ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Reggie Corner must be Doubly Doomed! Actually, it's just conventional wisdom that in that situation the team would be sold "to the highest bidder." Not the same thing.

From Beerball's link above: "Most likely, the new compensation structure will allow drafted players to renegotiate their contracts based on performance after three seasons" Players the Bills drafted in 2008 who would be affected by this - - Bell and especially Johnson must be happy: from http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/6/16/2226883/stevie-johnson-demetrius-bell-paul-posluszny-bills "1-11, 2008: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy. Just four of 10 players from the 2008 class remain in Buffalo, and it's sad that I feel happy that the team's first-round pick is one of them. It didn't help that he missed most of his second season due to injury, but McKelvin has not developed into the top-tier cornerback most expected him to be - and there's never been any question that he's physically capable of doing so. Some have questioned his focus. I can't comment on that, but on the field, McKelvin can be great, but he's far more likely to give up big plays and look lost. If the light ever stays on with this guy, he could be outstanding - he's flashed that ability. It's fair to not expect that to happen entering the fourth year. 4-114, 2008: Reggie Corner, CB, Akron. Corner was not even invited to the Combine coming out of Akron, and though we didn't poll readers back then, I'd imagine that he was one of the least popular Bills draft picks in this blog's lifetime. Serving mostly in a nickel and dime capacity in his first three years, Corner has been a valuable reserve and has made some big plays here and there. He's a known commodity - a hard worker that functions well as a deep reserve and specialist, but who can be exploited when he's on the field. 7-219, 2008: Demetrius Bell, OT, Northwestern State. It's been a rough ride for Bell, who has endured his struggles after being handed the starting left tackle job way too soon in just his second season - after he was inactive every week as a rookie. He hadn't played football until college, and wasn't ready to play NFL football by any stretch. Still, there he was, starting a season opener. The fact that he has emerged, over a year and a half of game experience, into a possibly-long-term left tackle is, to me, pretty remarkable - especially given his injury situation. I like this guy. 7-224, 2008: Stevie Johnson, WR, Kentucky. Johnson flashed ability as a little-used rookie, scoring two touchdowns and catching 10 passes. The team signed Terrell Owens, however, and Johnson saw his opportunities completely vanish in 2009. Almost immediately after he got another opportunity, he seized a starting job - and then he blossomed into the team's most marketable and productive player. He finished 2010 with 82 receptions, 1,073 receiving yards and 10 touchdowns. He's got a chance to be a real star."

Click your heels together three times while repeating to yourself - - We really DID draft Marcel Dareus, Toto, we really DID draft Marcel Dareus, so the run D will be better this year! Then take a deep breath and relax - - there is a third option. A person who is not part of the solution could be part of the precipitate. For 69 cents, you can buy a button on Amazon to proudly announce it. http://www.amazon.com/SOLUTION-PRECIPITATE-Science-Chemistry-Physics/dp/B003RDV470 One of my brother Darryls (the uppity one that knows how to play chess) has one and it looks great! But he shelled out $19.95 for the matching T-shirt, too, so maybe he ain't as bright (or as funny) as he thinks he is. http://www.snorgtees.com/if-you-re-not-part-of-the-solution Disclaimer - I did not ask the question, I merely answered it, and this has nothing to do with Toronto! Your mileage may vary. Possible side effects include dry mouth, cancerous brain tumors, persistent posting, halitosis, and LBs who can't cover TEs. Be sure to inform your doctor if you have repeatedly shattered your forearm, as 3 cone drills may be required before you can get a prescription. Any video of an ILB making a tackle behind the line of scrimmage was taken of a professional football player with a decent DL in front of him on a closed course football field. Do not try this at home or in Orchard Park in 2009 or 2010. Void where prohibited. It's my "Final Answer" (and I didn't use any lifelines). Does Poz win an extra 2.5 million dollars? Or did Merriman already get all the money? Oh yeah, almost forgot - - I'd keep Poz.

