Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

CloakNNNdagger said:
No sign of the fat lady yet.



link

It's ONLY $320 million (plus all the other "unimportant" stuff)..........NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!:wadepalm::shots::shots::shots:
Click to expand...

:specnatz: i feel like we're running in circles. I say close the doors on the NFL, let these players go get normal jobs and in 5 years our so, we can open the doors again to a new fresh group of players who would love to make half of what these guys make ;)
 
I don't think there's anything major going on.

Final details. Doing the due diligence, to make sure it's constructed well.

That's my hunch. No worries.

EDIT:

For example, there's no real "problem" in terms of the issue of the undecided meeting location, Mortensen tweeted. He says there's no disagreement/problem, just confusion on where it'll be.

@mortreport RT @lfcfanatic87: @mortreport So NFL/NFLPA can't even agree where to argue? > No, there's just some confusion on locale. Clarity to come.

---------------

Here's another interesting tweet:

@mortreport If the deal gets dones, there is specific credit players allow for 3 new stadium constructions, including Los Angeles. http://es.pn/rlZHvY

Looks like LA will be getting new stadium.
 
Last edited:
Evidently Mortensen has reported that the owners have agreed to do away with all two-a-day practices from training camp. Instead of the second workout will be a practice with no helmets and with no contact.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Evidently Mortensen has reported that the owners have agreed to do away with all two-a-day practices from training camp. Instead of the second workout will be a practice with no helmets and with no contact.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something - I understand the players might not like 2-a-days, but is there any reason to oppose them other than they don't feel like it?
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Evidently Mortensen has reported that the owners have agreed to do away with all two-a-day practices from training camp. Instead of the second workout will be a practice with no helmets and with no contact.
Click to expand...
Hasn't Kamp Kubiak been like that for the past couple of years?
 
EllisUnit said:
I say close the doors on the NFL, let these players go get normal jobs and in 5 years our so, we can open the doors again to a new fresh group of players who would love to make half of what these guys make ;)
Click to expand...
We? Who's "we"? Is that you, Bob?
 
keyser said:
Am I missing something - I understand the players might not like 2-a-days, but is there any reason to oppose them other than they don't feel like it?
Click to expand...

gary said:
Save their bodies for one thing.
Click to expand...

Non contact practices don't allow for some semblance of real time game
experience, not the least of which is proper tackling technique. With all the emphasis on head safety, teaching this aspect of the game with as many reps as possible becomes that much more important.

Practice makes perfect. If you practice "phantom" tackling..........you will be more efficient in "phantom" tackling.............then when the regular season begins, you can play just like the "classic" Texans defense of old.:wadepalm::kubepalm:
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...parently-are-making-a-last-minute-power-play/

Players apparently are making a last-minute power play
Posted by Mike Florio on July 17, 2011, 12:17 AM EDT
When I left Hilton Head Saturday morning, it had been suggested that almost nothing could derail a new labor deal.

That attitude possibly has jinked the entire process.

Now that I’m back at PFT headquarters and catching up on the stuff I missed while driving 600 miles and stopping for a couple of meals (Florio Jr. strongly objected to waiting 35 minutes for a table at Cracker Barrel), it looks like the players opted — through their lawyers — to make a power play on Saturday, something that the owners had feared.

As ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported earlier today, the players want $320 million in benefits that weren’t paid during the uncapped year, as well as a one-year limit on the use of the franchise tag. Also, if the “lockout insurance” case must be settled separately and apart from the financial package negotiated by the league and the players, it’s possible that another nine-figure sum could be demanded. And to the extent that the Brady antitrust lawsuit needs to be resolved via something more than the contents of a new CBA, the players still could demand even more money and/or special treatment for the named plaintiffs, such as an agreement never to use the franchise tag on any of them.

With a deal now regarded by the media and fans and players and pretty much everyone else as a foregone conclusion, the NFLPA* has by all appearances opted to go for one last home run, possibly buoyed by the league’s decision to cave on the “right of first refusal” concept and the league’s significant concession on the rookie wage scale.

In theory, if the league calls the players’ bluff — and if it ends up not being a bluff — the whole thing could still blow up.

Given the dramatic progress that has been made on far thornier and challenging issues, we can’t imagine the talks crumbling now. Instead, the players likely decided to roll the dice in the hopes of making the deal a little (or, as the case may be, a lot) sweeter, and if the parties can’t work out these remaining issues on their own, then U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan will go Alton Benes on anyone and everyone in the room.

Sure, there’s a chance that the NFLPA* lawyers are hoping that cooler heads won’t prevail, but the failure to wrap this thing up now would create a significant backlash for everyone involved. Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith are in the home stretch of the ultimate three-legged race, and they’re smart enough to figure out what it takes to get to the finish line.
Click to expand...

thoughts?
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
Non contact practices don't allow for some semblance of real time game
experience, not the least of which is proper tackling technique. With all the emphasis on head safety, teaching this aspect of the game with as many reps as possible becomes that much more important.

Practice makes perfect. If you practice "phantom" tackling..........you will be more efficient in "phantom" tackling.............then when the regular season begins, you can play just like the "classic" Texans defense of old.:wadepalm::kubepalm:
Click to expand...

A 16 game season is way too short. If we were talking about 30 some-odd games, then I can see getting away from 2-a-days. But with 16-19 games, the more reps the better.
 
Couldn't happen........could it? Anyone claiming that there are good guys and bad guys in this whole mess may want to reassess.

Posted in the wee early hours of the morning:

Players apparently are making a last-minute power play
Posted by Mike Florio on July 17, 2011, 12:17 AM EDT
threeleggedrace

When I left Hilton Head Saturday morning, it had been suggested that almost nothing could derail a new labor deal.

That attitude possibly has jinked the entire process.

Now that I’m back at PFT headquarters and catching up on the stuff I missed while driving 600 miles and stopping for a couple of meals (Florio Jr. strongly objected to waiting 35 minutes for a table at Cracker Barrel), it looks like the players opted - through their lawyers - to make a power play on Saturday, something that the owners had feared.

As ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported earlier today, the players want $320 million in benefits that weren’t paid during the uncapped year, as well as a one-year limit on the use of the franchise tag. Also, if the “lockout insurance” case must be settled separately and apart from the financial package negotiated by the league and the players, it’s possible that another nine-figure sum could be demanded. And to the extent that the Brady antitrust lawsuit needs to be resolved via something more than the contents of a new CBA, the players still could demand even more money and/or special treatment for the named plaintiffs, such as an agreement never to use the franchise tag on any of them.

With a deal now regarded by the media and fans and players and pretty much everyone else as a foregone conclusion, the NFLPA* has by all appearances opted to go for one last home run, possibly buoyed by the league’s decision to cave on the “right of first refusal” concept and the league’s significant concession on the rookie wage scale.

In theory, if the league calls the players’ bluff - and if it ends up not being a bluff - the whole thing could still blow up.

Given the dramatic progress that has been made on far thornier and challenging issues, we can’t imagine the talks crumbling now. Instead, the players likely decided to roll the dice in the hopes of making the deal a little (or, as the case may be, a lot) sweeter, and if the parties can’t work out these remaining issues on their own, then U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan will go Alton Benes on anyone and everyone in the room.

Sure, there’s a chance that the NFLPA* lawyers are hoping that cooler heads won’t prevail, but the failure to wrap this thing up now would create a significant backlash for everyone involved. Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith are in the home stretch of the ultimate three-legged race, and they’re smart enough to figure out what it takes to get to the finish line.
Click to expand...
 
Couldn't happen........could it? Anyone claiming that there are good guys and bad guys in this whole mess may want to reassess.

Posted in the wee early hours of the morning:

I didn't want to wake up to this, I wanted to wake up to football Sunday and reading about what you guys saw at training camp practice. I'm going to go eat my weaties ans sulk for a while.
 
