Answering reader questions about the busy week off the field. Andrew Brandt
After receiving many questions about the collective bargaining negotiations, Albert Haynesworth and the reduced offers to restricted free agents (RFAs) earlier this week, here’s a mailbag with your questions and hopefully answers:
What do you think of this talk about an extended season in the latest collective bargaining session?
I think this changes the game and gives hope for a new agreement. Here’s why: the owners have asked for a rollback of – depending on whom you believe – anywhere from nine to eighteen percent from the current CBA. Playing a couple of extra games, if accepted by the NFLPA, could be a tradeoff to the owners to bring the shared-revenue equation back to at or near where it is today.
In other words, say the owners agree to not ask for any reduction in the share of revenues that the players receiving. In return, the union would agree to playing the extra two games. There will be posturing for now, with players like Tom Brady and Ray Lewis trotted out to explaing the physical strain of playing more games, but money has a way of soothing those aches. Sources on both sides of the bargaining table tell me this issue could be the one that breaks the thaw in negotiations.
What do you think of the NFL having Mark Murphy of the Packers – a team you know well -- speak on the issue?
It was strategic in two ways :(1) Murphy is a former player and can show empathy with current players, and (2) Murphy is CEO of the Packers, the only team in the league to share its financials with the public (and the union). The Packers annual report will be coming out this week and my sense is it will show lower profits than in recent years, supporting the owners' arguments for a new system.
What is going on with Albert Haynesworth and the Redskins?
Just as JaMarcus Russell has become the poster child as to what is wrong with the rookie compensation system, Albert Haynesworth is fast becoming the poster child for what is wrong with splashy free agenct signings in football. The Redskins got caught up in the chase last year and signed Haynesworth to a stunning contract, with $41 million guaranteed and $48 million in the first four years. They have already paid him $32 million and now have switched defensive schemes, much to his dismay.
Would the Redskins trade him after giving him all that money?
I would not. It would compound the mistake of giving him $32 million only to have another team reap any benefit of his services. The contract – with only $9 million remaining on the guarantee -- is quite reasonable for an acquiring team. I know he may be a locker room problem, but a lot of that is jealousy as to how much money he made.
Is there a scenario in which it would make sense to trade Haynesworth?
There are two: (1) he returns some of the $32 million he has received. Having received a $21 million check in March, one would hope he hasn’t spent it all, or (2) the Redskins make the acquiring team take on another bad contract – Clinton Portis and his $6 million guaranteed is the obvious choice – to make it happen.
Do the Redskins have any chance of recovering money from Haynesworth?
It will be a challenge, as the time for that would have been before they handed him $21 million in March. They may be trying the same theory the Raiders are using to recover money from Russell: that when the contract was adjusted with a superseding bonus – as both Russell’s and Haynesworth’s were –the full guarantee did not accompany the restructure. The NFL Management Council is advising both the Raiders and Redskins in their attempts to salvage these disastrous contracts.
What happens now to the unsigned RFA players?
Players like Marcus McNeill, Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins and Atari Bigby are just that, unsigned players without contracts. Until they are executed – the contract, not the player – the players have no obligation to report for team activities: minicamps, workouts, training camp, even the season. They cannot be fined for their absences, similar to unsigned Franchise players of the past such as Assante Samuel (New England) and Walter Jones (Seattle) that would just show up right before the season and sign their one-year tender.
How long can they go without signing?
Theoretically, forever. However, if they do not report by August 10 they will not receive a free agency credit and if they remain unsigned as of Week 10 of the 2010 NFL season, they cannot play for the rest of the year.
And what would happen next year?
Depending on the CBA negotiations, they would either be RFAs again subject to the control of their team or Unrestricted Free Agents (UFAs) free to negotiate with any team.
Can a team and a player negotiate a different one-year amount than the tender?
Yes. That has been raised as a solution by a couple of the unsigned players – McNeill of the Chargers for one -- and declined by the team.
What about your column on Collusion?
Coming Monday (I hope).
Follow me on Twitter at adbrandt.
An accrued season is a season where the player is under contract and is active for at least six games.
RFA's who don't show for camp, but eventually sign and play the season get an accrued season but don't get the free agency credit. What exactly that means, I have no idea....
I get the feeling that the "free agency credit" thing is something that only applies in the year the CBA expires. It's never come up before because the CBA was always renewed by both sides well before it expired.
Wait a minute. The team and the RFA can negotiate a different amount on the one-year contract? That's a nice little factoid that hasn't gotten much play in the media. Now I REALLY don't understand why the Chargers wouldn't negotiate with McNeill and Jackson, especially if they are willing to play on enhanced one-year deals that have no impact on a non-existent salary cap. So they could probably get Vincent Jackson on the field for about $7 million AND still have him motivated to try to hit a big long-term contract next year. Good Grief - I would think that the team would jump on that in a New York minute. Maybe the dollars are more than that, but still.
Well,
I had a feeling that the increased regular season would cause the CBA to go through successfully. I certainly hope that's the case. We love our football! However, Albert HaynesworthLESS is a clown and should be ashamed of himself. His teammates are calling him selfish. That's all that needs to be said. Keep up the good work. Even though Lombardi, my favorite writer, has left NFP, I've taken the liberty of reading the other columns and there is really good material here!
Extending the season is SO STUPID! We don't need more freaking games the owners and players are so greedy they are messing up the integrity of the game. The whole reason the NFL rules is because each regular season game is important--unlike the NBA or MLB. Adding two more games just dilutes the product and risks injury. And why not 5more games? Why not 10?
STUPID STUPID STUPID.
The increased season is good for many reasons, but I also feel the players should be compensated for it.
The longer season will force the issues of OTAs & mini-camps, revamping the IR, possible increase of non-active players and maybe creating a development/minor league.
18 games may get the deal done, but it messes up the rhythym of the season. There's something real nice about half paying attention to pre-season games while on vaca in August, dialing it up for real right after Labor Day, and going full-tilt up through the New Years wknd. Then you have January full of playoffs, and wrap it up the first weekend of Feb.
It has a great flow to it.
How do you do 18? Start real games in August when everyone is on vaca? Play until mid-January, with the Super Bowl on Valentines Day? Nothing says "I love you" like "the Super Bowl is on". Not.
Big mistate going to 18 games. The NFL has the perfect season. My favorite sport is hockey but I rarely watch a regular season game. I wait until the playoffs. I can only speak for myself but I have a difficult enough time committing to 16 weeks...another 2 and my wife would kill me. Plus, can you imaigine another 2 games with a bad team...say the bears? How empty would Soldiers Field be week 18 with a record 3-14....brutal. I agree big mistake. Don't water down the season!!!
Solution = add two more regular season games and subtract one preseason game - good, do it, we're all done here - no holdout, no strike necessary...
Solution = add two more regular season games and subtract one preseason game - good, do it, we're all done here - no holdout, no strike necessary...
Water the season down ? I believe football is a sport. But if it is the "product" thats being manipulated, watering it down is contrary to product value.
If they expand to 18 games the next step will be to expand the playoffs.
If you think there's bitching and moaning now when an 11-5 team misses the playoffs, wait until there's a 12-6, 13-5, or 14-4 team miss the playoffs.
Then the NFL will be no better than the NBA and NHL.
It's bad enough that we have to have wild card teams now, with 8 4-team divisions.
Dan Snyder is crazy not to step in here. Tell Shanny to stick with the defensive scheme that suits Haynesworth. Just fire the def. coordinator and hire one that can use Albert to his fullest ability.
I'm all for 18 games. But expand the rosters so that more players can be familiar with the system, and fill-in for injuries. It sucks when teams have to sign Vinny Testaverde to come in because the other 2 quarterbacks are injured, and the 3rd doesn't know the system. It has to be better for teams to keep mediocre players that know the schemes and plays, then signing mediocre players that don't?
Point 1:"Money will sooth those aches"? Really. So, a torn ACL can be cured by more money? I didn't realize that.
Point 2: Murphy breached the conversation. So what? He only played 14 games. At a position that didn't take the constant viciious collisions of the linemen. That is my main concern. "The Pits" is an apt name for playing on the OL or DL.
Point 3: If the NFL owners are so poor- living in hovels, scrounging for change, etc., let them open their books. Of course they won't. Now, I have a different take on this. Not because they are raking in money hand over fist (which I believe they are), but because they are spending money like fools. I could name to prominent NFL owners that do this, but it would be redundant. The Packers made less revenue last year? Therefore we should scrap the present system and install a new system? I am always wary of change. Especially in a system that has shown it works so well,. It is not the teams that are at fault, but individuals who own the teams that decide that eating up profits rather than investing them in the teams is a good idea.
I will agree in advance, GB is different. But perhaps the present economic conditions, and the pressure from som of the other "mad dog" franchises (I'll pay whatever you want, just play for this team!) are also a factor. Remember, the Packers still have a waiting list of over 50,000 people who want season tickets. If they're truly hurting, its not because of anything they have done.
Lets find the true cause of the problem (Jones, Snyder) and eliminate them, and get back to some sanity in the NFL.
I can't help thinking that the owners are being penny smart and dollar dumb when it comes to some of the RFA tender issues. It was their decision to opt out of the cba that created all of this mess, so the 30% rule business doesn't get me on their side really. They can always do what the Eagles did with McNabb...offer them an "extension" that doesn't add any time to their contract, simply gives them a bonus to be paid whenever. Also, one year contracts are a great way around these issues. You give the player a nice raise for this year (not everything they're asking for, but enough to show that you're willing to negotiate in good faith), earn their good will and get them to practice, and yet you avoid tying yourself up in a contract with huge guaranteed money in case there's a lockout. It's win-win. Better yet, make it a two-year contract, with a minimal salary due next year. The intention here is not to force them to play for a pittance the following year, but simply to make sure that they are still under contract when you begin working on the extension. The owners are still protected in the event of a lockout, but they also don't run the risk of having another team outbid you for the player's services.
The owners refuse to do this, however, because they're treating the new rules in the uncapped season like a winning lottery ticket. I approved of them using the lack of a salary cap to get out from under bad contracts. I also had no problem with most teams not going nuts going after free agents and keeping their payroll low this year. Taking advantage of the players who would normally be UFAs like this,however, seems to be a step too far. Worse yet, it's shortsighted. Yes, they can save some money now, but presumably the Chargers would like to keep Jackson and McNeil on their team, just as the Patriots would like to keep Mankins on their team. The atmosphere in both cases, however, is becoming toxic. Mankins has already said the he will not sign his tender, and that he now wants out of New England. Jackson doesn't seem to be giving in either. Not only could these teams lose some important players for most (perhaps all in extreme cases) of this season, but the players could refuse to sign new contracts with the teams after a new cba is signed. While it's not a RFA issue, the relationship between Chris Johnson and the Titans could also end up permanently soured if things don't change. That wouldn't be good for the Titans, as I don't see anyone else on that team generating enough interest in the fans to put butts in the stands and sell a lot of merchandise. Yes, the owners stand to save some money now, and some may be worried about a potential lockout new season. If they took a moment to realize why they wanted those players on their teams to begin with, then they might realize that destroying those relationships to save a few bucks now may not be the best business decision.
Great article.
Thanks
Eighteen Games will shorten the average NFLPA career by TWO years and be a very cost effective means for NFL ownership to reduce veteran payroll expenses. Veterans make more money than rookies, so wearing them out faster and dumping them sooner is a great management strategy.
Running two hundred yards is easy but not after you have run sixteen hundred yards.
Doing two push ups is easy but not after you have done sixteen pushups.
Eating two chicken wings is easy but not after you have eaten sixteen wings.
Dating two women is easy but not after you have dated sixteen women.
An Eighteen Game season is a fool's idea of how to balance this issue, if the players agree to an 18 game season then - just like the American Electorate - they will have gotten the government they so richly deserve.
The interesing thing about McNeil and Mankins and their RFA status is even if they sit out the entire season and don't accrue another year tenure in the league, they will STILL likely be UFA once the new CBA is reached in the NFL.
