Branch, Graham, Samuel, Koppen, and others and CBA

[Isaac]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 6-year rule for unrestricted free agency (instead of 4) goes into effect, doesn't it mean that the Patriots will be able to keep these players longer? That's huge, and could affect the Patriots ability/willingness to sign Givens if they aren't concerned about Branch in the near future

2002 Draft
- Branch: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2007
- Graham: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2007

2003 Draft
- Warren: signed thru 2008, no effect
- Wilson: signed thru 2007, rights thru 2008?
- Johnson: signed thru 2007, rights thru 2008?
- Samuel: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2008?
- Koppen: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2008?

 

[mgteich]

Wouldn't it also mean that Givens is NOT a free agent?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 6-year rule for unrestricted free agency (instead of 4) goes into effect, doesn't it mean that the Patriots will be able to keep these players longer? That's huge, and could affect the Patriots ability/willingness to sign Givens if they aren't concerned about Branch in the near future

2002 Draft
- Branch: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2007
- Graham: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2007

2003 Draft
- Warren: signed thru 2008, no effect
- Wilson: signed thru 2007, rights thru 2008?
- Johnson: signed thru 2007, rights thru 2008?
- Samuel: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2008?
- Koppen: signed thru 2006, rights thru 2008?

 

[Isaac]

Wouldn't it also mean that Givens is NOT a free agent?

No, it kicks in after 2006. I'm not sure what happens after 2007: if there is no CBA, what is there?

 

[dryheat44]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 6-year rule for unrestricted free agency (instead of 4) goes into effect, doesn't it mean that the Patriots will be able to keep these players longer? That's huge, and could affect the Patriots ability/willingness to sign Givens if they aren't concerned about Branch in the near future

Branch would probably be a restricted free agent, which means they should be concerned about signing him to an extension regardless, because he'll either get signed to an offer sheet, or sign his RFA tender which could get very inflationary very quickly.

 

[dryheat44]

Wouldn't it also mean that Givens is NOT a free agent?

My guess is that Givens, and other players with expiring contracts, would still be free agents. If the player is under contract, then he's SOL.

 

[mgteich]

If there is no CBA by March 2008, then there is a strike in 2008. This gives everyone two full years to negotiate. Obviously the CBA was set up to avoid such last minute negotiations. The Agreement anticpates settlement of a new arrangement in the next couple of days. If not, it provides the two years until a new CBA is really needed.

No, it kicks in after 2006. I'm not sure what happens after 2007: if there is no CBA, what is there?

 

[Isaac]

If there is no CBA by March 2008, then there is a strike in 2008. This gives everyone two full years to negotiate. Obviously the CBA was set up to avoid such last minute negotiations. The Agreement anticpates settlement of a new arrangement in the next couple of days. If not, it provides the two years until a new CBA is really needed.

Right, so then this rule doesn't really affect Wilson and Johnson (assuming 2008 is unaffected one way or the other), but it does seem to give us RFA rights in 2007 over Branch, Graham, Samuel, and Koppen.

 

[DaBruinz]

If there is no CBA by March 2008, then there is a strike in 2008. This gives everyone two full years to negotiate. Obviously the CBA was set up to avoid such last minute negotiations. The Agreement anticpates settlement of a new arrangement in the next couple of days. If not, it provides the two years until a new CBA is really needed.

Actually, MG, Upshaw already has been getting the ball rolling to get the Union decertified in the event that there isn't a CBA extension. That would prevent the owners from locking out the players for the 2007 season. However, the downside to this is that if the players decertify, then they can't strike.

What Upshaw failed to acknowledge is that the Owners could, theoretically, lock out the players THIS YEAR because of a lack of an extended labor agreement.

Also, I wish the owners had the balls to tell Upshaw that they were willing to use the Gross Revenue formula, but that the players would be expected to cover their share of the expenses regarding doctors, trainers, and facility upkeep and such. You want to see the players start whining? Make them pay for all the perks they get.

 

[pats1]

Perillo said on the Big Show today that this only applies to players drafted in 2003 or after, but I don't know if that was by rule or by pure numbers (2002+6 = 2008 = too early?)

 

[dryheat44]

Actually, MG, Upshaw already has been getting the ball rolling to get the Union decertified in the event that there isn't a CBA extension. That would prevent the owners from locking out the players for the 2007 season. However, the downside to this is that if the players decertify, then they can't strike.

What Upshaw failed to acknowledge is that the Owners could, theoretically, lock out the players THIS YEAR because of a lack of an extended labor agreement.

Also, I wish the owners had the balls to tell Upshaw that they were willing to use the Gross Revenue formula, but that the players would be expected to cover their share of the expenses regarding doctors, trainers, and facility upkeep and such. You want to see the players start whining? Make them pay for all the perks they get.

If the Union de-certifies, then there's no need to hash out a CBA, is there? You can't collectively bargain an agreement with a non-entity, can you?

 

[DaBruinz]

If the Union de-certifies, then there's no need to hash out a CBA, is there? You can't collectively bargain an agreement with a non-entity, can you?

Exactly. It would mean the end of Upshaw's job. But it would probably land the NFL in court with anti-trust suits filed by the players.

Personally, if it did, I'd LOVE to be on that jury... because the players wouldn't like it one bit.

 

[AzPatsFan]

If there is no CBA by March 2008, then there is a strike in 2008. This gives everyone two full years to negotiate. Obviously the CBA was set up to avoid such last minute negotiations. The Agreement anticpates settlement of a new arrangement in the next couple of days. If not, it provides the two years until a new CBA is really needed.

Mg,

I knew there had to be someone else who wasn't running around like Chicken Little and crying that the sky is falling.

It stilltwo years until the CBA expires, and before the NFLPA could creditably begin to argue that the revenue sharing agreement amongst the owners is monopolistic. Add a year for litigation to get up to a high enough Court and realistically we are in 2009 before football changes appreciably.

As long as the owners can maintain revenue sharing amongst themselves they can enforce a psuedo-cap and maintain that somewhat looser cap, meanwhile competiveness in the League won't change much.

In short, it a long time before really worrying and its a hoot to watch the poorly managed clubs go through hell.

As I said elsewhere,,,

"Its GREAT to be a fna of a high revenue team that is UNDER the cap. It sure is wonderful to have dough and the room to spend it."

After a little while, the panic will start and the buyer's market will develop in to a enormous Bargain hunter's time as Fire Sales are conducted on a lot of pretty good merchandise...