Thread: Bears eager to start molding team

Originally Posted by jackiejokeman

Whatever it was...it wasnt working in the PAST...and it hasnt worked since.

That's not true. There would be no free agency as we now know it had they not challenged the NFL in court. The theat of a legal battle over the NFL's anti-trust exemption is what finally got the owners to agree to limited player movement.

Originally Posted by jackiejokeman

Read the entire post Soul,

It has nothing to do about politics and everything to do about...

DAA BEARRSSE!

I did read the whole post jackie and that was the only part I disagreed with. The rest was fine!

Originally Posted by dabears54

only one side walked away in march and decertified.. sorry soul, that is 100% on the union.. has the league also made many mistep's? Of course!.. but THIS ONE is soley on the Union,, its ok to say that . As you said before what happened before doesn't matter talking NOW, and in this the union, not league walked away, that is 100% on them

Nope, covered that one before. The refusal of the owners to bargain in good faith was as much to blame as the players walking away. The owners played their game up to the very end and called the players bluff only it wasn't a bluff as it turned out. The players walked but didn't strike which signified they still wanted to play but the owners locked them out so both parties have contributed to where we are now, which is without football.

If you and I were bargaining over some work I was to do and I asked for $1000 upfront as a good faith payment to reserve my time for the project while we negotiated the final terms and you showed up for a meeting without it I'd probably walk away too. In that case both of us would be responsible for the project not getting started.

Both sides are culpable. I've not followed this too closely, but I agree with the owners that the value of draft picks are far lower than they should be, given that there's no rookie cap. But, the NFL union makes the smallest percentage and isn't guaranteed money the way basketball and baseball players are, so for them to ask for a little more of that pie isn't outrageous. I think it's on the owners to spread the wealth to the lesser teams, and to be honest, as much as I hate the rest of our division, I don't think it'd be fair for the Bears to flat out own the division. Hell, the only divisions worth watching would be the NFC & AFC East, if it was an every team for themselves, but those are probably asides.

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

Both sides are culpable. I've not followed this too closely, but I agree with the owners that the value of draft picks are far lower than they should be, given that there's no rookie cap. But, the NFL union makes the smallest percentage and isn't guaranteed money the way basketball and baseball players are, so for them to ask for a little more of that pie isn't outrageous. I think it's on the owners to spread the wealth to the lesser teams, and to be honest, as much as I hate the rest of our division, I don't think it'd be fair for the Bears to flat out own the division. Hell, the only divisions worth watching would be the NFC & AFC East, if it was an every team for themselves, but those are probably asides.

There has been rookie salary pool which in effect is a rookie salary cap because it's the total amount of $$$ that can be spent on all rookie contracts. But for the new CBA the owners are asking for a much stricter set of guidelines on rookie pay and that isn't one of the issues that they disagree on. Both players and owners agree than something has to be done about unrealistic rookie deals.

i forgot about the first part of what you said (the rookie pool), but I'm glad that both sides are agreeing that there should be a stricter amount set on what teams can pay rookies. That'll give teams with higher draft picks better leverage in trading down, and would probably lead to parity, if they know how to draft right.