A. Brandt of NFP outlines his guess at new CBA

[MoLewisrocks]

So you think there is a deal to be made here?

I do. It will be pegged off of the most recent Cap number -- $128 million ($123 million with a $5 million adjustment due to the uncapped year). And I think the deal will include the following:

Small year-to-year increases from that $128 million 2009 Cap number and the continuation of the Cap
An18 game season to be implemented in 2012.
Upgraded health benefits, injury protection and post-career medical coverage.
An independent appeals process for drug testing but not for personal conduct.
Greater recovery rights of bonus money paid to players who get into trouble.
The continued application of the Franchise tag.
A rookie salary scale dramatically reducing pay for top picks with savings directed to benefits and salary for active and retired players.
Incentives for owners who maximize marketing and ancillary income for their franchises.
Increased funding to retired player programs from both sides.

There is a deal to be made here. And I think it will be made. The better question is when.

He also thinks the 18 game schedule is a done deal for 2012 because it is the only way to grow the pie and the pie size positively impacts both sides. Thinks there will be accommodations made for safety like in season IR, expanded rosters and expanded game day actives and shorter camps. Doesn't address impact that will have on development.

Also opines that UFA will revert to 4 years, however rightly notes that that may not be a panacea for the large number of FA that would result this year due to the loss of FA for so many last season given the return of the cap.




NFL Labor pains, part six | National Football Post

 

[Fencer]

My hunch (and I have a certain small amount of professional expertise in the negotiation area) is that the 18 game season is already a fixed point, and so is the owners' obligation to make fair compensation for the effect that has on player health.

By the way, if rosters were expanded by 1/8, the average number of minutes played by a player per season would be unchanged. To the extent you say "Average/schmaverage -- the effect on various players is unequal", the ones who get screwed are the well-paid stars who are sent out for as many snaps as they can endure, and the ones who benefit are the end-of-roster guys.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

pie size increases for owners, not so much for players if it prematurely cuts a players career down from 8 to years for example. a longer season puts more wear and tear on every player. gotta think running backs would have an even shorter career. less years playing mean less money

 

[MoLewisrocks]

As the pie increases the contracts will. The rookie scale will funnel more to the legit stars and starters in their prime as well as veterans teams will be more inclined to hang on to as end of roster guys as development of those guys becomes more of a crap shoot. You may see players retiring a couple of years sooner but in time that will be balanced against they'll have made as much or more (and at least they'll have better benefits finally...).

It's not what I would do. But the fact is it's not a make or break issue for the union. They will holler a bit for show, and some of the more thoughtful vets like our QB will highlight the pitfalls, but rank and file remain $$$ driven and hate camp and pre season and playing for meal money. They will see it ultimately as a shot at bigger checks and earlier retirement to enjoy the fruits of their labor. And the union and agents will see it as expanded ranks. You'll see agents competing for second contract guys like they compete for top 10 draft picks now...

 

[Fencer]

Owners seem to have won on the "More valuable work or less pay -- you choose" initial argument.

Given that they seemed to cave in the last negotiation, I'm not going to sit here and say it's wrong that they won this time.

 

[JSn]

What is "In Season IR"?

 

[skinnydog]

Too bad on the 18 game schedule. The current Season with the bye week is long enough. I'd rather see another bye week added if they're looking another week of TV revenue. The extra money to the players will be quickly used up by the expanded rosters. And in a couple years when overall revenues stall again, what then. A 20 game schedule?? I'm pretty devoted to watching Football on Sundays, but I think I'll be passing on more games and doing other thing on weekends.

 

[Sciz]

What is "In Season IR"?

I assume an IR that doesn't end a player's season.

 

[JSn]

I assume an IR that doesn't end a player's season.

That's kinda what I guessed, but it seems like it would be abused to stash players.

 

[Sciz]

That's kinda what I guessed, but it seems like it would be abused to stash players.

Belichick would find a way. He always does!

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

That's kinda what I guessed, but it seems like it would be abused to stash players.

Thats possible, but that could backfire also. If it was a limited amount of slots, and a team stashes a marginal player there, they lose that slot. Then if a starter gets a 10 week injury..they are screwed. As long as its implemented with very narrow rules, it could work.

 

[Aßßynormal]

That's kinda what I guessed, but it seems like it would be abused to stash players.

Yeah, that's okay with me. My interest is in the players we stash, not the other 31 teams.

 

[Fencer]

Roster + PS + season-ending IR + non-season-ending IR = how many guys get paid

Roster + PS + non-season-ending IR = how many guys can play

Having an alternative to season-ending-IR might reduce the number of jobs that would otherwise exist. That might be OK if the number of jobs is basically being boosted via roster expansion.

 

[mgteich]

I would add that we will have an in-season IR (some IR players can come back) and a 56 man roster.

Of course, the bidg sticking point is NOT between the players and the owners. The owners need to decide how much to help the financially weak teams. Socialism doesn't come easily to billionaires.

He also thinks the 18 game schedule is a done deal for 2012 because it is the only way to grow the pie and the pie size positively impacts both sides. Thinks there will be accommodations made for safety like in season IR, expanded rosters and expanded game day actives and shorter camps. Doesn't address impact that will have on development.

Also opines that UFA will revert to 4 years, however rightly notes that that may not be a panacea for the large number of FA that would result this year due to the loss of FA for so many last season given the return of the cap.




NFL Labor pains, part six | National Football Post

 

[DaBruinz]

What is "In Season IR"?

Probably means that they would revert to how the IR used to be when a player could return after 4 weeks. My guess is that it will be either 5 or 6 weeks with an 18 game schedule.

 

[DaBruinz]

That's kinda what I guessed, but it seems like it would be abused to stash players.

How can you "stash players" when you still have a salary cap and a limited number of spots that can be used as an active roster?

 

[moosekill]

How can you "stash players" when you still have a salary cap and a limited number of spots that can be used as an active roster?

You are sort of asking questions that no one on here has a clue how to answer, since the article is speculation to begin with.

But, I would assume an in season IR would allow you to add an extra player to the roster for the time the original player is on the IR, he wouldn't be counted. Let's say it is for 6 games, coming out of training camp you could store a rookie on the ir to in effect, learn the system more, while you keep a player with more limited upside but more "now" ability to help the team.

Plus I love watching football every week, extending the season by oh lets say 3 weeks would make me happy.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

On the brighter side, Light seems to think a new CBA is a no brainer and the only problem is the lawyers. This is comical considering he made his comments right after having a discussion with the DC lawyer his fellow players reps chose to entrust their end of the bargaining to... De the "warlord" will be thrilled with these comments... LOL

Following the AFC’s Pro Bowl practice today, Patriots player rep Matt Light was seen huddled with Union head DeMaurice Smith, who made the trek to Hawaii. After that session, I asked Light if he still had confidence a lockout could be avoided.

”(The game is) too good for everybody to let it get to a bad point,” Light said. ”I think at the end of the day, I think we all realize football needs to happen . . . They’re going to make the right decisions, and we’re going to get it done.

Light said it’s just a matter of tossing the “lawyers aside” and getting to the heart of the real issues.

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive Live from Honolulu: Pats player rep Matt Light still has faith a lockout will be avoided

 

[Spiral]

Let me get this straight:

Cap will stay in place. Smaller increases than in previous years.
18-game season.
Rookie wage scale.
Franchise tage remains in place.

All the other items are throw-downs. Why would the players accept such an agreement?

 

[DaBruinz]

You are sort of asking questions that no one on here has a clue how to answer, since the article is speculation to begin with.

But, I would assume an in season IR would allow you to add an extra player to the roster for the time the original player is on the IR, he wouldn't be counted. Let's say it is for 6 games, coming out of training camp you could store a rookie on the ir to in effect, learn the system more, while you keep a player with more limited upside but more "now" ability to help the team.

Plus I love watching football every week, extending the season by oh lets say 3 weeks would make me happy.

A player on IR still has a CAP hit. While he may not count against the roster, there is still money there being taken up and that is less money to go around..