No NFL Draft After 2010?

by Nate D. on May 11, 2009 1:41 PM EDT Comment 29 comments

Excerpt from an article on Pro Football Weekly's site (full article here):

So, here’s the reality of what’s at stake between the owners and players, and for all of us as fans, with the owners’ decision to opt out of the current CBA early. If there is no extension of the current CBA or a new agreement negotiated by March 2010, there will be a draft in 2010, but the salary cap goes away for the season and veteran players will need six years of service to become unrestricted free agents rather than four. And if the spring of 2011 rolls around without a new deal, there will be no CBA at all, and although the league maintains that there would be another draft in 2011, the legality of holding a draft under those circumstances is debatable. In other words, the NFL would be facing complete anarchy. It is assumed but not a given that, with no rules to play by, the owners would choose to lock the players out, and there would be no football in 2011 until one side or the other cries uncle.
What happens if, during an interim period in the spring of 2011 with negotiations ongoing but no deal in place, one of the league’s wealthier owners — let’s say a Daniel Snyder or a Jerry Jones — chooses to sign the 10 or 15 best players coming out of college to contracts, even if a deal is eventually struck and the draft reinstated? Anarchy is right around the corner, guys, and it’s time somebody gets serious about it, right now.

So basically, if the athletes who play the sport and the venerable men who fund it via their checkbooks don't agree on compensation for the next however long, we could be looking at not only missing part or all of a season, but also losing the draft entirely.

I have little to no knowledge of the specifics of the current CBA, nor do I have an understanding of how difficult (or not) organizing a new one would be. I do know, however, that athletes in America are historically firm in their requests (demands?) for compensation. Personally, I wish that the cap on an athelete's salary was maybe a couple million dollars per year (and even that makes me sick). I read that article and it pissed me off pretty bad. We all know how simple it's going to be for the owners and players to come to a consensus... right. The majority of the players realistically have all the money they'll probably ever need, whereas the owners will be losing a ton of money closing the doors for even a few games. They'll make no revenue, and eventually have to buckle and pay the players even more money.

So, haters of the Staff pick, just imagine Stafford going for 100 mil to the Lions instead, because money is the only thing keeping players out of the rosters of the owners with the deepest pockets.

What do you think? I saw this and figured it was a prime topic for discussion, plus I wanted to get something in now that I'm settled in GA with nothing to do. Guess I have a reason to root for Staff now...

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pride of Detroit's main writer, Sean, or the site in general. FanPosts are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable fans.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Mark my words

The NFL will give in before the NFLPA, and a collective bargaining agreement will be done before the end of the 2009 season.

by KDawg on May 11, 2009 1:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Last time there was an NFL shutdown, the players folded to the owners.

Lets see, the owners are pretty much all billionaires who use the NFL as a toy to keep them out of trouble, and the players have roughly five or six years [if they are lucky] to accumulate enough money for the rest of their lives.
WHO DO YOU THINK WILL FOLD FIRST?

Especially when most NFL fans will do the owners dirty work for them and bitch and moan about how overpaid the players are while the owners sign another multi billion dollar TV deal and threaten your local government about moving unless they get a new stadium, improved access roads, tax breaks, etc.

Pardon me if I don’t shed a tear for our beloved NFL owners.

by NorthLeft12 on May 11, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1,000,000

People don’t pay to watch egomaniacal billionaires make business decisions. People pay to watch football players play football. The owners need to realize this, and not deprive the American people of something we love just to prove a point so they can save a few million dollars a year.

by AZ Yooper on May 11, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regardless of who calls who's bluff...

…they aren’t going to shut down the uncontested most popular sport in the country. I’m guessing the lesson learned from the MLB strike is still fresh enough in everyone’s minds that this sort of thing won’t happen again unless something catastrophic takes place. Unlike the more recent strikes that shortened the NBA season, and cancelled the NHL season all together, the NFL is not exactly searching for it’s identity after being a league revolving around one player (#23/45), nor are they coming to grips with the fact that their sport is just not popular in areas where palm trees out number frozen lakes/ponds. No…right now the NFL is to professional sports what McDonald’s is to fast food and Coke is to soft drinks and I don’t see any way that even rich people arguing with richer people are going to come to any other conclusion. Then again….NEVER underestimate the stupidity of greed!

by Mushy on May 11, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In 1982 and 1987

There were player’s strikes that shortened the NFL season. The NFLPA is not going to give in. I don’t care how much money the owners make or what they say, they will give in before the players do. There is no doubt about it. If the owners are smart (which is a BIG question for alot of them) they will do whatever it takes to get a new CBA in place ASAP. If they do not, they will lose a whole bunch of money. Speaking of greed, I seriously doubt that the owners want to see another shortened NFL season, especially considering the state of our current economy. The strike shortened seasons of history nearly ruined the NFL, just like the NBA and MLB strikes of recent memory did to their respective sports. I would like to believe that the NFL owners are actually smart enough to realize that now is especially not the time to F with the NFLPA. They will fold. There will be a new CBA before the end of the 2009 season.

by KDawg on May 12, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The owners will hire scabs and still make money it's still the only league in town

No the NFL didn’t almost fold attendance was pretty good TV revenues were still there
and fans found favorites amongst the scabs, the nfl can financially out last the NFLPA
only 10% of the players make enough to live on union pay for more than a few months.
The feelings on unions have taken a big turn to the negative many blame the unions for
the colapse of the auto industry, Teamsters caught in the pension fund. The people
will be on the side of the owners, after seeing millionaire players like Pacman , Vick,
Plaxico, etc. in the spotlight under questionable circumstances. the NFLPA better
take what they can get or they will end up bankrupt they only have one client unlike other unions.

by Runnin' Rebel on May 12, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nate, What is your problem with an athlete getting paid market price?

Maybe you have all the money now you will ever need. Who are you to judge what they do with their money? Maybe they are supporting a bunch of charities and family and friends who are far less fortunate? Maybe they are buying a gold plated Hummer? What business is it of yours?

By the way, thanks for posting about this. This will impact the NFL hugely.

The change in free agent seniority will mean that 26, 27, and 28 year old free agents will pretty much be a thing of the past. The youngest they will be is 28 years old with six years in the NFL already. Most of the FAs will be 29 or 30. So a team that wants to improve itself by free agency will not be able to get anyone that they can count on for more than two years or so.
Apparently, the owners even want to institute rules which will restrict which teams can get free agents. Not sure what the criteria they have in mind is but it will probably reduce the chance of a team turning itself around like Miami and Atlanta did by picking up some impact free agents.
I know you want to believe it is for the good of the game, but I am sure it has more to do with how much more money they can squeeze out of their loyal fans, local governments, and sponsors. Not to mention binding the players to their original teams for longer periods of time and for less money.

by NorthLeft12 on May 11, 2009 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

In response to your ultra-capitalist statement about player salaries, my problem with athletes getting paid ‘fair market price’ is that they simply don’t deserve it. Go ahead and start bashing me and proclaiming that a free market is a beautiful thing that allows this. I hear it constantly from my best friend (an accountant). It’s garbage. The reason we pay ridiculous amounts of money to physically watch our teams is in large part due to these guys getting paid more than 10 doctors or 100 teachers to have fun.

Say what you want about how we fuel it and it’s fair and whatever, that’s fine. I agree with that. I personally think that it’s garbage… They put a cap on pretty much everything else financially in the NFL except ticket prices and parking. I love the sport, more than pretty much anything I do at leisure, but it’s sad that we have people who deserve that kind of money, but because of ‘market price’ we have rich athletes who abuse their wealth.

As if being famous and playing football for a living wasn’t enough.

by Nate D. on May 11, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, Can I use you for a reference?

Anyone I know would bust a gut if someone tried to call me a “capitalist” let alone an ultra. I have been called everything left of a socialist. That’s one of the reasons I chose the name “NorthLeft”.
I’m a Canadian. We are all socialists up here.

Nate, are you for caps on CEOs? UAW workers? Truck Drivers? Doctors? Lawyers? Police Officers? Carpenters? Actors? Golfers?

