Pyrite Gal

My guess is that Golisano owning the Bills will actually make the NFLPA more powerful for several reasons even a long-winded cuss like me can state briefly. Think about it and feel free to give me the answers why this is likely true and you will win the prize for understanding the economics of the NFL. Feel free to ignore this if you think it is stupid or not worth your valuable time but if you are brave enough to list the several succinct reasons why this likely true I think this is will be interesting. A winner will be picked later or if no one is interested enough to post I will simply put up my rationale,

This notion seems to be conventional wisdom among some of this board. However, the occurencies in the real world ssem to indicate that this complaint is much about folks having a chip on their shoulder and finding some solace in feeling everyone hates them rather than reality. A number of sought after FAs have come to this team instead of going elsewhere. Even better once they came here they performed so for the most part these weren't signings of players who were washed up. These examples include: LB Takeo Spikes- This is the big example as he was seen as clearly the most desirable LB (if not even the most desireable D player on the market that year and he came to Buffalo. He made the Pro Bowl for us twice, an indicator of both performance and popularity around the country and league, allegations of prejudicae against Buffalo did not hurt him. LB Fletcher- signed with the Bills on the first day of FA if I remember and has paid off by being credited with more tackes than anyone in the last 5 years. DT Sam Adams- unfortunately gone, but ame here even though several teams were interested and came here for liower than what was perceived as the market rate for him. SS- Lawyer Milloy- there were not a ton of twans with the cap room to go after this late cut, but there was competition for him and he lookwd at the package offered and talked to former teamamtes and came here. FB Sam Gash - had several suitors and chose to come here to take Centers spot. Kely Holcomb- A quality back-up QB had several suitors after some glitzy performances for Cleveland, but chose to come here, i think cause he figured he could beat out JP. In addition to these prominent players who were in some demand in FA, we also attracted a number of moderate playetrs who actually seemed eager to come here like LB Jeff Posey who I think he signed to come here within the first hours of FA near its midnite start or guys we hung onto like Aaron Schobel who there was a market out there. Definitely there are some players who always had or always wanted to live in the Sunbelt, but I know of few examples of men who were willing to pass up the big $ or perhaps most important a chance to star to go to some other town for less money or to ride the pines because it is warmer there. There are also a few players who want to be in the NYC media market who may choose to go there, but for gosh sakes as forsaken as you think Buffalo maybe, many other NFL cities like Indisnapolis, Kansas City or Pittsburghs are not palatial drawing cards that players are just dying to go to fo the culture. Money and PT talk all the other stuff is just junk and I do not think put us at any unbeatable disadvantage

