BuffLord Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 How long will they be sitting around with no job as teams go Scrooge with their signings and cant afford to grab the bigger names? Wont these unemployed players realize that if they just take the damn CBA with a revenue sharing of 54% instead of 60%, almost all teams will have alot of cap space and can pay them very good contracts? No CBA + 94 mil cap = unemployed CBA + 102 mill cap = employed Its not tough math to me. Instead guys like Alexander or Edge, may be stuck on the sidelines because no team has the cap cash to fess up 8 mil per. Or, more precisely, no team would blow their whole cap wad on one player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTW_BillsFan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Why wouldnt the players take the CBA at 54%? Cause they are greedy little munchkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Because players are alot like voters. If something's explained decently enough, that's the stance they'll take forever. Contrarian views be damned. Football players should talk to hockey players about how smart it is to get too greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 How long will they be sitting around with no job as teams go Scrooge with their signings and cant afford to grab the bigger names? Wont these unemployed players realize that if they just take the damn CBA with a revenue sharing of 54% instead of 60%, almost all teams will have alot of cap space and can pay them very good contracts? No CBA + 94 mil cap = unemployed CBA + 102 mill cap = employed Its not tough math to me. Instead guys like Alexander or Edge, may be stuck on the sidelines because no team has the cap cash to fess up 8 mil per. Or, more precisely, no team would blow their whole cap wad on one player. 617106[/snapback] First off, I believe 95% of the cuts that have been made would have been made with or without an extension. Second, guys will find jobs, but will sign one year deals with low signing bonuses. But, they make up for that with an uncapped year, so one year of pain to get several of gain. In terms of guys like edge or alexander, nobody was willing to even offer a second for these guys last year, doubt many teams will be lining up for them this year either, extension or not. RB just one of those positions now teams figure they can go cheap. What i do not understand id the players stance on revenure sharing. According to Troy Vincent, until the owners agree to more liberal revenue sharing, there can be no deal. But, i thought what the players really cared about was what defined gross revenues were going to look like. Everyting I have read said that has been agreed upon by both the players and the owners. Whay do the players care how 42% of the pie is split amongst the owners, as long as they get the 58% of the pie they have been looking for?(just assuming a compromise at 50% of the differance right now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 How long will they be sitting around with no job as teams go Scrooge with their signings and cant afford to grab the bigger names? Wont these unemployed players realize that if they just take the damn CBA with a revenue sharing of 54% instead of 60%, almost all teams will have alot of cap space and can pay them very good contracts? No CBA + 94 mil cap = unemployed CBA + 102 mill cap = employed Its not tough math to me. Instead guys like Alexander or Edge, may be stuck on the sidelines because no team has the cap cash to fess up 8 mil per. Or, more precisely, no team would blow their whole cap wad on one player. 617106[/snapback] The NFLPA (or either party of owners as well) will not simply accept a deal which pays them alot, OR, more than they deserve, OR more than they have ever gotten before, OR however you want to phrase it because that is not the American way of operating. Our country has become such an economic power because we are always pushing to get the next marginal dollar. Our society has no agreed upon sense of how much is too much. Thus negotiations almost always go down to the wire and sometimes the clock is stopped and negotiations go into overtime as we push for that last marginal dollar. Humankind is generally like this, but our society has become such an economic (and thus military since global economics is sometimes done at the point of a bayonet) power because we mutts have made pursuit of the deal into an artform. In this case the last marginal dollar is a whole bunch of money which will be divided among two relatively small groups the owners and the players. it only makes sense that this will take until the last minute and in fact go into overtime. There is some danger that both sides will fail to agree to and shot themselves in the face to spite their nose (this undortunately is also part of our American style) but both sides seem to have left childish things behind them when the NFL demolished the NFLPA in the mod-80s and the threat of actually having to compete in a free market if the NFLPA decertified itself caused the owners to come running back to the table. Though many fans still view this as a wrestling match, the owners and players seem to have outgrown this childishness and are about making $ rather than killingeach other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Why wouldnt the players take the CBA at 54%? Probably because the owners have been offering 56%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Second, guys will find jobs, but will sign one year deals with low signing bonuses. But, they make up for that with an uncapped year, so one year of pain to get several of gain. 617545[/snapback] I wonder about the assumption that salaries will go up dramatically in the uncapped year. Under the current rules there is a minimum that clubs must spend of salaries overall and on draftees - those rules would go away. So if you are a club sitting on 10 mill in cash and lose out in the free agent sweepstakes, there is no longer any incentive to spend it on the also-ran players. You can offer them 'take-it-or-leave-it' money. So it will be interesting to see what happens to the median salary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Some are of the mindset that money equals respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 they wouldn't take it because they think they can get more. i think they'll settle on 57 or 58. i'm hoping some kind of veteran resigning rule and rookie pool comes out soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Maybe Upshaw likes the power trip woody he gets by jerking the owners' chain at the 11th hour and getting his face on TV? Nah. Couldn't be that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts