State of the Ravens Presser on MASN

[TL24x7]

The television home of the Baltimore Ravens, MASN will televise the team's Season-Ending Press Conference on Wednesday afternoon at 2 p.m live from Owings Mills.

The press conference will feature owner Steve Bisciotti, president Dick Cass, general manager and executive vice president Ozzie Newsome and head coach John Harbaugh.

Video highlights from the press conference will also be available in MASN's Media Lounge.

LINK (http://masnsports.com/2010/02/masn-to-televise-ravens-press.html)

[RavenScallywag]

Based on the Twitter PBP from 1WinningDrive, I didn't glean too much new info. They seemed to throw DWil under the bus a bit, said he couldn't do as much as Clayton and Kelley Washington. Ozzie reiterated he'll be going best player available over need, but they'd still like to address the WR situation with some new blood.

[BmoreBrawla]

I hope by new blood he isn't implying drafting a WR. IMO that is a HUGE mistake. This is not a rebuilding year, its a win-now year to lure mason/lewis/reed back.

[TL24x7]

Here are a few of the notes that I took of things that stood out, keeping in mind that it wasn't exactly a riveting presser:

* The team first introduced new coaches Jim Zorn & Dean Pees

* Steve Bisciotti will be meeting on Saturday night in Ft. Lauderdale with owners to discuss the CBA...sd he doesn't believe the "Final 8" status will hamper the team that much...they have a budget for what they are confident will be an uncapped season and they plan to spend up to it...Bisciotti believes his budget will be just as competitive as any team's.

* Ozzie thinks the uncapped season will result in some good players being cut on par with players like Derrick Mason & Samari Rolle (when they were acquired by the Ravens)...He added that the restricted free agent pool will be bigger and that you may see more player movement there than in the past.

* What happened to Demetrius Williams? Ozzie said Derrick, Mark and Kelley happened to D Will.

*Ozzie: "I'll never put this organization in a position where need becomes more important than best player." He was very emphatic about this.

* On whether the uncapped season will upset the balance of power in the league due to there not being a floor...Bisciotti: "We already have a structural problems." ... Net income for some teams was lower than their linebackers' salaries; teams are covering 10,000 seats with tarpaulin to prevent blackouts; the Rams have been for sale for 18 months, original asking price was $900 million but now that has been cut to $600 million because the cash flow doesn't justify the investment...owners need more income and want to take money away from the players' pool, the last deal was a bad deal for the owners; Bisciotti also hinted slightly at a rookie cap by saying that teams need to be able to sign the good players they drafted to the more expensive second contracts.

* Character issues were brought up and the names Plaxico Burress and Brandon Marshall were mentioned...Bisciotti said that he is more of a risk taker than the others (Ozzie, Harbaugh, Dick Cass) but emphasized that while he likes to give people who have made mistakes a second chance, you have to be careful whenn you give repeat offenders another chance. He added, "What do you have to lose if that person fails you?" I took this has a thinly veiled way of saying that they are not interested in Marshall.

* The subject of pass interference was brought up and the inconsistencies in the way it is called. Ozzie (a member of the competition committee) said that it's important for them to draw "bright lines." He said they did that with the force out rules for receivers who catch the ball but are pushed out before they get their feet in play. If the feet aren't down, it's incomplete, plan and simple. That is a "bright line" for the officials. He said they need to do the same for pass interference in order to establish consistency with the call.

* Ozzie made a comment about restricted free agents, particularly those that would have been unrestricted had 2010 remained a cap year. He said the uncapped year might be an opportunity to extend the contracts of such players who they would like to keep for more than one season. The assumption I believe is that these players will want more than just the typical one year RFA deals and may have some incentive to take more team friendly deals.

* When asked what thing bothered him most about the 2009 Ravens, Bisciotti said penalties. He added that there really doesn't seem to be any direct correlation between penalties and success since 10 of the most penalized teams were among the 12 playoff contenders. He did hint that the Ravens penalties were at crucial times and that players need to be more aware of the game situation and their techniques during such times.

These are the things that jumped out most for me...

I will look at it again later and if anything more jumps out I'll let you know...

[Jeremiah W]

Great report. Thanks T.

I think Oz is right about some big time players getting cut. So far it seems like Antrell Rolle is certian to get cut becaue of a McNair like crazy high salary of 12 mil. Reggie Bush and other recent top 10 type picks that have not panned out also may be on the chopping block. There are some guys that make Willis and his 4 mil look really reasonable, but at the right price would make great Ravens.

[Rxdoxx]

Ozzie: "I'll never put this organization in a position where need becomes more important than best player." He was very emphatic about this.


We saw Oz sign Carr pre-draft, so need was bo longer more important than best player. Carr may not have been the greatest, but he did relieve the need.



On whether the uncapped season will upset the balance of power in the league due to there not being a floor...Bisciotti: "We already have a structural problems." ... Net income for some teams was lower than their linebackers' salaries; teams are covering 10,000 seats with tarpaulin to prevent blackouts; the Rams have been for sale for 18 months, original asking price was $900 million but now that has been cut to $600 million because the cash flow doesn't justify the investment

What is your best guess as to teams?
Tarp covering seats - Jacksonville? but teamS, who else was?
Rams - were they even worth 900mil to begin with?
Thinking of teams with high dollar LBs, and Bisciotti may be hiding some real truth, making it sound terrible. He says linebackerS (plural!), does this mean we have to add their LBs salarys together to see what the teams profit was less than?
If I look at the Ravens, and count Suggs as a LB, add in Ray, JJ, BA....
what do we come up with, 20+ million? Any guesses as to what teams (plural) he is referring to?

[RavensDomination]

If anyone reads what Bisciotti is saying about the labor talks and doesn't get worried then you need to pull your head of out of the sand and start worrying. It's clear the owners are NOT going to cave like last time and give the players a sweetheart deal. This will get ugly.

[effo5231]

We saw Oz sign Carr pre-draft, so need was bo longer more important than best player. Carr may not have been the greatest, but he did relieve the need.

Chris Carr has absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about.

He's talking about the draft. Since the Boller disaster Oz vowed to never allow need to be the determining factor in DRAFTING a player. Obviously you sign free agents based on need, but only if the price is right.

[Mista T]

It's clear the owners are NOT going to cave like last time and give the players a sweetheart deal. This will get ugly.

I'd be happy to see the owners get tough. While the NFLPA and Tags did their little dance, we fans have been left to pay the absurd bill in the form of NFL ticket prices which have by far out-paced the rate of inflation; in Baltimore, ticket prices have risen at a rate that been a double or triple over the rise in the CPI. $100+ for most seats in the stadium vs. $10 for Colts seats 30 years ago.

Attendance and/or other financial problems are besetting many NFL teams: Jax, Oakland, St. Louis, Buffalo, San Diego. NFL owners are not just pissed off, but rather they are scrambling to turn around the league's finances to be on a more even keel. If the players don't succumb, there will be a lock-out.

And Tags can kiss good-bye any chance that he had at HOF status.

[RavensDomination]

Chris Carr has absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about.

He's talking about the draft. Since the Boller disaster Oz vowed to never allow need to be the determining factor in DRAFTING a player. Obviously you sign free agents based on need, but only if the price is right.

Yea, Oz has always said "right player, right price" with free agents. People often talk of his draft record, but his free agent record has been admirable as well.

[JimZipCode]

Chris Carr has absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about.
He's talking about the draft.
Disagree, Chris Carr is very relevant.

Last offseason we were desperate for CB help. Ozzie signed Carr pre-draft, and that changed our situation, so that going into the draft we were no longer desperate for CB help. (When did the Foxworth signing happen? Was that also pre-draft?) We still needed to add young talent at corner in the draft, but it wasn't so bad that we needed to spend a top-2 pick on the position.

