[shumozar]

I saw DeMaurice Smith and Kevin Mawae discussing the CBA negotiations on Inside the NFL last night. The players have no chance if Kevin Mawae is indicative of their position. He is as dumb as a tree (or he is just not very well-spoken) and will only lead the players down the path to a lockout. Collinsworth told him as much, as he was a player during the strike in '87.
After watching that last night, I have no hope that there will be NFL football in 2011. The owners hold all the cards and have all the brains.

[Aozenee]

I saw DeMaurice Smith and Kevin Mawae discussing the CBA negotiations on Inside the NFL last night. The players have no chance if Kevin Mawae is indicative of their position. He is as dumb as a tree (or he is just not very well-spoken) and will only lead the players down the path to a lockout. Collinsworth told him as much, as he was a player during the strike in '87.
After watching that last night, I have no hope that there will be NFL football in 2011. The owners hold all the cards and have all the brains.

The players have a strong position based on the expiring CBA. The trick is to make as few concessions as possible without hitting the lockout. They gain nothing by agreeing too early, particularly in light of the arbitration item on the revenue sharing. For them, an uncapped year has no risk, only reward. It's 2011 that's of concern, and I expect to see 2010 remain uncapped, and have some different version of a cap in place in 2011. Football will be played, though perhaps without franchise tags.

[addisonnicogel]

No, it's done in 2011. I really don't expect a season, because the players with there new head DeMaurice Smith are going to try to go hardline, and the NFL owners wont do that. They're not going to have their league turn into the MLB or NBA.

[beriarele]

Sal Pal(and I don't usually like to paraphrase him) says that their will be very little movement this offseason and the owners are colluding to keep most teams from not going over 80 million, so that they'll have an extra 30 mil in their coffers next year.

[BundEnhamma]

The players have a strong position based on the expiring CBA. The trick is to make as few concessions as possible without hitting the lockout. They gain nothing by agreeing too early, particularly in light of the arbitration item on the revenue sharing. For them, an uncapped year has no risk, only reward. It's 2011 that's of concern, and I expect to see 2010 remain uncapped, and have some different version of a cap in place in 2011. Football will be played, though perhaps without franchise tags.

I think the players have a very weak position. They are losing years of free agency in an uncapped year and the cap doesn't just not have a ceiling, it also has no bottom. Teams will pay less for players that are now restricted (around 330 of them) in 2010 and will save tons money in the event of a lockout. The TV contracts will get paid regardless in 2011, so the owners also have that going for them.

One of the things they talked about last night was a rookie cap and Mawae says they want the status quo. The owners will not stand for the status quo, where some of the highest paid players in the league are rookies. They are also taking the position that the owners are telling the players to take an 18% pay cut, and that is simplistic. The issue is what portion of revenues have to be in the salary cap. The players want 60%, the owners would settle for the status quo.
I think the owners would trade the franchise tags for a definitive, slotted rookie cap and fewer restricted years. They now have it at 6 (with the uncapped year) and the players will lose out with that going forward.

[85IbLcwQ]

if they dont have a rookie provision I'll be dissapointed

[lierro]

I think the players have a very weak position. They are losing years of free agency in an uncapped year and the cap doesn't just not have a ceiling, it also has no bottom. Teams will pay less for players that are now restricted (around 330 of them) in 2010 and will save tons money in the event of a lockout. The TV contracts will get paid regardless in 2011, so the owners also have that going for them.

One of the things they talked about last night was a rookie cap and Mawae says they want the status quo. The owners will not stand for the status quo, where some of the highest paid players in the league are rookies. They are also taking the position that the owners are telling the players to take an 18% pay cut, and that is simplistic. The issue is what portion of revenues have to be in the salary cap. The players want 60%, the owners would settle for the status quo.
I think the owners would trade the franchise tags for a definitive, slotted rookie cap and fewer restricted years. They now have it at 6 (with the uncapped year) and the players will lose out with that going forward.

Players have a position of strength in that they have a majority of the league revenue in the salary cap. Until the year officially goes uncapped... then all bets are off.

If I were to throw out some guesses:

Rookie cap/slots will go into effect.
Franchise tags are eliminated. Free agency could be after year 3, or after year 4.
Buyout clauses end up being a critical part of contracts (if you cut someone, 5% or 10% of the remaining value of the contract is paid).
Players have a reduced % of the total revenue.

[huedaanydrax]

I really don't get why the NFLPA cares about the rookie thing. It will give teams more money to spend on proven veterans.

[botagozzz]

I really don't get why the NFLPA cares about the rookie thing. It will give teams more money to spend on proven veterans.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

If rookie contracts start lower, veteran contracts start lower. If they remain as is, the players are likely to get more money down the road.

[Lidawka]

I really don't get why the NFLPA cares about the rookie thing. It will give teams more money to spend on proven veterans.

Why, because who represents the players? Who gets the money off those big fat rookie contracts? It has nothing to do with veteran contracts, because the only people who use rookie contracts to compare contracts are other rookies.

