What an Uncapped Year May Really Mean

Sounds like posturing by the league to get the player's association to the table.

 

Purging of high salaries would not be a bad thing for the team? hmmm..... if he doesnt come through starting for pace this year, we can rid ourselves of him? that might be the one positive in this mess....

but in all actuality I can't understand how these two sides can not come to an agreement. They are making the most money of any pro sports league, and to jeopardize that because they don't want to negotiate with the players, that is just down right irresponsible.....

 

So what if there is no cap? The majority of the teams will probably restrict themselves to somewhere around where it already is. Signing every major free agent is not a gurantee for success and with such a high injury risk I don't see whats wrong with letting the richest owners waste money. This will just make drafting and player development all the more important because rookie contracts will be much cheaper and retaining guys longer will also be easier.

 

No CAP + Gholston sucks once more = Goodbye Gholston

 

I too am concerned about this. Those of you living in NY don't notice this, but the rest of the country (smaller, poorer markets) has kinda given up on baseball the last few decades, outside of places with strong traditions like St. Louis. I know I used to go to & listen to/watch games all the time before the first strike. Now, I can't be bothered, I might go to a game every few years.

Be a shame if that happens to football too, if every year the storyline is just "will the Yankee money buy the Series? If not, who lucks out?" Except in football it will be Cowboys, Giants, Patriots, maybe (eventually?) 49ers.

 

Why the Patriots? Foxboro is about as small a market as there is. Of course, they (and the Red Sox) pull in practically all of northern New England for their fan base, so they have a lot to draw on. Not a ridiculously affluent demographic either. Not sure why Wisconsin and its surrounding environs can't do the same. If the patriots are considered a large market team its because they've successfully marketed themselves to one, not because of geography.

 

2010 is gonna be a sad year, less football = I'm praying the UFL lasts

 

I really don't believe them considering the tv contract the NFL has and the revenue sharing system in place.

 

Nobody knows that better than the people in the league though. They know (or should) how much there is to loose. Something will most likely get done.

 

This sucks. It looks like greed has another opportunity to destroy a good thing. The league is great right now, but the players and owners continue to want more, more, more even when the economy is shot.

They could take a decent chunk out of the salary cap by creating a sane rookie pay scale/cap.

 

Well, to start with, the Packers could not charge those ridiculous ticket prices and PSLs you guys have in NY. It's completely out of the question here, speaking in social terms. The Packers succeed because of the breadth of their fan support, not the depth (the people who actually buy tickets to come to games).

I think you maybe don't realize that the Packers have almost folded a number of times over the years. Back in the 20s, 30s, 50s, and again it was looking bleak in the 80s, the first three times they were saved by stock sales, the last time around revenue sharing was the only thing keeping them alive, on life support until Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren and a certain player no longer to be mentioned here revived their fortunes (figuratively and literally, as concerns merchandising). If & when the Packers start sucking again, it could be a spiral hard to break out of in a capless world.

But you are right in general though. With the deep history and passion for the team both inside & outside Wisconsin, the Packers would definitely be better off than the Jacksonville Jaguars and Arizona Cardinals and Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings of the world. When the Packers go to Minny, sometimes almost half the crowd are Packers fans. The Vikings ticket holders do not have the depth of passion for their team, they take the money and run when a Packers fan shows up with it, and they don't appear to be interested in paying to build a new stadium. It's a very strong possibility the Vikings will join the Lakers in moving to LA very soon.

 

I guarantee we would not have gotten the 5th pick so easily if that slot didn't require paying the unproven rookie pick more than Kerry Rhodes.

 

That's the truth, with a rookie weight scale, no teams will be trying to trade out of the first round.

 

As far as the new CBA is concerned, I listened to interviews with Goodell and De Smith this week and it sounds like Goodell has no interest in even sitting down at the negotiating table to work one out. The NFLPA has been going out of it's way to try to get something done and Goodell is deflecting. Saying things like he doesn't want to discuss any of it in the press and that the fans don't want to hear about it - Goodell is playing shill for the owners on this one. It's pretty pathetic.

 

True, but does that mean the rookie salaries are good? It's crazy what these guys make for never having played a down in the NFL.

 

Have you not seen the state of MLB??

Not sure how'd I'd describe this statement, ignorant or just plain naive.

Why would rookie contracts be much cheaper? You'll see tons, I repeat, TONS of rookie holdouts. A small market team gets 4th pick, stuck between big market teams who can afford to pay for an attractive rookie contract...small market team can't but player wants market value (somewhere in between neighbouring picks) = holdout.

 

Am I missing something? Packer fans, deep and broad with passion and history and all that, but not willing to pay the same freight as other fans, and not supporting the team when they aren't very good? Is that what you are telling us? If that's it, well, I'd say be happy you got to enjoy it as long as you have because you'll deserve no sympathy when its inevitably gone.