So from most of what I have read it looks extremely unlikely that a deal gets done before next season. As I understand it with no new deal in place the minumum number of years of service to become a free agent goes from 4 to 6 years. That would mean that Nick Collins, Jason Spitz, Darren Colledge, John Jolly, and Will Blackmon would be Packers next year as long as GB chose to make them qualifying offers. Am I right in thinking GB would not have to sign these guys to large long term contracts in order to keep them around?

Long term GB being the smallest market in the NFL needs the CBA to be competitive, still at least for next year it would seem that not getting a new deal is the best thing for the Pack. Otherwise would be hard to imagine all the players mentioned previously coming back next year. Plus there is the issue of who GB may use the franchise tag on. If TT wants to keep Collins then he can not tag Kampman and so on.

Is there anything I am missing in this? I know that 2011 could be uncapped if there still is no CBA next year, but just looking at next year at this point.

2010 will be an uncapped year. The rules are changed with some of them being RFA from 4 years to 6 years. More franchise and transition tags; limits on signing FAs if the team makes the playoffs are a few. 2010 is under the CBA, but since the owners opted out, 2010 is uncapped and if no agreement is reached then 2011 will not have football, in all likelihood. Without an agreement, the owners most likely will lock out the players and then the players may decertify causing more chaos.

At the end of the day, if a CBA is not agreed upon before the start of 2010 (March, I believe), then the NFL will become the next irrelevant sport.

Sounds like that new football league should do everything in its power to be up and running well when the NFL goes to a lockout.

Greed on both sides could ruin a great game! Sad!

The owners and players need to realize that the salary cap is a huge reason why the NFL is so successful. I stopped watching the MLB in large part because I got tired of some organizations with massive salaries buying teams every year.

Well, that's a little dramatic. Nice recap of the landscape, but your conclusion is over the top. The NFL survived a lockout year in the pat, and is stronger than ever. We all hope it doesn't come to that, but the NFL will never be irrelevant.

All this DOES explain wht TT hasn't done certain things. It is in part why they haven't signed Collins, Jolly, etc. to a long term deal yet. It also explains why they haven't spent big signing bonuses on FA the last couple years. They want to build up their cash reserves to ride out the storm if it comes to that.

Yes, irrelevant is a bit dramatic, but that is how I see it. That does not mean no one will watch, but the popularity the NFL now enjoys will be severely reduced and that is something that does not come back quickly. The NBA, NHL & ML have all been reduced by their bickering that leaves us fans, incredulously dumbfounded at their stupidity and turns a lot of us off. I no longer see the NBA & ML as a something that I need to pay attention to. Sure, I am in fantasy leagues, but mostly do not watch games of just random teams and even reduce the number of games I watch of my teams. Today, I still want to watch any NFL game I can, including the local minor league team, the Lions. I am not a fan, but know many people who unfortunately are.

I found a pretty good article about what will happen if next year is uncapped.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/10847836

The big thing I came away with is a lot has to do with whether the team make the playoffs or not. Further being uncapped goes both ways next year, no playoff teams can in theory spend as much as they want, but there is also no salary floor. With GB's current amount of salary cap dollars it would seem GB would be thinking more about the floor than the ceiling.

The way things are set right now, it seems like GB would basically be the same team next year. I imagine that Nick Collins, Jason Spitz, Darren Colledge, John Jolly, and Will Blackmon would be given tenders that would keep them around. AK would likely be franchised, with Pickett being given a transition tag or let go. If the Packers make the playoffs(IMO they will), they will be restricted in what they can do in free agency. So there may not be a lot of options to improve their O line other than the draft, not that good linemen reach the market much anyways.

So last question, does anyone think there is any chance that the deal gets done this year? Got to say I think GB is going to lose a few good players if it does, still there are other benefits in the CBA that GB definitely needs to ensure their future.

Then how do you explain why the NFL has been as popular as ever after the last lock-out? They even shoved replacement players down our throats, and the NFL was immediately as popular as ever the following year. So you may think popularity will be effected, but the facts don't support that.

