Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lockout 2011?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
    Which is what makes this entire situation so interesting. For all the respect players had for Gene Upshaw (RIP), the players knew that he was in bed with Tagliabue and the owners and didn't really represent their best interests. The most violent professional sport in America (with the shortest average career at that) still doesn't have guaranteed contracts for god's sake. They finally did the smart thing and pursued a real litigator who knows wtf he's doing to represent them.
    And as a fan, I pray PRAY PRAY PRAY PRAY they never ever do. I feel like guaranteed contracts have become the bane of existence in the NBA and pray they never translate into the NFL.

    It takes away the players incentive to try and improve once he has it. It takes away their accountability since, once their contract is signed, you have no way to punish the player for poor performance and lack of effort. Look at what Haynesworth is doing now...and many other players in the past have been the same way, especially the big d-lineman. Get their pay day and cash out.

    For every player who is willing to leave it all on the field whether he's being paid or not, you have these guys in it strictly for the money. If Jamarcus Russell didn't get tens of millions of dollars guaranteed in his deal, maybe he would have worked harder to try and become something special.

    I absolutely abhor the idea of guaranteeing every cent of a players contract. I pray to god the NFL never sees anything of the sort or it will ruin this sport. I hope the owners have more common sense than to ever allow it. It will put them at the mercy of the players who've signed the big money deals just like the NBA teams face. All they can do once that player has signed is bow to him. That player gets paid whether he decides to work hard or not, and the NFL has always been a blue collar sport where guys get rewarded when they put forth a lot of effort, and if they stop putting the effort in, they get punished by being cut and losing out on a lot of the money they could be making.

    Save for a few brick-headed dumbshits like Russell who take the guaranteed signing bonuses and then put in ****** effort, the league can still reward those who work hard and play well while punishing those who don't.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
      Which is what makes this entire situation so interesting. For all the respect players had for Gene Upshaw (RIP), the players knew that he was in bed with Tagliabue and the owners and didn't really represent their best interests. The most violent professional sport in America (with the shortest average career at that) still doesn't have guaranteed contracts for god's sake. They finally did the smart thing and pursued a real litigator who knows wtf he's doing to represent them.

      I've got a feeling the lockout is more likely to happen than any fans are willing to believe. Think of how many teams have built new stadiums in the past ten years or so, are sagged with that debt in a struggling economy, and are paying out more money to the players now than ever. They're going to be willing to eat a season or less worth of earnings for the long-term benefits they're bound to reap when the players finally cave in.

      There's just going to be so much difficulty in hammering out a new CBA in the next year. First of all, there's not going to be any real progress in negotiations until after the season has ended. So once the season has ended, there's going to be about six months for them to figure out a littany of issues. Considering that the previous CBA deal was thrown together at the last minute in order to save the league from a strike/lockout and it took the owners only two years to opt out of it - that's how bad of a deal it was. I don't think the owners are going to make the same mistake again. Small-market and large-market owners still can't decide their own differences yet - large-market teams raise the costs by exorbitant spending, yet they don't want to supplement small-market teams who can't keep up with the spending. The salary cap is gone (likely forever) so they've got to figure out a new way to deal with the movement of players. They have to figure out to do with skyrocketing top-10 rookie deals. They still don't know what the ultimate outcome of the American Needle case will be. The owners are sagged with a ton of debt from all the new stadiums built in the last 10 or so years.

      I don't know for sure, either, but I'm sure the owners could find a way having to pay back the money for the TV deals. It could be as easy as throwing together a team of scab players and trotting them out there on Sunday afternoons.

      Ultimately, this is going to be a long and convoluted process, and I'm expecting to lose at least a portion of next season to a lockout.
      Thats the thing that scares me, I know the owners have no problem with a lockout, they're willing to wait this out for awhile if they need to.

      But the players don't have that luxury. So how long are the players going to do this dance before they give in? Thats the key. Thats what we'll find out. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a lockout, or like you said, miss a portion of the season.

      Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
      And as a fan, I pray PRAY PRAY PRAY PRAY they never ever do. I feel like guaranteed contracts have become the bane of existence in the NBA and pray they never translate into the NFL.

      It takes away the players incentive to try and improve once he has it. It takes away their accountability since, once their contract is signed, you have no way to punish the player for poor performance and lack of effort. Look at what Haynesworth is doing now...and many other players in the past have been the same way, especially the big d-lineman. Get their pay day and cash out.

      For every player who is willing to leave it all on the field whether he's being paid or not, you have these guys in it strictly for the money. If Jamarcus Russell didn't get tens of millions of dollars guaranteed in his deal, maybe he would have worked harder to try and become something special.

      I absolutely abhor the idea of guaranteeing every cent of a players contract. I pray to god the NFL never sees anything of the sort or it will ruin this sport. I hope the owners have more common sense than to ever allow it. It will put them at the mercy of the players who've signed the big money deals just like the NBA teams face. All they can do once that player has signed is bow to him. That player gets paid whether he decides to work hard or not, and the NFL has always been a blue collar sport where guys get rewarded when they put forth a lot of effort, and if they stop putting the effort in, they get punished by being cut and losing out on a lot of the money they could be making.

      Save for a few brick-headed dumbshits like Russell who take the guaranteed signing bonuses and then put in ****** effort, the league can still reward those who work hard and play well while punishing those who don't.
      I agree. I don't want players to have guaranteed contracts. Guaranteed contracts are what destroyed the NBA. I don't want that nonsense polluting football now.

      Imagine if contracts weren't guaranteed in the NBA? The quality of the game would skyrocket exponentially. So many guys who are bums right now would actually give a damn and play the way they're capable of playing.

      I'm all for players in the NFL getting more money and benefits etc, but I do not want them to get guaranteed contracts.

      Comment


      • #18
        Now I don't know anything about DeMaurice Smith, he might be a person that would do whats in his players best interest even if he knows it would cost him his job or he might do whatever it takes to save his job, even if he knows it hurts players.

        What is in the players best interest and NFLPA President DeMaurice Smith interests are not necessarily the same thing. The players are going to have to give significant concessions based on how strongly the owners feel that they are needed. If DeMaurice Smith gives that right off the bat he will very likely be fired.

        The players would might not realize that big concessions are going to have to happen, they likely would think Smith is just a wimpy push-over. He might decide that he has to have a strike to show players that they had to give up a lot.

        As for the salary cap being gone, I see no reason why that is the case. The NFLPA said since the owners allowed an uncapped year to happen that their wont be one ever again, that is just a position play for negotiations purposes. They also said their won't be any concessions, does anyone believe that will happen?

        The big market owners hate giving money to small market ones. The small market ones needs a financial model that allows them to make money. The best way I see to satisfy both is with a tough cap size. That would allow small markets to make money and remain competitive without needing big payments from big market teams.

        Comment


        • #19
          The Union's anti-salary cap stance was an Upshaw thing as far as I can tell....

          In fact, the absence of a cap this year has hurt the players far, far more than the owners. Pushing the years needed to reach unrestricted free agency from 4 to 6 is what did it, and of the guys who did reach UFA, did any really break the bank? Peppers and Rolle got very nice deals, but nothing more than they would have gotten in a capped year I don't think. I think all of the teams realized that it would be best to sign as if there still were a cap in place...put a self-imposed cap on their spending essentially, so that they'd be alright if (and when) a cap does return in 2011.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
            Thats the thing that scares me, I know the owners have no problem with a lockout, they're willing to wait this out for awhile if they need to.

            But the players don't have that luxury. So how long are the players going to do this dance before they give in? Thats the key. Thats what we'll find out. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a lockout, or like you said, miss a portion of the season.



            I agree. I don't want players to have guaranteed contracts. Guaranteed contracts are what destroyed the NBA. I don't want that nonsense polluting football now.

            Imagine if contracts weren't guaranteed in the NBA? The quality of the game would skyrocket exponentially. So many guys who are bums right now would actually give a damn and play the way they're capable of playing.

            I'm all for players in the NFL getting more money and benefits etc, but I do not want them to get guaranteed contracts.


            Some of that money should be guaranteed, in a sport so violent why shouldn't they get anything guaranteed? If you sign a 5 year deal, and get hurt in the pre-season, and don't play in the regular season, you don't hit on a majority of those incentives and don't play to get your weekly game checks.


            Teams can also cut a guy from a contract any given time. How fair is that, a team can release you from a contract well before it's up, but a player gets nothing guaranteed?


            That puts all the power in the wrong hands, and leaves the players liable to way too much risk. Guaranteed contracts should have a cap on them, especially rookies more then anything, but it would be bogus to have none.





            Originally posted by Scott Wright
            I guarantee that if someone picks Cam Newton in the Top 5 they will regret it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by LonghornsLegend View Post
              Some of that money should be guaranteed, in a sport so violent why shouldn't they get anything guaranteed? If you sign a 5 year deal, and get hurt in the pre-season, and don't play in the regular season, you don't hit on a majority of those incentives and don't play to get your weekly game checks.


              Teams can also cut a guy from a contract any given time. How fair is that, a team can release you from a contract well before it's up, but a player gets nothing guaranteed?


              That puts all the power in the wrong hands, and leaves the players liable to way too much risk. Guaranteed contracts should have a cap on them, especially rookies more then anything, but it would be bogus to have none.
              Partial guarantees like signing bonuses are fine. It does give the player some insurance in case of something like an injury, but there should in no way shape or form be fully guaranteed contracts like in the NBA.

              You can cut a guy for performing poorly, but you still have to pay him every cent of his contract. THAT is WRONG.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
                The Union's anti-salary cap stance was an Upshaw thing as far as I can tell....

                In fact, the absence of a cap this year has hurt the players far, far more than the owners. Pushing the years needed to reach unrestricted free agency from 4 to 6 is what did it, and of the guys who did reach UFA, did any really break the bank? Peppers and Rolle got very nice deals, but nothing more than they would have gotten in a capped year I don't think. I think all of the teams realized that it would be best to sign as if there still were a cap in place...put a self-imposed cap on their spending essentially, so that they'd be alright if (and when) a cap does return in 2011.
                The disappearance of the salary cap and the UFA/RFA situations don't go hand-in-hand. I know people tie them together, but they are two separate provisions of the CBA. You can have a CBA in place with no salary cap that allows players to become UFAs after one season if you wanted. They're not mutually exclusive.

                I'm for a salary cap if they get rid of the cap floor. The cap floor, IMO, hurts small market teams. Large market teams drive both the salary cap and floor up, so smaller market teams have to dole out stupid contracts just to get above the salary floor.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
                  The disappearance of the salary cap and the UFA/RFA situations don't go hand-in-hand. I know people tie them together, but they are two separate provisions of the CBA. You can have a CBA in place with no salary cap that allows players to become UFAs after one season if you wanted. They're not mutually exclusive.

                  I'm for a salary cap if they get rid of the cap floor. The cap floor, IMO, hurts small market teams. Large market teams drive both the salary cap and floor up, so smaller market teams have to dole out stupid contracts just to get above the salary floor.
                  I think there should still be some sort of minimum to force teams to at least try and be a little competative.....even if the floor is significantly less than what it has been compared to cap, as long as theres a reasonable minimum I'd be happy.

                  We don't need any Florida Marlins type teams in the NFL who are paying their entire team less than what a few star players are making.....I like the competitive balance the NFL has going for it and I think it's part of the reason why the NFL has far surpassed the other sports leagues.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by LonghornsLegend View Post
                    Some of that money should be guaranteed, in a sport so violent why shouldn't they get anything guaranteed? If you sign a 5 year deal, and get hurt in the pre-season, and don't play in the regular season, you don't hit on a majority of those incentives and don't play to get your weekly game checks.


                    Teams can also cut a guy from a contract any given time. How fair is that, a team can release you from a contract well before it's up, but a player gets nothing guaranteed?


                    That puts all the power in the wrong hands, and leaves the players liable to way too much risk. Guaranteed contracts should have a cap on them, especially rookies more then anything, but it would be bogus to have none.
                    i didn't mean don't guarantee money at all. Just continue to structure contracts the way they are structured now, with some guaranteed money, and the rest based on incentives in the contract.

                    The current system in place is fine, as long as they implement a rookie cap to it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I would give playing any part of the 2011 season with real NFL players and not scabs only about a 50% chance of happening. There will be a long lockout, that is almost assured. The owners are asking for huge changes which will take millions out of the player's pockets and they are indeed counting on the player's short career to force a settlement in their favour. However, when people are pushed too far, sometimes they fight back no matter the cost and the players know this is a crucial CBA which will set standards for pay for years to come. Football is the most injury prone sport with short careers and yet the players are the poorest paid of any professional sport and the owners may find themselves having miscalculated the player's determination, if so, the 2011 season may be nothing but a year of scabs and a meaningless Super Bowl.
                      And proud of it!!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If I had to put a number on it, I'd say its about 40-50% likely there will be a lockout, which pisses me off. As many have already said, the owners have basically all the leverage, and as BBD perfectly put it, the player's union is flexing muscles they don't have. The only possible way the player's union can gain leverage is by public opinion, but do the owners care? NO, so its just perceived leverage, but when it comes to negotiations, representatives for the owners are going to laugh when it is brought up. It is defintiely possible there will be at least a portion of the 2011 season without the players we are familiar with, but my hope is that the players are willing to give up enough so that the lockout will be eliminated or very minimal. Keep in mind both the owners and the player's union are trying for 18 game seasons (with only 2 preseason games), and because of it, part of the CBA will increase players contracts (if they decide on this change), which may make the player's union a little more likely to proceed. The owner's as well, because despite increased player salaries, the owners would still be making a lot more profit.
                        Nanna Bryndís Hilmarsdóttir is a goddess

                        Rest in Peace, themaninblack

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Iamcanadian View Post
                          I would give playing any part of the 2011 season with real NFL players and not scabs only about a 50% chance of happening. There will be a long lockout, that is almost assured. The owners are asking for huge changes which will take millions out of the player's pockets and they are indeed counting on the player's short career to force a settlement in their favour. However, when people are pushed too far, sometimes they fight back no matter the cost and the players know this is a crucial CBA which will set standards for pay for years to come. Football is the most injury prone sport with short careers and yet the players are the poorest paid of any professional sport and the owners may find themselves having miscalculated the player's determination, if so, the 2011 season may be nothing but a year of scabs and a meaningless Super Bowl.
                          That would be infuriating. My city has spent so much on getting and setting up for the '11 SB already. I'd rather just have a lost season so Indy can go back into the pool for a SB in '15 or something.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by killxswitch View Post
                            That would be infuriating. My city has spent so much on getting and setting up for the '11 SB already. I'd rather just have a lost season so Indy can go back into the pool for a SB in '15 or something.
                            I can see why that would bother you, but honestly, I'd miss football too much to not have a whole season of it. Even with CFB, part of my ritual is football on Sundays. I'd miss it too much, and even if it would be a bunch of scrubs, I would still watch it simply because football is that "important", for lack of a better word, to me.
                            Nanna Bryndís Hilmarsdóttir is a goddess

                            Rest in Peace, themaninblack

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'd still watch scrubs fwiw....

                              I've said it before and I'll say it again, I don't think we see lockout. Many good reasons for both sides have been covered in this thread so far, but I think as the clock ticks down on the end of this league year, something will be reached to keep the good players playing and the games going.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information