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.
 
Dutchrudder said:
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.
Click to expand...

close to a deal and the greedy players do this. i hope the owners dont cave, and we lose the season. Then the players have to start selling their luxury condos and the they have to start looking for side jobs making 20 times less. That would be awesome to see how all these greedy players bite themselves in the ass.
 
Dutchrudder said:
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate the franchise tag? It allows teams to keep their bst players even though they have to pay though the nose to keep them. (See Dunta)

You also usually get the best out of franchised players. (See Haynesworth) Therefore it should raise the overall level of play.

Agreed on the 320 mil thing for the same reasons.
 
Well, this is certainly a kick to the nuts.

I think the owners should cave on the franchise tag issue, but say "No" to the $320 mill issue. Win-win situation, IMO.
 
The owners should say no and force the players to accept it or walk. If the players walk they lose ALL of the positives they gained in this lockout. Since the owners locked the players out, the public has been on the side of the players.

But, if owners are smart, they will say no and force the player's hand.
 
Doppelganger said:
The owners should say no and force the players to accept it or walk. If the players walk they lose ALL of the positives they gained in this lockout.
Click to expand...
What positives? The players were better off under the previous CBA. They still would have a good shot of winning the anti-trust suit. And by terminating the CBA, the owners did save the $320 million, plus whatever was saved in workout bonuses this offseason. Why shouldn't the players want to recoup that?
 
Lucky said:
What positives? The players were better off under the previous CBA. They still would have a good shot of winning the anti-trust suit. And by terminating the CBA, the owners did save the $320 million, plus whatever was saved in workout bonuses this offseason. Why shouldn't the players want to recoup that?
Click to expand...
That's what I see here as well. The players need to play a "Little" catch-up for $$ lost this off-season..it's not as if the new CBA (with their lower %) is going to do it for them.

The CBA and the Brady suit are still separate entities as of this moment...as is Doty's impending ruling on the TV deal. The owners might be looking at far MORE than 320 mil, if those proceed as expected.

This is a game of negotiation chicken folks. I think the players hold the better hand at the moment.
 
steelbtexan said:
Why do you hate the franchise tag? It allows teams to keep their bst players even though they have to pay though the nose to keep them. (See Dunta)

You also usually get the best out of franchised players. (See Haynesworth) Therefore it should raise the overall level of play.

Agreed on the 320 mil thing for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

The franchise tag is just a lazy way of forcing a contract onto a player. Why should a player in any sport be forced to play for a team that he is not under contract for? If a team wants to lockup a player then they should sign them to a contract for it. It's a terrible idea that allows The owners to keep a guy from getting a better deal on the market. I don't know how the F tag got started, but I don't think it helps the league at all. Free agency is a perfectly acceptable process to sign players, no need to lock the player up past the expiration of his contract.
 
EllisUnit said:
close to a deal and the greedy players do this. i hope the owners dont cave, and we lose the season. Then the players have to start selling their luxury condos and the they have to start looking for side jobs making 20 times less. That would be awesome to see how all these greedy players bite themselves in the ass.
Click to expand...

Wow....

There are good guys & bad guys & all that crap.

I want football as much as the next guy... I'm sure the owners & players do too.

The players are asking for money the owners screwed them out of during the 2010 season by opting out of the CBA.

& then the franchise thing, I think is just wishful thinking

IMO, the owners owe them the unpaid benefits, but I'd call their bluff on the Franchise tag. That was in the original CBA.
 
Dutchrudder said:
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. The $320 was negotiated in the previous CBA. The owners opted out of that agreement.

Let's say you are in a union. Part of your labor agreement is for the employer to pay a percentage of your health-care cost & contribute to your 401K.

Management decides they didn't like the deal, so they opt out.

You work for a year, paying your full health-care cost, & your employer does not contribute to your 401K as previously agreed.