The NFL survived, and MLB has survived these strikes/lock-outs. NBA and NHL have other issues that have caused their decline. Bottom line, people love NFL football and it won't be hurt long term by work stoppage. In fact, I doubt it's hurt at all. If anything, it would build even MORE anticipation when they do start playing again.

Ever take a good hard look at the guy who heads the Players Union. There won't be a settlement is my assessment.
I predict there will be a Player lockout in 2011 and the feds will step in and give the players what they want. Don't poo poo me just find out who DeMaurice Smith is and what he believes and who he is connected with. You will than be able to make a fair assessment of how this will all turn out.

Wow! 1000th Post!

The lockout and strike were back in 1982 and 1987; more than 22 years without any work stoppage. The 1980s was a long time ago; the NBA last work stoppage was 1995 & 1998, the ML was 1994, the NHL.. who cares, they don't have many fans anyway. A lot has changed since then and yes, I agree with you that football has a bigger place for many fans and yes, if the owners bring in replacements again, we will probably watch. It just has the chance, I believe a bigger chance, that more will be turned off this time. Too much money for all the players, but not for the retired ones. Too much greed by a few owners that do not want to find a good solid equitable relationship between the them and the players.

I do think that something will be worked out and I hope that it is before March 2010. It may not and an uncapped year will not be what the players think; as we are definitely seeing in the fine details. Hope the owners find some solid ground and Jones and Snyder shut up and the players leaders see what bad will come of a work stoppage.

I'm more concerned about what might happen after the dust settles -- worst case, you may see a situation where the Jerry Joneses of the world succeed and smaller market teams start suffering, if not from weakening of the salary cap then from an end to revenue sharing or etx.

The Packers would probably be fairly safe as a profitable team with fans all over the nation, but I really don't want to see a league of haves and have-nots like you do in baseball. Rooting against the Yankees is fun and all (what exactly is it about A-Rod that makes me want to see him take a fastball in the ear hole everytime he's up?), but it'd ruin football.

I have not read that (assuming 2010 is an uncapped year) restricted free agent tender amounts would rise correspondingly to the 2009 amounts. I'd like to think this would be the case...else it would allow quite a bit of player movement from those teams unwilling/unable to match giant contracts deep-pocket franchises could offer without cap worries.

Other question: if 2010 is indeed uncapped, and some teams spend wildly b/c they can and think it will help them field the best team, if the cap comes back on in, say, 2011...would said teams be in a great competitive position for a number of years? Why couldn't these big spenders, for example, offer Aaron Kampman a 4 year, 80 million contract and pay him 75 million of it in 2010 and the veteran min in the remaining years. Thus, this would allow a 'big spending team' to "front load" contracts in the uncapped year and still retain these star players once the cap goes back on.

The owners and the players need each other. I believe an 11th hour deal will be struck. I don't see how DeMaurice Smith's contacts will factor into the negotiations.

I can hardly imagine a worse possible time for professional athletes to start whining about not being sufficiently compensated. I've gotta think that for some factory worker who lost his job 2 years ago, just lost his house, and now he and his wife and 2 kids are living in their RV which his brother-in-law is letting them park next to the machine shed on his farm, there's going to be a distinct lack of sympathy for punk athletes who are making an average salary of over a million bucks a year and are demanding they be treated more fairly. If the players become too obnoxious about it this time, it might blow up in their faces a lot more than it might have in most previous years.

The players association is on record stating that once the cap is off, they will not allow it to return. Of course, that can be posturing, but it is out there. While 2010 is still part of the CBA (the provision of the opt out clause), it is uncapped, but still highly restrictive for both sides. I don't think that a lot of player movement will happen. One thing that could happen, is that trades will be made by the lower teams to get the max from their better players. A lot like MLB, when a player starts getting expensive, the lower revenue team will trade him to the Cowboys or Redskins for picks and stuff. While Hershel comes to mind, it would not be good for the NFL, iMO

So what the guys belief system is and his associates won't factor in? OK, have you bothered to check him out?

66-Ray: IMO you've brought politics into this thread and have opened yourself up to some criticism. Unless you personally know this man, DeMaurice Smith, how can you credibly make assumptions about how he will conduct himself and his business?

I've probably gotten myself into trouble with this post, but so be it.. Let's just discuss our favorite team and the sport of football, and leave politics out of it.

Edited by LMG

Cleaned up you bringing 'politics' into the thread.

I think I said read about the guy and find out who his associates are, that would help make an informed judgement, or if you prefer don't find out and than discuss wishful thinking.
It doesn't matter if I know him personally, there is enough substantiated information about him in his own speeches and writings. I don't assume anything about this guy.

this is just for FYI not for discussion

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/07/15/nfl-pla...congress-again/

Makes sense. While an uncapped 2010 is still 'highly restrictive' under the CBA, 2011 wouldn't be. Thus, the same scenario would just shift out a year later. I agree with you that we could foresee trades occurring as you mention. With no cap or restrictions...is it the 'wild, wild west' beginning in 2011? Do rookies have to play for the team that drafted them for X number of years before being FAs....or would that all be dictated by the length of their rookie contracts (i.e. if the player signs a 2-year rookie deal, once the contract ends, he can sign with whomever and with no compensation to original team? True free-agency? That would decimate the NFL's popularity quite quickly. In that case, GB needs to start wooing Bill Gates to be on Board of Trustees and 'share the love' for GB to remain viable. All speculation at this point, but things to think through.

Mark me as one who does not see the uncapped year as a major issue. For one the system was set up to prevent a major spending feeding frenzy (more tags on players, playoff team limits). As Jim states both sides want a deal and this language will get them to the table make a deal. Remember this is so different from MLB. Broacast revenue is shared and that is 66% give or take of total team revenue. In the Packers case they have also good revenue streams from Lambeau Field, Packer Pro Shop ect. Local broadcast revenue is a small piece of the pie. In MLB local broadcast is a MAJOR source of revenue, that is really where you have the have and have nots.

A deal will get done. I also see the networks becoming involved behind closed doors and putting pressure on on both the NFL and NFLPA. Remember the TV deals end in 2011 and the last thing the owners want is to have those deals reduced. Some of these guys have some debt service in new stadiums. The last thing they want is a decrease in TV revenue

From what I have read, it seems to me that the uncapped year is not something that is really a deal buster for either side. It has some consequences, but nothing too severe. I would not be surprised at all that a deal does not get done this year, however the following season when the dire consequences kick in everybody will need to get together to make it happen. Until then the motivation is not strong enough and the parties involved are too far apart.

In 2011, either a strike or lockout (more likely) will be enacted. There will not be an NFL season without a CBA, or at least not with the current players. I could see replacement players again for the owners, but I will not be happy and I believe with the internet and such, the owners will not be able to get away with it like in 1987. The NFLPA most likely will decerify to make negotiations irrelevant and then sue. 2011 will be ugly if an agreement is not found. I believe that 2010 will not be what a lot of players think either without a cap. If 2010 goes on without a cap and that means no new CBA agreement, it will be very interesting to see the players perspective. How will they change their stance in response to this? I don't know and I prefer that this will NOT happen. I hope the owners and players make an agreement before March 2010.

The key to this IMO is that the network deals expire after the 2011 season and I know there is already work being done to extend / rework those deals. I cannot see increases or for that matter flat TV deals if there is any chance of a lockout and / or strike. And the owners cannot afford to lose that revenue or have it decreased.

You look across sports, however, the owners usually win in these situations. It does damage the sport to have a lockout, but it hurts the players far more -- it's purely a matter of opportunity cost. Players have a handful of years to make money, whereas the owners have decades.

If you're the NHL or an equally unpopular sport*, that's one thing, but baseball or football will always recover.

* Not to dig on the NHL -- I don't get why people don't love hockey.