Question for PDaDdy: I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious about something. You've made it very clear that you think risking at least $2.5 million in guaranteed money on Merriman was a bad decision, and told us why. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing that, hypothetically, if the Bills could have signed Merriman to a contract with ZERO guaranteed money, so that he could be cut at any time and the Bills would only be on the hook for his pro-rated salary for regular season games he actually played in, that you would be OK with that. In that hypothetical scenario, if he winds up being a bum, we could even cut him in training camp and ultimately pay him no more than any undrafted college free agent who likewise failed to make the final 2011 opening day roster. If my above-described guess is correct (it might not be), that leaves a lot of undefined middle ground. Is there any amount of guaranteed money to Merriman that you would have found to be an acceptable risk? $1? $100k? $500k? $1 million? All I know for sure is that you find a $2.5 million guarantee unacceptable. Your thoughts?

I hope the Bills stay in Buffalo after Ralph passes, but I'm less optimistic than you. Unfortunately, a niece doesn't fall within the 2006 NFL Constitution and Bylaws' definition of "immediate family" (a niece is not a "lineal descendant," and is not one of the other specifically enumerated relatives in the definition). Maybe the other owners would honor Ralph's wishes anyway, or maybe Ralph could get the provision amended during his lifetime, but by the letter of the 2006 NFL Bylaws, Mary Owens would need to be approved by a 3/4 vote of the other owners before she could take ownership of the team. Just my opinion, but that seems like a long shot, even assuming that Ralph silently changed his announced 2007 intention that the team will be sold after he dies. If you changed "left" to "arranged for his estate to sell" I would agree that this is our best chance at having the team stay in Buffalo. My concern is that the other owners aren't going to be making some sort of sentimental decision to honor Ralph's memory - - they are going to make a cold, calculated business decision based on what they see at the time as their best financial interest individually. There are plenty of people who might be able to outbid local WNY interests, and if there is even an equal bid from a market where the other 31 owners see higher future revenue than Buffalo, I don't think the other 31 owners will care what Ralph wanted. I don't see how the state and county politicians have much influence over the 29 other owners (excluding the Jets and Giants) that operate mainly outside NY state. I agree with you that negative publicity would be a factor in the owner vote, but the NFL spin doctors will point out how Ralph has been saying for years that it has been getting harder and harder for the Bills to be economically viable in Buffalo. If a higher bid comes in from Toronto, the NFL spin doctors will say the Bills are just moving within their existing market, as evidenced by the fact that X per cent of the season ticket holders are from Canada anyway and the team was already playing games in Toronto. Did the other NFL owners actually lose any money when the Browns left Cleveland? And did the other owners get much flack because the Browns moved? The departing owner was certainly villified in Cleveland, but how much flack did Al Davis or Ralph Wilson personally take because some OTHER owner decided to move his team? I'm guessing not much. If a WNY-based bid for the team is for an equal amount, and comes from people who are otherwise equally desireable, the publicity factor may break the tie in favor of a WNY bid. Just my personal opinion, but I don't see the publicity factor doing much more than that. Especially if no 2011 regular season games get cancelled, and the current lockout has been in the rear-view mirror for a while.

That's true, but there's a problem. 1. In a 2007 interview, Mr. Wilson announced that he will not be leaving the team to his wife or his daughters, and that the team will be sold after he passes: http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2007/06/17/ralph-wilson-says-he-wont-sell-the-bills/ 2. Here's what the relevant part of the 2006 version of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL says about transfer of membership in the league - - it controls ALL transfers, whether during Ralph's life or after his death: http://static.nfl.co...ers/pdf/co_.pdf [see Article III, section 3.5("Transfer of Membership"), specifically at pages 8/292 through 9/292] 3. So if the team is going to be sold after Ralph dies, like Ralph said it would back in 2007, then control over who becomes the next owner of the Bills lies with the other NFL owners, not with Ralph. Maybe Ralph's never identified who the next owner of the Bills will be simply because he realizes that if he doesn't leave the team to a "member of the immediate family," he can't control who it will be. If 24 of the remaining 31 NFL owners want to accept Mr. Magoo's offer to buy Ralph's controlling interest in the team from Ralph's estate, and move the team to Timbukthree, guess what happens? 4. Can NY politicians influence the vote of enough of the other 31 NFL owners to prevent Mr. Magoo's offer from getting 24 approval votes? Maybe. I suppose the Jets and Giants have close enough ties to NY to be influenced by NY politicians, even though their new joint stadium is in NJ. But the NY politicans will need to get a total of 8 "NO" votes to scuttle the Mr. Magoo deal. Where do they get the other 6?

The Oakland stadium deal apparently was also negotiated at roughly the same time as the one in Cincinatti, and was likewise bad for taxpayers: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/15bcoakland.html When you see the kind of sweetheart deals that NFL teams negotiated in an era of team relocations, it makes you wonder if the NFL will continue to be satisfied with the mere threat that some team will move to LA, or if they would prefer an actual relocation to help them ratchet up the pressure on other local governments for new stadiums or stadium improvements.

There are no other CBs in his category. The guy was relatively small but f'in amazing in run support. My favorite memory of him was a game where a very BIG rb caught a swing pass out of the backfield needing only a yard or two for a first down, and Winfield just blew the guy up, AFTER the rb turned and got up a north/south head of steam. The rb didn't get an inch after contact, and the first thing to hit the ground was his head. He was also a really good cover guy, but never got many INTs because he had hands of stone. I was VERY sad to see him go. FWIW, I'm not a big fan of Mel Kiper, but I think Mel described Aaron Williams, our 2nd round CB this year, as the highest rated run-support CB in the last 5 years - - or words to that effect. So let's hope he can become the second guy in Winfield's "category."

Not true - in that scenario its $8.25 million (per Mark Gaughan article).

If the team can evaluate Merriman's current abilities before the 2011 first game roster is finalized, and decides to cut him, then he will have cost the team only $2.5 million. Are you confident that the team will be able to make the necessary evaluation that quickly? In my view, the team eventually made the right decisions about Trent Edwards and Cornell Green last year, but not until each had played some regular season games. We still don't know if we will have a shortened preseason schedule this year, so the team may have even less opportunity than usual to evaluate players in game situations before making final 2011 roster decisions. The Mark Gaughan article says only $8 million ($4 million in 2011 and $4 million in 2012) of the total $18.5 million 2 year contract compensation is attributable to performance-based incentives. The other $10.5 million (1) is totally independent of how he performs during games, and (2) doesn't even require him to be on the field for a single snap. If Merriman returns to Pro Bowl form, it's a good deal. But when will we know? If he turns out to be healthy enough to pass a 2011 physical, but the team can't properly evaluate his game-day performance until after the 2011 regular season starts and keeps him on the first game roster anyway, then it's an $8.25 million gamble. I don't mind a $2.5 million gamble on Merriman - - but at $8.25 million I've got a few concerns. I hope it works out - - we'll see.

Here's what the Bucky Brooks article says: "In fact, the team is so committed to the idea of Merriman returning as a full force it signed him to a two-year, incentive-based deal that could average $9.25 million annually, with $2.5 million guaranteed in the first year of the deal." Thanks for the link. I think this is the Mark Gaughan article you referenced: http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/2011/01/merriman-gets-good-guarantee.html It's a little hard to follow. Among other things, it says that the Merriman contract requires the Bills to pay him some "guaranteed" money that can be "eradicated" in some circumstances. Huh? If there are any circumstances that can eradicate Merriman getting the money, I wouldn't call that truly "guaranteed." In any event, the final sentence of the Gaughan article reads: "As long as he recovers from his Achilles tendon injury and is on the roster for the start of the 2011 season, he's going to get $8.25 million from the Bills." As I mentioned above, I hope he plays great, but that last sentence sure sounds like the Bills are on the hook to pay him $8.25 million even if all he does is (1) make the 2011 roster for the first game, and (2) get the same number of sacks as Maybin did last year.

You make some good points, eball, but there's one aspect about the contract numbers that I think a few people are missing . . . It's my understanding that base player salaries aren't guaranteed in the NFL, so those contracts generally work like this: Total compensation = guaranteed money + base salary + incentives The article says if Merriman hits all of his incentives, his total compensation for the 2 year contract will be $18.5 million (an average of $9.25 million/yr), with only $2.5 million of it guaranteed. If you subtract the guaranteed $2.5 million from his highest possible total compensation of $18.5 million over 2 years, you can determine that, over the 2 year term of Merriman's contract: Base salary + maximum incentives = $16 million. At least from Bucky's article, you can't really tell how much of the $16 million would be base salary, and how much of the $16 million would be from hitting maximum incentives. I haven't looked to see if a more detailed breakdown of Merriman's contract is available elsewhere, but I'm hoping that his base salary is close to the veteran minimum. I hope he plays great, but I can't tell anything from the Bucky Brooks article about how much of the non-guaranteed $16 million is base salary, and how much would be from hitting incentives. Does anybody know what Merriman's base salary is for this year or next?

No worries. I didn't want to explain before you had an opportunity to make the edit, and now an explanation is obviously unnecessary, so I'll skip it.

Hey there, The Senator! You caught me on a bad day, but you're a fellow Bills fan and I'm a big believer in the First Amendment, so I'm gonna do you a favor. It's totally up to you, obviously, but I strongly suggest you delete your post #51 in this TSW thread: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/131353-what-a-stadium-in-niagara-falls-would-look-like/page__st__40 If you actually do that, I'll explain why it's a good idea. OTOH, if you don't think "The Senator" can learn anything from an anonymous insomniac, I suppose there's no reason for you to change anything.

Not sure, but he's on Facebook - - I guess Thoner7's girlfriend speaks Chinese! http://www.facebook.com/people/Chan-Buddy/509031931

Hasn't been much in the media lately about the proposed sale of MLSE (that Larry Tanenbaum owns a chunk of) - - here's an update: http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/sports/article/141231--grange-on-mlse-one-final-task-for-peddie "Teachers is said to be seeking $1.5 billion or more for their 79.5 per cent stake in the business they own with financier and MLSE chairman Larry Tanenbaum, but after a flurry of news -- including reports Rogers Communications Inc. was the leading candidate to buy the entity -- the deal isn't yet done. What has taken so long?"

Turns out the retired players have amended their complaint a couple times, so the version of the retired players' complaint I posted above in this thread is now obsolete. Just found a link to the "Second Amended Class Action Complaint And Crossclaims" that the retired players filed on 7/4/11: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59501850/Filed-Second-Amended-Retired-Football-Players-Complaint The retired players have now sued not only the NFL and its member teams - - they have also filed suit against (1) each of the named plaintiffs in the "Brady" suit, and (2) DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA. BTW, Joe DeLamielleure is one of the retired players now specifically named as a retired player plaintiff. The "Prayer For Relief" has changed. I can't cut and paste it into this post, but you can read it at page 60 of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint And Crossclaims.

If San Diego hotel costs are an issue for anybody, I've saved some serious coin in the past by using this site to see what kind of Priceline hotel bids are likely to be successful (and sometimes what hotel you are likely to get with a "winning" bid): http://www.betterbidding.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=b44682a05caca719d8271d1ed4904ec0&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=%2BSan+Diego A different area of the same site also has information that may enable you to uniquely identify a specific hotel that is being offered "opaquely" (at a discounted rate) on Hotwire: http://www.betterbidding.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=21358e644e345bb7f9930095631fd23e&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=%2BSan+Diego

Personally, I'm ambivalent about the proposed trade, but you gave me this mental picture of Buddy Nix yelling "Start the car!"

This doesn't address all of your questions, but it's pretty clear that the 8th Circuit considers the players under contract to be employees. As indicated above, one sentence in the 8th Circuit opinion reads: "The district court enjoined not only the League’s lockout of employees, i.e., players under contract, but also the League’s refusal to deal with non-employees, i.e., free agents and prospective players or 'rookies.'”