I know that folks tend to be extreme one way or another on the internet )in many cases to make up for the fact they cannot be extreme at all in real life because their boss or spouse might yell at them), but if ever there was a player where reality cried out foa more balanced nuanced view it is regarding Coy Wire. He is neither as good as folks like GW/JG offered him up as beomg when they foolishly had to utilize him at a position he had never played at any level of organized ball. Other the other hand, he is not as worthless as some claim he is never making a tackle and with no value whatsoever. From watching Wire throughout his career as a pro, this is my sense of his play: 1. Minuses (we might as well start with those as I think he most likely will get an offer from elsewhere of a raise which I hope we do not match. A. Horribly cast and misused as a starting SS. His coverage skills most linked from what I see to an inability to make proper reads as a safety were abominable. B. A bit undiciplined at time with the hit making him look like a moden version of Kurt Schulz. C. Never makes highlight reel plays we expect from an ST stalwart (and actually demand as we were spoiled by the presence of Steve Tasker. 2. Pluses A. Good leadership skills as shown by him being designated by the intelligent and great coach Bobby April as an ST captain. He has been a stalwart in supporting local not for profits. B. Has no fear of making a big hit (though as I mentioned has sometimes shown a lack of discipline about it that has led to some bad misses fortunately to little bad impact on ST). C. Actually has more speed than folks give this white guy credit for and definitiely has that constant motor the Bills liked. D. A lot of experience on ST which should not be discounted after we lost a playoff game onm the Homerun Throw-up cause young ST folks did not stay in their lanes. Overall, Wire logged a lot of PT with an ST unit which was very successful. He appears to be a nice guy with character which is reasonably not to be confused with on field performance, but also should not be discounted on a team where charcter and sommitment were sometimes issues. Can Wire be replaced with another player? Yes, he certainly can. The fact that he has shown little production and a bunch of pass coverage mistakes as a position player and has made mistakes and sometimes shown a lack of disciplined play on the field (such as his rouighing the kicker penalty against Cincy a couple of years back) means a more solid player should be findble. Has a credible replacement for Wire been suggested by anyone bitchin about him? Not that I have seen (but I have not read everything). Look, if Wire stays at little or no raise I have no problem with that. he has been an often used player on a very sucessful ST and that is simply the reality. If the market offers him a big raise then I wish him well and ask him not to let the door hit him on the way out. However, if we can get him for about the same cap hit (particularly with the cap going way up) I have no problem keeping him and having the coaches work wuth him to impove the coverage part of his game if he pressed into service in his back-up role and to translate the leadership that he has shown on the team and in the community into consistent disciplined play and even a few plys worthy of the highlight reel. He is no where near the player we originally hoped for, but certainly a part of this was his inappropriate usage on the GW led team (where both he an the on paper talented Raion Hill simply proved not be up to the Blaine Bishop performance needed from the SS in a GW D and the poor training and development he received at the hands of the GW led crew. I think he can be replaced (unfortunately his replacement is not on the team as other ST stalwarts alteady have roles and folks like Haggan are not fast enough or Aiken is not hitter enough) Anyone can complain and whine about him, but the thing that would actually make a post of him useful is identification of a player worth t to pick-up to replace. his body will not be someone drafted because they have no experienc. Spending cap money on ab ST player is probably not the best use if funds, but if somone can identify a player who can actually lead and whose play on coverage and returns merits the occaisional highlight footage, then this type of player may be worth the exoenditure that Wore does not merit.

In some ways this a vote of confidence in Biron who must as a pro athlete have his heart and mind be a little bruised after being bested by a better goal tender. Darcy coulda/shoulda made a speech to Biron that this made tbis move because during this sprint to the finish with the compacted Olympics driven schedule they plan to play him a lot and expect little or drop-off from Miller's superior play when he is in there. Whe playoff time comes they hope and expect to go with Miller every night so Biron should be under no illusion. However, there is an expectation and demand that Miller is play like the first rounder he is and if he gets hurt (as has already happened, or has a production outage we do not expect from him, the Sabres eant to be ready to have a G capable of making a run for the Cup. The team is confident that Biron is the man for this pivotal job. If Regier offers this up, Biron can pout and throw a hissy fit if he wants (I actually doubt he will) but he was simply beaten out by a performing G and he and everyone else knows it so he only hurts himself by complaining, particularly if he lets complaints interfere with his play.

Its tough though because actually the good ol American way is every person for themselves, cavest emptor and let the buyer beware. Pensions are part of our system de facto, but a different kind of pension than the European collective model but one which is an American free-market negotiation model. Pensions are part of our system, but generally only based on what the employer and employee negotiate. If Joe D and Smerla were members of the NFLPA at the time then there is no obligation to them beyond what they negotiated in exchange for their play at the time. If there was no NFLPA at the time, then there is no obligation under out system, though the current NFLPA can profit from taking care of these old men in building a more effective collective. Either way, whikle Joe D and Smerlas have every right as Americans to B word about it, they have no right either under a social contract like the CBA or a natural right to get the result they are bitching and moaning about.

If Moulds and his agent were smart they negotiated a somewhat substantial roster bonus for Moulds which kicks in now, before the draft, or before June 1 to force the Bills to decide whether to keep or cut him so that he enters the marketplace before other potential suitors nail down deals. While we do have good public information on the amounts of contracts as theNFL/NFLPA publich info to keep track of their "partners" we often do not kno the exact dates of those payments. For example a roster bonus for Ruben Brown neither we nor the press knew about led to him being cut sooner than we expected. If we can keep Moulds as long as we can before cutting him it makes the most sense for us. In addition, though he rejected two cut proposals, things are different now with the CBA in place and if the market or other factors make both sides want to negotiate a cut it can happen though i doubt it will.

It MAY not be far that the players today are getting a ton of $ while the guys who did the same thing in yesteryear get far less than the newbies or less than the pensions in other sports. However, life is not fair. That is just the fact. However, there are other reasons besides fairness that the current players should want part of the wealth they are accumulating to go toward pensions. 1. Paying pensions to the oldsters now sets a precedent and set up a system which current players will be able to take advantage of when they are older. 2. Paying pensions builds the NFLPA into an institution and puts current players into a system where they are expected to sacrifice for the collective rather than simply make all they can right now for themselves. The promise that you are part of a group that takes care of its own in older age it is to be hoped makes current players more willing to take risks like the one the NFLPA just took in CBA negotiation even though if they had failed marginal current players would have been most at risk. I think the nFLPA knows this an in terms of building an effective fighting force that can remained unified when negotiating with team owners is key. Lack of unity was why the NFLPA got creamed in the mid-80s as team owners were able to use replacement players to create dissent and dispute within the NFLPA which force them back to work. Lack of unity was a killer for the team owners this time as divisions between the higher revenue and lower revenue clubs made it impossible for them to withstand the demands of the NFLPA. Still Joe D and Fred Smerlas' claims are reduced to little more than whining because even 900+ a month for sitting at home doing nothing is a very sweet deal. If the NFLPA existed when they were players and they did not set up the pension system then with defined % benefits for retirees which escalated along with increased income today then they screwed up and the small payments are their fault. If the NFLPA and the pension system did not exist when they were players, then they really have no reasoable expectation or obligation to them that they are going to be sent a check each month for doing nothing. Its good that today's players are doing anything for the oldsters since they have no obligation, If Smerlas or Joe D feels it is too little money or an insulting check then they should send it back rather than whining about this charitable act.