Professional football is a big business. A lot of people are getting rich off it. Sometimes it is the guys who play the game. Usually not. I don’t think you have the faintest idea of what kind of effort these guys put into their careers. Effort that can go down the drain in one second on or off the football field. I never played organized football but in pick up games and flag football I lost a tooth, broke a collarbone [twice], and was knocked out at least three times, before anyone even thought about concussions. I can only imagine what these guys face on that field. Then its all over after five to ten years if they are lucky. And the fame you think so highly of? How about hearing how lousy you are in the paper or on the radio/TV every other week? Imagine the crap your kid would have to put up with if you screwed up or just lost a game?

How about showing these guys a little respect for the job they do? You call yourself a fan of football? Doesn’t sound like it to me.

by NorthLeft12 on May 11, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure what I agree with

I don’t like that these guys can be paid vast amounts of money either. But it is what it is. I would say I don’t favor salary caps for most of the things you listed, i.e. cops, firemen, doctors, because most of them are doing a little bit more than playing a kids game and all of them make considerably less money than I’d hazard to guess 98% of the league in any organized sport. I’ve hated baseball most of my life but even if the game didn’t bore me I’d dislike the way the players are paid. Especially since so many people are not simply working harder than anyone else, they’re just getting the right prescriptions.
On the other hand I would be less inclined to rip apart a guy for a bad game if he wasn’t making 7 million dollars this season. Trust that no guy in the league is crying himself to sleep over what the Free Press said about him, not when he’s sleeping on a 4000 dollar bed. And his trophy wife is telling the last of the sports groupies to move along for the night.
If every athlete was required to donate some part of their pay to charity and not buy 17 Bentley’s would it make things better? If they all stepped up and admitted they were role models and acted like it would people bitch as much about their pay?

by MattyZ on May 11, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rookie Salary Cap

IS the solution to mixing capitalism with production. Have a set pay scale that is reasonable for each draft position, after the player does three years on their rookie contract they can go make how ever much money teams are willing to pay for there services. This allows more money for the veterans that have proved themselves as well as lessening the impact that draft bust have on teams. Also there would be more interest in trading for the top picks as it would saddle your team with a huge long term deal with a boat load of guaranteed.

by Curse of Bobby Layne 50 Years Strong on May 11, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

First, I didn’t call you ultra-capitalist. I called your idea such, with which I don’t believe you can argue. Plenty of right wingers embrace socialist ideals and maintain their affiliation. But anyways, before I get my extremely long comment deleted because of politics…. (c’mon Sean……) ;)

So because I don’t support guys who willingly put their bodies on the line for exhorbitant salaries, I’m not a football fan, huh?

Sorry if that hit a nerve with you, but the idea hits one with me. My career choice is going to put me in the way of potential death, and I’m going to make dick. But I’m fine with that. My compensation is going home (or not) each day, and knowing I helped someone out for my money. (And for the record, yes, I am for caps on UAW workers, CEO’s, Lawyers, Golfers, and Actors. Sorry guys.)

Listen buddy, you’re trying to draw sympathy out of me for guys who, regardless of how much they abuse their own bodies, PLAY A GAME FOR A LIVING. They may give money to charities, sure, but that consititues what percentage of their annual income? Someone already said it before, but I’ll repeat; I really find it hard to believe that any athlete gives a rat’s ass about what publications say about them.

Athletes, and football players especially don’t get my respect. You know why? Because they don’t contribute anything to society. They get paid more in a year then I’ll make in 20 and don’t do a damn thing for anyone but themselves. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t fault them either. If someone said, “I’ll pay you 3 mil a year to flip burgers” I would accept in a heartbeat. But just because they don’t directly do anything to raise my ire does NOT mean they deserve my respect. I do envy them, as I love the sport probably more than half of the players do. I just happened to not be an athletic freak.

90% of these players don’t give a shit which charity they’re donating to – they do it for tax breaks, and to keep their image clean. You act as though these guys do some sort of unbelievable service to the world. I love football: you can’t question me on that. What I don’t love is when I hear guys crying about their contracts. Shut up and play the game. Half of America’s homes are in foreclosure and you’re bitching that you get 9 million instead of 12. I respect the police, firefighters, soldiers, and teachers of our country and the world. Fuck primadonna athletes.

by Nate D. on May 11, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Nate, I agree that our priorities seem to be screwed up.