Is it greedy to ask for that back?

I agree it's frustrating for them to ask this late in the game. But this is dirty management 101, you get them to negotiate for something that should already be theirs, so they forget about what's really important. DeMaurice Smith didn't fall for it, he stayed on track. I don't think he accomplished as much for the players as he should have (we still haven't seen the books have we?).

Now he's got the owners over a barrel. It's an either or thing. If they drop the franchise tag, the players will like it..... at least those that may have the tag applied to them in multiple years, which is low...... or they pay the $320 Million.

If I were a player, I'd want my benefits paid...... the $320 million.

If I were an owner, I'd drop the ability to franchise the same player for multiple years.... really costs them nothing to do this.
 
Dutchrudder said:
The franchise tag is just a lazy way of forcing a contract onto a player. Why should a player in any sport be forced to play for a team that he is not under contract for? If a team wants to lockup a player then they should sign them to a contract for it. It's a terrible idea that allows The owners to keep a guy from getting a better deal on the market. I don't know how the F tag got started, but I don't think it helps the league at all.
Click to expand...

If a player is franchised two years in a row, he'll earn in two years at least as much as he would have been guaranteed in FA.

Think of our situation with Dunta. He played well for the organization for many years, then he got injured in a contract year. The team wanted to keep him, but also wanted insurance in the event he couldn't play at the level he played before.

They franchised him & it was a win-win for both..... even though Dunta didn't see it that way. He got payed $10 M to prove he wasn't the same guy, then he suckered Atlanta into giving him close to $20 M guaranteed. Had he been allowed to leave in 2009, he wouldn't be sitting pretty with close to $30M right now.

Franchising a player twice doesn't make sense. We would have paid him more in guaranteed money had we done that. I imagine his performance in 2009 told the Texans where his value was, Dunta & the Falcons obviously disagreed with our assessment, which is fine. If Dunta was holding back (which I think he was) maybe he'll earn his money in Atlanta.

But to not play 100% when you're getting paid $10M & you're supposed to be one of the leaders on the team...... we don't need that prima donna crap. I'll take another 2011 like season before I start taking dick like that from Dunta Robinson.
 
thunderkyss said:
If I were an owner, I'd drop the ability to franchise the same player for multiple years.... really costs them nothing to do this.
Click to expand...
Let me go on record as saying I abhor the franchise tag, as it's currently instituted. Different prices for different positions? You're either a franchise player, or you're not. A franchise player should earn the average of the top 10 NFL salaries (or 25% more than his previous year's salary, whatever is higher), regardless of position. A franchise kicker? You've got to be kidding me. If the guy is a franchise player, pay him like it.
 
AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
NFLPA has begun contacting some, if not all, of 10 plaintiffs in Brady vs. NFL case about a settlement - a necessary step to end lockout.

mortreport Chris Mortensen
The line of NFL negotiations came Friday when Jerry Jones - as only he can - told negotiators, "We're down to circumsizing mosquitoes."
 
Last edited:
thunderkyss said:
This doesn't make sense. The $320 was negotiated in the previous CBA. The owners opted out of that agreement.

Let's say you are in a union. Part of your labor agreement is for the employer to pay a percentage of your health-care cost & contribute to your 401K.

Management decides they didn't like the deal, so they opt out.

You work for a year, paying your full health-care cost, & your employer does not contribute to your 401K as previously agreed.

Is it greedy to ask for that back?

I agree it's frustrating for them to ask this late in the game. But this is dirty management 101, you get them to negotiate for something that should already be theirs, so they forget about what's really important. DeMaurice Smith didn't fall for it, he stayed on track. I don't think he accomplished as much for the players as he should have (we still haven't seen the books have we?).

Now he's got the owners over a barrel. It's an either or thing. If they drop the franchise tag, the players will like it..... at least those that may have the tag applied to them in multiple years, which is low...... or they pay the $320 Million.

If I were a player, I'd want my benefits paid...... the $320 million.

If I were an owner, I'd drop the ability to franchise the same player for multiple years.... really costs them nothing to do this.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple to negotiate a contract that doesn't allow the owners to opt-out in the future. IMO, a lockout is preferable to letting the owners opt out of the deal for a year. Sounds like sour grapes for poor negotiating. The owners weren't liable to pay those benefits last year under the CBA, so why should they be liable to pay for them after the fact?
 
thunderkyss said:
If a player is franchised two years in a row, he'll earn in two years at least as much as he would have been guaranteed in FA.

Think of our situation with Dunta. He played well for the organization for many years, then he got injured in a contract year. The team wanted to keep him, but also wanted insurance in the event he couldn't play at the level he played before.

They franchised him & it was a win-win for both..... even though Dunta didn't see it that way. He got payed $10 M to prove he wasn't the same guy, then he suckered Atlanta into giving him close to $20 M guaranteed. Had he been allowed to leave in 2009, he wouldn't be sitting pretty with close to $30M right now.

Franchising a player twice doesn't make sense. We would have paid him more in guaranteed money had we done that. I imagine his performance in 2009 told the Texans where his value was, Dunta & the Falcons obviously disagreed with our assessment, which is fine. If Dunta was holding back (which I think he was) maybe he'll earn his money in Atlanta.

But to not play 100% when you're getting paid $10M & you're supposed to be one of the leaders on the team...... we don't need that prima donna crap. I'll take another 2011 like season before I start taking dick like that from Dunta Robinson.
Click to expand...

Dunta didn't want to be here under the franchise tag or during free agency. He was forced to take a 1 year deal and risk potential injury that would ruin his free agency value. If Dunta gets another leg injury in 2010, he doesn't get near the money he got from the Falcons. So while the short-term 10 mil for one year is nice, he would be risking losing 40 mil in free agency by way of injury and also may miss out on going to a team/coach he actually wants to play for.

On the other hand, had Dunta sat out the 2010 season, he would have made $0 and missed a season. If the team doesn't want the player to go elsewhere, they can just play that card and pay him for one year to keep him off the market. The franchise tag is basically an ultimatum to the player, and I hate the idea of that. There is no contract in place with the player, it's basically forced on them and doesn't allow the player to hit free agency, which I believe they are entitled to at that point in their career.
 
And that’s supposedly what Commissioner Roger Goodell is saying, according to Chris Mortensen of ESPN. Goodell, sources told Mortensen, will do “whatever is necessary” to finish the process, including going to Washington to personally meet with the NFLPA* Executive Committee to explain the proposed deal.

Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that the members of the decertified union’s governing body will meet in Washington beginning today, and continuing into Tuesday. Per Breer, the team-by-team player representatives will arrive Wednesday. Breer explains that the goal will be to explain the proposed deal to the player reps, so that they can then pass the information along to their teammates.

Still, the time line remains a bit confusing and unclear. Mortensen has reported that a 72-hour window for signing current free agents will open on Friday, only a day after the owners approve the transaction. So when between now and Friday will the players reconstitute the union and formally settle the Brady antitrust lawsuit? NFL general counsel Jeff Pash previously insisted that the doors won’t open until all i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed; there’s a lot of i-dotting and t-crossing to be done before Friday.
Click to expand...
link

You've got to have a union to have a CBA agreement. I've asked this before......won't it take a decent amount of time to go through all the steps of re-certifying? It may just be my opinion, but I feel that there is too much expected to happen at the last minute to come off without a hitch.
 
Dutchrudder said:
Dunta didn't want to be here under the franchise tag or during free agency. He was forced to take a 1 year deal and risk potential injury that would ruin his free agency value. If Dunta gets another leg injury in 2010, he doesn't get near the money he got from the Falcons. So while the short-term 10 mil for one year is nice, he would be risking losing 40 mil in free agency by way of injury and also may miss out on going to a team/coach he actually wants to play for.

On the other hand, had Dunta sat out the 2010 season, he would have made $0 and missed a season. If the team doesn't want the player to go elsewhere, they can just play that card and pay him for one year to keep him off the market. The franchise tag is basically an ultimatum to the player, and I hate the idea of that. There is no contract in place with the player, it's basically forced on them and doesn't allow the player to hit free agency, which I believe they are entitled to at that point in their career.
Click to expand...

I agree with TK on this and I dont agree with him on alot of things.

The franchise tag allows the owners the ability to prove on the field that they are worthy of a long term contract. As was the case with Dunta. I'm glad they didn't get stuck with a long term deal like Atlanta did. In this case the franchise tag worked perfectly for both sides.

The franchise tag is supposed to limit a franchises liability and let the teams keep their best players if there's a contract dispute and provide a level playing field thereby helping the overall product of the league.

The best players not being able to move freely as you want is a major reason the NFL is in much better shape than the NBA or MLB. Basically it allows the fanbase to identify with their teams best playes and the overall product. Unlike the other major sports and allows the league to remain competitively balanced.

As a fan I cant see why you wouldn't like the franchise tag. I really dont care if millionaire players cant move as freely as they would like. I just want to see the best product as possible on the field every Sunday and the franchise tag helps in this regard. IMHO
 
FA to begin July 28th

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/206508/football-headlines?r=1

NFL free agency is expected to begin roughly one week after the finalization of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
For now, the expectation is that an agreement will be done this Thursday. Teams will get three days to study the new labor rules, followed by three days to sign undrafted rookies and "keep their own." Free agency should start on the seventh day, now estimated at July 28 (not July 25). Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post describes free agency as "a fire drill. ... Packing four months of moves into about four days." The month of August will be jam-packed with NFL news.
Click to expand...
 
Dutchrudder said:
It's pretty simple to negotiate a contract that doesn't allow the owners to opt-out in the future. IMO, a lockout is preferable to letting the owners opt out of the deal for a year. Sounds like sour grapes for poor negotiating. The owners weren't liable to pay those benefits last year under the CBA, so why should they be liable to pay for them after the fact?
Click to expand...

Dutchrudder said:
Dunta didn't want to be here under the franchise tag or during free agency. He was forced to take a 1 year deal and risk potential injury that would ruin his free agency value. If Dunta gets another leg injury in 2010, he doesn't get near the money he got from the Falcons. So while the short-term 10 mil for one year is nice, he would be risking losing 40 mil in free agency by way of injury and also may miss out on going to a team/coach he actually wants to play for.
Click to expand...
So, one is "sour grapes" and the other isn't? :confused:

You're correct in that both sides agreed to the previous CBA; however, it's not unusual in the least for new Union contracts to "make up" for inadequacies in the previous one.
 
steelbtexan said:
I agree with TK on this and I dont agree with him on alot of things.

The franchise tag allows the owners the ability to prove on the field that they are worthy of a long term contract. As was the case with Dunta. I'm glad they didn't get stuck with a long term deal like Atlanta did. In this case the franchise tag worked perfectly for both sides.
Click to expand...

I don't think it did all that much to help the Texans, except for keep Kubiak and Smith from losing their jobs. If we had the pathetic secondary in 2010 instead of 2011, we would have a new head coach.

The franchise tag is supposed to limit a franchises liability and let the teams keep their best players if there's a contract dispute and provide a level playing field thereby helping the overall product of the league.
Click to expand...

It doesn't level the playing field at all! It creates a HUGE imbalance towards the GM. Either take our 1 year deal for a lot of money, or sit out a year. That's not a proper negotiating platform, and the player stands to lose a lot more in that deal than the organization does.

The best players not being able to move freely as you want is a major reason the NFL is in much better shape than the NBA or MLB. Basically it allows the fanbase to identify with their teams best playes and the overall product. Unlike the other major sports and allows the league to remain competitively balanced.
Click to expand...

The NBA and MLB are quite different from the NFL. There really isn't much comparison between them, but if you want to attribute the parity in the NFL to the franchise tag, then go right ahead.

As a fan I cant see why you wouldn't like the franchise tag. I really dont care if millionaire players cant move as freely as they would like. I just want to see the best product as possible on the field every Sunday and the franchise tag helps in this regard. IMHO
Click to expand...

Because they earned free agency by playing out their contract. Why should anyone be forced into a contract? It's a ridiculous system, and there's no other major sport that has a similar function. I really couldn't care less if billionaire owners lose a star player because they don't want to pay them the money they think they are worth. Allow the free agency market to decide their value, and let the player decide what they want to do. If the organization wants that player for a high cost for one year, let the team offer that in free agency and let the player decide if he wants that contract.
 
Gotta' say that I think dutchrudder is winning this debate.

The FT is a way to actually PREVENT a great player from improving any of the other 31 teams out there. It's a hostage tool, and that's why players (Such as #23 Pay Me Rick) get so mad about it. Loss of a long-term contract, and inability to move to a new team for a fresh start.

Players aren't robots. Not cattle/commodity. They're people who want what they think is a fair chance at happiness. To that end, this is why they object to the FT. The team designating the player with the FT sometimes has no real intention of pursuing a long-term deal...they just want the player for one more year--Maybe even TWO more years if they use it successively.

I feel that we held onto Dunta only as "insurance" and at some point it was decided to let him go completely at the end of that insurance season. We didn't gain anything by keeping him that last season, except see a player who (for the most part) was likely pissed off and wasn't really a "team player" like you'd want your starting veteran CB to be.

Therefore, the FT is not doing what it was intended to do. It's having the opposite effect upon players.
 
disaacks3 said:
So, one is "sour grapes" and the other isn't? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would say they are rather different. It sucks for Dunta to have to stay with a team/organization he doesn't respect and risk injury for a year, but I think he displayed his discontent well enough throughout that last year to ensure it didn't happen again. He wasn't a team player, he wasn't giving 100%, but the Texans had to pay 100% of his contract. But hey, that 10 million did help the Texans get their first winning season, so maybe it was worth it.

You're correct in that both sides agreed to the previous CBA; however, it's not unusual in the least for new Union contracts to "make up" for inadequacies in the previous one.
Click to expand...

Right, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it were brought up months ago. To spring this on the owners (what it sounds like) at the last minute of the negotiation seems greedy to me. I would bet that they get a good portion of it, because we are so close to the point where preseason games start getting removed, but I don't think it's a move in good faith.
 
Well, if the owners pay $320 million to the players, I imagine we will definitely have that first preseason game (it's worth about $200 mill).

I can envision the NFL pushing back the first reg season game as much as they need to, to ensure that all four preseason games get played. Granted, they might still be "on the right track" for not having to change any scheduling...but I just wanted to get it on record that there will damn sure be FOUR preseason games if the owners concede the $320 mill.

And to make up the difference of about $120 mill....you guys attending games might find the concession stand prices have been jacked up a bit. Parking prices, too. DirecTV subscribes will eventually feel the burn, too, either now or maybe next year. If there's anything we can count upon, it's that the owners will find a way to recoup what they've lost. It's nothing personal. It's. Just. Business.
 
No matter when the lockout ends, the timeline of logistics after the lockout ends in ESPN’s report should remain consistent. Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen report that it will go something like this:

4 days after the ratification: Teams will be able to sign undrafted players. On the same day, teams will get a three-day window to re-sign their own players. It’s safe to say tampering will go nuts in this period as agents shop deals around.

7 days after ratification: Free agency starts. So does the league year. A lot of huge deals figure to be signed within hours. Magic.

12 days after ratification: Rosters will be set at 90 players. That’s a lot of signing in a very short amount of time.

13 days after ratification: Deadline for restricted free agents to sign offer sheets. (We’re assuming RFAs will only be third year players at this point, but that isn’t confirmed.)

17 days after ratification: A four-day period for teams to match restricted free-agent offer sheets ends.

22 days after ratification: This one isn’t agreed upon, but it could be a deadline for rookies to sign. Um, wow. This unprecedented idea is something we’ll delve into later.

26 days after ratification: The signing period for RFAs, franchise players, and transition tag players ends.
Click to expand...
link

Even if the lockout ends at the time currently projected, this will be a hurried, sloppy year, especially for teams with notoriously sloppy clueless FOs!
 
disaacks3 said:
That's what I see here as well. The players need to play a "Little" catch-up for $$ lost this off-season..it's not as if the new CBA (with their lower %) is going to do it for them.

The CBA and the Brady suit are still separate entities as of this moment...as is Doty's impending ruling on the TV deal. The owners might be looking at far MORE than 320 mil, if those proceed as expected.

This is a game of negotiation chicken folks. I think the players hold the better hand at the moment.
Click to expand...
how much lost income to players for missing OTAs?
 
Boylan's back in the building

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Judge Arthur Boylan has arrived at the meeting.

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Boylan straight from the airport, bags in both hands, heads upstairs to meet with the legal teams, staffs here in NYC.

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Boylan had originally ordered the sides to report to Minneapolis today, meet jointly there tomorrow. Clearly that's changed.
 
Dutchrudder said:
It doesn't level the playing field at all! It creates a HUGE imbalance towards the GM. Either take our 1 year deal for a lot of money, or sit out a year. That's not a proper negotiating platform, and the player stands to lose a lot more in that deal than the organization does.

The NBA and MLB are quite different from the NFL. There really isn't much comparison between them, but if you want to attribute the parity in the NFL to the franchise tag, then go right ahead.

Because they earned free agency by playing out their contract. Why should anyone be forced into a contract? It's a ridiculous system, and there's no other major sport that has a similar function. I really couldn't care less if billionaire owners lose a star player because they don't want to pay them the money they think they are worth. Allow the free agency market to decide their value, and let the player decide what they want to do. If the organization wants that player for a high cost for one year, let the team offer that in free agency and let the player decide if he wants that contract.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with you, but I think the point is that the Franchise tag is not just a simple matter of contract negotiation, it's in there for the ingegrity of the league as a whole. I think you can make a case that the NFL does better, as a whole, if you let teams maintain some continuity of the players on the team. The franchise tag and the FA rules for drafted players are the only things that help this, and the draft rules serve other purposes (parity/balance) as well. The franchise tag is supposed to help a team keep those players critical to its franchise.

There are plenty of parts of the CBA and the NFL as a whole that limit the ability of players/teams to get whatever they want, for the sake of the league as a whole (really, that's what the rookie wage scale is for, also). I wouldn't be opposed to some other mechanism for helping teams retain their "key" players over the longer term (I thought I heard that the NBA had something like this - I don't follow the NBA, though). But, I do think it's beneficial to the game as a whole (and thus, to the players and to the owners, which is why it's in the CBA) to help ensure that players, especially "star" players, stay associated with one team.
 
badboy said:
how much lost income to players for missing OTAs?
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, players only get game checks and specific bonuses. They don't get paid for the OTAs. Which is probably why they want to decrease the number of them as well as the number of preseason games (which they don't get paid for, either.)
 
With everything being said and written right now......I'm confused. lol

One minute I hear both sides will be voting on a new CBA on Wed and Thurs. The next minute I see they're still trying to negotiate a few things. And why aren't the two sides meeting face-to-face if there are a few details that need worked out?

Do the Brady and Doty cases need closing to ratify a new CBA?

Does the NFLPA* need to recertify before the new CBA?

Does the mysterious $320 million the players are asking for need to be resolved before the new CBA?

If these must be done, can it all be finalized by Thursday for the ratification of a CBA?

Man, I'd been doing pretty good with all these details up until a few days ago. Now these jokers have me all flustered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top