PDA

View Full Version : Will the CBA collapse be a boon for the Texans?


edo783
03-01-2006, 12:05 PM
We are under the cap and cutting players to get further under. With teams who are over having to unload a bunch of players, could there be a QUALITY FA or two in our future? Who?

Frills
03-01-2006, 12:15 PM
Thinking 07 being uncapped could be a good thing for us.

We aren't a small market and Bob has shown he'll pay for a team.

Maddict5
03-01-2006, 12:16 PM
the CBA situation is bad for every1 but not AS bad for us as a few other. its horrible for the nfl in general though

swtbound07
03-01-2006, 12:19 PM
i posted this is another thread, but feel it belongs here too


i dont know about you guys, but i dont wanna buy our super bowl. I dont want it to be the new york yankees of football, where we assemble some super team for a year, get our ring, and then disband. I want to earn it, i want it to be a team of players we drafted, brought up through are system, made a COUPLE of key acquisitions through free agency, and won as a team. I never want to hear
"Peyton Manning to Randy Moss...who laterals to ladanian tomlinson! Texans Touchdown!"
This aint madden...this is the nfl, and i like it the way it is.

Maddict5
03-01-2006, 12:26 PM
exactly thats why the SB means so much to every1- its so hard to get there because the league is competitive and theres much more sense of accomplishment when you've suceeded in something which is very difficult to do. it would be very sickening if it was just the redskins, cowboys, texans and patriots winning all the time

mancunian
03-01-2006, 12:49 PM
i posted this is another thread, but feel it belongs here too


i dont know about you guys, but i dont wanna buy our super bowl. I dont want it to be the new york yankees of football, where we assemble some super team for a year, get our ring, and then disband. I want to earn it, i want it to be a team of players we drafted, brought up through are system, made a COUPLE of key acquisitions through free agency, and won as a team. I never want to hear
"Peyton Manning to Randy Moss...who laterals to ladanian tomlinson! Texans Touchdown!"
This aint madden...this is the nfl, and i like it the way it is.

theres more satisfaction in building a team over a number of years and watching those draft picks develop into outstanding players. The Pats built over time and never went for the BIG FA, I liked the way they did that.

GoneTexan
03-01-2006, 12:50 PM
i posted this is another thread, but feel it belongs here too


... I dont want it to be the new york yankees of football, where we assemble some super team for a year, get our ring, and then disband. I want to earn it...this is the nfl, and i like it the way it is.

I agree SW! The old saying “You are only as strong as your weakest link!” is true in this situation. The NFL is not just the strongest market teams but every team in the league. I only blame the owners in this case because you have the Jones’s & Snyder’s who would pay at what ever costs! It’s no wonder why they are in this predicament and why they have multi-million dollar contracts and steep ticket prices. If the CBA is abolished then most of us fans will see the NFL in a different light. This may be the beginning of the end and I would not put it past the owners to restructure the NFL and maybe close the 2007 season as well.

texasguy346
03-01-2006, 12:51 PM
I could see the Texans finding a few key free agents to fill in key need positions. Maybe pick up Fujita or Akin Ayodele for the MLB, and maybe find a veteran nickle CB on the cheap.

mancunian
03-01-2006, 12:53 PM
If the CBA is abolished then most of us fans will see the NFL in a different light. This may be the beginning of the end and I would not put it past the owners to restructure the NFL and maybe close the 2007 season as well.

The big market teams would dominate which might be a good thing for the Texans but not for the NFL.

You only have to look at soccer in Europe to see how it would go. Its the same teams every season competing for the trophies. The richer clubs get richer with the weaker struggling to survive.

Frills
03-01-2006, 01:00 PM
What about offering a multiyear deal for a FA, having a huge 07 season then 08 and beyond being more cap friendly.

Marcus
03-01-2006, 01:09 PM
My interest in the NFL will plummet if this happens. That's not supposed to be any kind of a threat or anything . . it's based upon how I felt when baseball went to unrestricted free agency with no salary cap.

It will be like baseball, but in a tragic way, it won't. Teams will be divided up into haves, and have-nots, destroying any notion of competitive balance.

Just ask yourselves this question. If you regarded your team to be in the 'have-not' group, would you buy season tickets to see them play?

ArlingtonTexan
03-01-2006, 01:17 PM
The cap has not been in place forever in the NFL and it was competitive before one was in place. In fact, the quality of play if anything would improve. Teams would actually be able to develop players overtime and then keep those players instead running them out as soon they became decent players. Go figure, some teams would have quality depth. The players who would benefit the most would be the more boring veteran guys who either starting quality or excellent special teamers.

In the end, the best organizations will win, but the one who spend the most money. Same as it now in the NFL, same as actually is in baseball (versus perception).

Frills
03-01-2006, 01:17 PM
Although the issue with the have nots will be greatly increased, its going on now even with a cap in place.

There are owners who will refuse to pay the money, New Orleans pre Katrina is a huge example. I have no issue with revenue sharing, but when the owners of low market teams pocket the cash instead of investing it into the team they own...its pathetic.

Marcus
03-01-2006, 01:23 PM
Around the NFL . . disbelief and even desperation (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2348970)

“ We're going to behead the golden goose. And I can't see why both sides would ever let it get to that. ... A lot of things in our league could be changed forever. ”

— An NFC team owner

All of a sudden, who we're taking with the 1st pick seems rather petty.

Dr. Toro
03-01-2006, 01:24 PM
Well, New Orleans would likely turn into a have as they move to LA.

I'll also add that the NFL wouldn't quite have the havenot problem in the MLB. Some small market teams are extremely well supported, think Green Bay. MLB has trouble selling seats, that's not so much an issue in the NFL.

Marcus
03-01-2006, 01:27 PM
I wouldn't worry about that happening...cause it's silly. The first thing we need to buy is a winning team...forget SB for now. The uncapped year will help us clear out some of our signing mistakes over the first 4 years...that's the boon I see.

I don't want to buy a winning team. I want to build one . . on an equal playing field.

Vinny
03-01-2006, 01:29 PM
I don't want to buy a winning team. I want to build one . . on an equal playing field.Build one...buy one....we still pay for services. All the same to me. I'm a football fan...I enjoy good football and really don't care how we get there...as long as its a good product. Last year was not a good product.

Meloy
03-01-2006, 01:31 PM
I agree SW! The old saying “You are only as strong as your weakest link!” is true in this situation. The NFL is not just the strongest market teams but every team in the league. I only blame the owners in this case because you have the Jones’s & Snyder’s who would pay at what ever costs! It’s no wonder why they are in this predicament and why they have multi-million dollar contracts and steep ticket prices. If the CBA is abolished then most of us fans will see the NFL in a different light. This may be the beginning of the end and I would not put it past the owners to restructure the NFL and maybe close the 2007 season as well.

When I question Alan j Burge (AJ on this board) he clarified the issue. Some small market teams such as Green Bay do not want to sell naming rights to their stadium. McNair and some others have sold those rights and also made other $ with innovative marketing and deals that others don't choose to do. AJ recently wrote an article on Texans site as "voice of the fans" that I strongly recommend. I know small markets have less $ coming in and should not necessarily be allowed to go bankrupt; however several public sources have estimated that the new TV package allows each NFL owner to pocket $100 million each year of the TV deal. That is before one ticket, beer, hotdog or luxury box is sold. The cap for 2006 is to be apprx $75million. All other costs should be covered by the remaining $25m. All other $ generated such as radio, parking and concessions + 1/32 of all NFL gear (jackets,caps,etc) goes to each owner. Sounds like the small market owners are wanting their share of a large pie and then some of the other owners shares on top. If I was Jones or McNair I too would say "Get your act together and stay out of my pocket."

Remember these whiny owners demanded McNair put up hundreds of millions of dollars just to be allowed to get a franchise. Guess who got that money?

GoneTexan
03-01-2006, 02:05 PM
My how easy it is to forget that Houston lost it’s football team before? These same owners who are fighting among each other are also the ones that must be asked to allow to move to other cities? Yes you can be creative on how you make all those $$$ but usually it is the fans that pays the price! Jones bought the Cowboys and made changes like not allowing fans to tailgate to increase food revenues as an example of his genius. What’s next for McNair and all other owners? Do they also tell the NFL to forget your long sponsors like Coke … I like Pepsi and I will do what ever I like! Hey, I see Los Angeles does not have a team, I’ll take mine and move over there because the market is a lot bigger! I hate to say it, but we as fan will be the ones that loses. :crying:

Texas
03-01-2006, 02:07 PM
Why cant they up the salary cap quite a bit and let this game be more about decisions and drafting instead of a money thing...It really takes the Power Dynasty teams out of the game and I really liked seeing them because when they got beat it was more exciting where now you cant predict anything!

Marcus
03-01-2006, 02:12 PM
Whatever.

I just don't want a league where the team salary is dictated by the owner. I don't want a league where the team salary is dictated by how large, or small the market is. He can sell all the beer, hot dogs, parking spaces, and T-shirts he wants, I don't give a flip. Now, if they want to raise the team salary to 5 hundred trillion quadrillion dollars, I don't give a rotten flip either. But just be sure the other 31 teams are allowed to pay the same amount, and are given the same amount to pay it.

Or, you have "haves" and "have-nots". Now, someone kindly tell me how that would be good for the league?

Double Barrel
03-01-2006, 03:02 PM
it would be very sickening if it was just the redskins, cowboys, texans and patriots winning all the time

whoah, let's not get emotional. :D

"three time Superbowl Champions Houston Texans dynasty" does have a nice ring to it, though.... :hmmm: *DAYDREAMING*

I'd prefer that the keep the CBA in place for the good of the NFL and fans. Parity has been a good thing for the league when just about every team feels like they have a fighting chance at the beginning of every season. And it does seem like the last month of the season has been a lot more exciting this past decade, especially when you have 16 teams still in contention with three weeks of regular season to go. (Of course, it makes MNF scheduling a toughie when they never know who will be dominant from year to year.)

They've got to figure out a way to work this out. But greed will cloud judgement, and it's evident in this situation.

edo783
03-01-2006, 04:54 PM
Good discussion all. However, I guess I didn't phrase my original question well enough. I was meaning in the short term, like this year as teams unload players to get under the cap. Could really benifit us for a quick turn around IMO with some REAL quality FAs.

HJam72
03-01-2006, 09:24 PM
Actually, I kind of like the idea of the Texans playing the Cowboys in the SB repeatedly. I know it's not fair to the rest of the league and we've been on the short end of that stick before, or at least the middle of it, but it sure would be fun. I hope they get it straightened out, but I'm not going to get upset at all if they don't.

Corrosion
03-01-2006, 11:40 PM
Good discussion all. However, I guess I didn't phrase my original question well enough. I was meaning in the short term, like this year as teams unload players to get under the cap. Could really benifit us for a quick turn around IMO with some REAL quality FAs.


The Texans are only $4M under the cap .... thats not a whole lot of wiggle room .... One quality FA could easily eat up the majority of that .... and the Rookies still have to be signed . This is a disasster for almost every franchise .

The thing that bothers me about the whole thing is that they are bickering over a 3.6% gap in revenues . An estimated $300-$350M .....If there is no cap only the top 15-20% of players would likely see an increase ... the middle 25-40% or so would remain at their current pay scale while those at the bottom could actually see their share become considerably lower . The majority of the players in the NFL arent "STAR Calibur players" ....Seems the union heads dont have the avg and below avg players best interest in mind when they walk away from the table.

texplayer2
03-02-2006, 12:51 AM
I don't want to buy a winning team. I want to build one . . on an equal playing field.

Then buy a Franchise. I believe it runs about a BILLION DOLLARS. If you want to watch a game College is more about the game. At this level it is about the money and it is a buisness. I hope they get a deal done, but if our city can produce enough revenue to get good players with no cap they should do it. If everyone agreed to the rules ahead of time then thats the ones you play by. When they put free agency in, our Oilers were dismantled and all the building that was done to that point went away(What an equal field.). The teams that figured out how to work the cap were successful. Personally I would like us to win(not on an equal field), but using a good strategy based on the rules. Parity relies to much on luck, rather than skill, strategy, and developement.

Maddict5
03-02-2006, 05:08 AM
Then buy a Franchise. I believe it runs about a BILLION DOLLARS. If you want to watch a game College is more about the game. At this level it is about the money and it is a buisness. I hope they get a deal done, but if our city can produce enough revenue to get good players with no cap they should do it. If everyone agreed to the rules ahead of time then thats the ones you play by. When they put free agency in, our Oilers were dismantled and all the building that was done to that point went away(What an equal field.). The teams that figured out how to work the cap were successful. Personally I would like us to win(not on an equal field), but using a good strategy based on the rules. Parity relies to much on luck, rather than skill, strategy, and developement.

is figuring out how to use the cap successfully not a skill:confused:

michaelm
03-02-2006, 05:58 AM
Parity relies to much on luck, rather than skill, strategy, and developement.


Man, I'd pay uncapped money to have the run of luck that the parity stricken Patriots had...

TexanFanInCC
03-02-2006, 08:46 AM
i posted this is another thread, but feel it belongs here too


i dont know about you guys, but i dont wanna buy our super bowl. I dont want it to be the new york yankees of football, where we assemble some super team for a year, get our ring, and then disband. I want to earn it, i want it to be a team of players we drafted, brought up through are system, made a COUPLE of key acquisitions through free agency, and won as a team. I never want to hear
"Peyton Manning to Randy Moss...who laterals to ladanian tomlinson! Texans Touchdown!"
This aint madden...this is the nfl, and i like it the way it is.

Wow excellent post. i am all in favor of this. i just hate to see teams like the yankees winning division championships bc they can simply go add any player they choose. i have a great deal of respect for the teams that can develop talent from within the organization. im not saying that making trades or picking up free agents is necessarily a bad thing. im saying that its fine to add a few, but not a bunch of big namers that have never played together. the astros made it to the world series on one thing only: clubhouse chemistry. the players discouraged purpura NOT to make a mid season deadline move bc it might interfere with the chemistry. look what happeened in the end. the players stuck with each other and lifted each other up and they ultimately went to the WS. the teams that develop their own talent are the ones that win more often. a few examples: 2003 marlins, SA spurs, detroit pistons, dallas mavericks, astros, 2002 anaheim angels, san diego chargers, and many other....all of whom didnt have to make alot of transactions to be the dominant teams that they are. if u keep what u have together for about 2-3 yrs or so, then good things will happen. reloading players doesnt allow for a vibe to develop, hence the reason why the yankees havent won a title since 2000, before they started to recycle players. i will also say that i believe the NY mets will falter and not win anything again. a few moves is not a bad thing, but hopefully the organization wont get carried away.

the teams that develop their own talent through the organization may also have a better chance of keeping a dominant team together for more than 1 year.

texplayer2
03-02-2006, 10:03 AM
is figuring out how to use the cap successfully not a skill:confused:

Yes, but it isn't a skill you use on an equal playing field. No buisness I know of is just looking for an equal playing field. And the skills I was refering to were player related , not the front office. I admit watching all this Stuff in the off season is fun, but I perfer to watch the players skills in Sept.

LBC_Justin
03-02-2006, 10:58 AM
The problem is that right now we all aren't playing on a equal field.

Last time I checked the Houston Texans were an expansion team. We don't have the long "glorious" history that other teams have. No kid grew up wanting to play for the Texans because the team didn't exist. This make it harder for us to draw in free agents.

So there is no "equal playing feild."

I don't think some of the small markets have room to complain until they take a few steps to "maximize" their revenues.

For example....the Packers and Bills haven't sold the naming rights to their stadiums. Well. That isn't fair. 1. They want a cut of the 100 million dollars or so other teams are getting for their naming rights. 2. They get an added benefit of that traditional name...the long glorious history of "Lambeau Field" or "Ralph Wilson Stadium". Nope not fair, it make it easier for them to draw free agent that are on the fence and gives them an added emotional boost. Give the "Velveta Field" and "Buffalo Wild Wings Statium". Let them kick in their share of the $$$.

PS: I just want us to win. If we have to buy a team. FINE.
I see a lot of very very happy Yankees fans and I can't find the strength to get on a moral high horse and tell them they are wrong.

Keep on, Keeping on and stay classy.

Grid
03-02-2006, 11:01 AM
read in some other places that if the CBA does collapse and teams have to depend on their own market to support the team.. we could see prices as much as double.

Meaning NFL gear will be more expensive.. bears could be 12-15 bucks at the game.. seats will be more expensive..so on and so forth.

From a competitive point of view..the Texans could benefit from not having a cap.. but it would be all around BAD for the NFL in general. Besides..if we are gonna be a dynasty..I want to do it the right way, and beat everyone fair and square. Sure it would be great to have a winning record like the Yankees..but everyone hates the yankees.

Double Barrel
03-02-2006, 12:10 PM
The NFL dynasties of old still had to win on the playing field, so beating people fair and square was there regardless of an existing salary cap or not.

I think "buying a Championship" is overrated and a bit of myth. The last six baseball world champions have been six different teams, and just one of them have been the Yankees.

I think the biggest difference will be the bottom teams who stay the same year after year. Gotta' feel sorry for those fans, and that situation is never good for pro sports.

Marcus
03-02-2006, 01:52 PM
PS: I just want us to win. If we have to buy a team. FINE.
I see a lot of very very happy Yankees fans and I can't find the strength to get on a moral high horse and tell them they are wrong.

Oh my God, I think I'm going to puke.

Well, if you don't have it in you to tell them they are wrong, then maybe you can console all those screwed Tampa Bay DevilRays fans because they know their team will suck before even one game is played.

The salary cap does more to insure a level financial playing field than anything else. Without it, competitive balance among the 32 teams goes out the window. Every team is given a certain amount to pay the players. Without that, the league will be reduced to haves, and have-nots.

Not seeing the danger in this, is IMO myopic at best, selfish at worst. Yeah, the Texans owner will probably be a 'have', in a league that will be like baseball, and in a league that will probably be reduced from 32 to about 20.

:soapbox:

Frills
03-02-2006, 02:02 PM
Sorry but some of the have nots are there because they choose to be, ie, Buffalo is a great example, they haven't sold the naming rights to their stadium. Why should the Texans share the revenue thats generated from Reliant when there are owners not utilizing their earning potential.

Hell they jammed Bob for $700 mil for the franchise. They have had it comming for awhile

keyfro
03-02-2006, 02:23 PM
what i don't understand is why the players union believes it deserves 60% of the funds generated by these stadiums...the fact that the owners are offering 56% blows me away...to me everything should be divided in half...50% to the owners and 50% to the players...you can't have a league without owners and you can't have a league without players...so just split everything down the middle...as far as the big market teams versus the small market teams...i understand that everything is in place to make things equal but at the sametime you can't expect the big market teams to carry the main load for the small market teams...if your team can't fill the seats at your stadium why should funds from my team go to help your team out instead of staying with my team

Marcus
03-02-2006, 02:27 PM
I'm not talking about what owner gets what revenue. McNair can make all the revenue he wants. But that doesn't mean he should be allowed to be a George Steinbrenner wannabe, either. Not when you have others who'll want to pinch pennies, and just worry about the profit margin.

Fans will be held hostage to the whims of the owners.

Ask yourself this question. Do you think teams like the Brewers, Royals, and DevilRays have as much chance to get to playoffs, as the Yankees, Braves, and Red Sox?

Now ask yourself this. Do you think, (before now, of course) that Green Bay, Tampa Bay, and Indianapolis have as much chance of getting to the playoffs, as do all the big city teams?

Now, I wonder why that is?:rolleyes:

Frills
03-02-2006, 02:34 PM
You still have the issue, NO isn't going to the playoffs for a long time, GB is way off, and their offseason moves have been pathetic, SF won't be playing in January anytime soon.

It should be based on how well you manage what you have, if you're doing all you can, then there needs to be some sharing, but when teams aren't doing jack to improve...there needs to be some repercussions.

infantrycak
03-02-2006, 02:42 PM
what i don't understand is why the players union believes it deserves 60% of the funds generated by these stadiums...the fact that the owners are offering 56% blows me away...to me everything should be divided in half...50% to the owners and 50% to the players...you can't have a league without owners and you can't have a league without players...so just split everything down the middle...

These guys really aren't in business together as partners so an arbitrary 50/50 is appealing but not necessary. From the owners' perspective this is about a business--the players are there for jobs. This is all about a give and take to maximize profit. The league is healthier without Jeff Bagwell guaranteed money issues. It is better off with parity. It is better off knowing two owners can't decide to own the league. The players on the other hand are collectively better off with a guarantee of minimum amount of money spent, a cap structure that encourages signing bonuses and free agency after defined periods. Every business has a different expense/profit split--grocery stores are incredibly low, less than 2% profit--title insurance is almost 90% profit. The owners just have to get their product supply costs worked out--they will make money.

BradK10
03-02-2006, 03:11 PM
All of a sudden, who we're taking with the 1st pick seems rather petty.

ain't that the truth!!!

bATXle red
03-02-2006, 03:15 PM
Actually, I kind of like the idea of the Texans playing the Cowboys in the SB repeatedly. I know it's not fair to the rest of the league and we've been on the short end of that stick before, or at least the middle of it, but it sure would be fun. I hope they get it straightened out, but I'm not going to get upset at all if they don't.

"an all Texas Superbowl... Lord... Thy will be done" -Hank Hill

texplayer2
03-02-2006, 04:13 PM
Some of the teams seem to be convincing players to sign for less to maintain team. Mcnair,Simms, I wonder how many more will sign small 1 yr. deals? With an eye on no cap next year.