Yes, you hit a nerve with me regarding some of your comments about the players. You feel free to stereotype them in the worst possible way, discounting any good things they do in the community as posturing or at the advice of their accountants. Like any group of people [and I mean any group of people] there are saints, sinners, jerks, clowns, leaders, followers, heroes, cowards, and criminals, and everything in between. And probably in the same proportions as any other group.
Are they overpaid? I think so too, but their employers don’t, so why should we get bent out of shape about it?

We feed this whole enterprise by our interest, our purchases, and by our participation on sites like this. I hate to see people let their passion for this sport get twisted against the players who make it possible and bring a lot of joy to us. Even though in the big picture, it is just a game that we played as kids for fun.

by NorthLeft12 on May 12, 2009 6:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is unfortunate

that they get paid so highly to play a game many of us play for fun, while, as you said, half of America’s homes are in foreclosure. However, their salaries are drawn from the money we’re all willing to pay to watch them play. If they don’t get the money, the owners do. Do they deserve it any more than the players? I’d say hell no, it’s the other way around. But if neither of them deserve it, where does the money go?
My point is, as long as we love football, people are going to get rich off of it, just like any other business. It’s not up to anyone how that money gets distributed except for the people making it. That’s how this wonderful country of ours works. If you want to have an ideological discussion about the merits of capitalism and a free market economy, fine, but there’s no point in hating the players for taking advantage of a system that you yourself would if given the opportunity.

by AZ Yooper on May 12, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I must come across as a real prick.

I specifically stated that I don’t begrudge the players for making the money they do; I envy them. But that doesn’t mean I have to do what NL said and show them some foregone respect. And I quote -

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t fault them either. If someone said, "I’ll pay you 3 mil a year to flip burgers" I would accept in a heartbeat. But just because they don’t directly do anything to raise my ire does NOT mean they deserve my respect. I do envy them, as I love the sport probably more than half of the players do. I just happened to not be an athletic freak.

by Nate D. on May 12, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, not at all Nate.

I just find it strange that so many NFL fans don’t really appreciate the players who they watch every week. There seems to be a lot of resentment directed towards them. I’ve thought about it a lot over the years and you have touched on a few of the issues that keep being brought up when relations between players and fans break down.

I’ll write a post about it when things quiet down.

by NorthLeft12 on May 12, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we resent them too much

I mean, I love all our Lions players, but what gets me the most is when rookies, ala JaMarcus Russell, holdout for millions of dollars when they haven’t even proven themselves.

A lot of these guys are the best at what they do, and they deserve the money they earn, as long as they’ve proven themselves worthy.

2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).

by Hyperion Ecta on May 13, 2009 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The owners signed replacements and they would do it again.

People were knocking down the doors to get on an NFL roster, the Lions actually fielded
one of the better teams when that happend,Iseem to remember the union caving and
some players crossed, I believe it was settled a few games into the season.

In 1982, the players attempted to negotiate for a new CBA, under which players would be paid 55 percent of the clubs’ revenues league-wide. The players went on strike after the second game of the season. In response, the owners shut down completely and barred players from being on team property. The standoff lasted nearly two months before the owners agreed to an improved salary/benefit package. Finally, in 1987, the NFLPA opened negotiations for a new CBA to succeed the 1982 agreement, and the owners rejected the players’ demands for free agency. Players went on strike in mid-September, and the NFL continued the season with replacement players in a "scab league." But 15 percent of the real players crossed the picket line, saying they needed the money or did not believe in free agency. The player reps voted to end the strike, because it became clear that they weren’t getting anywhere with the NFL.

This quote found on:
http://www.nflplayers.com/user/content.aspx?fmid=178&lmid=443&pid=412

by Runnin' Rebel on May 11, 2009 6:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i agree, but dont think it will come to that

the NFL has made it clear, they are not about individuals, they are about the teams and the league. this is the exact reason they went with replacements before. the nfl will not go down the path of NHL, NBA nad MLB lockouts/strikes. The nfl will put anyone on the field in their uniforms and most likely, they’ll put a spin on it that the players are being greedy and the fans will show up to support the replacements just to stick it to the greedy players…..

with all that said, i dont think it will come to that. the nfl and players know that with the state of the economy, no one wants to hear about players are owner arguing over billions of dollars. they’ll come to a deal with a rookie cap and adjustments to FA and franchise tags.

by kingdaddylions on May 11, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs