Question about the lock-out

[detlef]

OK, first off, I'm not saying whether this is bad or evil or unfair. Just curious...

 

So, right in the middle of conducting an annual business procedure of distributing new players into the league the NFL was able to get a stay of judgment to allow them not do conduct business as usual. One can only assume then, that the lock-out is specifically directed at current players. And, of course, once drafted, the new players become part of the locked-out group. But, right up to the second they're drafted, they don't count among that group and are, therefor, fair game.

 

I mean, that has to be the logic or how could they even conduct the draft during a lock-out. After all, it must be this distinction that also prohibits the trading of current players. Assuming a player doesn't have a no-trade clause in their contract, they have as much to do with a trade as a draft pick has to do with being drafted. Someone tells them they're reporting to a new team and that is that. So, again, the only reason why it seems a draft could go on is that it is involving players who are not part of those currently in the NFL. Up until they're drafted, of course.

 

Why, then, can they not sign undrafted FAs? They're in the same boat as the new rookies. That is the NFL doing business with a pool of football players not currently in the NFL. Of course, as soon as they are signed, like the drafted players, they're the opposition in this conflict and are subject to the lock-out.

[Caveman_Nick]

Small amount of educated guessing here: I believe it has to do with players needing to apply to the draft before they are eligible to be signed by an NFL team, but then once they have done that they are part of the FA players pool and are subject to the same rules as everyone else.

[Savage Beatings]

I think it is because drafted rookies are still unsigned, but undrafted rookies would have to be signed to the team that claims them right away which they can't do without a cba in place.

[bpwallace49]

I think it is because they want the revenue fron the three day spectacle that is the draft.

 

Cause this is all about money at the end of the day, right?

[Bronco Billy]

I think it is because they want the revenue fron the three day spectacle that is the draft.

 

Cause this is all about money at the end of the day, right?

 

Beacuse before it was a gala extravaganza, the NFL didn't have drafts, right?

[Bronco Billy]

OK, first off, I'm not saying whether this is bad or evil or unfair. Just curious...

 

So, right in the middle of conducting an annual business procedure of distributing new players into the league the NFL was able to get a stay of judgment to allow them not do conduct business as usual. One can only assume then, that the lock-out is specifically directed at current players. And, of course, once drafted, the new players become part of the locked-out group. But, right up to the second they're drafted, they don't count among that group and are, therefor, fair game.

 

I mean, that has to be the logic or how could they even conduct the draft during a lock-out. After all, it must be this distinction that also prohibits the trading of current players. Assuming a player doesn't have a no-trade clause in their contract, they have as much to do with a trade as a draft pick has to do with being drafted. Someone tells them they're reporting to a new team and that is that. So, again, the only reason why it seems a draft could go on is that it is involving players who are not part of those currently in the NFL. Up until they're drafted, of course.

 

Why, then, can they not sign undrafted FAs? They're in the same boat as the new rookies. That is the NFL doing business with a pool of football players not currently in the NFL. Of course, as soon as they are signed, like the drafted players, they're the opposition in this conflict and are subject to the lock-out.

 

Because while you don't understand the distinction between a drafted and an undrafted player, the NFL does.

[WaterMan]

I think it is because they want the revenue fron the three day spectacle that is the draft.

 

Cause this is all about money at the end of the day, right?

 

On top of the NFL wanting money from the draft, ESPN probably begged them to keep the draft going so they wouldn't lose money as well.

[bpwallace49]

Beacuse before it was a gala extravaganza, the NFL didn't have drafts, right?

 

 

 

Please. Why do you think they stretched it out to three days? Answer: more advertising money and face time on prime time for the league.

 

Again . . all about the money.

 

As you are a proponent of the savvy owners, I am surprised that you arent completely behind this

[WaterMan]

 

Please. Why do you think they stretched it out to three days? Answer: more advertising money and face time on prime time for the league.

 

Again . . all about the money.

 

As you are a proponent of the savvy owners, I am surprised that you arent completely behind this

 

I think it would be smart business to make the draft last 1 day for each round.

[bpwallace49]

I think it would be smart business to make the draft last 1 day for each round.

 

Give it a few years . . .

[Bronco Billy]

 

Please. Why do you think they stretched it out to three days? Answer: more advertising money and face time on prime time for the league.

 

Again . . all about the money.

 

As you are a proponent of the savvy owners, I am surprised that you arent completely behind this

 

Is that your answer to what was a simple question?

 

If there is an opportunity to market an event and make more money on it, despite it having been going on in the league for decades before being a widespread entertainment phenomena, you would begrudge someone from realizing that? And don't those revenues go to the league, which is shared by the teams and the players?

 

Why don't you want the players to make any money?

Edited May 1, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[WaterMan]

Why don't you want the players to make any money?

 

I think I can speak for the people who don't want the players making money. These guys hate to see people playing a game and being able to blow millions of dollars away on cars/boats/whatever while their bosses are struggling keeping the doors open to a business that is booming.

Edited May 1, 2011 by WaterMan

[detlef]

Small amount of educated guessing here: I believe it has to do with players needing to apply to the draft before they are eligible to be signed by an NFL team, but then once they have done that they are part of the FA players pool and are subject to the same rules as everyone else.

The issue with that logic is it would seem to make the draft something they can't do during a lockout. If the field of players who declare for the draft are automatically considered part of the players pool, then why would the NFL be able to conduct business with them? Thus, one could only surmise that the loophole for being able to conduct a draft but not trades is the fact that, while the NFL is not to conduct business with any current players, it can do so with those who aren't players yet. Not until their name is called.

 

I think it is because drafted rookies are still unsigned, but undrafted rookies would have to be signed to the team that claims them right away which they can't do without a cba in place.

This is probably it. Thanks.

 

Because while you don't understand the distinction between a drafted and an undrafted player, the NFL does.

[Bronco Billy]

 

right back atcha'

 

If you alreay know the answer, why ask the question?

[Caveman_Nick]

The issue with that logic is it would seem to make the draft something they can't do during a lockout. If the field of players who declare for the draft are automatically considered part of the players pool, then why would the NFL be able to conduct business with them? Thus, one could only surmise that the loophole for being able to conduct a draft but not trades is the fact that, while the NFL is not to conduct business with any current players, it can do so with those who aren't players yet. Not until their name is called.

 

I don't believe they are a part of the players pool until after the draft. That's kinda the point. They are either drafted or not. If so, their rights belong to a team. If not they are FA's

 

Otherwise they would all be FA's as soon as they applied for the draft

[detlef]

right back atcha'

 

If you alreay know the answer, why ask the question?

Actually, I didn't. That's why I asked. Savage Beatings answer seemed most reasonable to me.

[Bronco Billy]

Actually, I didn't. That's why I asked. Savage Beatings answer seemed most reasonable to me.

 

Good morning, det.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Actually, I didn't. That's why I asked. Savage Beatings answer seemed most reasonable to me.

 

Fairly simple:

 

FAs can not be signed until the new league year starts. The NFL determines when the league year starts and has not started the 2011/2012 season yet.

 

Players that are members of teams are not in the FA pool (obviously).

 

Players that are entered into the NFL draft are not FAs or members of an NFL team up to the point where they are drafted, or the draft ends.

 

Upon being drafted, the drafting team has exclusive rights to negotiate that players' contract. So players that are not considered FAs are now those with whom teams have existing contracts and those with whom they have exclusive contract rights. All other players are FAs - again, who can not be signed until the league year starts.

 

That's the long & the short of it.

[detlef]

Fairly simple:

 

FAs can not be signed until the new league year starts. The NFL determines when the league year starts and has not started the 2011/2012 season yet.

 

Players that are members of teams are not in the FA pool (obviously).

 

Players that are entered into the NFL draft are not FAs or members of an NFL team up to the point where they are drafted, or the draft ends.

 

Upon being drafted, the drafting team has exclusive rights to negotiate that players' contract. So players that are not considered FAs are now those with whom teams have existing contracts and those with whom they have exclusive contract rights. All other players are FAs - again, who can not be signed until the league year starts.

 

That's the long & the short of it.

I think Savage's response was more to the point.

 

None the less, the distinction gets a bit muddied because, again, the NFL's conflict is not with every man who plays football, but rather with the specific set of men who are considered within the pool of players in the NFL. Every college kid is outside of that pool, which ls likely the only reason why the draft could even happen (because the judge did question the legitimacy of it during a lockout but must have backed off realizing that the draft was not business being conducted between the NFL and the pool of players they were locking out). Of course, any dealings with those players, once drafted, would be a violation of the lock-out.

 

So, the signing of undrafted FAs is a bit muddy. On one hand, they are not considered within the pool of players they are currently having a conflict with. On the other hand, it is signing FAs without any CBA in place. So, one could conclude that teams should be able to engage in preliminary discussions with these players since they're not currently associated with the NFL, no? I mean, would it be a violation of the lockout for a GM who sees a very fit looking UPS driver who he remembers from college ball a few years ago if he'd ever thought about trying football again? Of course, it seems as if it is if he contacts a current FA within the established pool of NFL players and asks him what he thought about signing with his team after things get settled. Is it not?

 

It's just that, unlike the draft, where the player is claimed but not signed, they can't execute any formal association with them because these players can't be claimed until they're actually signed.

[Caveman_Nick]

I think Savage's response was more to the point.

 

None the less, the distinction gets a bit muddied because, again, the NFL's conflict is not with every man who plays football, but rather with the specific set of men who are considered within the pool of players in the NFL. Every college kid is outside of that pool, which ls likely the only reason why the draft could even happen (because the judge did question the legitimacy of it during a lockout but must have backed off realizing that the draft was not business being conducted between the NFL and the pool of players they were locking out). Of course, any dealings with those players, once drafted, would be a violation of the lock-out.

 

So, the signing of undrafted FAs is a bit muddy. On one hand, they are not considered within the pool of players they are currently having a conflict with. On the other hand, it is signing FAs without any CBA in place. So, one could conclude that teams should be able to engage in preliminary discussions with these players since they're not currently associated with the NFL, no? I mean, would it be a violation of the lockout for a GM who sees a very fit looking UPS driver who he remembers from college ball a few years ago if he'd ever thought about trying football again? Of course, it seems as if it is if he contacts a current FA within the established pool of NFL players and asks him what he thought about signing with his team after things get settled. Is it not?

 

It's just that, unlike the draft, where the player is claimed but not signed, they can't execute any formal association with them because these players can't be claimed until they're actually signed.

 

I don't believe it is muddy. IIRC, In order to become a part of that player pool an eligible candidate has to apply to the NFL draft. Once they have gone through the process, whether they are drafted or not, they can be a part of the player pool. I am not sure what the requirements of that application are other than being 2 years out of H.S., but all the draft does is assign a team exclusive right to sign a new player. Players not drafted are free to sign wherever they want.

[flemingd]

It's not that the UFA can't sign - they can. It's due to the lockout the owners are collectively choosing not to. This is why it's central to the owners' position that this is a labor dispute and not an anti-trust one because if it's determined to be an anti-trust issue then the owners' actions (or lack thereof) would probably considered collusion and illegal. The owners would be in all kinds of SHAM WOW! soup if the ruling comes down to this, not the least of which is triple damages awarded. It's not inconcievable that the players make the case the owners left a couple billion dollars on the table with the TV deal they just signed and that could be part of the triple damages award the players become eligible for.

[detlef]

I don't believe it is muddy. IIRC, In order to become a part of that player pool an eligible candidate has to apply to the NFL draft. Once they have gone through the process, whether they are drafted or not, they can be a part of the player pool. I am not sure what the requirements of that application are other than being 2 years out of H.S., but all the draft does is assign a team exclusive right to sign a new player. Players not drafted are free to sign wherever they want.

I guess the part of your reasoning that I find confusing is that you continue to say that, once a player declares himself eligible for the draft (whether or not he actually gets drafted) he's part of the pool. And if that's the case, you would think all of them would be subject to the terms of the lockout even before they're drafted. And if that was the case, you'd think they couldn't have the draft at all. Again, the only reason I can find why they can have the draft is because they're not part of the pool of players that they're having a labor dispute with. But rather, imminently a part of that group.

 

For instance, I'm guessing that, were there an expansion team this season, the expansion draft could not occur, because it's dealing with players already considered as part of the NFL and thus, involved in the labor conflict.

 

After all, the terms of this lock-out is not limited to interactions between teams and players, but also between teams with regard to players. Philly trading Kolb for a 1st rounder is no more an interaction between a Philly and Kolb than Philly choosing some dude in the draft. In both cases, the player has nothing to do with what is happening, they're simply being told where they're going to be showing up for work, once work exists. The distinction, therefor, would have to be that the kid that Philly took in the draft was not a part of the conflict and Kolb is.