[Elaltergephah]

Why, because who represents the players? Who gets the money off those big fat rookie contracts? It has nothing to do with veteran contracts, because the only people who use rookie contracts to compare contracts are other rookies.

I disagree. A veteran is going to be comparing his contract to what a rook is getting - Stafford, 24 mil signing bonus? You better make sure that Peyton gets more.

The players aren't going to worry about rookie salaries - those will work themselves out. Those are 'prospective' members of the union, not union members yet - so contesting that point is merely a hook to use to get something else they want - like cutting the time for free agency qualification, or eliminating the franchise tags - or, like they did in 08, reducing the cap charge for minimum salary veterans.

[UpperMan]

I disagree. A veteran is going to be comparing his contract to what a rook is getting - Stafford, 24 mil signing bonus? You better make sure that Peyton gets more.

The players aren't going to worry about rookie salaries - those will work themselves out. Those are 'prospective' members of the union, not union members yet - so contesting that point is merely a hook to use to get something else they want - like cutting the time for free agency qualification, or eliminating the franchise tags - or, like they did in 08, reducing the cap charge for minimum salary veterans.

There are numerous veteran contracts that players can compare to -- and in fact, I'd bet these players compare to other veteran contracts far more often than they compare to rookie contracts. So, that point is just realistically inaccurate.

[LICraig]

if they dont have a rookie provision I'll be dissapointed

I have no idea why they wouldn't. Owners should certainly want it and the only affect it'd have on people in the players union would be more room for teams under the cap (to pay veterans) since they wouldn't be paying such huge amounts to rookies. Why wouldn't they add it?

[gastabegree]

A rising tide lifts all boats.

If rookie contracts start lower, veteran contracts start lower. If they remain as is, the players are likely to get more money down the road.

Is that how it has worked in baseball? Rookies make less so the rest of the players make less? This line of thinking makes even less sense considering the existance of a salary cap. If the rookies are taking up a huge portion of the cap, veterans can't make as much.

[Nakforappealp]

Is that how it has worked in baseball? Rookies make less so the rest of the players make less? This line of thinking makes even less sense considering the existance of a salary cap. If the rookies are taking up a huge portion of the cap, veterans can't make as much.

Baseball has salary arbitration, which drives a young player's salary up before hitting free agency. Football doesn't.

[BarBoss]

Baseball has salary arbitration, which drives a young player's salary up before hitting free agency. Football doesn't.

Rookies and second year players make in the low to mid hundreds of thousands of dollars in a setup system prior to reaching arbitration years. This does not lower veteran salaries.

[QzVyZbTg]

There are numerous veteran contracts that players can compare to -- and in fact, I'd bet these players compare to other veteran contracts far more often than they compare to rookie contracts. So, that point is just realistically inaccurate.

I'd argue that a top veteran would be comparing to any contract on the board - rookie or otherwise.

Your mid-level veterans won't be comparing to rookie contracts - because after those top 10 or 15, the value drops so dramatically.

Your low-level veterans are going to be in favor of maintaining the minimum-salary cap-waiver that they currently enjoy, as it puts all guys at 4+ years on an equal footing cap-wise (if not in actual salary).

The current situation benefits a very small number of rookies, and their agents. There's no need for it - and any money that is available from those savings would be thrown into the pool for veterans. As long as a reasonable floor and min-salary levels are maintained, the majority of players would benefit.

[Irravepem]

I think the players have a very weak position. They are losing years of free agency in an uncapped year and the cap doesn't just not have a ceiling, it also has no bottom. Teams will pay less for players that are now restricted (around 330 of them) in 2010 and will save tons money in the event of a lockout. The TV contracts will get paid regardless in 2011, so the owners also have that going for them.

One of the things they talked about last night was a rookie cap and Mawae says they want the status quo. The owners will not stand for the status quo, where some of the highest paid players in the league are rookies. They are also taking the position that the owners are telling the players to take an 18% pay cut, and that is simplistic. The issue is what portion of revenues have to be in the salary cap. The players want 60%, the owners would settle for the status quo.
I think the owners would trade the franchise tags for a definitive, slotted rookie cap and fewer restricted years. They now have it at 6 (with the uncapped year) and the players will lose out with that going forward.

Now that you mention that there would be no "bottom" is it possible some players would elect to sit out a year rather than have their base pay go down risking lower levels of pay in the future? It sound rather extreme, but there is a principle there that some might find worth fighting for and living off their past salary and bonuses for a season. Just a thought.

[famosetroie]

Now that you mention that there would be no "bottom" is it possible some players would elect to sit out a year rather than have their base pay go down risking lower levels of pay in the future? It sound rather extreme, but there is a principle there that some might find worth fighting for and living off their past salary and bonuses for a season. Just a thought.

While the team salary has no bottom, there are still minimum salaries for the players.

http://www.redskins.com/gen/articles...ear_101621.jsp

[Kolovorotkes]

Rookies and second year players make in the low to mid hundreds of thousands of dollars in a setup system prior to reaching arbitration years. This does not lower veteran salaries.

Because veterans start higher up the pay scale, thanks to arbitration. Arbitration drives up the pay scale across the board.