Cliff notes begin: This particular lengthy reply goes into detail about what cash over cash means using a Billsworld example. I believe it tracks the shorter defitintion above. Iwent to this length because the economics of the NFL are so complicated for me that it helps me understand it to try to explain it. I also figured that some others who are interested by still confused by the buzz phrases might benefit from a more detailed explanation. Finally, some of this may be incorrect either due to typos or my own misunderstanding of the economics. I appreciate any corrections that folks can make to this salvo. Cliff notes end Another way of phrasing the same thing is that the important thing to remember about the bonus is that it must be paid to the player up front but for purposes of calculating the cap hit it can be prorated (its value spread) over the lifetime of the contract. Thus, lets say the Bills provide RJ with a contract with a total value of $25 million over 5 years. A simple way to figure the cap hit (let;s call this calculation #1)would be to divide 25 by 5 for a cap hit of $5 million annually, but this would be incorrect. The actual amount of money he gets varies each year because of the terms of the contract. Let's say he gets a $8 million bonus paid up front and divide the remaing salary over the 5 years ($3.4 million/year). This second number is called base salary Another method for figuring out the cap hit (call this calculation #2) would be to say that he got $11.4 million in actual cash his first year so his cap hit would be $11.4 million, and he gets $3.4 million in actual cash his second year so his cap hit would be $3.4 million. However, this is not how the cap is calculated and this would also be incorrect. The way the cap is actually calculated (call this calculation #3) is that the bonus payment he received up front is actually prorated (its value spread) over the life of the contract. Thus each year his calculated cap hit is his base pay + his prorated bonus payment. So, if you divided the $17 million allocated to base pay evenly ($3.4 million) and added that annually to his prorated bonus ($8 million/5 = $1.6 million) giving him a total annual cap hit of $5 million. The oddity here is that though the results of calc #1 and calc #3 are the same #1 is incorrect and #3 is correct. The difference is that in the real world base salaries are not distributed evenly each year. By using the method in calc #3 rahther than simply dividing the total contract amount over the total contract length, teams can aggree to the total value a player demands, but vary the payout and thus the cap hit as fits their needs. Thus, teams often will give a player a low base salary but a large bonus because they can then prorate that payment over several years for salary cap calculations. Alternately, in the case of Antoine Winfield with he Vikes for a variety of reasons had a large cap number in his first year to play with. By giving AW a huge base salary they were able to pay him money and get the cap hit out of the way Teams and players will also often agree to make the final year under contract a large base salary payment and by doing so they force the team to make a decision about whether to invest in a player or let him go. Depending upon the risk/figuring of both the player and the team this prod can be advantageous. In fact, both sides have taken to aggreeing to bonus payments scheduled for the off-season which force a team to either fish or cut bait on a player on a schedule which dovetails with free agency. Now, the cash over cap number is important because of cashflow issues and the relative liquidity (meaning how easily wealth can be turned into cash) of teams. Both Ralph and Dan Snyder (or in essence the Bills and the Skins) are rich. However, the Skins are so rich in terms of $ the franchise brings in and so much $ are moving around through the Skins framework that it is a simpler matter for them to pu together the several million dollars in cash needed for a bonus payment to a player. The low revenue Bills on the other hand, have less wealth (fewer assets) than the Skins and also less $ in transit through their system. In order for the Bills to pay out a large bonus, they have to change assets from locked up investments like longer term certificates of deposit which provide greater cash returns than shorter term financial vehicles into cash so they can pay that bonus. Or they can take their ongoing income from selling seats and other profitable items and rather than purchasing financial vehicles which lock up the wealth in exchange for higher yields, they do not invest it but sit on it with the thought of paying it as a bonus quickly. Because the Skins have so much money and make it so quickly this cash they are sitting on figuring they will pay it out soon makes little difference to them. However, for the lower revenue Bills with a snaller cashflow, this cash makes a bigger difference to them as a higher marginal portion of their wealth. As said above (in a far shorter form with far less detail) the cash over cap is the amount of total cash the team is paying out in a give year, even though the salary cap number of that particular year is smaller than that cash outlay because they can prorate the payment over the life of the contract. An example of cash over cap is seen in this RJ example.. Let's say that in the first year of his contract, the Bills cap number consists of his prorated bonus ($1.6 million) + his base salary (we will arbitrarily call that ($1.4 million). In this example the RJ cap hit for his first year is $3 million. However, we paid him an upfront bonus in cash that first year of $8 million making our actual cash payment to him $9.4 million. Thus, in that year we had a payment of $6.4 million over the salary cap. Everyone in the league makes payments such as this one all the time. However, because of their greater wealth and cash flow the Skins do this quite a bit. To some degree they are simply robbing Peter (the future) to pay Paul (the present). However, unless there is some final day of judgment where all accounts come due and are collected, the Skins can routinely pay out bonuses and prorate them into the future. They eventually get into trouble as in this year when they had to renegotiate a ton of contract (more Peter/Paul stuff as they generally converted base salaries contracted for 2006 into bonus payments which could be prorated over the life of the contract- thus their immediate cap hit was lowered) and also hat o cut a number of playerrs like Lavar Arrington). However as the Skins have the wealth to take a hit like curring an Arrington each year, its a much bigger deal and a marginally heavier lift for the Bills to take a hit like Mike Williams. Generally, you see wealthier teams making a lot of large bonus payments compared to a team like the Bills. Because they can afford to do it, their amount of cash laid out versus the salary cap tends to be higher. Yjus lower revenue squad wished to balance the playing field by having higher revenue teams pay into a pool to be redistributed to lower income teams depending upon their ability to lay out cash over their cap amount. Some call it equity while others call it welfare. The Bills would argue thought that the Skins are only able to make the money they do because their is an entire league nationwide to be competed with. In order to be nationwide and because of tradition and reality some of those markets are simply in lower revenue areas, thus redistribution of wealth earned by the Skims is mandated by their desire to produce a competitive product. That' cash over cap.

I should have read your criteria first before making my choice of Roscoe P. I took whipping boy to mean who would be unfairly ragged on by some folks on TSW and actually of the list you provided I judged everyone of them as having been unfairly or incorrectly ragged upon already by folks on TSW. I think Roscoe will do a fine job as a Bill this year, but it does not matter because even if he scores 15 TDs next season there will be whiners here saying he should be cut because he did produce a TD/game average. In general I think our selection/need of a whipping boy says more about us than it does about the player.

Way cool and thanx!!!

Naw he makes too much money to worry about me or you.

The NFLPA is a democracy and if he is not serving a majority of his constituencies interests then they can and should vote him out. (By the way, $600,000 a month cannot be right. Thus far more than the pay of playing major leaguers).

The vast exapanision of the cap is good news for NC around the margins but does not change the financial dynamic for NC at all. The Bills have tagged him and can sign him to a salary equal to the top 5 CBs (at the time of the tag I believe so new contracts probably make no difference though correct me if I am wrong). The Bills actually now hold even more leverage over NC to get him to agree to a long term deal which actually will give us more cap room next year when the bonus is pro-rated. If he does not like the deal we offer or negotiate then we get him next year anyway for a # affordable under the old cap and even more so now. If he wants the cash then sign. If not then don\t but he still needs to play hard and well for us as this is a contract year for him. On the Moulds front, we can now afford to pay him a lot and we can afford to easilu keep him if he redoes his contract and potentially keep him even if he does not. However, he reason we wabt to cut his pay is not simply the cap but no matter how high the cap is he did not play as well as a $10 million WR. We also should be reluctant to pay him #1 WR $ because this should/could be a breakout year for Evans who if he and JP continue to develiop the chemistry they showed in the 1st quarter against the Fish is our new #1 WR even if an aging Moulds who was great in the past sticks around. The cao is larger but the general situation surrounding both players is the same/

Look, I feel that my understanding of the economics is actually pretty limited because: 1. I (like you and most everyone else) do not have first hand info on this often changing situation. We outsiders are all dependent on the second hand (at best) translations of the press, which are far from always accurate. Yet, this lack of info did stop some folks from claiming that Upshaw was a tard or a moron who could not handle a calculator. Its one thing to call him a tard because one disagrees with his ideology, but it strikes me as wholly illegitimate to make this claim based on the incomplete and often false information we outsiders have. It would strike me as more than reasonable to disagree violently with his expressed philosophy, but makes no sense to label him a moron for not understanding something we cannot be sure is even being reported accurately. Do you disagree with this distinction? 2. Even with my limited understanding of the economics I could pretty easily see how Upshaw's claims (and Henderson of the NFL's fairly opposite claims) were both within reasons as ways to look at the same facts. In fact, I felt (and in the end Tags and the NFL which pushed the team owners to take the final offer from the NFLPA and the NFL owners who accepted the deal agreed that the "TARD's" proposal was one they could live with) that Upshaw's presentation was a more legitimate (though still not fully accurate since he was putting forward an advocate's biased perspective) than the NFL's. This stuff is interesting because it is pretty complicated an high level economics so I guess I am not surprised that some folks don't seem to get it at all because I know I only have a partial understanding of it. However, even with my limited understanding I could see where this was headed which was well toward Upshaw's views. It just amazes me that some folks would make some fairly harsh judgments about someone who demonstrably by their explanations of the situation and the results finally agreed tounderstands this a lot better than they do,

And folks wonder why he is not in the HOF. He'll get in posthumously cause then he can be honored without folks having to hear him accept the award.

