MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Birk pins much of the blame on Upshaw for labor standoff The Vikings center has not played in two years, but he sure delivered a Pro Bowl-sized verbal pancake on the executive director of the NFL Players' Association when no CBA deal was reached on Thursday. Mark Craig Vikings center Matt Birk isn't a big fan of the players union in general and of Gene Upshaw, its executive director, in particular. "Don't put this in the paper ... no, wait, go ahead and put it in," Birk said. "Gene Upshaw is a piece of" well, you know. Birk spoke as the union and the NFL were about to go Tony Soprano on the goose that lays the kind of golden eggs other sports can only dream about. Fortunately, both sides blinked. Seven hours before what would have been the beginning of the end of the NFL's salary cap, it was mutually agreed that three more days are required for someone -- anyone! -- to come to his senses and extend the collective bargaining agreement. So free agency will start on Monday, not today. "It's a joke, it really is," Birk said. "Everyone is making money. A lot of money. You think anyone wants to hear about the money problems of the NFL owners or players? It's bad pub for the league. It's bad for all of us." Birk was the Vikings' union rep until he couldn't stomach Upshaw's "propaganda and poor leadership" any longer. He has fought Upshaw on other fronts over the years, speaking out against the inordinate distribution of money to unproven rookies and Upshaw's refusal to fight for guaranteed contracts that players in other sports enjoy. "Someone asked him about me when I was going through my deal last summer trying to get my contract guaranteed," Birk said. "He said he played with a lot of great centers in his time and none of them made $4 million. That's our union rep? C'mon." Birk doesn't place all of the blame for the CBA mess at Upshaw's feet. But he does blame him for not being forthright while explaining what it would mean to the players not to have a salary cap in 2007. "When you go to those CBA meetings, you always feel like you're being sold something instead of being given the straight facts," Birk said. "Through all the meetings leading up to this, it was always: 'The owners don't want an uncapped year. We'll get a deal, and if we don't, so what? There will be an uncapped year and there will be crazy money out there.' "The reality is that's not the case. And you're seeing that it's not the leverage we were told it would be." While the lack of a salary cap would encourage the richer teams to overspend on certain players, there also would be rules in place that would be unfavorable to players. Players would become unrestricted free agents after six seasons, not four. Raises would be capped at 30 percent above the previous season. And there would be no minimum salary cap, whereas now it's 54 percent of the defined gross revenue. "And we'll lose some of our 401(k) and annuities, and some benefits, too," Birk said. "That's a huge deal to the younger guys making the minimum who might not have 10-year careers. Those are guys the union needs to look out for. "Instead, you go there and it's like some kind of religious revival. You don't feel you're getting the true message. And they're always talking too fast." Birk wishes the actual players had more power and say in how the union operates. "Too many guys in the league just accept whatever Gene says," Birk said. "I don't know why no one has called this guy out." It's hard to believe we're discussing labor unrest when the NFL generates $5.2 billion a year and signed the largest TV deal in sports history. The league gets $3.7 BILLION in TV money this year alone. "Gene thinks we're making all this money because of Gene Upshaw," Birk said. "No, we're making all of this money because of TV. This sport is huge, and what's going on right now is hurting all of us." http://www.startribune.com/101/story/282098.html I guess the players are starting to get tired of upshaw.
Acantha Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 So this guy's whole argument is he's pissed now that he found out an uncapped year doesn't actually mean the players will be standing in pools of money next year. Really what this boils down to, is that the players didn't care one bit what it would mean to the league. They just thought they were all going to be rich as hell. If they knew it could affect them in the least, they probably would have been more involved in trying to get if fixed. I can't feel too sorry for the guy.
Spiderweb Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 So this guy's whole argument is he's pissed now that he found out an uncapped year doesn't actually mean the players will be standing in pools of money next year.Really what this boils down to, is that the players didn't care one bit what it would mean to the league. They just thought they were all going to be rich as hell. If they knew it could affect them in the least, they probably would have been more involved in trying to get if fixed. I can't feel too sorry for the guy. 617093[/snapback] This isn't just some guy crying the blues as he openly acknowledged that what they had was working quite well. Everyone was getting paid lots of dough. He also brought up the point of rookies (top draft choices) getting inordinate amounts of money and the lack of some contract guarantees that I believe most of the vets would like to see happen. He wasn't looking for sympathy, he was just stating the obvious....
Alaska Darin Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 It's amazing how someone can read that and rip Birk for his stance. Just goes to show how differently people see things.
Ramius Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 This isn't just some guy crying the blues as he openly acknowledged that what they had was working quite well. Everyone was getting paid lots of dough. He also brought up the point of rookies (top draft choices) getting inordinate amounts of money and the lack of some contract guarantees that I believe most of the vets would like to see happen. He wasn't looking for sympathy, he was just stating the obvious.... 617120[/snapback] I liked birk's stance, especially on the topic of rookie contracts. No way in hell these guys who have done nothing soudl make 50 mil while a vet that has made this his living for 10 years shoudl be forced to take the minimum of be cut. The NFL needs a hard cap on rookie salaries just like the NBA. (Which is about the only thing the NBA does right.)
