[Lefty Noob]

Thought that this was quite interesting.

Add to this the uncertainty of the NFL's labor situation with its players, and the once-liberal use of the franchise tag becomes a bigger risk -- especially for teams such as the 49ers and Raiders without fancy new stadiums and huge revenue streams.

The current CBA between the NFL Players Association and the league will expire after the coming season. Both sides are working to strike a deal before March 3 to avoid postponement of the free-agency signing period and the prospect of an uncapped '07.

That would mean no spending limits for big-money franchises -- think of the Redskins' Dan Snyder becoming another George Steinbrenner -- and tough sledding for the Bay Area teams, which depend on the current CBA's revenue-sharing scheme and salary cap to stay remotely competitive.

Let's assume, even though the CBA will probably wind up getting ironed out, that we do have an uncapped 2007 NFL season and that only a handful of teams have the chance to lure in all the big names. Anyone know which players are schedule to become free agents at the end of the upcoming season? What kind of Superteams might we be looking at here?

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the article quoted above was from the San Francisco Chronicle website.

[anrobins]

Writers in the media love getting caught up in these ideas of super teams. The problem is that they don't often work out. All we need to do is look at the Yankees and New York Rangers of recent years. Team chemistry, work ethic, and health can derail teams as quickly as they are bought. Just imagine the zoo if T.O. and Chad Johnson ever played together.

[Lefty Noob]

True, but imagine if you could get someone like Shawn Alexander running behind an All-Pro calibur offensive line? Now THAT would help you get some Ws!

[Lefty Noob]

Labor talks have broken off, and a CBA does not appear imminent.

NFL labor talks break off on eve of free agency

By DAVE GOLDBERG, AP Football Writer
March 1, 2006

NEW YORK (AP) -- NFL labor talks broke off three days before the start of free agency, leaving teams and players in a quandary about negotiating new contracts.

Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, spent the last three days meeting in New York and Washington with commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

"We're deadlocked. There's nowhere to go," Upshaw said Tuesday. "There's no reason to continue meeting."

The NFL acknowledged the talks had broken off and said no further discussions were scheduled. The league said it would not extend Friday's deadline for the start of free agency.

Although the contract does not expire until after the 2007 season, this is a critical period in the negotiations to extend the 12-year-old agreement. Talks have been going on for more than a year.

Free agency is scheduled to start Friday. If the deal is not extended, this would be the last year with a salary cap, so agents and team officials want to know how to structure contracts.

For example, if there is no extension, the salary cap is expected to be about $95 million this season and annual raises after 2006 in a long-term deal would be limited to 30 percent. If the deal is extended the cap could be $10 million or more higher.

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

They differ, however, on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

But there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday.

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money.

Another high-revenue owner, New England's Robert Kraft, says the formula does not take stadium debt into account, as he has on Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said "internal revenue-sharing issues" would not be discussed at the meeting.

Apparently, the lack of a cap increase could result in some big name cuts by tomorrow. Owens, Warrick Dunn, Wil Shields, and many other big names could win up getting up loose. How big of a mess might this become?

[Mid-depth_Reporter]

No cap? That would be interesting. Watching T.O get paid $20 mil a year to complain about quarterbacks and teams not meeting his wishes. Seeing some 2nd string linebacker getting paid $3.5 million to play about ten downs a game, and flap his arms in an incredibly moronic manner after making a meaningless sack for -1 yard on 1st down.

I think not having a cap will quickly go to the heads of a lot of the players in the NFL. Not all of them, but surely enough. You'll lose a lot of what the NFL offers, such as the hope of fans knowing any year could be their year, or players who start and finish their careers with one franchise. I still think that the NFL offers fans the ability to watch someone play their whole career with a team, better than MLB.

But, oh well, if it happens, it happens.

It'll be interesting seeing T.O. play for two different teams every season: one opening the season, and the other after the trade deadline to the close of the season.

[Lefty Noob]

Well, a deal may still get done, but it doesn't look good. The NFL has delayed the start of free agency until Monday while they scramble to work out a deal. My guess is that the union comes down a little after the players facing cuts and smaller free-agent contracts all but beat down Gene Upshaw's doors.

[Who Dey]

So Mike Brown finally ponied up and shelled out a few bucks for a solid head coach. Don't get me wrong, I could'nt be happier with the hire or the job coach Lewis has done with the Bengals but don't ever forget that Mike Brown is the cheepest SOB to ever walk this earth.
Recycled jock straps, practice facility next to a chemical plant, no scouts, no televisions, and all the other reports of his miserliness cannot all be false. This is a guy who would stiff a waitress at Waffle House if he thought he could get away with it.
That being said, I think the focus by the media on this 4% disconnect between the players and the owners is a bit misleading. Certainly the 4% is misleading itself when you realize it's 4% of 3.7 billion dollars, which equates to something between 3 hundred and 4 hundered million dollars, which further equates into over 10 million dollars per team.
$10 million huh? Not exactly peanuts for a guy who would make one of his players wear a used jock strap, is it?
But before the owners can even get down to serious negotiations with the players, they must first decide what they wish to do themselves.
You see, it was rumored around 6 or 7 years ago, in the heart of the Bengals Bungledom, durring the Owners meeting that Jerry Jones actually jumped over conference table with the full intention of beating Mr. Brown.
Why? Because while Jerry Jones is out there hiring the best coaches, improving his stadium, marketing his team, getting the best players, and winning championships Mike Brown just loses and makes money. He makes money not because of his own efforts, he makes money because of Jerry Jones's efforts and revenue sharing. In political science I believe they call it the free rider problem.
Mike Brown is a free rider, and you can see why owners such as Bob Kraft, Dan Snyder, and Jerry Jones would be tired of paying his way. They will use arguments like, we dont have as good a stadium deal, or something else to that effect when the truth they simply wish to gain a competitive advantage by having more money to spend because they themselves generate more money.
I truly believe that the owners will not even begin thinking about negotiating with the players over this 4% until they settle things between themselves. However, as a fan of a small to medium market team, I certainly would hate to see revenue sharing disapear more than the salary cap.