they're not going to just continue as football players in the league without a union (though I'm sure the owners would love that)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The things I mentioned are what make the NFL a competitive league and have helped build it into the cash cow it is today, a cash cow that was handing BILLIONS over to its players every season. When Jerry Jones has all the top talent sequestered in Dallas and the league contracts to 16 teams, we'll see how many of those players are still making the big bucks they are making today.

In the same respect, without any revenue sharing, individual TV contracts, no draft, open FA and lower revenues due to fans leaving the game in droves, the owners won't be making big bucks either. Their $1+B investments would be worth less than half of what they're worth today. So, who has more to lose?

Originally Posted by Molson

The idea the judge referenced is kind of a legal fiction though, at least in football. The judge refered to the "right to abandon the collective bargaining framework of labor law in order to pursue individual contracts"....But the players didn't really decertifiy so they could operate as individuals, they decertified so they could sue....but they're still acting like a union. There will still be collective negotiation, there will still be a new CBA eventually. And in reality, they're not going to just continue as football players in the league without a union (though I'm sure the owners would love that)

You're right on the first part. They decertified so they could turn this from a labor dispute to an anti-trust dispute. Not only do the players have far more legal tools at their disposal in such a case, but damages are tripled in an anti-trust lawsuit.

But I don't see a problem with the tactics of the players. The owners are the ones who instigated the lockout and wanted to force pay cuts without opening the books. The players then reacted. It's only ok for 32 individual businesses to act as a monopoly so long as there's a union to agree to it. When the owners tried to force the union's hand, the union membership did what they should and pushed back. When the owners didn't negotiate in good faith, the players played their ace in the hole and decertified.

But you're wrong on the last part. The owners need to have a union and they know it. Because without one, they can not - by law - act as a trust. There's no anti-trust exemption for the NFL like there is for MLB. Therefore, no draft. No group TV contract. No salary cap. Nothing. And they're smart enough to know that they'll lose massive amounts of money in an environment like that. As I said above, who really has more to lose?

That's why there will be a labor agreement involving the NFL and the NFLPA. They both need each other and they both know it. Right now, it's all about bluffing and seeing what kind of leverage you can get. And the owners just found out the players had a lot more leverage than they thought.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

In the same respect, without any revenue sharing, individual TV contracts, no draft, open FA and lower revenues due to fans leaving the game in droves, the owners won't be making big bucks either. Their $1+B investments would be worth less than half of what they're worth today. So, who has more to lose?

My point was that is why the teams want those things: draft, etc, and that it would be silly for the players not to want it.

Maybe I'm just ticked off at lawyers in general: I hate all these tactics. The players decertify to sue, not because they actually want to decertify. Bah. Lawyers keep making things too darn complicated.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

My point was that is why the teams want those things: draft, etc, and that it would be silly for the players not to want it.

Maybe I'm just ticked off at lawyers in general: I hate all these tactics. The players decertify to sue, not because they actually want to decertify. Bah. Lawyers keep making things too darn complicated.

The players do want those things. Don't let any lawyer-speak fool you.

The players decertified because they had to. Remember, the owners are the ones who threatened a lockout and put out the deadline. If the owners instituted a lockout while the union was in effect, the players could not legally decertify for 6 more months. That puts any decertification after the opening NFL weekend. The owners would have had a hell of a lot more leverage during that discussion period as players were missing paychecks. It would be downright stupid of the union to hold their best bargaining chip for 6 months and allow yourself to get backed up against the wall before you could even play it. The NHLPA didn't play that chip a few years ago and they lost out big-time.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And I might actually find it interesting again.

Big fan of English Premiere league soccer, then?

Without a salary cap, the NFL will become like the EPL or MLB, where you have a huge disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" and the smaller market teams will rarely have a chance to win it all and essentially become minor league teams for the richer franchises.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Without a salary cap, the NFL will become like the EPL or MLB, where you have a huge disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" and the smaller market teams will rarely have a chance to win it all and essentially become minor league teams for the richer franchises.

I don't think its really the salary cap that causes competitive balance, its the fact that the league negotiates tv and licensing deals as one and splits that money.

It's all kind of a mess, I've been trying to piece together my understanding of it. There's some things the NFL can do as a single entity, and there's some things they can't. They can have a required and fixed schedule and playoff format (The Patriots can't play a "friendly" against some Euro team), make tv and licensing deals, prevent teams from moving, but they can't set player salaries, ticket prices, or interefere in the day-to-day operations of teams. I'm not sure how much of that is law, and how much of that is collective bargaining - and what exactly goes away if you don't have a CBA. If the answer to that is "everything", I wonder how far exactly the NFL would need to go to be viewed as a true "single entity" in the eyes of the law - where they could collectively set everything, including player salaries.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But I don't see a problem with the tactics of the players. The owners are the ones who instigated the lockout and wanted to force pay cuts without opening the books.

Reducing the size of players' raises is not the same as forcing a pay cut.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Big fan of English Premiere league soccer, then?

Big fan is a stretch, but it's not all far from equally interesting to me as a fan. What I follow of the NFL largely because it's watercooler conversation, much like me knowing vaguely who gets cut from Idol or knowing what happens in the NBA playoffs, but as far as being a "fan" I'm just not. Once Manning is out of the league my interest will almost certainly drop even more & that could put it down to at least NBA depths.

Without a salary cap, the NFL will become like the EPL or MLB, where you have a huge disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" and the smaller market teams will rarely have a chance to win it all and essentially become minor league teams for the richer franchises.

