It's Rosenhaus

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SantanaMan

What I can see happening during negotiations for the new CBA is that contracts cannot be reworked for 2, maybe 3 years from the date of signing - that way we will see less of these "one year wonders" holding out and players who have played well over those 2 or 3 years can then negotiate for better salaries. This would also mean teams could not decrease said salaries in those 2 or 3 years either.

This does sound good and something they should have considered sooner! I mean, you guys remember the days when a contract was actually a binding agreement?

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

LOL! With chocolate sprinkles!


Santanaman:

Never said the idea was fool proof, but at the sametime, why penalize the owners who have the money to pay the most to their players? It's the idea of having a free market. They way it stands now, to me, it's like a communist approach to the NFL.

By having the players' salary capped, the franchises aren't having to pay out such outlandish salaries while the players are still making a pretty darn good living.

This is where it would get sticky: finding a salary limit that all owners could deal with and that would get the approval of the players' union. In theory, this would be ideal and would still give all nfl franchises equal opportunity to attract players to their team, while loosening the stranglehold of the agents.

I think you're right about the sticking point: the NFLPA would never agree to a player salary cap, wherein individual player salaries would be limited to a maximum annual figure. With the NFLPA, you're talking about an organization that works hand-in-hand with the players' agents to ensure that players have unlimited compensation potential throughout their careers. Their raison d'etre is to maximize the players' income-- not limit it.

That's why the current team salary cap system is in place. It's the only system that both the owners and players could agree upon when the current CBA was negotiated.

You also have to keep in mind that the NFL has experienced unrivaled and unprecedented success among sports leagues worldwide, since this particular "communist approach" was implemented over a decade ago. This is because the CBA provides for a competitive market, by ensuring that the players and the teams they play for are competing on a level field (or, at least, a reasonable approximation of such).

Like you said, the idea isn't foolproof, but I don't think the current system is as communistic as you suggested. There's certainly a free market dynamic at play here, as free agency allows players to command salaries commensurate with their value on the open market. If teams want to curb the inflation of those values-- which are sure to soar if star players and one-year wonders are allowed to re-write their deals every year-- the first step teams need to take is to refuse to renegotiate contracts unless it will help their salary cap situation. Thus far, that's generally what teams have done. But this current assault on the system by Rosenhaus and his high-profile clients will certainly test the mettle of even the most fiscally-disciplined franchises.

[skinsguy]

I think refusing to renegotiate contracts is the only thing owners can do right now. It's kind of like playing chicken. Too bad the average Joe (not you Joe, lol) can't hire an agent to do the same in the workforce.

[Hijinx]

Plus it has always been said by the NFL that the cap was less about controling player salaries than leveling the playing field for all teams. If the cap was on the players then richer teams could aford to pay all/most of their players the max while small market teams might not be able to do the same.

The "communist approach" including the salary cap and T.V. revenue sharing is one of the biggest reasons NFL is the number one sport in this country. Without these small market teams like Green Bay, Cincy, Cleveland, and Buffalo would either not be able to compete or just not be there.

[Daseal]

I think refusing to renegotiate contracts is the only thing owners can do right now. It's kind of like playing chicken. Too bad the average Joe (not you Joe, lol) can't hire an agent to do the same in the workforce.

Then teams better get ready for players unwilling to restructure ruining their cap.

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by offiss

Personally I would have used cake, but that's just me.

Oops, I did say "pie" didn't I? I guess I shouldn't get people started on pie around here. We all know what happens when the subject of pie comes up, don't we?

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Then teams better get ready for players unwilling to restructure ruining their cap.

All's fair in love and contract negotiations, I guess. But like I said, players generally agree to restructure their contracts because they get more guaranteed money out of the deal. It's rare that players actually wind up taking less money. It happens (Jerome Bettis), but it's rare.

[Hijinx]

Originally Posted by offiss

Personally I would have used cake, but that's just me.

Welcome to the NFL. Cake or death?

[Redskins8588]

After listining to the press confrense, it seems to me that it is Rosenhouse(SP) that is telling players to hold out. Moss said that he was on Drew almost everyday to get the deal done so that he could get to D.C.

Moss even said that if it was New York where he knew the system then thats a different story, but he was on a new team and he said that he was telling Drew that he needs to be in D.C. so get the deal done ASAP...

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I agree. The way Drew talked, it was like "Finally, I'm getting what I want here."

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by joecrisp

Oops, I did say "pie" didn't I? I guess I shouldn't get people started on pie around here. We all know what happens when the subject of pie comes up, don't we?

Are we fighting now? Is that it??

[That Guy]

doesn't the NBA have a cap on individual player's contracts as well as a team cap? I heard a bunch of talk about kobe's maximum contract or whatever...