Seahawks Insider

Morning links: Doomsday, Part II

Post by Eric Williams on March 11, 2011 at 8:16 am with 17 Comments »
March 11, 2011 8:16 am
DeMaurice Smith executive director for the NFL Players Association, arrives for negotiations with the NFL involving a federal mediator Friday, March 11, 2011 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Andrew Brandt of the National Football Post offers some perspective on the labor negotiations between NFL owners and players with another deadline looming today. With both sides sparring through the media about the other side’s commitment to getting a deal done, we could be reaching a point of no return, with a lockout and decertification a distinct possibility.

However, Brandt remains hopeful that cooler heads will prevail, which means the possibility of a deal to extend the CBA once again today could be reached.


“The NFLPA now has a grenade whose pin they have threatened to pull at a couple different junctures. That next time is today at 5 pm est. That is their leverage in this negotiation: to take this negotiation into the chambers of Judge David Doty, the thorn in the side of the NFL. They will threaten the pulling of that pin today, especially late in the day.

“The bigger question is whether they will pull that pin. Although some of the player leaders have felt disrespected and want to take the emotional reaction of pulling that pin, I still have a feeling that this is not the strategy that union leadership wants to take. If they do, any goodwill built up with the league will vanish and we will move to a sea of lawsuits.

“I know I am in the minority here, but I just don’t believe these two sides are prepared to turn this league over to the lawyers.”

Jim Trotter of Sports Illustrated provides a nice rundown of what happened on Thursday between owners and players.

Could Matt Hasselbeck be headed to Tennessee? Jim Wyatt of the Tennessean thinks it’s a possibility because of former Seattle personnel executives GM Mike Reinfeldt, VP of Player Personnel Ruston Webster and Director of Pro Scouting Lake Dawson now working in the Titans’ front office.

Clare Farnsworth of pegs John Carlson as the tight end on the Seahawks 35th anniversary team.

Brock Huard of ESPN 710 Seattle believes TCU quarterback Andy Dalton has the traits to be a good signal caller in the NFL and is someone to watch for the Seahawks.

Is Christian Ponder the next Tony Romo? Is Jake Locker the next Donovan McNabb? Rob Rang and Chad Reuter of compare the top 50 players in this year’s draft to players they believe they are similar to already in the league.

Sports Illustrated’s Don Banks has some interesting tidbits from Wisconsin’s pro day. It’s worth a read.

Morning links
Leave a comment Comments → 17
  1. SeahawkFan12 says:

    Andy Dalton is not an elite-level NFL prospect. Think “poor man’s David Greene”. Please…I’ll pass (no pun intended).

  2. SeahawkFan12 says:

    …And I know that Brock didn’t refer to Dalton as ‘elite’, but frankly, that is what Seattle needs. Dalton may be a good scout team contributor, but he’s not going to lead a team to a division title let alone a Lombardi trophy.

  3. Dukeshire says:

    Brandt was on ESPN this morning. I was really impressed with his clarity in explaining a very complicated issue without dumbing it down to ESPN’s typically remedial level (as is his piece in NFP). And I actually agree with him that neither side wants this to go to the courts, especially the owners. That said, I’d actually be surprised if there were another extension, unless the league relents and agrees to genuine transparency regarding their finances.

    “poor man’s David Greene” lol, yikes.

  4. Carlson on the 35th anniversary team? Boy, the Seahawks have really struggled to find good TEs. I’m pleased, though, with the inclusion of both Hasselbeck and Alexander (over the other faves, Krieg and Warner). I will concede that Warner was more exciting to watch and deserves to have his name mentioned alongside Alexander.

    If Hass signs with the Titans, will they pay him more than Kerry Collins? Or will they say, “Why should we have to pay for our mistakes?”

  5. maddog12 says:

    Sounds like a 50/50 revenue split, 18 game season with increased rosters and retirement/health benefits, rookie wage scale with 4 yrs to free agency is where a deal could be had. I know players have said they don’t want 18 games but they will have to give something to get something.

    One question I have had about the 18 game thing is couldn’t the coaches have these guys play all four preseason and 16 regular season games anyway? What is to stop teams from starting their starters? I know they don’t cause they want new guys to get time and evaluate. But what is to stop them from putting their 1st team on the field and making them play at any time and that includes after the second preseason game is over. Players are under contract to play are they not?

  6. Dukeshire says:

    If the players give back 10% (they currently receive a 60% share) there is no way in hell they’d agree to an 18 game schedule. That’s approx. $90 million the players would give back to the league. Not happening. The NFLPA isn’t giving back one dime until the league shows them the owners, are in fact, losing money.

  7. CHawkFanIn9erLand says:

    I love football, and I love the players. I don’t have any posters of NFL owners in my study. I am not on one side or the other in this debacle. Unions certainly have their place in society, and have been a part of progress in building good working environments for workers in our country.

    That being said, this is displaying the part about unions that is pretty ugly. The union is demanding to have total access to the books of each team? Here’s a little bit of information NFLPA … you don’t own the team or the NFL.

    Let me get this straight … you want the owners to put up all the money for operating the teams, take all the financial risk, give you half the revenue or more, and then just give you access to all the finances too? LOL, who’s business is this?

    Oh yeah, and if the owners don’t do this, you’ll decertify and take it to the courts, arguing that the NFL breaks antitrust laws. Brilliant.

  8. Dukeshire says:

    It’s hard to disagree with that in principle. But if the league is asking the union to give money back and work more, they’d be fools to not believe the players would demand some level of transparency. And the players themselves foolish to not have all information possible, before entering into a new CBA. Add to that the details that came out last week about how the league entered into tv contracts at a reduced price in exchange for guaranteed payment in the event of a lockout. With that much distrust on both sides and subterfuge from the owners in preparation for this lockout, it’s hard to imagine the union wouldn’t demand transparency.

  9. Duke check out this link LaCanfora has an interesting thought on the 50/50 split:

    The link is from if it does not work. I still think there are price/terms at which the players would agree to 18 games (increase money, benefits larger rosters or shorter time to free agency). There is a price. Will the owners be willing to pay that price …thats a different story.

    I think the players should be careful about decert. They may have a favorable judge in Doty. But he won’t be the only judge that will end up hearing this mess. I am afraid of the unintended consequences of the desertification. If it does not go their way what do they do reform a union?

  10. trout_hound says:

    I’m sure they’ll extend the deadline again if they don’t work it out.

    This has nothing to do with the CBA, and may have been posted before, but I just noticed our boy Matt as the header poster-boy for Sports Illustrated’s NFL page.

  11. The added $ from a rookie wage scale could help supplement older vet’s health insurance costs. Increasing health care past 5 years outta the league could be a difficult task finding health insurance companies to cover all the health care those guys must need, for reasonable premiums. Makes you wonder how rodeo bull-riders, and Evil-Kneival types get insurance? Could the NFL start their own, in-house health insurance to cover their own players? Each team could slightly increase it’s med staff for counselling and therapy/diagnostic equipment for vet walk-ins. It might give them more incentive to pay closer attention to the holistic health of their players, if they knew they were on the hook for players continuing coverage? Might also make a difference in who they drafted(?) Shoot, they could get their own fancy-scanners to take a look at the bodies of the to-be-drafted prospects.

    A 50-50 split with 18 reg-season games, 60-man rosters, and closed books might work if the teams agree to shuffle their inactive lists into the games. It would likely have to happen earlier on, as the inactive lists are generally filled later-on with injured players who might reappear in post-season or re-appear near the end of regular season. The schedule could make or break a season just by itself.

    Teams would not be allowed to play players more than 16 regular season games, unless each player individually agreed to an amendment to his contract (teams re-work existing contracts to include agreeable increase in pay for more games). Otherwise, teams aren’t allowed to play existing players for 2 of their 18 games. It’s the big-money vet star-players who most often sit out pre-season games. They would eitther have to be paid more (and it would likely have to be much more than a standard pro-ratio) to play in two extra games. The teams themselves might be reticent to play them two extra games, if they look like they’re gonna make it to post-season and want their top players fresh. Lower wage players and high-draft rookies would likely go for a pro-rated pay increase for more time on the field. Usually inactive players shouldn’t need any more incentive than just to be on the field during a game.

  12. Dukeshire says:

    maddog12 – Thanks and that is interesting info. And I agree with you that there is a price at which the payers would agree to an 18 game schedule. But I still stand by my belief, and that is a 50 / 50 split AND 18 games won’t happen. No chance in hell. (Now that I’ve said that it’s a near certainty it will. lol)

    And yes, Doty is an ally and so long as the union decertifies before the deadline, his court will be the first to hear the players’ suit. Of course as suits and appeals come in on top of one another, many different courts will get involved.

  13. Duke- Thanks for your “No chance in hell,” pronouncement. If that is what it takes to get on with the season, good job!

    Lets all just hope they figure it out.

    Klm008 way to think outside the box. I like it.

  14. AaronCurryIsBUST says:

    Andy Dalton is so terrible, I’m starting to think the people singing his praises have never seen him play like Aaron Curry prior to the 2009 draft.

  15. CHawkFanIn9erLand says:

    I completely disagree with the union forcing the owners to give up 50 percent of revenue to the players. The owners accept all the financial risk, pay all the bills, somehow it’s acceptable for them to have to do that with their half of the money? Ridiculous.

    The owners are greedy. I get that. There are many former players that are living in poverty, have health issues, etc. I get that too. So yeah, the NFLPA has helped with those things. But honestly, when we look at the most significant improvements the NFLPA has made in dealing with those issues, they actually protected players from themselves more than they have from the greedy owners and the greedy NFL. Basically taking portions of players contract salaries to provide benefits to inactive/retired players after their careers, etc.

    LOL, but to tell the league that they’ll only ACCEPT 50% of the revenue if they have full access to the last 10 years financials? Sorry, that’s pretty laughable to me. I think it’s an interesting window into where we’ve come as a American society.

    I guess I just can’t see it from the perspective that the players are giving money back. I know 50% is less than 60%. But I think the players need to remember that they are getting paid an incredible sum of money to play football. I played 6 years of football for free. I didn’t see it as “sacrificing my body”. I was playing a game I loved. I guess the days of players seeing it that way are long gone though. Sigh.

  16. CHawkFanIn9erLand –
    Some of the owners may go back to the days when players played both offense and defense(?) And probably for less salary than a civil-service worker (then). Fans had a good deal back then because owners weren’t making much either. It’d be interesting to compare those days to today:

  17. CHawkFanIn9erLand says:

    like I said, I know the owners can are greedy too, this isn’t “the owners are good and the NFLPA is bad”.

    With that in mind, I was unaware that the owners had that element in their proposal … (tongue in cheek).

    They offered 4.5 billion dollars, give or take, to the NFLPA. That leaves 4.5 bil for the owners to pay coaches, other employees, other bills, etc etc etc.

    I hardly think that an offer of $4.5 bil is tantamount to going back to the days of poverty, no insurance, and forcing players to play both sides of the ball.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0