"Bloody Thursday" - The end of the NFL as we know it?

[gtexan02]

With the extension talks over the CBA finally breaking down all together, it looks like we are heading down the path of the uncapped 2007 year everyone has feared. Eventually, this will bring devastation to small market teams, huge dynasties like the Yankees, ridiculous contracts and so on. What does it mean for right now, however? Here is a fantastic doomsday article on what will happen this Thursday if we don't reach an agreement (and we won't) before the deadline today.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2348970

Because so many teams are up against the projected cap limit of $95 million to $96 million for 2006, and the lack of a CBA extension means there are few options for relief, some big-name players will be jettisoned by Thursday, when teams must be in compliance with the spending limit.

"In past years, you'd see a lot of guys released who maybe still had some name value but who were really in decline in terms of production," said one AFC team executive who was working late Tuesday, trying to figure out how to pare down a prohibitively bloated cap figure. "This year? People are going to be stunned -- not just by the quantity of players who are cut by Thursday but by the quality, too. It's going to be ugly. There's going to be blood in the streets and, compared to past years, it's going to be from some bluebloods, guys who can still play."

...the Washington Redskins, who extended numerous contracts in the past to deal with previous cap crunches, could have to play with 20 rookies on the roster in 2006. On Tuesday night in Atlanta, there were rumblings the Falcons, who aren't in nearly the dire straits some other franchises are, might be forced to release tailback Warrick Dunn, who rushed for a career-best 1,416 yards in 2005. The Kansas City Chiefs could part ways with perennial Pro Bowl guard Will Shields if he doesn't agree to adjust his contract and reduce a $6.67 million cap charge. And that is just the start of the many examples of potential attrition cited by team officials Tuesday evening.

As of Tuesday, there were a dozen teams in the league with more than $10 million apiece in 2006 salary cap room. It seems logical that those teams, which include four franchises with more than $20 million each in cap space, would benefit from the problems of cap-strapped clubs, especially if the free-agent rolls are swelled Thursday with the anticipated cap casualties. But because of the quirks of the pending "uncapped" year in 2007, even those teams will have to move with great caution in crafting contracts.

Indeed, barring a dramatic and unanticipated turn of events Wednesday, it is not going to be business as usual around the league. And if the ramifications are as catastrophic as predictions Tuesday indicated they might be, fans could be forced to pay more than the usual grudging attention to business matters.

 

[michaelm]

I wonder if another part of this blood bath might be to put pressure on the players assoc. to get a deal done.
I mean, if a lot of name players get cut, and teams aren't willing to/or can't sign them because of this years cap, maybe there will be some extra leverage on the owners side.
I don't know much if anything about the situation, so I could be way off base, but it is the first thought that went through my head when I read the story.

 

[edo783]

Could be a LOT of name players either not working or working for much less this year and that/they.. could/should put pressure on the union management to get a deal done. Just not good business to let this get away from everyone, both players and management.

 

[Double Barrel]

I can't see how this could be good for the players in any sense. Owners are billionaires and will continue to be billionaires (even more money they can keep if they don't have to have a $110 million cap this year).

Sometimes I wonder how much the unions really speak for the majority of players. They need to put pressure on Upshaw and force him to come to the table for a deal. I'm amazed that this situation has been allowed to get to this critical junction.

 

[michaelm]

I can't see how this could be good for the players in any sense. Owners are billionaires and will continue to be billionaires (even more money they can keep if they don't have to have a $110 million cap this year).

Sometimes I wonder how much the unions really speak for the majority of players. They need to put pressure on Upshaw and force him to come to the table for a deal.

I agree. Many long time vets are starting to get cut with more to come. I think a lot of them will have a hard time finding anything more than min. wage until the cap is raised, after a new CBA is reached.
There are many teams up against the current cap, and more that are over it. Those teams like the Texans will likely benifit getting bargains for decent players, but IMO there will still be some good vets available when the teams are all maxed out.
I suppose that some lower talent might get cut if there are better players who are willing to sign 1 year deals and play for the min. Either way, in the next few days Upshaw will see the unemployment rate sky rocket for his Union. Not exactly what a union boss is for.

 

[hot pickle]

well one good thing coming out of this, is that it will be an entertaining offseason, but the long term effects will suck

 

[Corrosion]

I posted this elsewhere on the board but I think it is relevant to this thread as well so ill just copy and paste then add a couple things ....


This is a disasster for almost every franchise and the majority of the players union .

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" who will see any increase ....Seems the union heads dont have the avg and below avg players best interest in mind when they walk away from the table.

Factor in all those who are going to be or have been cut and the union heads look rather foolish .....

Considering the owners agree'd to this ....(from the Houston Chronicle)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/texansfront/3692515.html

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" — primarily television and ticket sales — to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit of money a team generates.

I think the consessions made over the formula above is huge from the owners ....

 

[Long Baller]

If 2007 is uncapped and a new deal is made so that 2008 is capped, what would happen to teams that spend huge dollars in 07? My guess is that they would be in a world of hurt come 08 when they have to get back under the cap. Does anyone know how this would work?

 

[MojoX]

Well, we may have to settle for Bloody Monday.

 

[Corrosion]

If 2007 is uncapped and a new deal is made so that 2008 is capped, what would happen to teams that spend huge dollars in 07? My guess is that they would be in a world of hurt come 08 when they have to get back under the cap. Does anyone know how this would work?

Those deals that do get done will probably be one year deals .

At this point the Owners seem to hold the majority of the bargining power .... at least from my point of view. They may want to get this thing done to preserve their product but if no deal gets done they always have the option of locking out the players ....And I dont doubt for a moment they would do it . Replacement players would at least preserve a percentage of their profits while substantially lowering their overhead during the lock-out period.

The players seem to think that this un-capped year would mean a bonanza of huge contracts for them ..... I dont think this to be true .

Well, we may have to settle for Bloody Monday.

I think both sides know they are flirting with dissaster and dont want to chop off the head of their golden goose . Everyone wants a deal done including owners , players and fans.

 

[MojoX]

Those deals that do get done will probably be one year deals .

At this point the Owners seem to hold the majority of the bargining power .... at least from my point of view. They may want to get this thing done to preserve their product but if no deal gets done they always have the option of locking out the players ....And I dont doubt for a moment they would do it . Replacement players would at least preserve a percentage of their profits while substantially lowering their overhead during the lock-out period.

The players seem to think that this un-capped year would mean a bonanza of huge contracts for them ..... I dont think this to be true.

If the union disbands, then the owners will be prevented from locking them out. This is what the union did in 1987 and that allowed the players to play with no deal until 1992. I've posted about this in a couple other threads. There is no promise things will play out just like 1987, but there isn't much reason to think one side really has that much more power over the other. I mean the current CBA, with all the poison pills designed to pressure both sides, looks like a masterpiece. So I agree with you that both sides have a lot to lose here. The real weaklings in this are the small market/low revenue team owners and the low salary NFL players. Those cats need/want a deal done more than anyone else. Everyone else should make out fine.

I'm starting to think that this whole thing is really not that big a deal. Both sides have too much to lose and the worst case scenario really is just having the courts/feds mediate.

 

[Corrosion]

If the union disbands, then the owners will be prevented from locking them out. This is what the union did in 1987 and that allowed the players to play with no deal until 1992. I've posted about this in a couple other threads. There is no promise things will play out just like 1987, but there isn't much reason to think one side really has that much more power over the other. I mean the current CBA, with all the poison pills designed to pressure both sides, looks like a masterpiece. So I agree with you that both sides have a lot to lose here. The real weaklings in this are the small market/low revenue team owners and the low salary NFL players. Those cats need/want a deal done more than anyone else. Everyone else should make out fine.

I'm starting to think that this whole thing is really not that big a deal. Both sides have too much to lose and the worst case scenario really is just having the courts/feds mediate.

Yeah , I just read those threads .... good stuff you found .

Im sure the owners could fabricate a way to lock out a large group of players though not all , decertification or not .... just outright cutting them would be a start .... The players on the lower end of the pay-scale and older veterans with large contracts would have the most at risk .... Just like they are at this point in time . That would be worst case scenerio .

 

[MojoX]

Antitrust courts would likely prevent a lockout-type scheme, though. Cutting everyone is an idea, but the courts could limit this too. But if you are an owner of a team that has top talent will you cut those guys to spite them and then watch owners like Snyder and Jones go after your former talent once a CBA is complete? It organizational suicide.

I do think they would cut the non-big names left and right and force them into cheap contracts. At the same time, as long as they aren't governed by a CBA, owners like Jones and Snyder would take advantage of the laissez-faire situation by signing up the other teams talents.

This isn't just players-vs-owners. This labor deal is as much owners-vs-owners, despite the owners downplaying that part of the deal.

ESPNEWS just had Washington Post guy reporting about this (owner-v-owner dispute) and Mort just reported that it was management that called the players to let them know they had a new proposal and to request the delay in free agency. If Mort is correct, the owners blinked first.

 

[outofhnd]

Once both sides get over their initial greed they will make a deal.. The only reason they are delaying free Agency is because there is a lot of work each franchise would have to do to get under the cap. They won't go capless. They will eventually work it out. This is rich people we are talking about and rich people hate to lose money...