Pre-draft free agent signings are part of draft planning, it seems to me. If you can shore up a position with some second-tier veterans, then that reduces the pressure on you on draft day. You can be free to get the best player, like if Michael Oher falls into your lap.

This year, I wouldn't be surprised if Ozzie signs some guys pre-draft, who we find absolutely annoying. One or two functional "3rd WR" types who will never, ever be mistaken for a true #1. Sort of like Kelley Washington, I guess. (I like Washington, but he wasn't an exciting acquisition at the time.) I think we'll cry out in frustration: "We need a #1 and we sign this guy?!???"

But a couple moves like that would reduce the level of desperation at the position. That would give us some wiggle room, so if a beast pass rusher or the best TE in the draft fall to us at #25, we'd be free to take him. That's exactly how Ozzie likes to operate. Makes sense, too.

That's how Chris Carr is relevant to the draft.

[RavenScallywag]

To be honest, we all expected Chris Carr to be more relevant when it came to the return game than as a CB. Remember, he opened the season as our primary returner. But yes, he was also signed as depth at CB.

That statement makes me hopeful that Ozzie isn't going to take a cop out approach when it comes to receiving help, but I have to temper that with the idea that he could choose to re-sign Clayton, Mason, and Kelley Washington and add our "outside playmaker" in the draft.

I know I used to criticize everyone calling for us to give up whatever to get a #1 receiver...but I think after seeing how close we get and how that WR that can get seperation is really our only weakness, I think I'm okay with some of the ideas to get a quality starter opposite Mason. Granted, not on board with trading 1st and 3rd round picks for a risk case, but trading one pick for a Boldin or Bowe or Floyd...I could live with that. Could even be ok with trading our 2nd and 4th round picks.

[jonboy79]

The players have no leverage.
Forbes rated the average NFL owner to make roughly $31m. If that's average, then the Rams aren't worth even nearly $600m. No business is worth 20x's expected profits.

The Owners have FAR too small a portion of Revenues and Players are FAR too large a portion. There is no way that the Owner of a team should only be making what his top two players are....

[Ravenswarrior19]

Chris Carr, Foxworth, Samari Rolle (d'oh), and Matt Birk were all signed pre-draft to alleviate needs.

Oz made a concerted effort last year to fill all 22 stater positions (23 if you include nickel) before we went into the draft. This allowed for us to draft without the need to land an instant starter.

The quote in question was in response to a comment that maybe this year we will need to forgo BPA in order land a player at a specific position, namely WR.

Ozzie: "I'll never put this organization in a position where need becomes more important than best player." He was very emphatic about this.

I took it to mean Oz will not pass on a highly rated player (like Oher) in order to fill our need at WR. We will still be operating under our BPA mantra like we always have.

[elland]

Chris Carr, Foxworth, Samari Rolle (d'oh), and Matt Birk were all signed pre-draft to alleviate needs.

Oz made a concerted effort last year to fill all 22 stater positions (23 if you include nickel) before we went into the draft. This allowed for us to draft without the need to land an instant starter.

The quote in question was in response to a comment that maybe this year we will need to forgo BPA in order land a player at a specific position, namely WR.


I took it to mean Oz will not pass on a highly rated player (like Oher) in order to fill our need at WR. We will still be operating under our BPA mantra like we always have.

And LJ Smith doh. Then our TE was not that critical, well what ever. Nevermind OZ did address several needs before the draft.. Like probably every great FO.

[Rxdoxx]

Oz made a concerted effort last year to fill all 22 stater positions (23 if you include nickel) before we went into the draft. This allowed for us to draft without the need to land an instant starter.


I took it to mean Oz will not pass on a highly rated player (like Oher) in order to fill our need at WR. We will still be operating under our BPA mantra like we always have.

And keep the flexability to move in either direction on draft day.
We moved way down then back up a little for Flacco. We moved up some for Oher (he didn't just fall to where we were sitting but came close enough that the price tag was reasonable). Not having the overwhelming need gives freedom to act for the good of the overall team. (I'll be watching to see if Buffalo grabs a LT regardless of how many went off the board before them.)

[Dave Lap]

And keep the flexability to move in either direction on draft day.
We moved way down then back up a little for Flacco. We moved up some for Oher (he didn't just fall to where we were sitting but came close enough that the price tag was reasonable). Not having the overwhelming need gives freedom to act for the good of the overall team. (I'll be watching to see if Buffalo grabs a LT regardless of how many went off the board before them.)

Yes, Oz signs free agents to fill needs because they are proven players at the NFL level. By filling needs prior to the draft it gives us more flexibility to take the BPA in the draft.

I'm so glad he does not take the approach of wasting the value of a draft pick by taking a lesser talented player due to need.

[RavensDomination]

The players have no leverage.
Forbes rated the average NFL owner to make roughly $31m. If that's average, then the Rams aren't worth even nearly $600m. No business is worth 20x's expected profits.

The Owners have FAR too small a portion of Revenues and Players are FAR too large a portion. There is no way that the Owner of a team should only be making what his top two players are....

The players have as much leverage as the MLB players had in 1994, and the MLB'ers won that battle.

The owners can't give and give and give, then all of the sudden expect the players to just give back. Not gonna happen without a huge fight. The owners screwed themselves with the last CBA.

[jonboy79]

The players have as much leverage as the MLB players had in 1994, and the MLB'ers won that battle.

The owners can't give and give and give, then all of the sudden expect the players to just give back. Not gonna happen without a huge fight. The owners screwed themselves with the last CBA.

The league could play with replacement players. and even if the current player pool never came back in the league, the talent pool would be back up to par in three years. The new players would gladly play for half. That's still more then they could possibly expect in a lifetime from a real job.

That will never happen because the union will completely drop their drawers minutes after scab players hit the field.
I think it could easily come to that. If the owners are smart it will. UNless the players are smarter and give it all up early. The players should be highly motivated to make a deal NOW, as this year's structure is VERY bad for them.

[Jeremiah W]

The league could play with replacement players. and even if the current player pool never came back in the league, the talent pool would be back up to par in three years. The new players would gladly play for half. That's still more then they could possibly expect in a lifetime from a real job.

That will never happen because the union will completely drop their drawers minutes after scab players hit the field.
I think it could easily come to that. If the owners are smart it will. UNless the players are smarter and give it all up early. The players should be highly motivated to make a deal NOW, as this year's structure is VERY bad for them.

I don't know about that. If the owners really do bust the union and the CBA then they would have to get rid of the draft and the fake contracts. They would actually have to compete for talent and pay players what they are really worth, or at least really pay them what they sign for.

It is also pretty hard to claim you are losing money when they have TV deals like they do and are not willing to open the books. I do not know how the union is able to enforce the current deal if they do not even know how much money they are supposed to get 64% of.

[jonboy79]

I don't know about that. If the owners really do bust the union and the CBA then they would have to get rid of the draft and the fake contracts. They would actually have to compete for talent and pay players what they are really worth, or at least really pay them what they sign for.

It is also pretty hard to claim you are losing money when they have TV deals like they do and are not willing to open the books. I do not know how the union is able to enforce the current deal if they do not even know how much money they are supposed to get 64% of.

Why would they have to give up the draft, the CBA is expiring, they will write their own with their own new players Union. they will still have all the TV contracts and therefore would be the only realistic game in town for College players.

They aren't claiming they are losing money, they are rightfully claiming they don't make enough money. No one in their right mind would invest a half BILLION dollars on a team to only average $31m per year in profits(forbes).

[Mista T]

The league could play with replacement players. and even if the current player pool never came back in the league, the talent pool would be back up to par in three years.

:iagree:

Replacement players would be the next logical step after a lock-out. The owners couldn't keep the seats empty while players pouted.






