2009-10 NFL off season thread

[Saintsfan]

Don't know if it's been discussed but what about this deal where NFL has declared that if 2010 is an uncapped year, none of the top eight teams can sign a free agent unless they lose one? What complete BS.

Is that just a bargaining chip to get a new CBA? I think it does press at least 8 owners into wanting a new CBA pretty sharpish.

[BBTV]

Don't know if it's been discussed but what about this deal where NFL has declared that if 2010 is an uncapped year, none of the top eight teams can sign a free agent unless they lose one? What complete BS.

Is that just a bargaining chip to get a new CBA? I think it does press at least 8 owners into wanting a new CBA pretty sharpish.

Absolutely not.

Most owners are smart enough to think about the long term, and won't be pressured into agreeing to something that they don't believe in just so that they can sign a free agent or two. The only ones who might cave would be the ones who's clubs are near the bottom of the revenue chain.

[Saintsfan]

Don't know if it's been discussed but what about this deal where NFL has declared that if 2010 is an uncapped year, none of the top eight teams can sign a free agent unless they lose one? What complete BS.

Is that just a bargaining chip to get a new CBA? I think it does press at least 8 owners into wanting a new CBA pretty sharpish.

Absolutely not.

Most owners are smart enough to think about the long term, and won't be pressured into agreeing to something that they don't believe in just so that they can sign a free agent or two. The only ones who might cave would be the ones who's clubs are near the bottom of the revenue chain.

Fair points, but the whole CBA thing has been rumbling on for a while now, and I get the feeling the Goodell wants it sorted, perhaps by adding a bit of pressure, he can get the owners to sign up to some sort of agreement, at least in the short term. There is a clear advantage for 8 owners to get something sorted now, and a clear message to all the teams that going forward without a CBA will have disadvantages.

[BBTV]

Don't know if it's been discussed but what about this deal where NFL has declared that if 2010 is an uncapped year, none of the top eight teams can sign a free agent unless they lose one? What complete BS.

Is that just a bargaining chip to get a new CBA? I think it does press at least 8 owners into wanting a new CBA pretty sharpish.

Absolutely not.

Most owners are smart enough to think about the long term, and won't be pressured into agreeing to something that they don't believe in just so that they can sign a free agent or two. The only ones who might cave would be the ones who's clubs are near the bottom of the revenue chain.

Fair points, but the whole CBA thing has been rumbling on for a while now, and I get the feeling the Goodell wants it sorted, perhaps by adding a bit of pressure, he can get the owners to sign up to some sort of agreement, at least in the short term. There is a clear advantage for 8 owners to get something sorted now, and a clear message to all the teams that going forward without a CBA will have disadvantages.

Goodell is the owners. The owners put that clause in the last CBA as a way of maintaining at least some semblance of competitive balance in the uncapped year. The uncapped year was both sides' idea as a way of applying pressure to each one - the players not wanting the added restrictions on movement, while the owners not wanting the prospect of the cap going away all together. Remember, this hurts the players as much as the owners. There are 8 fewer teams bidding for their services.

There is no going forward without a CBA - that's why it's called a CBA. Without one, you have a lockout and no games. It's in nobody's best interest for that to happen.

[Saintsfan]

Don't know if it's been discussed but what about this deal where NFL has declared that if 2010 is an uncapped year, none of the top eight teams can sign a free agent unless they lose one? What complete BS.

Is that just a bargaining chip to get a new CBA? I think it does press at least 8 owners into wanting a new CBA pretty sharpish.

Absolutely not.

Most owners are smart enough to think about the long term, and won't be pressured into agreeing to something that they don't believe in just so that they can sign a free agent or two. The only ones who might cave would be the ones who's clubs are near the bottom of the revenue chain.

Fair points, but the whole CBA thing has been rumbling on for a while now, and I get the feeling the Goodell wants it sorted, perhaps by adding a bit of pressure, he can get the owners to sign up to some sort of agreement, at least in the short term. There is a clear advantage for 8 owners to get something sorted now, and a clear message to all the teams that going forward without a CBA will have disadvantages.

Goodell is the owners. The owners put that clause in the last CBA as a way of maintaining at least some semblance of competitive balance in the uncapped year. The uncapped year was both sides' idea as a way of applying pressure to each one - the players not wanting the added restrictions on movement, while the owners not wanting the prospect of the cap going away all together. Remember, this hurts the players as much as the owners. There are 8 fewer teams bidding for their services.

There is no going forward without a CBA - that's why it's called a CBA. Without one, you have a lockout and no games. It's in nobody's best interest for that to happen.

Fair enough.

There does seem to be an awful lot of trouble getting this CBA sorted. Is there any particular reason for that, this time around? Surely at least some of the owners can't risk a strike? Surely at least some owners would be risking the future of there team without that revenue?

[dfwabel]

Let's see (here are three):

1-A new NFLPA Exec. Director (the first in over two decades).

2-A rookie pay scale.

3-Pension funding

[BBTV]

Don'tknow if it's been discussed but what about this deal where NFL hasdeclared that if 2010 is an uncapped year, none of the top eight teamscan sign a free agent unless they lose one? What complete BS.

Is that just a bargaining chip to get a new CBA? I think it does press at least 8 owners into wanting a new CBA pretty sharpish.

Absolutely not.

Mostowners are smart enough to think about the long term, and won't bepressured into agreeing to something that they don't believe in just sothat they can sign a free agent or two. The only ones who might cave would be the ones who's clubs are near the bottom of the revenue chain.

Fairpoints, but the whole CBA thing has been rumbling on for a while now,and I get the feeling the Goodell wants it sorted, perhaps by adding abit of pressure, he can get the owners to sign up to some sort ofagreement, at least in the short term. There is a clear advantage for 8owners to get something sorted now, and a clear message to all theteams that going forward without a CBA will have disadvantages.

Goodell is the owners. The ownersput that clause in the last CBA as a way of maintaining at least somesemblance of competitive balance in the uncapped year. The uncappedyear was both sides' idea as a way of applying pressure to each one -the players not wanting the added restrictions on movement, while theowners not wanting the prospect of the cap going away alltogether. Remember, this hurts the players as much as theowners. There are 8 fewer teams bidding for their services.

Thereis no going forward without a CBA - that's why it's called aCBA. Without one, you have a lockout and no games. It's in nobody'sbest interest for that to happen.

Fair enough.

Theredoes seem to be an awful lot of trouble getting this CBA sorted. Isthere any particular reason for that, this time around? Surely at leastsome of the owners can't risk a strike? Surely at least some ownerswould be risking the future of there team without that revenue?

The players want a bigger chunk of the pie, while the owners want to change the definition of pie.

Ithink the players don't like the fact that their contracts aren'tguaranteed (though they don't seem to complain about the big signingbonuses!). Also, the cap is based on a percentage of total revenues. The players feel that there is a LOT of revenue that isn't gettingcounted toward that number, while the owners feel that there may be toomuch. The players don't want the franchise tag anymore. The owners(at least the big Northeast owners and Jerry Jones) want to modifyrevenue sharing, which would have a direct impact on how much most ofthe teams can pay players. The owners want some kind of rookie scale,while the players oppose any type of earning restriction (though inthis case I don't get it, because it would make more money available tothe established union members.) Then there's things like pension, andthat other stuff.

Both sides have a lot to gain and lose this time, and honestly, I can see both sides' points.

The only thing that both sides can agree upon is that they haveto get this done somehow, or the league will never be the same. Afterthe uncapped year, it will be near impossible to maintain revenuesharing and a cap, so the league will start to look a lot like MLB IMO.

[The_Admiral]

Start?

[BBTV]

While the big market clubs certainly still maintain an advantage over the smaller market teams, and can exploit that by being creative with contracts and signing bonuses to an extent, the playing field is still much more level in the NFL than MLB. If revenue sharing, salary cap, and non-guaranteed contracts go away, you'll have a league with NYG, NYJ, NE, PHI, DAL, and WAS essentially being the Yankee$ [sic] and Red Sox of the NFL.

[rainmaker17]

Wow...and I thought the NFC East was competitive now! Seriously though, an uncapped NFL will be a sad thing.

[Saintsfan]

I am not arguing in favor of no salary cap or revenue sharing, but a couple of things to remember about the MLB; firstly teams other than the Red Sox and Yankees win titles. Money may be an indicator of the liklehood of success but it's no guarantee of success. Secondly the structure of how players come into the league is very different. The NFL draft is more influential than the MLB draft. I think that the NFL wouldn't entirely become like MLB. I think also the NFL has always welcomed competition and being a competetive league, whilst the MLB has always embraced having dominant teams!!

Personally I think the real concern I would have is the NFL turning into a league similar to the EPL, and that even relatively big teams put themselves into dangerous places, financially! You might create an environment where a team pushes it's financial limits to be competitive and drives itself to the wall!

And then what are you left with? I'll tell you what, government run football teams! And who wants that?

[dfwabel]

More Mess with a SF/Santa Clara stadium

CedarFair owns part of the property which the stadium and parking will lie.

[BlueSky]

NFL.com reporting Cardinals QB Kurt Warner will announce his retirement Friday.

[NJTank]

Knowing Brett Favre he will announce Friday too because he wants to steal Warner's thunder, because #4 must always be the main focus.

[Gary]

NFL.com reporting Cardinals QB Kurt Warner will announce his retirement Friday.

This is the time where Arizona needs to give Leinart a chance to prove himself as a starting Quarterback. Granted the way he played this year wasn't great, but we need to give Leinart a chance to get his own groove with the offense. There is a reason why the Cardinals drafted him as the 10th overall pick a few years ago. Just in case I would draft a Quarterback in this years draft or bring in a veteran to pressure Leinart. If he isn't the guy we at least know. But there should be no excuse when you have a player like Larry Fitzgerald and secondary receivers like Breaston and Doucett.

[Saintsfan]

I don't know what veterans are around this offseason, but I think drafting in a veteran back up might be the direction for the Cardinals. I think drafting a QB early, at least, is not a good way of showing Leinart confidence, but I think that you'd want a decent back up in there. I guess it depends on how highly Whisenhunt and the rest of the Cardinals front office and coaching staff rate Leinart.

[Jigga]

NFL.com reporting Cardinals QB Kurt Warner will announce his retirement Friday.

This is the time where Arizona needs to give Leinart a chance to prove himself as a starting Quarterback. Granted the way he played this year wasn't great, but we need to give Leinart a chance to get his own groove with the offense. There is a reason why the Cardinals drafted him as the 10th overall pick a few years ago. Just in case I would draft a Quarterback in this years draft or bring in a veteran to pressure Leinart. If he isn't the guy we at least know. But there should be no excuse when you have a player like Larry Fitzgerald and secondary receivers like Breaston and Doucett.

Yes, there was a reason why the Cardinals drafted him 10th overall pick a few years ago. That reason was they didn't know he couldn't play the position at the NFL level. Now, they have a few years and a bunch of game tape that prove dude isn't capable of getting it done. They need to move on from the Leinart experiment and get someone who can play QB in the NFL if Kurt Warner hangs it up. I really hope Warner comes back though. He's just freaking great.

[BBTV]

NFL.com reporting Cardinals QB Kurt Warner will announce his retirement Friday.

This is the time where Arizona needs to give Leinart a chance to prove himself as a starting Quarterback. Granted the way he played this year wasn't great, but we need to give Leinart a chance to get his own groove with the offense. There is a reason why the Cardinals drafted him as the 10th overall pick a few years ago. Just in case I would draft a Quarterback in this years draft or bring in a veteran to pressure Leinart. If he isn't the guy we at least know. But there should be no excuse when you have a player like Larry Fitzgerald and secondary receivers like Breaston and Doucett.

When you are as good as the Cardinals are on offense, and if they really feel that they're "close", then you don't turn the reigns over to someone that you just aren't sure about. You bring in Donovan McNabb... and lose in the NFC championship game.

I have to wonder if Warner's announcement just might make Childress put just a little bit of pressure on Favre to make a decision, because the Cardinals could be competition for McNabb. Either way, nothing will probably happen until within a month of the draft, unless something weird goes down.

[rams80]

I don't know what veterans are around this offseason, but I think drafting in a veteran back up might be the direction for the Cardinals. I think drafting a QB early, at least, is not a good way of showing Leinart confidence, but I think that you'd want a decent back up in there. I guess it depends on how highly Whisenhunt and the rest of the Cardinals front office and coaching staff rate Leinart.

If they had sincere confidence in Leinart, Warner would never have gotten the opportunity to win the job in training camp two or three years ago. (I forget which one.)

[Saintsfan]

I do think there could be some decent QB's around late in the first round this year. Seems unlikely to me that many of the top teams will bust a gut to get a QB, although there are teams at the top of the draft board that could do with QB help, a few decent judges seem to have QBs falling down the draft.

Incidentally, is the Eagles getting rid of McNabb thing just BBtV hoping that happens or is there more solid evidence that it could happen? Seems to me that if you have a veteran QB who you know works for your offense, why risk changing that? Even if you wanna push Kolb through, why not hang onto McNabb as a back up that you know can do a job? Seems odd to me that a fan of a team should be so keen to be rid of a QB who has lead his team to a place in the Superbowl, and a period of success in one of the most competitive divisions in the League?