For my interest level, that beats hearing phrases like "released for salary cap reasons". Not much kills my respect for a sport, nor my interest in it, more than that. Release a guy because he can't get the job done, release him because he isn't worth what he wants/expects/is due to make, something related to the game & I'm fine with it. Some artificial construct like a cap, absolutely rankles I tell you.

[molson]

Well, if the teams are ever really individual entities - they first thing I want the Patriots to do is come out to the ring and challenge the Giants to a super bowl re-match. Preferably in a steel cage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, if the teams are ever really individual entities - they first thing I want the Patriots to do is come out to the ring and challenge the Giants to a super bowl re-match. Preferably in a steel cage.

You better hope it's not a no-DQ match

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

For my interest level, that beats hearing phrases like "released for salary cap reasons". Not much kills my respect for a sport, nor my interest in it, more than that. Release a guy because he can't get the job done, release him because he isn't worth what he wants/expects/is due to make, something related to the game & I'm fine with it. Some artificial construct like a cap, absolutely rankles I tell you.

Isn't the first bolded phrase "spin" for the 2nd bolded phrase?

[Swaggs]

Didn't Bowie Kuhn and Charlie Finley, in hindsight, both agree that letting MLB players become free agents every season (something that they did not agree to implement at the time) would have been better for owners in the long run?

[Swaggs]

Dola... I read the above about Kuhn in a book somewhere (maybe one of Rob Neyer's?), but here is a blog post that similarly summarizes it (albeit with baseball): SportsProf: Free Agency: Charlie Finley's Suggestion May Take Root


Here's a snippet for the gist:

Naturally, most owners were horrified at the concept of free agency. I don't know whether any predicted that without a salary cap the wealthiest teams would end up signing the best free agents, but to a degree today that's what's happened, and the numbers show that it's hard to make the playoffs unless your team is in the top third of payroll. In any event, Finley had a much different take on free agency. It didn't scare him at all. In fact, he was ready to give in -- totally.

Said Finley: "Let Them All Become Free Agents." What Finley proposed was that after each season every player would become a free agent, free to sign with whatever team wanted his services.

Think about that. Talk about a dynamic market reflective of a player's previous performance. Talk about "pay for performance." Talk about not crippling your payroll with a long-term contract for a player who would be likely not to perform well at the end of the contract (the Mets suffered three such fates with four-year deals for Pedro Martinez, Tommy Glavine and Billy Wagner) or who just wouldn't perform well (Exhibit A: Barry Zito). Talk about giving a good raise, though, to the 22 year-old rookie who hit .325 with 25 home runs and 100 RBIs (here Pablo Sandoval would be making about $5 million now instead of the hundreds of thousands he'll earn because of his youth and lack of Major League service). So, year to year, players would get what the market will bear.

The possibilities are mind-boggling. How much would Cliff Lee earn after his wonderful performance with the Philadelphia Phillies? Certainly more than the $9 million he's scheduled to earn; Lee would probably be making about $17 million this season. In stark contrast, Jamie Moyer, who is scheduled to earn about $8 million this season because of incentives he achieved in his 2009 contract, but who after mid-season struggled mightily, might only be making $750,000.

It's hard to say how competitiveness would be affected, but my guess is that the competitive landscape wouldn't be a lot different -- the teams with the money would still excel, and it could be the case that the teams without money would get worse. The smaller-market and poorer teams would lose the right to keep a young player through his first year of eligibility for free agency; they probably would lose him after his first good season. Finley probably didn't care -- he probably worked on commissions, and how well he and his businesses did had to depend on how well they performed and not necessarily locking in long-term deals for themselves.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Dola... I read the above about Kuhn in a book somewhere (maybe one of Rob Neyer's?), but here is a blog post that similarly summarizes it (albeit with baseball): SportsProf: Free Agency: Charlie Finley's Suggestion May Take Root

Here's a snippet for the gist:

Interesting, but what better for the players at the time - real free agency after 6 seasons (which is what they got), or the immediate ability to sign a 1-year contract anywhere, and every season?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Logan

Reducing the size of players' raises is not the same as forcing a pay cut.

You obviously weren't paying attention to the negotiations. The NFL's best offer was $10m less per team than the salary cap of 2009 AND limited the raises to the players regardless of the growth of revenues. It most certainly was a pay cut and without any real upside for the players. And when the players asked the NFL to justify it, the NFL refused. No wonder the NFLPA told them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You obviously weren't paying attention to the negotiations. The NFL's best offer was $10m less per team than the salary cap of 2009 AND limited the raises to the players regardless of the growth of revenues. It most certainly was a pay cut and without any real upside for the players. And when the players asked the NFL to justify it, the NFL refused. No wonder the NFLPA told them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

How's that? The 2009 salary cap was $127 million. The last offer the owners publicized was for the cap to be $141 million in 2011 and then increase to $161 million in 2014. How is that less again?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Aylmar

How's that? The 2009 salary cap was $127 million. The last offer the owners publicized was for the cap to be $141 million in 2011 and then increase to $161 million in 2014. How is that less again?

Incorrect. It was $141m in total compensation. $114m in cap for 2011, for a direct reduction of $13m from two years ago despite increased revenues. They would have increased benefits $1m from $26m to $27m in the new plan, but that's still a direct reduction of $12m per team...or almost a $400m giveback to the owners before you factor in the increased revenues over the past two seasons. Furthermore, the plan didn't allow for players to share in any larger-than-"expected" revenue growth. Given that the TV contract is up in a couple of years and it's a virtually certainty that TV revenues will go up fairly significantly, the owners would have just received an increasingly large share of the overall revenues over the life of the deal. It was a shitty deal that wouldn't ever be seriously considered without the owners opening the books to justify why the players should give back almost half a billion dollars.