 

ETA: something that gets even muddier still when you consider that the kid from A&M is part of the lawsuit.

 

It's not that the UFA can't sign - they can. It's due to the lockout the owners are collectively choosing not to. This is why it's central to the owners' position that this is a labor dispute and not an anti-trust one because if it's determined to be an anti-trust issue then the owners' actions (or lack thereof) would probably considered collusion and illegal. The owners would be in all kinds of SHAM WOW! soup if the ruling comes down to this, not the least of which is triple damages awarded. It's not inconcievable that the players make the case the owners left a couple billion dollars on the table with the TV deal they just signed and that could be part of the triple damages award the players become eligible for.

And that makes the least amount of sense. The last thing the owners want to do is be found to be colluding to the extent that they are refusing to do things that have nothing to do with the lockout. So, I would have to think that signing FAs of any sort, be they FAs outside the current realm of NFL players or those who are currently considered NFL players is specifically forbidden as part of the lockout. After all, since the last judge even mentioned that she may not allow the draft, means that the owners just can't pick and choose what they do and don't want to do if they cause a work stoppage. There's a definition and apparently that definition includes not being able to sign FAs.

 

I mean, you would have to think that, all things being equal, they'd love to go out and claim the undrafted kids like they always do. Just like they'd probably just as soon be able to work with the kids they just drafted. Do you think SF doesn't want to get Kaepernick into a mini-camp today? Every team with a new coach or new QB is going to be at a disadvantage to those who are set at those positions. So you'd think that these are both seen as necessary evils of the lock-out. That they're things they realize they can't do without the lock-out being a sham and yet sort of wish they could do. Thus, I can't imagine any of these teams voluntarily doing any of these things to go above and beyond the terms of the lockout.

Edited May 2, 2011 by detlef

[Caveman_Nick]

I guess the part of your reasoning that I find confusing is that you continue to say that, once a player declares himself eligible for the draft (whether or not he actually gets drafted) he's part of the pool.

 

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that he has to apply to the NFL by declaring to be in the draft, and then it's not until his rights are not claimed that he becomes a UDFA. It's the very definition of being 'UD' in that UDFA.

 

All the players become a part of the player pool at this point. The only difference is that some had their rights claimed in the draft and some did not.

[detlef]

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that he has to apply to the NFL by declaring to be in the draft, and then it's not until his rights are not claimed that he becomes a UDFA. It's the very definition of being 'UD' in that UDFA.

 

All the players become a part of the player pool at this point. The only difference is that some had their rights claimed in the draft and some did not.

So, because I'm more than 2 years out of HS, I could have applied for the draft, correct? Needless to say, my name would not have been called this weekend (which is really a crime because I've got mad skills). Would I, automatically, now be considered among to the pool of NFL players at this point and, therefor, part of this dispute?

 

ETA: Thinking more, I guess that would have to be the case and that is the only path one can take to playing in the NFL. I suppose that nobody can play in the NFL, regardless of their circumstances without first being a part of the draft for that season. Whether it's a slow 42 year old or someone who could actually play. I guess that would be true for guys like Kurt Warner who were bagging groceries and playing in the Arena league. Before St. Louis could have picked him up, he would have had to re-apply for the draft and, once again, be shunned?

Edited May 2, 2011 by detlef

[Caveman_Nick]

So, because I'm more than 2 years out of HS, I could have applied for the draft, correct? Needless to say, my name would not have been called this weekend (which is really a crime because I've got mad skills). Would I, automatically, now be considered among to the pool of NFL players at this point and, therefor, part of this dispute?

 

ETA: Thinking more, I guess that would have to be the case and that is the only path one can take to playing in the NFL. I suppose that nobody can play in the NFL, regardless of their circumstances without first being a part of the draft for that season. Whether it's a slow 42 year old or someone who could actually play. I guess that would be true for guys like Kurt Warner who were bagging groceries and playing in the Arena league. Before St. Louis could have picked him up, he would have had to re-apply for the draft and, once again, be shunned?

 

I am not sure that a player would need to reapply. I believe they just have to go through the process once and give all teams a shot at him (based on draft order of course).

 

I have read about this before. I looked for some documentation on the process and came up short...so I am not claiming any kind of absolute answer. I just recall entry into the NFL player pool working in this fashion, and therefore being subject to the lockout would go by the same process.