It will be quite amusing if we those who labled Upshaw a 'tard and a moron will be posters enough to eat crow now. Perhaps they will try to pretend they were correct by hiding behind the figleaf that he did not get a deal that with a share of the revenues that started with a 6. He definitely was rejected in getting this lobbying offer and they beat him all the way down to 59.5%. Based on the explanations folks seemed to give for these rants it was based on some posters simply not understanding the economics at play here. Granted some marginal and older players would have lost out if the team owners had called out the NFLPA and rejected their final offer. However, though the player would have been bruised (or have members like the financail idiot Travis Henry killed), overall the key to understanding the players fiscal position is realizing that: 1. Under Upshaw's guidance the NFLPA had recovered from having their heads handed to them in the mid-80s by threatening to decertify itself. Either Upshaw deserves great credit for coming up with this approach or for being smart enough to understand it and sell it to his peers if some smart lawyers came up with the idea. Either way, a great job was done for Upshaw's constituency under his leadership. 2. The NFLPA played the timing of this renogiation beautifully. A. By having the decision point occur in the off-season they diminished the opportunities for the team owners to lockout the players when they expected game checks. B. By forcing revenue sharing into the debate over the CBA, the NFLPA divided the owners into the haves and the have mores. The effect of this was seen in the final days negotiations when the NFLPA had Paul Tag boo-boo delivering and speaking for the final offer. The final day saw negotiations between the owners leading to its accceptance while Upshaw hung out on the veranda. C. The final season under the cap and then an uncapped season before any job action could even be taken by the team owners gave the players bags of time to prepare their members for a fight if necessary and use their substantial pay to build a warchest if necessary. D. Under Upshaw's guidance the players had received more money than most of them ever imagined in their lives under labor peace. These men are both pliable athletes who have lived their lives being told what to do and also team players. This is a potent combo to build a union and if there was a job action with two years to prepate the NFLPA would have been a potent opponent. 3. What some folks did not seem to understand at all about the economic situation is what a weak position for a job action the team owners were in. In addition to being divided (never a good way to lead a group into a fight) some posters actually claimed that the owners would kill the NFLPA in a lockout if it ever came to that. A. This ignores the concepts above about the current NFLPA situation that put the players in a far better position to fight a job action than their situation in the mid-80s. B. This view totally ignored the fact that many of the owners had borrowed a ton of money (hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases) to build stadiums and their team infrastructures. Even the richest of owners does not have the cash lying around to finance a stadium (and if he does he is not investing his wealth properly). Those loans were made with the assumption of a certain cashflow over the life of the loan. When an NFL player happened to not bring in the 300K+ a year from salary it would be a hardship his wife or relatives might whine about. However, if the team had a reduction in cashflow due to a lockout, the bank that held the loan would do more than whine, they might foreclose. When it came down to a fight the team owners were in much worse shaoe economically than the players. From the beginning of this dispute it was fairly economically obvious who was going to win this fight. All that is left now is the union vote in Hawaii at their meeting in a couple of weeks. I assume they will take yes for an answer.

The key thing to me about the special TEAM is that this TEAM finiished ranked #1 statistically in the NFL the last two years in a row. This statistically great performance this season did not make any difference as both the offense struggled and the defense struggled. However, the special TEAM performance was pivotal to winning streak season before this one. Wire was certainly a consistent performer on this successful special TEAM. I think this means several things: 1. He did not appear to be a dynamic individual force on the special TEAM likre for example Steve Tasker was. However, there was no Bill on this special TEAM that can even remotely be compared to this HOP finalist. This really only goes to show how spoiled we were having him and that it is simply dumb to expect any ST player to meet this standard, because you can still be part of a very successful special TEAM that is best in the NFL and neither have gaudy numbers or be a stand-by in the highlight reels. 2. He was made captain of this very successful unit which is no small honor or a meaningless role. 3. Still, is one thing to be a role player with the substantial but doable contract of a 3rd round draft choice and would be quite a different thing to be a role player on a successful unit if it costs much to resign him now that he is a UFA. If the market gives him big bucks (which would be a testimonial that professional footbaall assessment guys judge him to be a valuable player, I would be seriously interested in looking for a cheaper replacement for him, However, if the market allows us to keep Wire with little or no raise, then I say keep him. Overall, his play as a #2 SS does not justify keeping him. GW/JG reached by asking him to start as a rookie at a position he had never played before at any level of organized ball. However, he ha been a team leader of one of the most successful units in the league and I think comments ragging on him are probably more motivated by his disastrous play as a starting SS rather than folks recognizing that he was a leader of one of the best special TEAMS in the NFL. He does not deserve the big bucks or a long-term deal simply for leadership of a successful special TEAM, but resigning him at little or no raise is fine by me and I think he deserves that. I think the ragging on him for his admittedly non-highlight reel play is actually unreasonable given him being a consistent part of a successful special TEAM. As long as the market does not give him the keys to the kingdom I say resign him. Those who advocate cuttting him give us little more than a rant which can usefully be ignored UNLESS they also say who and how he will be replaced as part of the special TEAM.