Here's a copy of the court complaint that the retired players originally filed on or about March 28, 2011: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2011cv00748/119327/1/ Not sure that I want to take the time to read all of it, but if you skip to the very end (but before the attachments), there is a section entitled "Prayer For Relief" that summarizes what they are asking the court to do. Here's what it says: ====================================================================================================================== "PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment with respect to their Complaint as follows: 1. Certifying the class proposed in this Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2); 2. Declaring that the lockout violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining it; 3. Declaring that the NFL Defendants’ future imposition of the anticompetitive Draft with an EPP violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and enjoining any implementation of the 2011 College Draft until the issues related to the antitrust violations are resolved; 4. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to deprive the players of the ability to work as professional football players or negotiate the terms of that employment in a competitive market. 5. Enjoining the NFL Defendants from agreeing to withhold contractually-owed amounts to players (including health and retirement benefits) currently under contract for the 2011 NFL season and beyond. 6. Declaring that, pursuant to the SSA over which this Court has exclusive jurisdiction, the NFL Defendants have waived any right to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination of the NFLPA’s status as the players’ collective bargaining representative is a sham, pretext, ineffective, required additional steps, or has not in fact occurred. 7. Enjoining NFL Defendants from taking any punitive or discriminatory actions against the Plaintiffs or class members; 8. Placing all disputed sums at issue in this litigation in escrow until a judgment or settlement is reached in this matter; 9. Enjoining the NFL Defendants or their designees from terminating the Plan; 10. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; 11. Granting Plaintiffs and class members such other and further relief as may be appropriate." ======================================================================================================================= Items 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 all include a request for some type of injunctive relief - - but that says nothing about which of those items were the subject of the retired players' later request for a preliminary injunction (as opposed to a permanent injunction entered after an eventual full blown trial on the merits). The website where I found the retired players' complaint doesn't have any of the retired players' court papers that they must have also filed in connection with their request for a preliminary injunction. I'm not suggesting that the retired players actually have been harmed in some way that would give them standing to actually get any of the relief they are requesting from the trial court - - I'm just saying it shows you what they are asking for. You would need to read the complaint to better evaluate if the lockout is actually harming the retired players in some legally actionable way. In any event, the 8th Circuit already decided that they won't be getting any kind of injunction to end the lockout of players now under contract.

Agreed. Even though the NFLPA has decertified and takes the legal position that it is no longer a union? The 8th Circuit left open the possibility that the DC could entertain a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction (of much more limited scope) by free agents and rookies, neither of whom are employees, either. Any such injunction would not end the lockout, but it could require the NFL to open contract negotiations with rookies and free agents. Not sure if you would consider that to be "intereference" with "how the NFLPA is doing business." I agree that there will be no injunction that prevents the owners from locking out players already under contract. There could be a more limited injunction that results in the opening of free agency and the negotiation of rookie contracts, but even that is probably unlikely. As I pointed out above, the NFLPA's lawyers have pretty limited incentives to seek an injunction of such limited scope, even if they are legally free to try. I agree that media reports indicate that this is the main thing they want, but at least in the past it is not the only thing they have asked for. I have a very hard time seeing how they have standing, but haven't read any of their legal briefs, so I'm a little hesitant to jump to the conclusion that they can't persuade Judge Nelson that they have standing. If you put a gun to Fred Jackson's head and said convince Judge Nelson that the retired players have standing or I'll shoot Freddy, I would try to fashion an argument that the NFL's current practices will harm the retired players by reducing the $ used to fund retired player benefits - - but I think Spiller might wind up starting the first game. As for the retired players not wanting to end the lockout - - if that's true, it probably represents a change in their original position on the matter. Footnote 2, at the bottom of page 10 of yesterday's 8th Circuit opinion, states: "2Several retired professional football players brought a similar but separate action on March 28, 2011, also seeking a preliminary injunction. The district court consolidated the two actions, and denied the retired players’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot after issuing an injunction in the previously filed action." Then again, I'm not sure exactly what type of preliminary injunction the retired players originally asked for. I suppose it could have been of severely limited scope - - and made moot by the more comprehensive injunction that Judge Nelson actually granted. Because I haven't read any of their court filings, I don't know exactly what the retired players are claiming. I tend to distrust second hand media reports about such things. I suspect that you are probably right about how weak their legal theory is, but I'll reserve judgment on the matter for now. If they are no longer challenging the lockout, it's probably a change from their original position. Your thoughts?

FWIW, a few additional thoughts on where we are after today's 8th Circuit opinion with respect to the lockout: Although it hasn't gotten as much publicity, the trial court consolidated the Brady antitrust case with an antitrust case that was originally filed separately by a group of retired players. Both the current and retired players requested a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. The trial court granted the current players' request for an injunction, with a detailed opinion that the 8th Circuit now says was erroneous, because the trial court lacked the authority to enjoin a lockout of players now under contract. The trial court never reached the merits of the retired players' simultaneous request for the same type of injunction. The trial court merely denied it as "moot." That's legalese for the idea that if the trial court has already decided to grant the injunction for reasons advocated by the current players, there is nothing to be gained by trying to figure out if the retired players also had a separate and independent right to get the same relief. As a result of today's 8th Circuit opinion, however, the retired players' request for an injunction is no longer moot. It's not clear to me how the retired players have standing to complain about a lockout of non-retired players (although they must have some sort of theory about how the lockout is allegedly harming the retired players). Because they are not currently under contract as players, it seems to me that the retired players fall into the same category as rookies and free agents for jurisdictional purposes. I can't see how anything in today's 8th Circuit opinion deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the retired players' pre-existing request for a preliminary injunction to end the lockout. That doesn't mean that the retired players will get an injunction - - but it may mean that they are now entitled to renew their request for an injunction and to have the trial court reach the merits of that request. The retired players have been complaining that they've been excluded from any real participation in the ongoing court-ordered mediation. If the retired players really do have some potentially valid legal theory for why they are entitled to have the lockout enjoined, they just might get a warmer welcome from the NFLPA's lawyers as the case proceeds. OTOH, if the NFLPA's lawyers don't think the retired players have any real chance of getting a preliminary injunction to end the lockout, the NFLPA's lawyers will probably continue to basically ignore them as much as they can. Just my 2 cents. [7/9 EDIT - - Changed my mind about something above. Even if they otherwise have standing, the retired players won't be able to get an injunction to end the lockout with respect to players now under contract because the 8th Circuit already decided that the trial court has no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction here. I still think that the retired players, like free agents and rookies, are free to seek a preliminary injunction of more limited scope.]

It's a small point, but after reading the opinion, I'd say: All the opinion holds is that the courts lack authority under the Norris-LaGuardia Act to enjoin the lockout of players now under contract. Section B of the opinion, starting at page 33, makes this clear. It reads: ================================================================================================== "Another portion of the injunction is not foreclosed by § 4(a). The district court enjoined not only the League’s lockout of employees, i.e., players under contract, but also the League’s refusal to deal with non-employees, i.e., free agents and prospective players or “rookies.” As to these latter groups of players, § 4(a) does not apply. The refusal of the League and NFL clubs to deal with free agents and rookies is not a refusal “to remain in any relation of employment,” for there is no existing employment relationship in which “to remain.” An injunction with respect to the League’s actions toward free agents and rookies, however, cannot be issued except in strict conformity with § 7 of the NLGA, 29 U.S.C. § 107, because this is “a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.” Id. §§ 101, 107. The present injunction does not conform to § 7." ================================================================================================== The district court DID have jurisdiction to issue an injunction requiring the league to deal with free agents and rookies, but was required by § 7 to give the League the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses before doing so. That didn't happen. As the 8th Circuit said: "Whether to enter an injunction requiring the League to deal with free agents and rookies, only to have these players locked out as soon as they enter into any new contract of employment, was not considered." It will be interesting to see if the players renew their request for a much more limited preliminary injunction with respect to only rookies and free agents. Although today's 8th Circuit opinion leaves the players free to do that, I'm not sure they have much incentive to try. Even if successful, the free agents and rookies would be locked out immediately upon signing a contract, so such an injunction wouldn't accomplish much. I wonder if the owners will consider opening free agency and/or rookie contract negotiations while keeping the lockout in place with respect to players under contract? Seems to me like that might limit some of their potential future antitrust liability while keeping economic pressure on the players already under contract. OTOH, if the players have tentatively agreed to new rookie contract restrictions, and the owners expect to get a release of all potential antitrust liability as part of an impending global settlement, the League doesn't have much incentive to change course and start dealing only with free agents and/or rookies.

I haven't read it yet, but here's the actual text of today's 8th Circuit opinion: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3805522.0.pdf