If the owners really do bust the union and the CBA then they would have to get rid of the draft and the fake contracts.

:229031_confused2:

What? The draft existed for at least 3 or 4 decades, happily stocking the NFL with college talent, before there was an NFLPA. If the NFLPA disbanded, while it may be their dream that each player would be a free agent, they would not have any leverage or legal standing to eliminate the draft. Even if they did, I would think that the NFL would have enough politicians in their pockets to be able to gain whatever additional anti-trust immunity was needed to preserve the draft.

[Jeremiah W]

:iagree:

Replacement players would be the next logical step after a lock-out. The owners couldn't keep the seats empty while players pouted.







:229031_confused2:

What? The draft existed for at least 3 or 4 decades, happily stocking the NFL with college talent, before there was an NFLPA. If the NFLPA disbanded, while it may be their dream that each player would be a free agent, they would not have any leverage or legal standing to eliminate the draft. Even if they did, I would think that the NFL would have enough politicians in their pockets to be able to gain whatever additional anti-trust immunity was needed to preserve the draft.

The draft is only sort of legal because of the CBA. If it goes away so does the draft.

The NFL would have to recruit college kids like any other company with actual contract offers.

Why should a football player not get to choose where to work? Why should they not be able to sell thier services to the highest bidder?

If the NFL shuts down, some other 3 letters will step up. Football will still be football but there will not be a salary cap or a draft if there is no CBA extension.

[jonboy79]

The draft is only sort of legal because of the CBA. If it goes away so does the draft.

The NFL would have to recruit college kids like any other company with actual contract offers.

Why should a football player not get to choose where to work? Why should they not be able to sell thier services to the highest bidder?

If the NFL shuts down, some other 3 letters will step up. Football will still be football but there will not be a salary cap or a draft if there is no CBA extension.

You have it completely backwards. The players are nothing but chattel. They have no leverage, they are replaced every year. The NFL has no reason to go away, and can easily continue without the current NFLPA. As I mentioned, if no players crossed, it would only take 3 years to have a similar level of play again. We all know players will cross, they have no other opportunity to make hundreds of thousands , let alone millions of dollars.

There is nothing that would make the draft go away. The players union has no ownership of it. The players are simply drastically overpaid employees.

[Jeremiah W]

You have it completely backwards. The players are nothing but chattel. They have no leverage, they are replaced every year. The NFL has no reason to go away, and can easily continue without the current NFLPA. As I mentioned, if no players crossed, it would only take 3 years to have a similar level of play again. We all know players will cross, they have no other opportunity to make hundreds of thousands , let alone millions of dollars.

There is nothing that would make the draft go away. The players union has no ownership of it. The players are simply drastically overpaid employees.

The players are the product.

How is it that there is a draft?

Why is it football is the only place where contracts are not contracts?

Overpaid compared to who? You? Baseball players, MLB players, NBA players, actors, CEOs, Shiela Dixon? Who does the money go to if not the players? Back to the fans?

I do not know what will happen, but the players are only what you say htey are under the old rules. If there is no CBA, the labor laws kick in. Contracts are contracts and there is no draft.

[jonboy79]

The players are the product.

How is it that there is a draft?

Why is it football is the only place where contracts are not contracts?

Overpaid compared to who? You? Baseball players, MLB players, NBA players, actors, CEOs, Shiela Dixon? Who does the money go to if not the players? Back to the fans?

I do not know what will happen, but the players are only what you say htey are under the old rules. If there is no CBA, the labor laws kick in. Contracts are contracts and there is no draft.

Overpaid compared to the owners and other employees created by the NFL. THe players cut is simply too large.
College players are not part of the Union. Future players are easy to come by, they are created by the hundreds every year. There will still be a draft, trust in that.

[RavensDomination]

If teams had zero players, the draft would be very different than it currently is. There would have to be how many rounds? 53? Plus practice squad. Plus training camp scrubs.

Think about it, 53x32 - 1696. That's ONE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX PLAYERS needed to complete all of the teams. And again, that's not including training camp scrubs. I doubt there would be any player who has a legitimate shot at ever playing again crossing the picket line, so while there may be a handfull of has been's coming back it won't be a lot.

Nearly every college player from Div I would be guaranteed a roster spot. It would be like watching college football every Sunday. No thanks.

The players have a ton of leverage, who wants to watch college QB's over Peyton Manning and Drew Brees?

As I posted in my lockout thread, the owners already have their TV contracts insured in case of a work stoppage.

[Mista T]

If there is no CBA, the labor laws kick in. Contracts are contracts and there is no draft.

:ref:

The NFLPA has been fighting the draft for decades. There was has been an NFL draft for every season since 1936. The NFLPA was founded in 1956, but ignored by the owners, until 1968. The union disbanded in 1987, reunited in 1993. The NFL continued with its hated drafting of players before there was a union, after there was a union but before recognized, after it was recognized, and while the union disbanded into a mere "players association".

Would you please explain which "labor laws" were being violated by the NFL while it continued to draft every year since 1936? :229031_confused2: And, oh-by-the-way, which Federal judge agreed with your opinion? :229031_confused2:



Can't produce a response? Didn't think so! :insane:

[Raveninwoodlawn]

I really don't get this fascination that JW has with there not being a draft.

The NFL has and always will represent itself as a single entity. Players can choose with entity they can play for...the CFL or UFL.

[braven98]

I don't know about that. If the owners really do bust the union and the CBA then they would have to get rid of the draft and the fake contracts. They would actually have to compete for talent and pay players what they are really worth, or at least really pay them what they sign for.

It is also pretty hard to claim you are losing money when they have TV deals like they do and are not willing to open the books. I do not know how the union is able to enforce the current deal if they do not even know how much money they are supposed to get 64% of.

your right ii listen to talk radio most of the time and I heard players from different markets saying they are UNDER PAID COMPARE to what the owners bring in.this is going to get ugly...

[HoustonRaven]

Anyone who thinks this is going to "get ugly" is over stating this situation a bit.

The players know they do not have a leg to stand on. This will go to an uncapped year and that's it.

Dont buy into the media hype around this. The owners will get just about everything they are seeking and it wont even be close.

And we should all be thankful for that -- the last thing the NFL needs is an MLB style pay structure.

[jonboy79]

If teams had zero players, the draft would be very different than it currently is. There would have to be how many rounds? 53? Plus practice squad. Plus training camp scrubs.

Think about it, 53x32 - 1696. That's ONE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY SIX PLAYERS needed to complete all of the teams. And again, that's not including training camp scrubs. I doubt there would be any player who has a legitimate shot at ever playing again crossing the picket line, so while there may be a handfull of has been's coming back it won't be a lot.

Nearly every college player from Div I would be guaranteed a roster spot. It would be like watching college football every Sunday. No thanks.

The players have a ton of leverage, who wants to watch college QB's over Peyton Manning and Drew Brees?

As I posted in my lockout thread, the owners already have their TV contracts insured in case of a work stoppage.

UFL and CFL players would be eligible for the first draft as well. And you wouldn't have to draft the entire teams, you could draft 10-15 rounds and then have Free Agency to fill out rosters.

The has beens wouldn't be the ones to cross... they have their money. It would be all the current young players that are fringe roster spots. this would provide huge immediate depth. The players that have plaid for one or two years at minimum deals would gladly accept half. The players that played for Millions year after year won't.

As I mentioned, the quality of play could drop for a few years, but the Owners cut slash ticket prices to attact the fans, the TV networks are already on the hook for big bucks.

[Jeremiah W]

There seems to be a lot at stake in the supreme court case right now. The players option to decertify and sue may be at stake, but if they have that option, they have leverage enough to get a good deal.

How did they manage to get a deal the owners did not like last time?


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/05/single-entity-defense-remains-firmly-in-play-for-ongoing-labor-fight/

"""""""""
At one point, one of the reporters made a reference in jest to the notion that the NFL is a single entity, as it contends in the American Needle antitrust case, which arises from the league's exclusive apparel deal with Reebok. And so the guy who pretends to be a reporter blurted out this question: "Does the NFL contend that it is a single entity for labor purposes?"

It actually wasn't as bad of a question as I could have otherwise asked. In the wake of the oral arguments in the American Needle case, we noticed a conflict between the statements that attorney Gregg Levy made to the Supreme Court and some of the things that the NFL has said in other contexts.

Said Pash in response to a question that seemed to call for a "yes" or "no" answer? "It's immaterial." (In other words, "Yes, but I really don't want to say 'yes.'")

In fairness to Pash, he explained that the issue won't matter until the labor deal expires, the union decerifies, and the union then sues the league under the antitrust laws for applying standard pay, draft, and free agency rules to a group of individuals who are no longer formally unionized.

He didn't say whether, at that point, the league would contend that it is a single entity. But he admitted that, in the antitrust case that the members of the decertified union filed after the failed 1987 strike, the league did indeed contend that it is a single entity.

[Rxdoxx]

The has beens wouldn't be the ones to cross... they have their money. It would be all the current young players that are fringe roster spots. this would provide huge immediate depth..

When I read that, all I could think of was "He hate me"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Smart

[Dave Lap]

The draft is only sort of legal because of the CBA. If it goes away so does the draft.

Why should a football player not get to choose where to work? Why should they not be able to sell thier services to the highest bidder?

.

Football players can choose to work in the NFL or the Canadian Football League. I'm sure there are a few other places.

I see the NFL as one big entity and the teams as franchises under that entity. If you were hired by say Stoufers and they wanted you to work in their Lousiana office, they have the right to send you there.

Same with the NFL as far as I'm concerned. They have the right to send players where they want and do so via the draft.

[B-more Ravor]

The draft is only sort of legal because of the CBA. If it goes away so does the draft.
............
If the NFL shuts down, some other 3 letters will step up. Football will still be football but there will not be a salary cap or a draft if there is no CBA extension.

There will be a draft if the owners say there will be a draft. If rookies want to play in the NFL, then they will have to be part of the draft.

The CBA expires after this season and the owners have already said there will be a draft next year.


Why is it football is the only place where contracts are not contracts?


No, the NFL contract says that the team can terminate the contract at their discretion. It IS a contract, it's just not a guaranteed contract.

Even if there is no salary cap in the future - which is highly doubtful - that doesn't mean that guaranteed contracts will follow.

[RavensDomination]

The guaranteed contract thing could be a possible middle ground. Keep the salary cap, but make the contracts guaranteed. That would be fair.

[Rxdoxx]

Possible thay the players could get part of the guaranteed contract.
I can see them ending up with 1/3 or 1/4 base guarantee, conceding the whole as a chip. May be complicated with things like when does the contract start, when player signs it or when season begins, which would allow owners to make final camp cuts with no consequences. But I don't see much strength on the players side.

[jonboy79]

The guaranteed contract thing could be a possible middle ground. Keep the salary cap, but make the contracts guaranteed. That would be fair.

Football, a cap, and guaranteed contracts could never all coexist. Career ending injuries would be cap melters worse then they are now.

[Jeremiah W]

Football, a cap, and guaranteed contracts could never all coexist. Career ending injuries would be cap melters worse then they are now.

Not if they do not keep the dead money and cap hits for players no longer on the team.

There is no reason to think just because it is what it is, that is the only way.

[jonboy79]

Not if they do not keep the dead money and cap hits for players no longer on the team.

There is no reason to think just because it is what it is, that is the only way.

There is still an effect on cashflow, it's still a business.

[pro320]

I just want someone to come out say...

What are we specifically looking at for improving our wide receiving corps? Do you go through the draft or look to acquire a proven guy.
--------------
coach purses (http://www.CoachPursesCheap.com/)