The Cap.

[pbmax]

look at the kgb situation from a few years ago. he wasn't worth the money, but he stuck around for a few years making huge bucks because we couldn't take that kind of a cap penalty. and he didn't get squat after he left.

KGB could have been cut any of his last three years with marginal cap hit. The time he was too expensive to cut was under Sherman and not T2.

[pbmax]

What does the ownership want?

I suspect what Jerry Jones wants may not be what Packer ownership or Pittsburgh ownersip wants.

Are they united? If so, what do they want?

A lower % of revenue pegged to the cap and a rookie wage system that doesn't penalize teams for being in the top 10.

Crabtree, Raji, Monroe, and Smith really helped ownership's position. Namely, if ownership doesn't cower to the demands of the agents to follow the "system", that their rookies won't show up.

Darius Heyward Bey helped ownership, those four players took their cues after that. And its not unusual for Al Davis to cause fellow owners problems.

And I would bet that a rookie wage system is not in their top five. Eliminating local revenue sharing would replace it.

[pbmax]

No, it is the fact that these guys held out of work because they felt their draft position entitled them to more money than they were offered, or in Monroe and Raji's case, a system where one holdout creates a bunch, with nothing that can be done about it.

It doesn't matter how fair the deal was in the end and who the winner was, it was the fact that this is even an issue with a guy that was drafted. Holdouts are understandable for veteran players that have proven something. But rookies? Come on. Especially since every contract is darn near slotted.

Holdouts have become a problem in the 5-10 area for rookies.

#8 is a guaranteed holdout until a QB is taken #8. As is it is the first draft slot where a QB hasn't been taken since the massive contract inflation for rookies began. Thus #1 to #7 are at a higher rate, because a QB contract is always higher, later year guys though still base their contract off the slot, now inflated by the QB. #8 has never been QB inflated, so there is a big drop between #7 and #8. Every year #8 holds out trying to fix that disparity. Jax has held their ground two years in a row there. #9 will almost never sign until #8 does because of this, if #8 caves to the higher rate, #9 becomes the bullseye pick. #10 and #11 holding out too just makes #9 all but impossible to sign, even with good intentions.

Slot the first round, and rookie holdouts are no longer a problem. The fact that teams are afraid to pick in the top 10 is saying something very bad about the current system.

This is nothing new, but 8 isn't the problem, it will be #7 for a couple of years. Teams have become used to the QB premium and that premium does not translate to other positions directly. Braylon Edwards cause the last logjam like that in the number 3 slot.

Heyward Bey inflated the number seven slot to a ridiculous level this year. That number coupled with Jacksonville's financial approach made 8's holdout inevitable. Then Crabtree wanted to pull the windfall down from 7 to 10. That kept 11 and 12 out of camp.

Before Heyward Bey, the windfall was restricted to the top 5. Its at seven now. But I have little sympathy for the rookie slotting system as a way to be more fair. No team is up against the cap this year, so this rookie money is not being kept from other deserving players dollar for dollar. Its still up to the individual team's decisions. They have the space.

A rigorous slotting system for contracts would end most holdouts though. That I agree with.

[mraynrand]

No, it is the fact that these guys held out of work because they felt their draft position entitled them to more money than they were offered, or in Monroe and Raji's case, a system where one holdout creates a bunch, with nothing that can be done about it.

It doesn't matter how fair the deal was in the end and who the winner was, it was the fact that this is even an issue with a guy that was drafted. Holdouts are understandable for veteran players that have proven something. But rookies? Come on. Especially since every contract is darn near slotted.

Holdouts have become a problem in the 5-10 area for rookies.

#8 is a guaranteed holdout until a QB is taken #8. As is it is the first draft slot where a QB hasn't been taken since the massive contract inflation for rookies began. Thus #1 to #7 are at a higher rate, because a QB contract is always higher, later year guys though still base their contract off the slot, now inflated by the QB. #8 has never been QB inflated, so there is a big drop between #7 and #8. Every year #8 holds out trying to fix that disparity. Jax has held their ground two years in a row there. #9 will almost never sign until #8 does because of this, if #8 caves to the higher rate, #9 becomes the bullseye pick. #10 and #11 holding out too just makes #9 all but impossible to sign, even with good intentions.

Slot the first round, and rookie holdouts are no longer a problem. The fact that teams are afraid to pick in the top 10 is saying something very bad about the current system.

It looks like the solution for owners is to pick a shitty QB at #8. Cleveland would like to help, but they would have to win a few games to get to #8.

[Waldo]

Re: The Cap.

The union already offered to surrender and ownership said no.

Source for this? Reads like a Management Council press release.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/27/de-smith-wants-a-new-deal-by-the-start-of-the-uncapped-year/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/02/league-rejects-lock-in-bargaining-proposal/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/11/03/rumors-fly-of-a-postseason-strike/

[pbmax]

Re: The Cap.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/27/de-smith-wants-a-new-deal-by-the-start-of-the-uncapped-year/

My read at the time was that they are preparing to sue for bad-faith negotiations if the owners do not want to seriously negotiate BEFORE a lockout could be implemented. The goal would be to keep the money flowing in during negotiations. To do this, they will need to demonstrate an unwillingness to negotiate with the union. Florio mentions that tipping their hand would be a bad strategy this early if they truly expect to finish the CBA on this deadline.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...season-strike/

I normally would be happy to speculate on the rumor. But the existence of this rumor from one source with ties to the Union, players, agents and clubs means the person spreading the report could have any number of agendas. If its a club source, what validity would it have? And if it was discussed by the Union and rejected, why would this portend a folding of the tents?

[Waldo]

I think what you are seeing is a reversal of what was thought to be the case a couple years ago.

The union wants no part of uncapped football

The owners are welcoming uncapped football

Upshaw was all about dumping the cap for good. He always said, once the cap was gone, it wasn't coming back.

Now it is the union that wants a deal before the new league year. Ownership is cool with dumping contracts, skipping a year of high pay and tagging a bunch of guys as RFA's, basically cutting costs and playing below the floor.

The union had never really taken that possibility seriously IMO, they postured and put up a face that was exactly what ownership wanted.

I think that it is the rank and file in the union that has discontent, as much, if not more, with the union than they do with ownership. .5% of revenue, a rookie slotting system and expanded vet benefits doesn't matter a whole lot to a guy poised to have to play a year under a RFA tag that was going to hit the jackpot as a UFA. That is money that they will never get back. Or all the older declining vets that hit the jackpot, or bust rookies, that are only on a roster because the team can't afford the cap acceleration of their bonus. Buh bye.

Internal discontent is the worst enemy of the union, and the possibility of that happening, with the extension deadline for 2009 money drawing near and tons of guys that are to be tagged as RFA's next year getting skipped for extensions this year, this si the time discontent will grow.

And a lot of stupid people will have cameras in their face and twitter on their computer.

[Scott Campbell]

Great thread fellas. Thanks for the read.

[pbmax]

.5% of revenue

Was that a typo or have you seen a report of how much the owners want back?

The percentage of gross revenue was 56.2, its now 59.5 of Total Revenue. It was going to move to 60% in 2010.

I think the issue is local revenue sharing. But the wealthy clubs cannot get that genie back in the bottle without promising lower revenue clubs that player costs will go down. I would be surprised if half a percent was enough to satisfy Buffalo and Jacksonville.

[Fritz]

No, it is the fact that these guys held out of work because they felt their draft position entitled them to more money than they were offered, or in Monroe and Raji's case, a system where one holdout creates a bunch, with nothing that can be done about it.

It doesn't matter how fair the deal was in the end and who the winner was, it was the fact that this is even an issue with a guy that was drafted. Holdouts are understandable for veteran players that have proven something. But rookies? Come on. Especially since every contract is darn near slotted.

Holdouts have become a problem in the 5-10 area for rookies.

#8 is a guaranteed holdout until a QB is taken #8. As is it is the first draft slot where a QB hasn't been taken since the massive contract inflation for rookies began. Thus #1 to #7 are at a higher rate, because a QB contract is always higher, later year guys though still base their contract off the slot, now inflated by the QB. #8 has never been QB inflated, so there is a big drop between #7 and #8. Every year #8 holds out trying to fix that disparity. Jax has held their ground two years in a row there. #9 will almost never sign until #8 does because of this, if #8 caves to the higher rate, #9 becomes the bullseye pick. #10 and #11 holding out too just makes #9 all but impossible to sign, even with good intentions.

Slot the first round, and rookie holdouts are no longer a problem. The fact that teams are afraid to pick in the top 10 is saying something very bad about the current system.

It looks like the solution for owners is to pick a shitty QB at #8. Cleveland would like to help, but they would have to win a few games to get to #8.

Good point. Cleveland is uniquely qualified to do so, having desperately moved up to take Brady Quinn and having chosen also Derek Anderson.

[Waldo]

.5% of revenue

Was that a typo or have you seen a report of how much the owners want back?

The percentage of gross revenue was 56.2, its now 59.5 of Total Revenue. It was going to move to 60% in 2010.

I think the issue is local revenue sharing. But the wealthy clubs cannot get that genie back in the bottle without promising lower revenue clubs that player costs will go down. I would be surprised if half a percent was enough to satisfy Buffalo and Jacksonville.

Exaggerated to show a point.

It has no effect on the guy that stands to lose 10M next year while playing a year on a RFA tag with the real potential for injury. He doesn't care about that couple percent.

[pbmax]

.5% of revenue

Was that a typo or have you seen a report of how much the owners want back?

The percentage of gross revenue was 56.2, its now 59.5 of Total Revenue. It was going to move to 60% in 2010.

I think the issue is local revenue sharing. But the wealthy clubs cannot get that genie back in the bottle without promising lower revenue clubs that player costs will go down. I would be surprised if half a percent was enough to satisfy Buffalo and Jacksonville.

Exaggerated to show a point.

It has no effect on the guy that stands to lose 10M next year while playing a year on a RFA tag with the real potential for injury. He doesn't care about that couple percent.

I would say that should be an easy argument to make but...

Hunter Smith and his agent apparently didn't understand it.