Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Devils Beat Rangers, Head To Stanley Cup Finals

NFL Lockout: Details Emerging From New CBA Proposal

The NFL owners are meeting in Chicago today and the news coming out from there indicate that they seem to be going well. Rumors and whispers of optimism have flooded the internets, and according to Chris Mortensen, details have been leaked on the proposed CBA Roger Goodell is explaining and pitching to the owners. There are some exciting tidbits to note: Per Mortenson's source, in the new CBA, players will receive a 48% share of all revenue and this number will not include the $1 billion owners' credit off the top as the previous CBA stipulated. Under that agreement, the players received '60%' of the revenue but only after the owners divvied up around $1 billion as an expense credit.

The two sides have created a new, simplified formula for revenue sharing that, according to Mort, "will eliminate some tedious accounting audits of the credit the players have allowed in the previous deal. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent."

Other stipulations that have leaked include (per Mortensen's article):

-A rookie wage scale will be included but is still being 'tweaked'.
-The 18-game season will be designated only as a 'negotiable item' with the players and is not mandated.
-A new 16-game Thursday night schedule will start in 2012 as a source for new revenue.
-Significantly increased pension funding and improved health care for retired players.
-A built in mechanism that requires teams to spend close to 100% the salary cap.
-Four-years needed for unrestricted free agency (franchise tag would remain).

So as you can see, the 18-game schedule would be tabled until a later date and the rookie wage scale would be implemented. New revenue would be generated (around $1 billion) with a 16 game Thursday night schedule. With the expected overall revenue growth in the NFL over the next few years, retired players would receive improved health care plans and a better pension. 

Onto the last two points: the first would be extremely exciting for Seahawks' fans, as there would be a built-in mechanism that would require teams to spend almost 100% of the salary cap. This is a departure from the old CBA which required teams to spend less than 90% of the salary cap and there were additional loopholes for teams to spend even less than that. Under the new CBA, the Seahawks (and every other team) would be required to spend close to 100% of the cap and this means the Seahawks would likely be MAJOR BUYERS going into 2011. 

Star-divide

CAVEAT: The following scenario I'm setting up is contingent on this specific CBA proposal, which is based on rumor and leaked information, getting approved and agreed upon. If that were true, there would be some pretty exciting ramifications for the Seahawks so I'll try and set them out for you here:

The Seahawks cleared a ridiculous amount of cap space last season during the uncapped (unfloored) year, and from what I can find, their salary cap hit sits at about about $81.1 million right now. If the new cap is something like $120 million (it was $130 in 2009), that means the Hawks have almost $40 million to make up to get near 100% of the salary cap. If you factor in the newly drafted rookies, and assume there's a new rookie wage scale you're looking at around $10 million for all of them combined (approximately). That leaves, in this scenario, almost $30 million to go out and sign some free agents. 

This $30 million, of course, assumes that you keep $5 million-dollar-man Stacy Andrews and retain the contracts of Lofa Tatupu and Marcus Trufant. If these players are dropped or restructured, as some rumors have indicated may happen, you're looking at even more to spend. With $30 million+ you could realistically sign 3-4 top-tier players plus a few other solid role players. Very interesting. 

This is, of course, all speculation (and a LOT OF GUESSWORK ON NUMBERS SO DON'T QUOTE ME) and based upon the idea that the salary cap will be enforced at near to 100%. Even if the salary cap floor is 93%, which I've heard is floating around, the Seahawks will still be forced to spend a lot of money. So if this CBA is agreed upon by the owners group and ratified by the players, the Seahawks could be looking a lot different after the free agency period. 

And speaking of the free agency period: this new CBA would reportedly designate 4th year players with no contract as eligible for unrestricted free agency. This means players like Sidney Rice, Charles Johnson, Barry Cofield, Malcolm Floyd, Zach Miller, Antonio Cromartie, and yes, our own Brandon Mebane (among a great deal of others) would become unrestricted free agents. Stay tuned...


Comment 35 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

What kind of spending would this force other teams into, for comparison sake

I’m wondering if the sudden requirement to spend more for each time creates such an influx of spending that 2011 FA salaries are going to be artificially high as teams try to grab what’s available. In that case, we’d be forced to overspend and still wouldn’t be able to target 3-4 top tier FAs because other teams, ones that typically would have sat at the cap floor, are now having to sign them as well.

by SmartAssCoug on Jun 21, 2011 2:04 PM PDT reply actions  

In all likelihood I'd guess that a team salary floor would be phased in over at least 2 league years.

I can’t imagine the number of holdouts next year if there is a big influx of 2nd tier players getting paid 1st tier money.

by bdf128 on Jun 21, 2011 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't dig the idea of a floor.