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I liked birk's stance, especially on the topic of rookie contracts. No way in hell these guys who have done nothing soudl make 50 mil while a vet that has made this his living for 10 years shoudl be forced to take the minimum of be cut. The NFL needs a hard cap on rookie salaries just like the NBA. (Which is about the only thing the NBA does right.) 617239[/snapback] That has always amazed me. And I have never seen a justification for it. Why don't they just cut that rookie pool in half and give the rest to the veterans on the team or veteran free agents who have proven themselves. It makes zero sense to give a guy like Mike Williams or Julius Peppers 40-50 million, regardless of how they turn out. If they are Mike Williams, they get what he is going to get the second time around, and Julius Peppers will get his huge contract.
SDS Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 That has always amazed me. And I have never seen a justification for it. Why don't they just cut that rookie pool in half and give the rest to the veterans on the team or veteran free agents who have proven themselves. It makes zero sense to give a guy like Mike Williams or Julius Peppers 40-50 million, regardless of how they turn out. If they are Mike Williams, they get what he is going to get the second time around, and Julius Peppers will get his huge contract. 617254[/snapback] what about RB's who seem to decline after 5 years or so? They are most productive in the beginning. Same can be said for many CB's.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 It's amazing how someone can read that and rip Birk for his stance. Just goes to show how differently people see things. 617194[/snapback] Certainly Upshaw cannot claim all the credit for the good things happening to the NFLPA (and likewise he should not get all the blame- or does someone disagrre for demonstrable reasons that he should get all the credit OR all the blame). However, this being said. I think one can take a look at the results in the real world of the NFLPA after the last big labor dispute (the mid-80s lockout) and today and there is a world of difference between the two and the difference is clearly positive for the NFLPA. After the lockout the NFLPA had its butt kicked. The owners had gone to replacement players and though the product was much worse with the XFL level platyers, it seemed pretty clear that the NFL could last longer undergoingthe meltdown associated with producing a bad product than a critical mass of the players could. Hiwever, it was under Upshaw's keadership that the NFLPA canned union boss Ed Garvey (who decided to tale a step down from the NFL and run unsuccessfully for the US Senate as a major party candidate) and hired and took the guidance of folks who crafted a tactic of the NFLPA moving to decertify itself as a bargaining agent for the players. In the face of having to operate in a free market where NFL owners would actually have to compete with each other like good ol Americans, the owners rather quickly agreed to the CBA where the NFL and the NFLPA joined together in a developing partnership which instead took the communistic rather than free-market approach of restraining trade. Over now what is approaching two decades, the NFL is seen as the best managed major sports franchise in professional sports (if one disagrees it should be simple to argue why you think that the NHL, NBA or the the free-market approaches of the MLB have produced a better product). It gets pretty silly pretty quick for anyone to try to justify any particular ideology (either total frr-maarket or total communism) using the NFL as a case study or an example). It ain't about being a slave to some ideology, its simply about doing what works. Upshaw truthfully has been the leader of the NFLPA during a time when the actions of the NFLPA ran afoul of particular ideologies on either extreme. It has taken stands which have resulted in marginal players getting cut a year or two earlier than they would have been cut under other systems (and likewise it has adopted systems under which particular marginal players at particular times lasted a year or two longer than they would have under other systems. Still I think it is difficult for anyone to lay out a case that the NFLPA has not profitted greatly and changed the relationship between employers and employees dramatically since the mid-80s. I think it defies reality to argue that this change has not accompanied a huge increase in he $ delivered to players from this business enterprise. Finally, while one can try to argue that these great changes and these great positive changes all occured while Upshaw was a long for the ride or in spite of his efforts and again NO ONE has really laid out any objective arguments for this point and all they have are simple rants claiming that finally folks see Upshaw is an idiot. I think not. Real life is what real life is. Coinciding with the last 20 years or so of UPshaw's term the NFLPA has seen a massive increase in the salaries and wealth it has responsibility for delivering to its members.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 what about RB's who seem to decline after 5 years or so? They are most productive in the beginning. Same can be said for many CB's. 617265[/snapback] Name them. Look at the best running backs in the league these days. They are either 7-8 year vets or young studs like LT who are going to get huge contracts. And in the examples I just gave, the players would be making 20 mil in their first few years, just not 40 mil. After 3-4 years, if they're good, the teams will try to lock them up. Same with the best CBs. Look at the ones getting the big deals.
SDS Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Name them. Look at the best running backs in the league these days. They are either 7-8 year vets or young studs like LT who are going to get huge contracts. And in the examples I just gave, the players would be making 20 mil in their first few years, just not 40 mil. After 3-4 years, if they're good, the teams will try to lock them up. Same with the best CBs. Look at the ones getting the big deals. 617278[/snapback] when I read "rookie contracts" - I interpret that as the one they sign coming out of the draft and they are locked up for 4-6 years. There are precious few runningbacks that I would want after 5 years of pounding. They are certainly on the downside of their careers and are unlikely to land a big contract the 2nd time around. RB is the one position where you can get GREAT value early in their careers.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 That has always amazed me. And I have never seen a justification for it. Why don't they just cut that rookie pool in half and give the rest to the veterans on the team or veteran free agents who have proven themselves. It makes zero sense to give a guy like Mike Williams or Julius Peppers 40-50 million, regardless of how they turn out. If they are Mike Williams, they get what he is going to get the second time around, and Julius Peppers will get his huge contract. 617254[/snapback] The justification for the large rookie contracts are: 1. They provide a base of high pay that the vets work from. Right now when the best FAs negotiates they start at a demand to be among the best paid players on their team and in the NFL. By setting based salaries for 1st round draft choices so high, it ratchets up the payments expected and demanded by FAs and when a highly paid rookie performs it ratchets up his salry even higher as he demands a raise. 2. They help defend the NFL and NFLPA from their largest vulnerability in our system. When you look at it, the NFL and NFLPA live on the un-American approach of restraining trade. In a real free-market system all college players would be like Maurice Clarett. At whatever point an individual feels he has services to sell in the marketplace he has a right under the free-market to do so. However, the NFL and NFLPA have developed a system called the college draft and has together aggressively sued and stopped Americans like Maurice Clarett from entering the market. The public (through its courts) accepts this because this anti-free market approach works and produces a great product. The college players accept this because in this system they have a chance if they are great players and play by the rules to get a huge contract if they are a slotted draft choice. If individuals did not have the ability to score big contracts, then one would see a bunch of Maurice Clarett lawsuits until one found a court venue where they won. Both the MLB and the NBA draft players who are well below 18 years old and deal with these prospects in their system. The $ for these prospects comes out of the teams and thus out of the pro players salary pool. The NFL has a system where a separate collegiate body runs their minor league and develops players for them at only the cost of the Combine to scout it out in terms of payments to prospects. This is the real goose that delivers product to the NFL for free and by offering a few huge contracts to the best college players and managing it through the proration of the salary cap it has worked for a couple of decades. The huge rookie contract are a tool through which the NFLPA lays down a high baseline for salaries and also undercuts opposition to its resraint of trade practices.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 when I read "rookie contracts" - I interpret that as the one they sign coming out of the draft and they are locked up for 4-6 years. There are precious few runningbacks that I would want after 5 years of pounding. They are certainly on the downside of their careers and are unlikely to land a big contract the 2nd time around. RB is the one position where you can get GREAT value early in their careers. 617284[/snapback] Well you may not but NFL teams do. I just can't think of a player off the top of my head that was drafted in the top 15 or so of the draft where the stupid money goes, was good or great as a rookie and was very good for 4 years and then couldnt get a big contract once he either renegotiated, resigned or became a FA. There probably is an example or two, I just can't think of one right now. Larry Johnson will likely get an enormous contract. So will LT. Portis already got a new one I think. McGahee has a good year and he will get a huge one.
MadMark Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 what about RB's who seem to decline after 5 years or so? They are most productive in the beginning. Same can be said for many CB's. 617265[/snapback] You could fill their contract with incentive bonus's. If they excell, they get more money. It could work for RB's, might be a little harder to CB's. GO BILLS 2006!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CosmicBills Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Did I miss something, is FFS now Pyrite Gal? Just curious...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Did I miss something, is FFS now Pyrite Gal? Just curious... 617308[/snapback] Sharp as a bowlin' ball, that boy...
CosmicBills Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Sharp as a bowlin' ball, that boy... 617338[/snapback] I'm on the sloooooow side, but I'll get there eventually.
JDG Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 what about RB's who seem to decline after 5 years or so? They are most productive in the beginning. Same can be said for many CB's. 617265[/snapback] Or what about any player that gets injured before reaching free agency at the end of his 4-year or 5-year rookie contract? Its not like these rookies can go out and get money from the highest bidder. The NFL has a draft which says that one team has an exclusive right to negotiate a contract with them. The rookie pool protects rookies from this monopoly power, and also protects them in the event of a career-shortening injury. JDG
JDG Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Well you may not but NFL teams do. I just can't think of a player off the top of my head that was drafted in the top 15 or so of the draft where the stupid money goes, was good or great as a rookie and was very good for 4 years and then couldnt get a big contract once he either renegotiated, resigned or became a FA. There probably is an example or two, I just can't think of one right now. Larry Johnson will likely get an enormous contract. So will LT. Portis already got a new one I think. McGahee has a good year and he will get a huge one. 617300[/snapback] The best example would probably be Clinton Portis. The guy rushed for 1500 yards in each of his first two years, and was stuck with a 2nd round rookie contract. Playing for two more years, he had huge injury risk. He only got paid thanks to Daniel Snyder. And it is very misleading to talk about rookies getting $20mil and $40mil deals. Maybe for a QB taken #1 overall. But even high and mid-first rounders are only getting less than $10mil in bonus, usually spread out over a couple years, and only minimal salaries for the life of the 4 or 5 year contract. JDG
DC Mom Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Wait, I thought FFS was a dude, now he's a "gal"? Please explain.
Recommended Posts