PDA

View Full Version : No NFL draft after 2011???



kaldaniels
05-17-2008, 12:48 AM
That is one of the things suggested that will happen if the owners opt out of the bargining argeement.

If there was no draft would all rookies be free agents???

AmarilloRed
05-17-2008, 12:57 AM
I can't see it happening unless the owners/players have a legitimate alternative to the Draft. All major sports have a draft of some sort, and it would make no sense for the NFL to drop theirs.

guttle11
05-17-2008, 12:50 PM
This could get real ugly, real fast. Profits are sky high and both sides want bigger pieces of the pie. The salary cap, non-guaranteed contracts, the mess that is free agency in football...there's a lot to hammer out, and lots of options for both sides to hold out for.

I know it's a long way out, but this could get uglier than the 94 baseball strike if both sides aren't careful.

sonny
05-17-2008, 01:31 PM
This is just dumb. It seems that the NFL cannot be content with currently having the best product out there.

That being said, I think they'll work something out. Too much is at stake. Don't want our kids wearing MLS jerseys do we?

Yachtzee
05-17-2008, 02:08 PM
This is just dumb. It seems that the NFL cannot be content with currently having the best product out there.

That being said, I think they'll work something out. Too much is at stake. Don't want our kids wearing MLS jerseys do we?

I'm starting to wonder about whether the MLS might be better anyway. At least I haven't heard about the players on MLS teams being arrested for beating their wife, weapons charges, or drug charges. Maybe I won't have to deal with players signing big money contracts and then trying to whine their way out of town so they can score another big signing bonus.

camisadelgolf
05-17-2008, 03:32 PM
I'm starting to wonder about whether the MLS might be better anyway. At least I haven't heard about the players on MLS teams being arrested for beating their wife, weapons charges, or drug charges. Maybe I won't have to deal with players signing big money contracts and then trying to whine their way out of town so they can score another big signing bonus.

My guess is that you haven't heard about that because the press and public don't care about MLS.

Sea Ray
05-17-2008, 03:57 PM
This could get real ugly, real fast. Profits are sky high and both sides want bigger pieces of the pie. The salary cap, non-guaranteed contracts, the mess that is free agency in football...there's a lot to hammer out, and lots of options for both sides to hold out for.

I know it's a long way out, but this could get uglier than the 94 baseball strike if both sides aren't careful.


I don't know how ugly it'll get. If the players want to play hardball the owners will stomp on them like they always have. If it takes a lockout so be it. The NFL career is too short. They can't afford to stay out long. I'm sure there will continue to be a draft and I'm almost as sure that there'll also be a salary cap of some sort

guttle11
05-17-2008, 04:28 PM
I don't know how ugly it'll get. If the players want to play hardball the owners will stomp on them like they always have. If it takes a lockout so be it. The NFL career is too short. They can't afford to stay out long. I'm sure there will continue to be a draft and I'm almost as sure that there'll also be a salary cap of some sort


On the flip side, with careers being so short, the players may be pretty stubborn for more guaranteed money in the contracts, not just bonuses. That's where the real ugliness may show.

Reds Fanatic
05-17-2008, 09:54 PM
It looks like the owners will opt of the agreement as early as this Tuesday. The other big effect this will have is it will make 2010 I believe a year without a salary cap. Which would mean teams like the Cowboys could crush small market teams like the Bengals on free agents.

Sea Ray
05-17-2008, 10:16 PM
It looks like the owners will opt of the agreement as early as this Tuesday. The other big effect this will have is it will make 2010 I believe a year without a salary cap. Which would mean teams like the Cowboys could crush small market teams like the Bengals on free agents.

As long as it's only one year small markets can survive. Longterm that kind of system absolutely could endanger the league.

I have confidence the NFL owners will handle this situation much better than their baseball counterparts

LoganBuck
05-17-2008, 11:21 PM
As long as it's only one year small markets can survive. Longterm that kind of system absolutely could endanger the league.

I have confidence the NFL owners will handle this situation much better than their baseball counterparts

Jerry Jones, Al Davis, and Dan Snider may have other things in mind.

Yachtzee
05-18-2008, 10:38 AM
Jerry Jones, Al Davis, and Dan Snider may have other things in mind.

I can't help but think that Jones and Snyder were well aware of the problems of this deal when it was proposed and saw it as a possible way of blowing up the current system so that they could put in a new system that lets big market teams keep more of their money and spend it on players. I think they'd love to have a system more like the MLB, where they could pay whatever they want without a cap. In fact, I could see them trying to blow up the TV contracts next time around so that they could have their own Cowboys or Redskins cable channel.

Boss-Hog
05-18-2008, 10:55 PM
Which would mean teams like the Cowboys could crush small market teams like the Bengals on free agents.
How is that different than the status quo? ;)

camisadelgolf
05-19-2008, 02:17 AM
It wouldn't shock me at all if they ditched the salary cap. Half the teams are in the upper half of revenue and might feel limited by the salary cap. An additional few teams might think, "If we had more money to spend on free agents, we could be good enough to earn enough money to enter the top half of teams with revenue." That's just one example I can think of as to why enough team owners might vote to eliminate the cap.

LoganBuck
05-19-2008, 07:40 AM
It wouldn't shock me at all if they ditched the salary cap. Half the teams are in the upper half of revenue and might feel limited by the salary cap. An additional few teams might think, "If we had more money to spend on free agents, we could be good enough to earn enough money to enter the top half of teams with revenue." That's just one example I can think of as to why enough team owners might vote to eliminate the cap.

I agree, and think it is a terrible idea for the Bengals, Colts, Jaguars, and Titans of the world. If they ended the draft it would be even worse.

kaldaniels
05-19-2008, 06:52 PM
My original question still stands...if they opt out of the player draft...will all rookies be unrestriced free agents???

Yachtzee
05-19-2008, 11:46 PM
My original question still stands...if they opt out of the player draft...will all rookies be unrestriced free agents???

Could be. Could also mean that teams could sign players right out of high school. I'd have to read the terms of the opt-out clause to be sure.

Sea Ray
05-20-2008, 08:41 AM
I think the opt out year eliminates the salary cap but I don't think it mentions the draft. After that it all depends on the new CBA. They obviously won't play until there's a new CBA. I doubt either side wants to eliminate the draft

Sea Ray
05-20-2008, 08:42 AM
Jerry Jones, Al Davis, and Dan Snider may have other things in mind.

My guess is there's not enough of these types of owners to pull off eliminating the salary cap. I think they're the exception rather than the rule.

Reds Fanatic
05-20-2008, 11:55 AM
The owners officially voted unanimously today to get out of the current labor deal.


ATLANTA -- The NFL officially notified its players union on Tuesday that it will opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement, which could lead to a season without a salary cap in 2010 and a possible lockout in 2011.

Owners voted unanimously Tuesday morning to opt out of the deal, which was extended in March 2006. The NFL had until November to opt out, but decided to do it early instead of waiting for the deadline.

The league, however, emphasized that it will keep negotiating with the NFL Players Association and said games will be played "without threat of interruption for at least the next three seasons."

"A collective bargaining agreement has to work for both sides," the NFL said Tuesday morning. "If the agreement provides inadequate incentives to invest in the future, it will not work for management or labor. And, in the context of a professional sports league, if the agreement does not afford all clubs an opportunity to be competitive, the league can lose its appeal."

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had been anticipating the early termination of the agreement. He met with owners two weeks ago, and from that meeting he asked for audited financial reports from owners to document their economic problems.

"Roger [Goodell] e-mailed me this morning [and] told me they had a unanimous agreement to terminate the deal," Upshaw told ESPN's Chris Mortensen. "My response back to him? 'What a surprise.' "

According to the NFL, clubs are obligated by the collective bargaining agreement to spend almost $4.5 billion on player costs in 2008. Players received around 60 percent of league revenues. Growing costs of stadium construction and operations also figured into Tuesday's decision.

"The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the cost of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest shares; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country," the NFL said.

"It was exactly what we expected. I'm glad they did it now because we knew it was coming," Upshaw said. "But this is no surprise and the process will move forward. We'll have more to talk about later.

"When we negotiated this deal we had two stop points that you could decide to terminate, either side. Obviously, the owners have decided to take this termination early. We expected it. But it means that there is football through 2010, not through 2012."

NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler told the Wall Street Journal prior to Tuesday's announcement that if the owners were to opt out, the union "plans to ask for a greater share of revenues."

Kessler added that "Every deal we've gotten with them, we've received another increase"

"We are resolved to do our best to achieve a fair agreement that will allow labor peace to continue through and beyond the 2011 season," the league said Tuesday.

Sea Ray
05-20-2008, 02:24 PM
I thought this article was interesting showing that there are restrictions to free agency in the uncapped year of 2010 so it will not be a feeding frenzy of the rich owners feasting on the Bengals and Bills. I agree with the conclusion of this writer that they'll come to an agreement (or a lockout) before 2011.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story;jsessionid=BCE59FBBCB680B9F965656D61B922552? id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true


Uncapped Years Would Actually Hurt Free Agency



Now that NFL owners have voted unanimously to end their agreement with the players' union in 2011, they still have all of 2008 and 2009 to negotiate a new CBA before the "trigger" points that are in place to encourage negotiations would fire and things wouldn't be as we know them today.

The one factor fans have heard the most about is that 2010 and 2011 would be "uncapped" years. But there are three main trigger points that will go off in 2010 if there isn't a new CBA in place, and they may offset the fear of life with no salary cap. They are: 1) free agency will require six years of service (instead of four years in 2010 and five years in 2011); 2) teams will have three tags to use to restrict free agents instead of one tag, as they do now; and 3) teams that go deep in the playoffs could have some spending restrictions.



Let's take a look at the practical side of these three concepts to get a better understanding of just what they mean to the players and the clubs:

Longer to hit free agency
To get a clearer picture, let's see what this year's free-agency period would have looked like if players needed more than four years of service to reach the open market.

Let's start with the Tennessee Titans. They lost defensive ends Travis LaBoy (Arizona) and Antwan Odom (Cincinnati) as well as guard Jacob Bell (St. Louis). The three players signed for a combined total of $87.5 million ($32 million guaranteed). If the extension on time to free agency was in place, none of these players would have been free. All of them had just four years of service and would have remained Titans for upwards of two more years. The Titans would have probably changed their draft strategy and not gone after defensive linemen Jason Jones or



William Hayes and could have taken a receiver or a corner.

Other players that never would have seen a big payday: Michael Turner, who signed a $34.5 million deal ($15 million guaranteed) with Atlanta, would still be LaDainian Tomlinson's backup in San Diego; Gibril Wilson would still be a Giant; D.J. Hackett a Seahawk.

Teams have gotten very smart about the type of players they pay in free agency. They target young players four or five years removed from college that are approaching the big second contract in their careers. That group would be eliminated if teams vote not to continue the current CBA and it gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011.

All you have to do to realize how lean the free agent market will be is go back and look at all the players from the 2005 draft who signed five-year deals, all the players from the 2006 draft who signed four-year deals and even players from the 2007 draft who signed four-year deals. None of these players, under the non-CBA trigger points, would be eligible for unrestricted free agency when their originals contracts expire. Here are some examples of whom it might affect if the owners choose not to continue the current CBA and a new CBA isn't negotiated:

Second-round picks from 2006 such as DeMeco Ryans, D'Qwell Jackson, Rocky McIntosh, Thomas Howard, Deuce Lutui, LenDale White, Cedric Griffin, Marcus McNeill, Greg Jennings, and Tarvaris Jackson should be the core of the free-agent market in 2010, but unless they have the ability to "void" their contracts, they will not be free as planned. They would stay with their teams as restricted free agents and it might mean two more years of service before they experience the big payday.

The 2007 draft, especially in the second and third rounds, already has a number of budding stars such as Justin Blalock, Trent Edwards, Eric Wright, James Jones, Tony Ugoh, Samson Satele, Sidney Rice, Steve Smith, David Harris, Zach Miller, LaMarr Woodley, Brandon Mebane, and Arron Sears, to name a few. All are scheduled to be free in 2011, but all would fall short of the five years of service required under the trigger points.

There are at least another 30 to 50 quality young players from later rounds of the '06 and '07 drafts who will not see free agency -- players such as Elvis Dumervil, Willie Colon, Dawan Landry, and Antoine Bethea from 2006, and Marshal Yanda, Kevin Boss, Michael Bush, Cliff Ryan, and Tanard Jackson from '07.

Three tags instead of one
Currently, a team can put either a franchise tag (average of the top five salaries at his position) or a transition tag (average of the top ten salaries at his position) on any one player on the club to protect the team from losing the unrestricted free agent. If the NFL gets to an uncapped year in 2010 and 2011, teams will have use of one franchise tag and two transition tags. So not only would none of the young players with less than six years of service be free, but now the top three players who are eligible for free agency on a roster can be protected.

If this situation existed in 2008, a team like Pittsburgh -- which used a transition tag to retain OT Max Starks -- could have also tagged Alan Faneca with either a transition or franchise tag if it so desired. If every team in the league used one or two tags, not even the three they would possess, it could take another 40 quality free agents off the market.

There is speculation teams would not overuse this trigger because so many of their quality younger players would not be free to depart.

Playoff restrictions
If the league gets to the point of an uncapped year, people are afraid that deep-pocket owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder will come in and buy a championship. If the aggressive owners already have playoff teams, there will be restrictions on how much money they can spend. The formula may slide with the number of players they lose in free agency, but the plan is designed to not let teams buy a championship. The truth is, the first two triggers aren't going to leave too many players available to acquire anyway.

Time will tell, but I think the NFL and the NFLPA will negotiate a new CBA before we ever get to 2010. I also believe a number of the players looking at the prospect of 2010 and 2011 being uncapped and preventing them from being free agents will try to sign long-term extensions with their teams in the near future.

And don't think all the trigger points favor the clubs, because there are other things -- like the end of the NFL draft in 2011 -- which the league doesn't necessarily want to see. And the emergence of a new league could complicate matters. If the owners decide not to continue the CBA this week, all is not lost. There is time, and there are triggers in place, to get this solved.

RedsManRick
05-25-2008, 01:34 PM
If I'm the owners I push for a luxury tax model instead of a salary cap. If I'm the players, I push for guaranteed contracts, at least up to a certain point.

This whole cut vs renegotiate and then the impact of massive signing bonuses just really screws with everything.

redsrule2500
05-29-2008, 07:13 AM
I'm starting to wonder about whether the MLS might be better anyway. At least I haven't heard about the players on MLS teams being arrested for beating their wife, weapons charges, or drug charges. Maybe I won't have to deal with players signing big money contracts and then trying to whine their way out of town so they can score another big signing bonus.

MLS :confused:

Yachtzee
05-29-2008, 04:54 PM
MLS :confused:

Major League Soccer. I actually enjoy watching soccer. Once you get a feel for the rhythms of the game, a good soccer game can be just as exciting as any other sport out there. In fact, spend some time watching top flight soccer and you might start getting annoyed at all the stoppages of play in football. I watched the Super Bowl in Austria once and they couldn't understand why the teams had to stop and line up all the time.