It should be tied to revenue sharing. Look at Pioli and thr Athletes formerly known as the Sonics. The NBA obviously has a radically different financial structure (that and they’re hemmhoraging money), but the analogy works, and such a judicious strategy is responsible for the success those bastards are experiencing. If it’s the only way to get the players on board, so be it, but otherwise it’s just punishing savvy management (in the football sense as opposed to the business). A team should be required to spend a certain amount to receive another’s revenue, though, definitely.

Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.

by THolt on Jun 21, 2011 9:23 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

You have to be careful though

Or you allow organizations like the Pittsburg Pirates to exist that pay absolute bare minimum and make enough revenue off of sharing that they don’t care who comes out to see the game. Very bad for the game.

by SpellStitchedHawk on Jun 21, 2011 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

That minimum needs to be set so it precludes what amounts in my noggin to cheating.

The Marlins are a prime example, too. Whatever formulae is used in my utopia, if it takes into account both revenue generated and shared revenue collected, I think it could work out well. Keeps teams from spending ALL other teams’ money, but also gives some strategic leeway.

Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.

by THolt on Jun 22, 2011 12:03 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Most teams aren't as low as the Seahawks, in terms of salary cap floor.

It’s not like all the teams will have to go out and spend a bunch, more like a select few. This is where I got my numbers, so check it out:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/37327/looking-at-2011-salary-cap-figures

Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS

by Danny Kelly on Jun 21, 2011 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Going by the ESPN chart and assuming a 2011 cap of 120 million

7 of 32 teams are currently at 70% or less
10 of 32 teams are currently at 80% or less

Forcing teams to immediately hit a cap minimum in the low 90s would seem to be a detriment to teams who currently have a lot of cap space. These teams would get saddled with some contracts which are not-proportional to the players value to the team.

by bdf128 on Jun 21, 2011 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think so, since this is hundreds of players.

Changing the rule to 4 years, and the existing FAs make this like 3 seasons worth of FAs.

And their going back to 2009 money. Heck, Namdi is going to put one team over the ceiling all by himself.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jun 21, 2011 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tampa bay is only at 59.7 million

They may just sign all the free agents. Also, looks like Dallas will start being well over the cap with rookies to sign. ha.

by B.B.Finnegan on Jun 21, 2011 2:15 PM PDT reply actions  

I'd bet some of Tampa's young guns Angents

will be on the phone 5 minutes after the deal is signed. Their gonna want some of that money.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jun 21, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, we can sign Leinart now without taking a hit.

So we could cut him at no cost of picks in the end.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jun 21, 2011 2:16 PM PDT reply actions  

I dont see how the owners would agree to a rule that forces them to spend close to 100% of the salary cap

Doesn’t that pretty much cripple the autonomy they enjoy in deciding how to run their teams/assemble their rosters? If I was an owner and told I HAD to spend that much every year I would be pretty pissed

by Dialectic on Jun 21, 2011 2:46 PM PDT reply actions  

But now Jerry Jones can't complain that he's sending his money to

Cincinnati and Buffalo for the owners to pocket while not fielding a competitive team or investing in the product. This has been owners vs. owners as much as anything.

It’s good for the league, and if Ralph Wilson don’t like it, he can move or sell.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jun 21, 2011 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

He's getting old as well.

Forcing him to pay that much may be what tips him over the edge… Even if I had all that money, it’d be a lot for my heart to take.

Earl Thomas + Mark Legree = Earl Gree. A new flavor of safety coming to you on Sunday's this Fall. They're gonna wake you up!

by Bobby Cink on Jun 21, 2011 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm ignoring that near-100% cap floor

It sounds like nonsense to me. Farrar put it at 90-93%, I think, and AP put it at 90%. Those are much realistic numbers, and still higher than the old floor.

It won’t specifically impact the Seahawks anyway. We’re not the only team well below any proposed salary floor, far from it. The only thing this would mean is that the current crop of free agents would make a ridiculous amount of money.

by Thomas Beekers on Jun 21, 2011 3:21 PM PDT reply actions  

ya, probably not 100%

But, it’s likely mid 90s. They are lowering the cap number and will probably reign-in the rookie wage scale.

Agreed on the second point as well. Seahawks will likely loose Mebane cause of this debacle and GMs would be more than happy to sink a few extra millions into Hasslebeck while they wait for their pick in the draft.

I hope they can find a way out of the Trufant contract.

by goatweed on Jun 21, 2011 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tossing the $1b credit and dropping down to a 48% share is more owner-friendly than I expected.

I suppose that makes sense and solidifies the notion that the last court ruling was a big win for the owners. The squeeze is on.

I hope the players don’t think this is a good deal. I know we all want football and are hoping for progress, and ultimately it’s inconsequential for me, what they end up agreeing to.

It just feels like the push to eliminate the $1b credit gains little and the cost of getting it is greater. If $1b made a 7-point swing from a 60% share to a 53% share ($1b of $9b), then what will that $1b credit matter in 4 years when the revenue is $13b? They’d be approaching doubling their takehome, despite the credit, when revenue rises by only 50%, if they could have kept their share close to 60% after credit.

In eliminating the credit and dropping their share so low in compromise, their potential takehome remains moderated even when revenues grow. It’s a real low-ball offer.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jun 21, 2011 4:40 PM PDT reply actions  

I think I read that it eliminates the needs for costly audits.

Streamline the system.

Earl Thomas + Mark Legree = Earl Gree. A new flavor of safety coming to you on Sunday's this Fall. They're gonna wake you up!

by Bobby Cink on Jun 21, 2011 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

How costly?

Given the track record of these guys, it would seem like money well spent either way, credit or not. And are they/have they been actually auditing up til now? I don’t even know.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Jun 22, 2011 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Doesn't a high cap floor

take some incentive out of developing young players? Just wait 4 years until you know someone will be good then pay them. What if you hire a new coach. I think it would be harder to make a roster over to fit a new offense/defense while staying in a 12 million dollar window.

by Nathan Dart on Jun 21, 2011 5:12 PM PDT reply actions  

That'll make 1st round draft picks more valuable.

Teams will take more chances on “riskier” prospects early in the draft, too….which might explain why Cam Newton and Jake Locker went so early.

by J.L. White on Jun 21, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also, having watched a good amount of Star Wars over the weekend,

I love the caption to the picture.

“Search your feelings Schneider. Asomugha would do great in Seattle. You know this to be true…”

Earl Thomas + Mark Legree = Earl Gree. A new flavor of safety coming to you on Sunday's this Fall. They're gonna wake you up!

by Bobby Cink on Jun 21, 2011 5:26 PM PDT reply actions  

Tru contract:

2011: $5.9 million, 2012: $7.2 million, 2013: $8.8 million

Looks like he will be cut next year. For this year, if he can stay healthy and played as if it was his contract year (which he should, given the structure of his contract) then the hawks would get OK value. His best year was his contract year.

Technically, the hawks could sign Asomugha knowning full well that they would cut Trufant next year.

by goatweed on Jun 22, 2011 5:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think the high salary floor will hurt Seattle for as long as Allen is the team owner.

We may be way under the cap this year with so many players going off the books, but under Allen’s ownership, the Seahawks have never been a cheap team. In 2005, the Seahawks were the highest payroll in the NFL.

I agree that if they do add a salary floor, it would be nice if teams had a couple of years to reach it, so they don’t have to overpay for players just to up the payroll enough to reach it.

by Mind of no mind on Jun 21, 2011 5:49 PM PDT reply actions  

Some teams might re-sign their own players to get up to the floor.

Most of our veterans are expendable, so we can avoid locking any of them down this offseason. I think we have enough money to bring in the free agents we really want (or at least be taken seriously). Even if we had the best cap position possible, I doubt this organization would hand out any crazy $100 million contracts.

by J.L. White on Jun 21, 2011 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

There has always been a floor...

Source:
In 2009, the final capped year under the current CBA, the cap was $128 million per team, while the floor was 87.6% of the cap. Using the formula provided in the league’s collective bargaining agreement, the floor in 2009 was $112.1 million. The salary floor percentage would have increased 1.2% per year until it reached 90% of the cap in 2011.

So, I am not sure how Paul Allen’s ownership plays into your argument. I have never read anywhere about Allen overpaying for a player, you may be thinking Timmy?

by goatweed on Jun 22, 2011 5:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

How would this affect the likelihood of the Hawks re-signing Hasselbeck?

I don’t care what we do with Hass. He’s my 2nd favorite Hawk of all time behind Steve Largent…but we’ve gotta move on sometime. Just curious. What do you guys think?

by Hawkaholic12 on Jun 22, 2011 12:19 AM PDT reply actions  

I can think of no sane reason not to resign Hasselbeck.

It’s time for a new franchise QB of course . But until that guy is in blue & green I want Matt under contract .

by Richard fg7 on Jun 22, 2011 2:47 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Just How Much Do Close Games Matter Anyway?
Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions

Recent FanPosts

Avatar_small
The OT Thread---12thrs, Assemble!
Horsey_small
Results from the 2012 Armchair GM Championship
Tasb_logo_small
Consider it Spun: The 5 Worst Moves of Carroll and Schneider Era in Seattle
Small
Plaxico Burress: viable option, or over the hill?
Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Madhatter_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies