PDA

View Full Version : The biggest winner of an antitrust settlement...


descendency
06-27-2011, 05:14 PM
Some might remember that players in the last settlement were given lifetime franchise tag exemptions. This let Reggie White become a FA and sign with the Packers.

If this were to happen this time, the named plaintiff list would include names such as Peyton Manning, Logan Mankins, Vincent Jackson, and 2nd overall pick Von Miller. Miller may be able to decide when his contracts end without fear of a tag coming.

I think it's safe to say Von Miller might walk away from this the biggest winner of all.

PoopSandwich
06-27-2011, 05:36 PM
If a bidding war started over Peyton Manning he would be the biggest winner easily.

nepg
06-27-2011, 05:46 PM
Manning wouldn't let money get in the way of his core beliefs. He's made way more money than his grandkids will ever know what to do with and he's lived fairly modestly by sports superstar standards.

Shane P. Hallam
06-27-2011, 08:14 PM
i don't see how missing the franchise tag leaves you a winner. you're guaranteed to *always* be paid a top contract at your position, and i believe the money is guaranteed every single year. for instance, in 2009, a franchise tagged qb would've gotten around $16.5 million dollars (edited: this is incorrect, i saw numbers based on total cap hit rather than actual salary. will update when i find them, but at glance it looks to be something closer to $12 million[if based on base salary] or $22 million [if based on base+bonuses], so i believe the rest of the argument stands), making him instantly the 3rd highest paid player in the league, and from what i remember of most non-Tom Brady/Peyton Manning contracts, more than most qbs post-Jamarcus will ever get in bonus money for a year of work.

outside of a guy like haynesworth, i'm not sure why players were ever against them. it's not like long term contracts have any guarantee beyond the bonus money, and again, other than in the case of a guy like haynesworth and a front office like washington, most guys aren't ever going to see that kind of bonus money over the life of a contract, let alone in a single season of playing. (which, i guess is a long way of disagreeing with the notion that a long term contract provides protection against being released for poor play or injury)

it's possible i missed something, but aside from a guy who doesn't want to get stuck in the afc west's version of the 2000-era lions and doesn't care that he might make less money to leave, i don't see any benefits for the players.

This is exactly what it was like when it first came out, but agents realized most players that would be franchised could easily make more one year elsewhere AND get more years. I'd like to see what Peppers numbers would have been last year had he stayed with the Panthers and was franchised vs. his Bears contract.

OzTitan
06-28-2011, 12:16 AM
Am I missing something obvious as to why Von Miller is relevant here? Or is he just being used as a random example of the current rookie crop?

niel89
06-28-2011, 12:26 AM
Am I missing something obvious as to why Von Miller is relevant here? Or is he just being used as a random example of the current rookie crop?

He is one of the named plaintiffs in the case.

SolidGold
06-28-2011, 08:41 AM
are the lawyers...they want to litigate and drag this thing through court to get their payday

FlyingElvis
06-28-2011, 09:16 AM
are the lawyers...they want to litigate and drag this thing through court to get their payday

Pretty much. The lawyers win, everybody else gets some form of compromise jammed down their throat. One small portion of any given group may get some nice benefit, too.

killxswitch
06-28-2011, 09:46 AM
If a bidding war started over Peyton Manning he would be the biggest winner easily.

And Colts fans would be the biggest losers because we would have no hope of winning another game for years.

PoopSandwich
06-28-2011, 12:58 PM
And Colts fans would be the biggest losers because we would have no hope of winning another game for years.

Welcome to Cleveland

killxswitch
06-28-2011, 01:37 PM
Welcome to Cleveland

At least with Reid you have some hope... right? Honestly Cleveland and Cincy are the reason I didn't say "worst team in the NFL".

PoopSandwich
06-28-2011, 04:15 PM
At least with Reid you have some hope... right? Honestly Cleveland and Cincy are the reason I didn't say "worst team in the NFL".

I think you mean Holmgren but yeah, I like what they're doing thus far but a lot is gonna ride on Shurmur and McCoy.

bucfan12
06-30-2011, 08:55 AM
Apparently, D. Smith told players representing the NFLPA at the symposium yesterday that the media has blown things out of proportion that a deal is basically done. Apparently, they still have a ways to go.

Does this mean they are not nearly as close to a deal to what was reported last week?

killxswitch
06-30-2011, 10:32 AM
Apparently, D. Smith told players representing the NFLPA at the symposium yesterday that the media has blown things out of proportion that a deal is basically done. Apparently, they still have a ways to go.

Does this mean they are not nearly as close to a deal to what was reported last week?

Sal Palantonio was just on with a local show here in Indy, he said he thought it was telling that his call leaked to the press right before they all meet together today to negotiate. There is a prevalent thought out there amongst the types that cover the lockout that Smith is sending the message that the players are not chomping at the bit to get a deal done. They're not going to accept any bait-and-switch deals where the owners said one thing last week but present something different this week, hoping the players will just take whatever they're given.

BlindSite
06-30-2011, 07:35 PM
Sal Palantonio was just on with a local show here in Indy, he said he thought it was telling that his call leaked to the press right before they all meet together today to negotiate. There is a prevalent thought out there amongst the types that cover the lockout that Smith is sending the message that the players are not chomping at the bit to get a deal done. They're not going to accept any bait-and-switch deals where the owners said one thing last week but present something different this week, hoping the players will just take whatever they're given.

Apparently they were really close at the 48% of everything in a simplified model the players could all easily understand and map out. Then the owners tried to switch it up by saying they want some form of cost suppressing measure involving taking between 400 and 500 million dollars off the top meaning that the players would receive something in the vicinity of 45% of everything.

They promptly lost their ****. So from some sources they're back to where they were in March before the lock out. With the owners making the same tired argument of having too high costs with what the players want and the players saying, put simply; that's ********.

killxswitch
07-01-2011, 07:36 AM
Apparently they were really close at the 48% of everything in a simplified model the players could all easily understand and map out. Then the owners tried to switch it up by saying they want some form of cost suppressing measure involving taking between 400 and 500 million dollars off the top meaning that the players would receive something in the vicinity of 45% of everything.

They promptly lost their ****. So from some sources they're back to where they were in March before the lock out. With the owners making the same tired argument of having too high costs with what the players want and the players saying, put simply; that's ********.

I'm becoming very disillusioned with the NFL. Starting to look at other things to do this fall. If they can't make any actual progress from March to July, why should I believe they'll make any from now until the start of the regular season.

bucfan12
07-01-2011, 09:05 AM
I believe I said this would happen after there was a verbal agreement and understanding last week towards revenue sharing between the owners and NFLPA.

Now, this week, the owners tried to "toy" with the agreement, from what I have been reading on rotoworld.com. That is complete BS of them and honestly, don't blame D. Smith for holding out if there was in fact an understanding.

I am also reading articles that the players themselves want to get back on the field so badly that they might accept whatever is thrown at them in terms of a CBA proposal and D. Smith isn't all for that, that is why a deal has not been reached.

So in a way, I am not sure what to believe. Smith kind of rubs me the wrong way, then again, both sides seem greedy at this point.

Just get a deal done already. Players make more in a month than some of us we'll see in a life time. You can't be that greedy.

SolidGold
07-01-2011, 09:24 AM
I heard that in the "All Revenue" deal the players wanted to include things like non related football events (concerts etc.) to be included for owners that own the stadium. That is kind of BS since those events have nothing to do with football. Its like owners saying they want a cut of a players money for advertising/promotions they do.

Both sides are not helping the cause but I think as the time to get the deal done decreases and pressure increases (from the fans) a deal will get done. They still have three weeks to remove their from their asses. I think next week should be a grind it out week and somewhere between the 12th-15th of July an agreement will be reached.

killxswitch
07-01-2011, 09:42 AM
Is the thing with the players wanting concert money just something the NFLPA lawyers are going after to stall, or do the players really want that? I know the lawyers have been arguing in favor of dumb things like including sales tax in total revenue as a stall tactic.

bigbluedefense
07-01-2011, 11:12 AM
I think the only real issue they have with the tag is what can happen to them in case of injury. If you're due for a big pay day, get tagged, then tear your knee up, you miss out on some money.

I know it's uncommon, but in football the risk of injury is always there, and I think they just prefer the long term security of a contract in case it happens.

killxswitch
07-01-2011, 12:38 PM
i don't think that's functionally true for most players. again, ignoring a haynesworth-type contract, most players *still* come out better after a year of the tag than they would after *two* years without it. and teams will still cut them if they do something destructive enough to be career threatening.



*shrug* i think it's a false sense of security. they see '6 years' and forget that the contract is meaningless after 2-3 years.

I agree with this. Maybe for a player like a FB the franchise tag is not a great deal but beyond that getting the average of the top 5 at your position for a yea seems like a great deal to me. A "long term" NFL contract is not worth that much compared to a single year at the top of the pay scale.

bucfan12
07-02-2011, 09:08 AM
Seriously, I doubt the Tag is worse than a long term deal.

Some players, depending on their position, can make like what, top 5 salary for that year. WRs who get tagged get like what 10 mil for the year? Come on, that's not enough? Learn how to save and manage that much money.

I keep hearing back and fourth about owners still want UFA to have 6 years. I am not in agreement with that. 4 years and eligibilty is fair because the owners also want 5 year deals for rookies to sign their contracts while NFLA PA wants 3-4 years max for 1st round picks.