Unlike other years when 3-year veterans that were RFA's and might try to play hard-ball with teams, if they held out and sat at home for the year, they would still be RFA's the following season and still be "owned" by the same teams.
That is not the case for all the 4-year and 5-year veterans out there that are RFA's only under the unusual 2010 CBA rules.
It presents a very unique case. I mean, if Logan Mankins has enough money saved up from his first five years in the league (from his rookie contract), he could just sit out the entire year and rest. He'd still be a quality free agent prospect in 2011 and likely get a fairly substantial signing bonus then. He would also eliminate injury risk.
Vincent Jackson (2005), Marcus McNeil (2006) and many others from those rookie classes fall under this scenario. They don't NEED this accrued season to likely gain free agency once a new CBA is reached in 2011. That gives them a huge bargaining chip at the negotiating table.
THE GOOD :
Hey deljzc ...Great point regarding players being able to sit out 2010 and reap the benifits next season ...Massive bargaining chip for them .
Teams will either have the choice to pony up the dough now or lose 'em later and get nothing .
THE BAD :
Dear Deep Sixteen ... Though I admire your obviously well thoughtout posting , I disagree strongly that subtracting 2 preseason games and making them regular season ones will neccesarily subtract 2 years off the average players career .
Lets say the average player plays 5 seasons ...how does playing just 10 extra regular season games equate to reducing the average players career to just 3 seasons ?
THE UGLY :
Yo John W. ... You're actually comparing the NFL Playoff System to the NBA / NHL all-inclusive farces ?
( and sight teams like '09 Pats 11-5 record as proof ? )
Confusing logic.
Please explain (thank u )
John W's post :
"If you think there's bitching and moaning now when an 11-5 team misses the playoffs, wait until there's a 12-6, 13-5, or 14-4 team miss the playoffs "
"Then the NFL will be no better than the NBA and NHL. "
Murphy breached the conversation. So what? He only played 14 games.
Actually, Murphy played from 1977-1984. The NFL played 14 regular season games in 1977 and adopted a 16-game schedule in 1978. So, Murphy played a 16-game schedule for 7 of his 9 years in the league (1982 had a 9-game schedule due to the players strike). I don't know if he actually played in each game during those years, but there you go.
And clearly I can't count, because Murphy only played 8 years.
deljzc
I think 18 games is too long for an NFL season.I wonder if the league really wants this, or is it a negotiating ploy??
I'm curious what fraction of the NFL's revenue comes from the gate as opposed to TV. If TV money is more important, then I wonder if you don't get the same effect by adding 2 bye weeks. There are more weeks, so there is more TV money, but there aren't more games (so no increase in the gate or in injuries: in fact the extra time off should help the injury issue).
Jerry in TX, the waiting list for Packers season tickets is at least 75,000. I was around 77,000 a couple of years ago when I finally signed up.
@CAPNFOX
What part confuses you?
Lengthening the regular season will inevitably lead to including more teams into the playoffs thus watering down the regular season similar to the the NHL and NBA.
I'd like Mr. Brandt to point out where the August 10th date is coming from for RFA to report. The CBA does not mention anything about accrued seasons and free agency credits whether in the last year of the current CBA or not.
The CBA allows for the fact that accrued seasons and free agency for a RFA are the same thing. 6 active games and you get your credit.
If there is some documentation which states anything different I'll be glad to read it and discover that I am not correct in this instance.
Otherwise I have to assume that Mr. Brandt is incorrect.
The average NBA 1st rounhd pick will see his second contract, the average NFL player will never get one, and if they were not a 1st round pick, then they are getting a lot less than the middle of the NBA 1st rounders.
so good
Cap and cash ramifications of...
Thoughts on Indy, Eli, Wes, Mario...
The numbers behind the game
Real action is week before the...
Signs point to the end of an era
Jun 17, 2010
11:37 AM
Is a "free agency credit" the samething as an accrued season? So a player showing up after August 10th DOES NOT get an accrued season?
If they are not the samething, what is a free agency credit?