gggbills Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Free Agency the Day of the Draft? Player Trades During the Draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 who knows. It seems like a big mess to me. Billionaires vs. millionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 God, somehow I don't think Nix is going to know what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 God, somehow I don't think Nix is going to know what to do. No one knows what to do. What rules are we fallowing? 2010? Uncapped? No rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 God, somehow I don't think Nix is going to know what to do. He'll be sleeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 God, somehow I don't think Nix is going to know what to do. He'll be alright. It's not like he's gonna have cash to throw around at FA's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sven233 Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 FORGET DRAFTING A QB!!!!!!! Peyton Manning is now a Free Agent!!!!! GO GET HIM!!!!!! HA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 UPDATE: ESPN’s Adam Schefter reports Nelson said teams were under no obligation to sign free agents right away, although trades are “in question.” link Additionally, Nelson warned the NFL that she considered an appeal ruling from Eighth Circuit "unlikely" before season starts, further emboldening her to reject a stay of the lockout invalidation. The NFL had claimed "chaos" would set upon the league if it resumed football operations and then won an appeal that allowed it to reimpose a lockout. Nelson flatly rejected that reasoning, however, and said all she mandated was merely that the league end its lockout. "In fact, nothing in this court's order obligates the NFL to even enter into any contract with the players. In short, the world of 'chaos' the NFL claims it has been thrust into ... is not compelled by this court's order." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 In my layman's theory, teams can individually elect to do nothing for now…without it being seen as collusion. One thing that could undermine that is if the NFL sends a communique to the teams advising against player moves. Then an argument could be made for collusion and contempt of court. I would expect that there will be no player moves as far as trades or the signing of free agents before Monday. Then again, all it would take to shake things up is one maverick owner deciding that this is an opportunity (to make a trade or sign a free agent) that's too tempting to pass up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I guess the biggest consequence of the denial of the request to stay is that the 400-500 undrafted free agents will be free to sign with NFL teams (only app 250 players are drafted). If this ruling hadn't been made, all of those undrafted players would have been in limbo. This is probably good news for the Bills as this is an area in which the team has typically done pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Having no clear rules to follow, I doubt we see inminent players signs or trades. Maybe Philadelphia will try to move Kolb, the Bengals might try to do the same with Palmer. But, what if that happens and Kolb doesn't want to go to certain team, can he sue the Eagles, claiming it's illegal for them to trade him without a CBA in place. Maybe we see picks being traded but I don't see players transactions in this year draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) The only rule is there ain't no rules. I don't see Bill Bellyache and Jerrah Jones sitting idly by. So, does this men we'll be having mini camp in a couple of weeks? Edited April 28, 2011 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 The only rule is there ain't no rules. I don't see Bill Bellyache and Jerrah Jones sitting idly by. So, does this men we'll be having mini camp in a couple of weeks? And as a I noted in another thread, that may be part of the large market owners' master plan--let the union dismantle the parity system that the League has thrived on so that they can turn the NFL into an MLB-style sport, where the big market/popular teams (Pittsburgh, for ex., is not a large market, but the Steelers have a huge following) could dominate and teams like our Bills, the Bengals, Lions, etc. (about 2/3rds of the League) serve as an eternal version of the Washington Generals. These guys are supposed to be super business geniuses, but haven't at all acted like it so far in terms of results of how this has played out, unless of course this was their plan all along. Perhaps they looked at it this way--either we succeed and the League beats back the union and all of the owners are better off, or, if we fail, perhaps the union will do our dirty work for us and we (the large market owners) will be better off. Either that or they were just arrogant idiots used to being "yessed" all their lives so that they can't see when they're pushing a loser case. I'd give it a 50/50 either way, personally..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 And as a I noted in another thread, that may be part of the large market owners' master plan--let the union dismantle the parity system that the League has thrived on so that they can turn the NFL into an MLB-style sport, where the big market/popular teams (Pittsburgh, for ex., is not a large market, but the Steelers have a huge following) could dominate and teams like our Bills, the Bengals, Lions, etc. (about 2/3rds of the League) serve as an eternal version of the Washington Generals. These guys are supposed to be super business geniuses, but haven't at all acted like it so far in terms of results of how this has played out, unless of course this was their plan all along. Perhaps they looked at it this way--either we succeed and the League beats back the union and all of the owners are better off, or, if we fail, perhaps the union will do our dirty work for us and we (the large market owners) will be better off. Either that or they were just arrogant idiots used to being "yessed" all their lives so that they can't see when they're pushing a loser case. I'd give it a 50/50 either way, personally..... Absolutely no owner has ever even hinted at this--least of all Kraft, who has for years loudly supported revenue sharing to keep what you call "parity" intact. This is just nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Absolutely no owner has ever even hinted at this--least of all Kraft, who has for years loudly supported revenue sharing to keep what you call "parity" intact. This is just nonsense. I think you're wrong on that--I recall Jerruh making noises several times about decreasing the amount of revenue sharing in the League--and it's also been reported that the so-called "large market owners," which group includes Kraft, Jones, Snyder, Lurie and McNair among others, favor less revenue sharing than has traditionally been the norm. In fact, that's been a big internal NFL battle over the last several years at the owners level and figured into the last CBA negotiations, IIRC. Your talk in absolutes and need to be contrary all the time is really getting old.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 So probably a dumb question but if there are no rules right now are teams allowed to sign players that are slated to be in the draft? Or is this only referring to UFA's and FA's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 So probably a dumb question but if there are no rules right now are teams allowed to sign players that are slated to be in the draft? Or is this only referring to UFA's and FA's? In theory yes.... but no one knows whats going on now not even Goedell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I think you're wrong on that--I recall Jerruh making noises several times about decreasing the amount of revenue sharing in the League--and it's also been reported that the so-called "large market owners," which group includes Kraft, Jones, Snyder, Lurie and McNair among others, favor less revenue sharing than has traditionally been the norm. In fact, that's been a big internal NFL battle over the last several years at the owners level and figured into the last CBA negotiations, IIRC. Your talk in absolutes and need to be contrary all the time is really getting old.... The guy I was responding to claims "that may be part of the large market owners' master plan--let the union dismantle the parity system that the League has thrived on so that they can turn the NFL into an MLB-style sport, where the big market/popular teams (Pittsburgh, for ex., is not a large market, but the Steelers have a huge following) could dominate and teams like our Bills, the Bengals, Lions, etc." That's a far cry from Jerry Jones publicly grousing about sharing more of his revenue with guys like Ralph who don't feel motivated to generate shared revenue. I was just pointing this out. No owner wants to do away with revenue sharing. Kraft, for example, has only stated how important revenue sharing is to the entire league. He's been saying so for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 In theory yes.... but no one knows whats going on now not even Goedell Yea this is getting really weird. Especially if nothing changes and the draft goes as planned and then it doesn't matter because players choose a different team to play for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts