Signings, Cuts, Trades

[Simba]

um why's that unreasonable - they're literal billionaires... and it's not beholden on those with no sharehold to make concessions for those owners - the fact that the NFL has been incredibly profitable for them doesnt preclude them from making losses - they're not philosophically owed profits every year

That's why I have trouble siding with the owners on anything monetary. Sure, you might not clear $100M this year but you still have billions in assets elsewhere. If you're that hard on for cash, get rid of the assets and turn that into liquidity. Don't get me wrong - I get that it's a business for the owners and they want to keep their bottom line, but the product would suffer immensely if they aren't willing to make concessions. And doing it in 2020, knowing the risk when the cap was set, is not the answer.

 

[rmcjacket23]

um why's that unreasonable - they're literal billionaires... and it's not beholden on those with no sharehold to make concessions for those owners - the fact that the NFL has been incredibly profitable for them doesnt preclude them from making losses - they're not philosophically owed profits every year

Its not designed to make sure they have profits. Its designed so that if revenue declines, the owners are under no obligation to keep wages flat or increase them. The entire agreement is predicated on the basis that player salaries are tied to revenue. Revenue goes up = players make more. Revenue goes down = players make less.

If it doesn't happen in the current year, it should happen the following year. The players shouldn't be absolved from that impact, nor should they be allowed to just take partial pay cuts every year for a decade (which is what they've proposed) to offset it.

 

[rmcjacket23]

um why's that unreasonable - they're literal billionaires... and it's not beholden on those with no sharehold to make concessions for those owners - the fact that the NFL has been incredibly profitable for them doesnt preclude them from making losses - they're not philosophically owed profits every year

And the irony is... if the NFLPA makes zero concessions and stands pat, what that means is a gigantic decrease to the salary cap in 2021. That's what no concessions means.

And the NFLPA is deathly afraid of that right now.

 

[Adreme]

And the irony is... if the NFLPA makes zero concessions and stands pat, what that means is a gigantic decrease to the salary cap in 2021. That's what no concessions means.

And the NFLPA is deathly afraid of that right now.

Except the league fundamentally cannot function under that salary cap reduction. Plus it would create a weird scenario where there is massive turnover for a year which could turn fans off and is something owners want to avoid. That part of it is an easy fix for the owners (borrow against future cap increases to ensure stability which is something every successful business wants),but it is everything else that they fear.

 

[Simba]

Seems like the solution might be in place. A cap of no less than $175M in 2021 with the rest of the losses spread out over the next 3 years. No reduction in 2020.

If revenues aren't as low, that $175M could go up.

Seems like a reasonable compromise. Some teams are still in a lot of trouble but that's their problem.

 

[Simba]

Also regarding the cut to 80, teams have 2 options.

Cut to 80 before vets report

Cut to 80 on 8/16, BUT teams can only have 80 players in the building at a time and would have to hold split practices at a different location

Hard to justify option #2. Cut the 9 and be done with it in my opinion. Harsh but I’m not splitting the team if I don’t have to

 

[Simba]

And last note... practice squads have been expanded to 16 for the year

6 players can have unlimited service time and you can designate 4 each week that teams cannot attempt to poach

The 6 with unlimited service time could be big for a guy like Andre Smith for example. If Skura is healthy, the 4 backup lineman could all be young guys we don't want to lose and we could still keep the vet insurance around just in case.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Except the league fundamentally cannot function under that salary cap reduction. Plus it would create a weird scenario where there is massive turnover for a year which could turn fans off and is something owners want to avoid. That part of it is an easy fix for the owners (borrow against future cap increases to ensure stability which is something every successful business wants),but it is everything else that they fear.

Disagree. It doesn't mean it can't function. It just means players will get paid less. Veterans will get cut and be forced to sign elsewhere for cheaper, or not play at all.
I don't think it would turn fans off at all. If anything, it might entice fans to come back. If you polled the total population of NFL viewers, most of them would tell you they're fed up with players making so much money, and would like to see them make less. Might be ignorant (which it is), but I don't see scenarios where players making less money will turn fans off. Especially during a pandemic, the absolute last thing any general public member wants to hear is about millionaires haggling over millions, and billionaires haggling over billions.

Regardless, the NFLPA has essentially already agreed to a likely significant decrease in the cap. Likely in at least the $15-20M range. On a minimum cap of $175M, which I can assure the NFL will push to be as low as possible in that regard, about 50% of the league is already over that limit today, and that's without paying a full roster.

In a weird way... all the NFLPA is doing is punishing future players, many of which aren't even in the league right now, for a pandemic that will have happened before they got there. Not exactly the most "moral" of choices.

 

[RavensMania]

Doesn't necessarily have to be 2020 UDFAs, either. Got some futures guys like Will Holden, Terrell Bonds, Michael Onuoha hanging around and they might opt to get a better look at a rookie instead.

Could even see a vet like De'Anthony Thomas to be respectful and give him a shot to latch on elsewhere.

But yeah, this will spell the end of some journeys before they even start. A couple of the OL are likely in trouble since most stack up there for preseason. The one DL is probably in trouble. Back end of the CBs and WRs too. Maybe the specialists since camp probably won't be as hard on the Wolfpack as it typically would be.

I think you want to hold onto Thomas for a bit just in case of injury but yes, give him enough time to latch onto another team as well. Absolutely understand your reasoning though.

 

[rossihunter2]

Except the league fundamentally cannot function under that salary cap reduction. Plus it would create a weird scenario where there is massive turnover for a year which could turn fans off and is something owners want to avoid. That part of it is an easy fix for the owners (borrow against future cap increases to ensure stability which is something every successful business wants),but it is everything else that they fear.

would be stupid for the NFLPA to capitulate over something that the owners fundamentally cant let happen without significantly negatively impact their product

 

[rossihunter2]

Disagree. It doesn't mean it can't function. It just means players will get paid less. Veterans will get cut and be forced to sign elsewhere for cheaper, or not play at all.
I don't think it would turn fans off at all. If anything, it might entice fans to come back. If you polled the total population of NFL viewers, most of them would tell you they're fed up with players making so much money, and would like to see them make less. Might be ignorant (which it is), but I don't see scenarios where players making less money will turn fans off. Especially during a pandemic, the absolute last thing any general public member wants to hear is about millionaires haggling over millions, and billionaires haggling over billions.

Regardless, the NFLPA has essentially already agreed to a likely significant decrease in the cap. Likely in at least the $15-20M range. On a minimum cap of $175M, which I can assure the NFL will push to be as low as possible in that regard, about 50% of the league is already over that limit today, and that's without paying a full roster.

In a weird way... all the NFLPA is doing is punishing future players, many of which aren't even in the league right now, for a pandemic that will have happened before they got there. Not exactly the most "moral" of choices.

you're bringing morals into this when we're dealing with 30+ billionaires who you could argue can only get as wealthy as they are by exploiting workforces and avoiding tax - in a fundamentally fair society billionaires shouldnt really exist - to suggest that the NFLPA is immoral for defending against a loss in earnings across their union is bizarre

i dont see the owners having to make concessions regarding their earnings right now...

 

[Adreme]

would be stupid for the NFLPA to capitulate over something that the owners fundamentally cant let happen without significantly negatively impact their product

Even for the few teams who fundamentally not fit under a 130 million dollar salary cap (those teams exist), I think another problem is that it might cost the owners more in the short term financially thus compounding the losses. The only way for almost every team to get under that number is to basically approach all of their talent and convert as much of next years salary to signing bonus as they would be allowed to, which means that in addition to losing money this year, they have to pay out more money to get under the cap for next year thus compounding the losses which is also something most business owners do not want to do.

 

[rmcjacket23]

you're bringing morals into this when we're dealing with 30+ billionaires who you could argue can only get as wealthy as they are by exploiting workforces and avoiding tax - in a fundamentally fair society billionaires shouldnt really exist - to suggest that the NFLPA is immoral for defending against a loss in earnings across their union is bizarre

i dont see the owners having to make concessions regarding their earnings right now...

1. Not sure where you're getting the "avoiding tax" from. The 32 NFL franchises pay a TON of taxes every year. Its the NFL that doesn't really pay taxes, nor should they, because they're merely a pass-through entity. They don't actually keep any of the money.
2. Unions, by definition, are at least partially immoral. All of them.
3. Its unquestionably immoral to expect earnings growth into perpetuity, when the industry itself is not seeing earnings growth. It would be immoral at every industry in any line of work in this Country to do so.

If they think such line of thinking is reasonable, then perhaps a CBA that involves revenue sharing isn't in their best interest. Perhaps they should consider bargaining for fixed compensation, instead of tying their labor's compensation to the growth of the industry (which, of course, is about as fair and equitable way to do so as you can get in this World).

I mean spoiler alert... the NFL isn't going to grow forever. Revenue will stagnate at some point, regardless of whether its in 5 years or 50 years, and as long as they're bargaining to align themselves with the industry, their compensation will be tied to said industry.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Even for the few teams who fundamentally not fit under a 130 million dollar salary cap (those teams exist), I think another problem is that it might cost the owners more in the short term financially thus compounding the losses. The only way for almost every team to get under that number is to basically approach all of their talent and convert as much of next years salary to signing bonus as they would be allowed to, which means that in addition to losing money this year, they have to pay out more money to get under the cap for next year thus compounding the losses which is also something most business owners do not want to do.

That's a possibility. Though I think you'd fine many teams simply wouldn't gain nearly enough cap space by doing so, and naturally, will be forced to cut players.

I'm not suggesting that the Owners or the NFLPA should agree to like a $70M reduction in one year. But I laughably saw where the NFLPA wanted to spread their cap losses over 10 years out to like 2030, which to me, was quite comical.

 

[Simba]

That's a possibility. Though I think you'd fine many teams simply wouldn't gain nearly enough cap space by doing so, and naturally, will be forced to cut players.

I'm not suggesting that the Owners or the NFLPA should agree to like a $70M reduction in one year. But I laughably saw where the NFLPA wanted to spread their cap losses over 10 years out to like 2030, which to me, was quite comical.

It's a maximum $23M drop in 2021 (but could be less if revenues come in higher than expected) and the rest is spread through 2024.

Might be a blessing that we haven't gotten some of the big extensions done to look at the positive side. On one hand, we don't have them locked up and aren't in dire cap constraints over that period currently. But you'd also expect FA values to take a slight dip for a bit so we could conceivably lock a few guys up for a slight discount compared to what we would have had to have paid 3 months ago.

 

[JO_75]

Making room for someone?

 

[Simba]

Making room for someone?

Likely just getting down to 80 with the new rules imposed. We were already at 89 so nothing was stopping us from signing anyone.

 

[rossihunter2]

2. Unions, by definition, are at least partially immoral. All of them.

not sure how you come to that conclusion

 

[rossihunter2]

Jamal Adams for 2 1st rounders, a 3rd and a 4th

the cost of available stars in trade talks seems to be 2 1st rounders as a starting point - Mack, Ramsey, Tunsil

 

[rossihunter2]