Casey D

Because the Dallas guys were known as the Triplets. Not so much the Buffalo guys.

And read the NY Times piece posted on the front page. Talk about daylight and dark in the writing and thinking of the Times guy as compared to Sully. I mean wow... CD I think the use of the word bare is quite strained. No one bares a chip on their shoulder-- they wear it. I think you were right in your original post-- IMO.

There is also risk in tying up money in guys who have not proven themselves--then you are stuck with bad players with big contracts. How about the Jauron deal--did you like that? Most people are saying Fitzpatrick is not very good, not a franchise guy. If that's true, why give him a franchise guy contract. You can't have it both ways-- which is what Sullivan is trying to do. There is no free ride on these kinds of things. The Bills have been, lately, paying for performance-- e.g, Williams, Roscoe, Kelsay(perhaps misguided)etc. They have cap room to pay the guys they want to keep--smart planning there(just luck of course, because Ralph is cheap). Right now they are still trying to determine if Fitz can be the guy for 5 plus years, and Johnson a true #1(again with people complaining about trading Evans because now we don't have a #1 receiver). You can't say guys suck and then say we should have given them long term expensive contracts(well you can say it, but it does not make walkin around sense) Dime to donuts if these guys shine through 8 weeks-- they'll be given nice raises and will stay long term. And you are right, it may cost a bit more, but you also have more certainty on what you are paying for.

Actually, my point was that if my name is on something, it won't fly for me to say that it was someone else's job as an excuse. Sullivan is a nitpicker-- sauce for the goose and all that. My main point was simply that Sullivan in an instant flipped from "the team sucks and has no talent because it is being run by bean counters and we won't sign free agents" to "wow look at all these guys that we are underpaying." Now the team is bad because it won't pay it's star players? It's utterly inconsistent, and illustrates that complaining for complaining's sake is the theme. If you don't get it, that's OK. Your invective sounds like him by the way.

Of course. But if I used that excuse at my job, I'd be fired. It's got your name it, you own it. Fix it now at least.

Wow, for a guy who casts lots of stones, you'd think Jerry Sullivan could avoid a typo in the banner of his story. And after complaining for years that the team has no talent, he's complaining that the Bills suck for not paying their players more. I know consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but he's actually getting paid to do this sh#t? I mean there should be talk shows analyzing writers like we do sports, he'd be a major fail on this one--can't proofread and pivots on a dime with no apologies after one decent game. I think we should send out Jerry Seinfeld to heckle him.

Some people refuse to accept the fact that multiple factors can go into these decisions. If Evans or Hangartner is only marginally better than the alternative, then of course the fact that the guy makes, relatively speaking, a lot of money is a reason to go with the almost as good cheaper guy. This is especially true if the cheaper guy is viewed to have upside, and the higher paid guy is in decline. It also helps that Evans fetched a draft pick, which is coin of the realm in Nix's world. At the end of the day, everyone is both right and wrong vis the decisions to get rid of Evans and Hangartner. Were they worthless players--no. Were they great players-- no. Was Evans better than the alternatives-- yes but he is not a good fit in the current offense. Would Hangartner or Evan get us even one more win--doubtful. Given all this, is saving money, developing younger players and getting a draft pick a reasonable decision while leaving the team a bit weaker short term-- I'd say yes. You can obviously disagree, but this is what happened in my view. That is why the JW NGU debate presented a false dichotomy. They were both right. Just different emphasis in my judgment on money versus performance. End of the day, paying a lot more for something only a little better is not always the right move. CD

Much appreciated. Good stuff that makes sense.

Indeed, they seem to have dropped any request for relief related to the lockout. Their only factual allegations is that the lockout hurts retired players because there are no games and thus no money for them. It is a completely derivative argument, so if the courts can't end the lockout via injunction for active players, then they have no basis to seek the exact same injunction to get active players back to work so there is money for the reitired players. Their lawyers figured the lockout thing for the active players was not going to work in light of the 6/3 hearing, and rebooted.

They are employees--they just have an express written contract rather than the at-will employment contract most folks have and typically is not in writing. If the NFL wanted to go out of business--no antitrust violation. Stupid, but legal. I don't doubt they asked for the relief--but that does not mean it makes any sense. Plaintiffs' lawyers do that all the time. I doubt there is anything is the complaint to explain why they are entitled to such relief.

I don't think the lockout impacts retired players one way or the other. The negotiations impact retired players, but not a lockout--they are not being prevented from working. Draft picks are being prevented from becoming employees by the concerted action of the owners, and NGL(per the 8th circuit) allows them to lockout employees withour court interference but not non-employees, thus the possibility of an injunction to force the owners to deal with draft picks. Of course if they sign a K then they become an employee and can be locked out, as the court observed. If any kind of injunction is pursued or granted, it would be with respect to the draft picks. I mean what would an injunction in favor of retired players force the owners to do vis a lockout-- I mean there is no remedy. That being the case, I don't know what relief the DC could order vis retired players--which sort of proves the standing issue.

I don't think protected is the right word. They could be racking up billions of dollars in damages in locking the players out if it is found to be an antitrust violation. In a certain sense, what the court held today is that if you want to slit your own throat, we won't stop you--but you might have other horrible consequences by doing that. Retired players are not being locked out--they are not employees. And NGL clearly won't allow the DC to interfere with how the NFLPA is doing business. So there will be no injunction. The retired players just want more input into the negotiations and want the court to order they get more input, they don't want to end the lockout, as they are not impacted by the lockout and have no standing They are claiming it is an antitrust violation for NFL and NFLPA to make decisions on their pensions, etc. without a big enough seat at the table--not a challenge to the lockout. It is a very very very weak theory--but it is what it is. Make sense?

Your characterization is exactly right. I think they knew that, and just wanted to clear their docket. The decision is probably wrong too, the dissent has the better analysis-- not that it matters legally.

My pleasure.

To the contrary, the opinion holds that the owners may have to negotiate immediately with rookies because the labor exemption does not extend to non-employees. They may have to negotiate, enter contracts, and then lock out these "new" employees. There really is no win here for the owners, other than they can continue to lockout the players(but not draft picks--maybe--if the district court so decides). But they may be liable for damages for the lockout--so the league still is under pressure to resolve this by agreement.

I read the opinion and that seems unlikely. All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout. But the lawfulness of the lockout under the antitrust laws, and whether the NFL is protected from the antitrust laws by the non-statutory labor exemption remain open questions as the court declined to address these issues. So the NFL still has considerable litigation risk going forward. The Court ruling really keeps the pressure on both sides it seems to me.

Wonderful. Don't have to ask who he is.

It's hard when you follow a giant like George W. Bush.

Excellent questions and points. I think the draft is one of the most interesting issues. It is generally thought that a CBA is needed to have a draft. You are correct that exisiting players may make concessions more readily on rookies because they are not rookies anymore, but even high rookie salaries benefit all players to some degree, as they provide something to point at when veterans are FAs. With a CBA, I think the rookies have no case, even if they may be used a bit by the union. Without a union/CBA, whether a draft would be sustained under the antitrust laws is difficult to predict. Certainly allocating new talent around the league to maintain a fair basis to maintain competitive balance would be a procompetitive benefit for the NFL joint venture to maintain a game product that people will want to watch. On the other hand, as you point out, the restraint on rookie compensation is likely very great--imagine no draft and Andrew Luck auctioned off, followed by all the likely top ten picks. How much would the Jerry Jones and Danny Snyders be willing to spend/throw away on each one of these guys? That is what a rookie lawsuit would argue. But also imagine how that process would likely destroy competitive balance. What do you think is the right answer? I think the players have suggested a new model with a true partnership with the owners amd more sharing of risks and rewards. I think the owners have no interest in that--they want control over their property and are not interested in giving it up. But litigation softens peoples views over time, so we shall see. You have identified the core truism of this dispute from the players' perspective. What you underlined is what the players believe will make the owners retreat and why they decertified and elected to litigate. We shall see if they are correct.

The theory of the players case is simple-- maybe not right, but simple. First, there is a union/labor exemption to the antitrust laws. For purposes here, while there is a union, there can be no antitrust claims due to the exemption. So decertification, if valid, eliminates the exemption and opens the path to litigation. In litigation, the players' theory is that each NFL team is an independent competitor, competing for the services of labor, i.e., the players. No different than if you are an employee in the high tech area, each company is competing for your services with pay and benefit packages. Those competitors cannot collude i.e., agree, with each other on what they will pay employees as it eliminates competition and drives down employees' compensation. The same applies here. Each team arguably would have to compete for each and every player. No draft "allocatin" players(the only reason there can be a draft this year is that it was grandfathered in in the old CBA), no caps, no nothing. More or less a free for all. That is the players' position and certainly result in much higher salries and benefits for some players. The owners have a number of arguments against this. The first trench is that the decertification is a sham so the exemption is still in place. One problem with this for the owners is that in an old CBA(early 1990s) they agreed never to challenge decertification as a sham again. That agreement may not be valid as against public policy--I am not expert on that. If they win on the sham thing, they are in good shape. But even if the labor exemption does not apply-- i.e., no sham is found or the owners waived the right to raise it-- the owners are not devoid of arguments. They will argue the players' position is simplistic and wrong because the NFL is not comprised of 32 individual competitors in an economic sense, but is a joint venture where the well-being of each team is in the other teams' interest in order to have a viable product to sell to fans. Thus you need agreements and rules amongst the teams to ensure competitive balance so the games are entertaining. With a free for all, you might end up with a handful of Harlem Globetrotters and most everyone a Washington General--no chance to compete. If that happens, fan interest falls, the league ultimately collapses. The owners' basic point about needing rules etc, to make the league work is undeniably true--this is a joint venture and it is not the same as say car manufacturers competing.. So the true antitrust issue, setting aside the exemption, is what agreements are needed to have a competitive league and a good product, and which agreements restraining competition on bidding for players go too far. This is evaluated under something called the "rule of reason" where the competitive benefits, i.e, creating a good entertaining product, is balanced against the players' right under the antirust laws to have unfettered bidding for their services. What is reasonable and unreasonable in these circumstances will not be clear cut, it gives lots of room for judges and juries to interpret. Here, Judge Doty is not a great judge for the owners. He tends to see things more the players way if the past is an indicator. To be sure he is held accoutable by appellate courts-- the 8th Circuit and Supreme Court-- but that will be a long an difficult slog for the owners. And I don't know if the owners with big new stadiums can afford the debt service on their stadiums without a season. Doty's earlier ruling that the TV deal that paid them this year violated the players' rights under the CBA is certainly not helping on this point. So the players knew exactly what they were doing when they decertified. My view(and the players too I am sure) is that in court--at least with this judge-- there will be lots of rulings that pressure the owners to settle--but that's just my view as it is hard to predict how a judge will see things. If the owners can hold out long term, they may be OK when the comptitive rules are evaluated fully by multiple courts, but my bet is they can't take that much time and that you will see a settlement where the players come out better than the owners--likely in late Spring or Summer. Hope that helps.. CD

He was terrible against a solid BC defense in the Fight Hunger Bowl in SF. If he plays like that against a good college defense, he has light years to go to play against NFL defenses. I would be shocked if he went in the first two rounds.

The picks rotate in each round between the three 4-11 teams. So in round 2, Buffalo picks second, Cin third and Denver 4th. In round 3, Cin picks second, Denver 3rd and Buffalo 4th. 4th Round repeats round 1. And so on. Hope that helps.. CD

Merry Christmas!

How do you know if "he's" available? Will that first round QB be a Kelly or a Manning, or a Joey Harrington, David Carr, Heath Shuler, JeMarcus Russell, JP Losman, Ryan Leaf, Brady Quinn, etc., etc. If what you have is good at QB, do you build a supporting cast on defense etc, or gamble on that elusive "franchise QB." If you are absolutely sure, for example, that Luck will be another Manning(Peyton, not Eli)or Brady(a 6th round pick of course)and not a backup like his Dad, then go for it. But you'd better be right, when there are so many areas of need, and you seem to have a capable QB who is just turning 28, and might continue to improve, as many QBs do, with time. At bottom, it's a crapshoot either way.

What does that mean Yoda?