No, I have no isue at all with you or anyone disagreeing with my point of view. What I do tale issue with is someone not having a basic understanding of the facts and making hard edged interpretations based on their misunderstanding. I agrre completely with the post above which says it is way too early to call anyone a moron based on their handling of the strategy here for the reasons which you laid out in your post. It could work out well or it could work out poorly. Personally, I think it would be cool to talk with Upshaw and get his insights in how this works and the situation because he clearly understands the risks he is taking and has decided to role the dice. I could see declaring him a moron if he lost the bet, but he has not lost it yet. I could see declaring him a moron if he demonstrated he did not understand the bet he is making, but it is clear he is aware of the stakes. I could even potentially see one declaring him a moron because one feels he has not represented the interests of his constituency in the past (but given the growth in the NFL and the wealth the players have accumulated during his tenure I think this would be silly to maintain. Folks may prefer the billionaires over his millionaires, but to simply label him a moron or a tard makes the poster look like a moron or a tard. Your own words in terms of asking folks to look at what happens during a lock-out simply demonstrates that you really haven't thought the implications of your own thinking through very well. Sure the team owners would get whatever $ they would get from sales of NFL gear during a lockout, but this is mere pennies of their revenue stream compared to the big money which is TV. The big hit the ownwers would take in a lockout is that the nets have already said that they would want a major readjustment in the cash they pay to the NFL if their was a lockout. This revenue stream would dry up to zero if the game stopped and be significantly reduced if they maintained the game with replacement players who simply are college level talent at best. The individual players do take a hit as their income is reduced, but the owners take an even bigger hit. The other thing though which your posts do not show a full understanding of is what shape these sides are in o take this hit. It varies. Some player are Travis henry and cannot manage their money even with huge income. Some though are Troy Vincent or Takeo Spikes who are busily using their off time to attend business classes at Wharton. The thing is that all the playears are making more $ than they thought possible in their young lives.With a two year run-up til a lockout occurs, and with a range of options from trying to start an alternative league to sell to the networks, Europe, the CFL and Arena ball, and saving their NFL minimum salary I do not worry about these greedy fools. The owners though vary from Ralph who paid 10K to get in and owes nothing for the stadium named after him and Roooney who Dad paid 2500 bucks to get in. On the other hand, even some of the large revenue owners who paid $400 million to get in are leveraged out the wazoo to the banks to buy in even if they are personally rich. Believe me, a work stoppage hits some of the owners a lot harder than it hits the players. With the wealth they have accumulated, the wealth they would accumualate in the two year run up to a work stoppage, and the driving fact that the players will have to answer to their Mom, Dad and wives if they do not bring 300K/year home, but leveraged owners will have to answer to the banks. This is why the NFLPA has a fighting Paul Tag boo-boo endorsed fighting shot at getting a 59.5% share of the income of the NFL. You do understand this don't you? Do you feel that the owner;s are at the advantage economically here?

I thought that I was impressed with Upshaw's work on behalf of the NFLPA that I thought it only approrpriate to acknowledge by giving him some props in the discussion. However, my thoughts are nothing compared to the love fest of compliments he seems to be giving from members of the national press. For example, Pete Pasquarelliowitz of ESPN wrote and article which said among other things: "Still, no matter what happens, it appears Upshaw has scored big points. " I think he proves himself to be a cool due only if the team owners agree to the deal, but Paspatootee is willing to declare him as having done a good job regardless of the outcome. While folks who declare him a tard mostly just show how little they seem to understand about this situation with this kneejerk reaction, i think it goes way to far to declare him a winner when if this gamble does not work a lot of money is going to be left on the table for a lot of players. It will be worse for the team owners if there is no deal or gosh forbid a work stoppage year after next, but the NFLPA outcome should not be judged simply by whether it is better than the outcome for the owners but by some real measure of whether players get to play the game they love and get paid for it as well. The articles is at > http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2356568 <

It's a tough rock and a hard place for bigger revenue team owners. As Al Davis said in taking a deal, they litterally are giving money away to the smaller revenue owners. However, if they maintain their pride and nix this deal, they are going to give even more money away if it results in a work stoppage. In the end the owners seem to have a choice between not being as rich as they could be under the current deal or since the current deal is not going to be a reality after 2007 and a work stoppage becomes likely the teams actually may become poor. I think unless individual owners are so rich they can pay for having their pride. I think they take the deal.

The word I here (NFL Network and others( is that clearly Davis wreaked havoc at the combine showing better speed than any TE ever, an amazing vertical leap and a gritty attitude. However, the word is he just has average hands at best. When you add to that virtually all rookies need to learn the pro game and just as a quality WR like Moulds needed two years before he even began to be productive, the though of Davis being our #1 WR (or even being a quality #2 WR) seems little more than a fantasy notion.

Is WAIT. I know it is not like us football fans or us Americans to wait (I want my MAYPO and I want it NOW)! However, the level of next year's salary cap and which players will be available when teams make cuts to meet that cap are still wide open questions until the deal get done. There certainly is a legit debate on whether a team should emphasize need or simply go for the best player available in the draft should be most important, but devate away on which to emphasize one would be a fool to ignore either factor completely. Rational judgments simply cannot be made until the shape of the NFL is determined by the CBA dispute. A lot of signs point to Ngata being the need pick to make (we do have a starting TE need and their is a credible case to made that Davis will be the BPA at pick 8 but we need two starters at DT) nut until we have a clear idea what the lay of the land is and which vets might be available the only rational choice is to wait before forming a final opinion.

If you are looking for someone more talented than Moulds you probably will not find him. I like Moulds better than the most sought after FA receivers like Givens or Bryant. If you are looking for a #1 WR you likely will not find him in FA and will not find him in the draft. The good news is though that we are not looking for a #1 WR or even someone better than Moulds. Evans is our #1 and after a very good rookie season and a #2 season where he demonstrated he certainly does not have Josh Reed disease and is primed to potentially deserve the #1 slot, going with him there seems like a reasonable bet. What we are looking for is a WR who can compliment the speed threat Evans presents. We are looking for a possession receiver who can work the middle of the field and really should be double- teamed bu opponents won't do that because they are already dting speed freak with reasonable hands Evans. Joe J. fits what we are looking for well as he has developed quite the rep for being an effective possession WR. he was productive last year despite his age, making him a good risk this year. What is even better is that Parrish while unpolished and no where near #1 (or probably even a reliable #2) in quality, if he is the third WR, a receiving corps that includes his and Evans speed, and Joe J. as a money possession receiver presents huge issues for a D. Moulds is a far better player with a few more years of quality play to go than Joe J. However, unless his SB appearance pumps up his price to unreasonable levels, picking him up makes far more sense to make the Bills a winner than paying 10 mill to Moulds. The same is probably true for some lesser possession WR as well.

If this refers to me and by it you mean someone who thinks the NFLPA are a bunch of money grubbing idiots but the team owners are even worse than the players then for sure I plead guilty to being a union hack.

Givens is fine if the money us not too steep and another suggestions this applies to IMHO is Joe jurevicioys if the money is not too steep. Who klnows until the CBA is done or officially declared dead what the market cost will be.