Player collusion in Seattle?

[esmd]

at least my position has a gun. You guys are simply dismissing it, but people in the industry are not. I have commincated some of their opinions. You have provided nothing in support of your position. I have nfl media people talking about the same things I've been posting. You have your own words as your sole support. I'd say the scales tip in my favor.

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. You win the internets. Carry on.:insane:

[BcRaven]

Maybe I'm naive, bt12483. If there's a $alary floor and a ceiling (cap), and every team must be somewhere in-between, then all the money that the CBA calls for to be spent, is being used for players' contracts. IMO it doesn't matter which positions get the mo$t or lea$t as long as the appropriate amount goes into the players pockets. Am I missing something here? ... Bc

[bt12483]

Explain how there can be collusion in an era where contracts and team salary space is public information. Show me the teams NOT spending money, and you'll have evidence.

It is funny that you use that as basis to negate collusion. The NFLPA is going so far as to post DAILY updates in 4 hour increments on every team's salary cap situation. I don't think this has ever been done before. They are doing it so agents can see how much teams really have (e.g. for when the teams says "we only have $XXX money left", the agents can call BS.

Numerous agents have privately complained about the slow pace of signings for veteran free agent players and the associated low salaries for those players. Only one player, Miami wide receiver Mike Wallace, has received a contract in excess of $10 million per year as a free agent.
Furthermore, many free agent players have signed one-year deals in hopes of hitting free agency again next season because the market has been so poor. That has led agents to suggest that collusion has occurred among teams.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello dismissed the notion.
"Player signings in 2013 have been characterized by robust spending and intense competition. Anyone seeing collusion in this market is seeing ghosts," Aiello said via email.

To support his claims, Smith said the union would work to provide the most up-to-the-minute information for agents as players look for jobs.
"As you know, we are well into free agency and in the effort to provide players and contract advisors with the most accurate and updated information, we want to remind you that every agent has access to the team cap figures on the password-protected portion of www.nflplayers.com," Smith wrote in the memo.
"In the effort to increase the information available and to provide timely team salary cap information, we will post the most recent figures, as per our calculations, daily at 8 a.m., noon, 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. eastern on http://nflplayers.com/cap.

"We have heard anecdotally that some teams are inaccurately reporting that they are facing salary-cap restrictions on resigning veteran players. While this is a common allegation and teams are free to make their own determinations on signing players, we provide this information to aid you in accurately evaluating each team's actual salary cap room.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--de...012307753.html

Florio's take:

At a time when the NFL and the NFL Players Association don’t agree on much, they definitely don’t agree on whether teams are colluding in free agency.

Earlier today, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith sent an email to all agents regarding the current free agent market and the apparent claims from some teams that salary-cap issues are restricting spending. Since then, NFLPA spokesman George Atallah has published the current cap numbers for every team; that’s something the union rarely if ever has done.

Smith’s email, a copy of which PFT has obtained, concludes with this message to agents: “Finally, we have heard reports of a concern that teams are working in concert to ‘peg’, ‘rig’ or ‘set’ market prices on player contracts. If you believe or have information that the teams have been colluding during this free agency period, you have a responsibility as an agent of the NFLPA to come forward and share that information with us.”

While the NFLPA has yet to formally accuse the league or its teams of collusion, the union undoubtedly is looking for any evidence to support a conclusion that teams have expressly or implicitly reached agreements as to the offers that will be made to players — which by definition is collusion.

Predictably, the NFL contends that no collusion has occurred. “Player signings in 2013 have been characterized by robust spending and intense competition,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told NFL Network’s Albert Breer. “Anyone seeing collusion in this market is seeing ghosts.”

While we’re not able to conclude at this point that collusion has occurred, the market this year hardly has been “robust,” and the competition for players definitely hasn’t been “intense.” The initial spending spree to open the market was limited, with a smaller-than-usual handful of players signing big-money deals. Apart from Joe Flacco’s record contract that resulted directly from the Ravens’ reluctance to use either level of the franchise tag, no high-water marks were set this year.

Collusion doesn’t come only from agreements to “peg” or “rig” or “set” market prices. It also comes from seemingly innocuous efforts to compare notes as to how other teams value a given position in light of a slowly-growing salary cap. While it’s impossible to prove that such communications occurred unless and until a disgruntled team employee blows the whistle (or until the league tries to punish teams that didn’t comply with the unwritten agreement by taking away salary-cap money after the fact), there’s nothing wrong with the union or anyone else looking at the circumstantial evidence and becoming suspicious.

The NFL would prefer that neither the media nor the union investigate the possibility of collusion, and one potentially effective strategy would be the issuance of dismissive statements vouching for the absence of collusion and suggesting that anyone who suspects otherwise is stupid or delusional or both.

It’s entirely possibly that I’m both stupid and delusional, but there’s something about the current free-agency market that doesn’t smell right. And when that happens, the right thing to do is follow one’s nose to wherever the odor leads.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-on-collusion/

[bt12483]

We're dismissing it because there is zero possibility that it's true, and a heavily biased source saying that he's heard reports of concerns of it is about as far from a smoking gun as possible.

There isn't zero possibility. Otherwise the union wouldn't be seeking to build evidence.

Collusion requires that the owners are A. Working together in secret to keep salaries down, and B. That salaries are down.

A is unprovable, and there is zero evidence to change that.

It is not unprovable. Just because it might be hard to prove doesn't mean it is unprovable. The union is trying to gather evidence to guess what...PROVE IT!

B is perfectly easy to disprove. Contracts and team salaries are public information. As of April 1, no team had more than 23% of it's possible cap space available and 27 of them had less than 15%. Clearly, teams are spending to the cap in the vast majority of cities. The ones who aren't are compelled by the CBA to get up to the cap floor soon anyway.

Positional devaluation is NOT collusion. The best punter in the universe will earn less than the 128th best cornerback. The best corner will earn less than the 10th best QB. That's not collusion, unless you also think Sam Koch should make more than Torrey Smith.

Positional (de)valuation can show collusion.

For example, say 2 years ago the average value of top defensive player contracts was $10M/year.

Say this year it is $8M/year.

Say next year it is $6M/year.

Say the year after that it is $4M/year.

Defensive players would now be worth 50% less than a few years ago? 75% less? In what world would that be logical? The only rationale for such a dip would be that someone set the market low for a certain segment of players. What other reason would account for a 60% drop in contracts for a certain group of players?

Say there is a $120M cap. In years past, the amount spent on offense and defense was ~60/60. or maybe 65/55 for one side or the other.

If in a few years say that ratio skews 80/40 offense...that won't be weird? What if it were 90/30 in favor of offense? That would be a dramatic shift from the typical historical salary pattern of the league.

[NCRAVEN]

There isn't zero possibility. Otherwise the union wouldn't be seeking to build evidence.

It is not unprovable. Just because it might be hard to prove doesn't mean it is unprovable. The union is trying to gather evidence to guess what...PROVE IT!

Lets start this thread again when they get the evidence.

Otherwise them trying to gather evidence to prove collusion holds as much water as people trying to build evidence to prove aliens have visited us from Mars.

[arnie_uk]

There isn't zero possibility. Otherwise the union wouldn't be seeking to build evidence.

It is not unprovable. Just because it might be hard to prove doesn't mean it is unprovable. The union is trying to gather evidence to guess what...PROVE IT!

Positional (de)valuation can show collusion.

For example, say 2 years ago the average value of top defensive player contracts was $10M/year.

Say this year it is $8M/year.

Say next year it is $6M/year.

Say the year after that it is $4M/year.

Defensive players would now be worth 50% less than a few years ago? 75% less? In what world would that be logical? The only rationale for such a dip would be that someone set the market low for a certain segment of players. What other reason would account for a 60% drop in contracts for a certain group of players?

Say there is a $120M cap. In years past, the amount spent on offense and defense was ~60/60. or maybe 65/55 for one side or the other.

If in a few years say that ratio skews 80/40 offense...that won't be weird? What if it were 90/30 in favor of offense? That would be a dramatic shift from the typical historical salary pattern of the league.

but that drop is countered by the fact the average salary for offensive players is rising at a rate like 8, 12, 16. Ie a higher rate than the defense is dropping.

It's the way the league is going, all these offensive players have the better stats etc and the better claim to more money, so once they get paid, that leaves less for the defensive side of the ball.

All it would take to prove or disprove this is to look at the salary cap used this year now today, and at the same point in time last year. If its similar, no collusion, if there's a drastic drop, there may be some merit to the argument.

[HoustonRaven]

The union would love nothing better to prove collusion and, eventually, get rid of the cap.

If that happens, chaps, say good bye to any shot of the Ravens staying competitive and hello to an MLB-esque league.

Funny how the union, in its numbers, don't mention the new $20 Million from each team that's going to healthcare for retired players. But that doesn't fit their narrative I suppose.

[bt12483]

but that drop is countered by the fact the average salary for offensive players is rising at a rate like 8, 12, 16. Ie a higher rate than the defense is dropping.

It's the way the league is going, all these offensive players have the better stats etc and the better claim to more money, so once they get paid, that leaves less for the defensive side of the ball.

All it would take to prove or disprove this is to look at the salary cap used this year now today, and at the same point in time last year. If its similar, no collusion, if there's a drastic drop, there may be some merit to the argument.

If the league continually devalues the defensive side of the ball, and their contracts become less and less compared to the offensive side of the ball, the league will cease to exist.

All of these guys that aren't good enough to play offense in the NFL will just play MLB baseball or NBA basketball.

Then in the future we can just watch Aaron Rodgers 3.0 throw against Peyton Manning 3.0 with no defense whatsoever.

Just because there is a salary cap doesn't mean collusion can't occur. Ask WASH and DAL. They didn't collude and got punished.

[bt12483]

Lets start this thread again when they get the evidence.

Otherwise them trying to gather evidence to prove collusion holds as much water as people trying to build evidence to prove aliens have visited us from Mars.

Cool. Let's also apply that logic to every lawsuit in America. If everyone had every shred of proof right out of the gate as soon as they filed suit then we wouldn't need discovery.

Unfortunately this is the real world. And you don't always have 100% of the proof on day one. Sometimes you only find the "smoking gun" proof when you see that internal memo that you acquire via discovery.

Let me know how many lawsuits start off having every bit of evidence before filing. That is not the standard for filing suit. All you need is a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The rules do not require 100% of the evidence or otherwise don't bother.

[NCRAVEN]

Cool. Let's also apply that logic to every lawsuit in America. If everyone had every shred of proof right out of the gate as soon as they filed suit then we wouldn't need discovery.

Unfortunately this is the real world. And you don't always have 100% of the proof on day one. Sometimes you only find the "smoking gun" proof when you see that internal memo that you acquire via discovery.

My point is, we are going round and round because the NFLPA and D. Smith are talking about collusion as if that is some proof there is collusion.

As HR said, D. Smith and the NFLPA would LOVE to get rid of the cap, and proving collusion, or getting a judge to agree there is whether there really is or not, would be the first step.

[bt12483]

My point is, we are going round and round because the NFLPA and D. Smith are talking about collusion as if that is some proof there is collusion.

The AGENTS are the ones that kickstarted this. The guys actually working for the players. The guys that are seeing really really low offers for most players.

As HR said, D. Smith and the NFLPA would LOVE to get rid of the cap, and proving collusion, or getting a judge to agree there is whether there really is or not, would be the first step.

1) They already signed a 10 year agreement. It is highly unlikely that would be overturned even with proof of collusion 2) Obviously each side (owners/union) has their own bias.

But that doesn't mean they every accusation from one side or the other is completely baseless.

The fact is a lot of agents think something really weird is going on. Agents that have been in the field for 30 years. They communicated that to the union. The union is taking action.

Did the union and D Smith sign a crappy deal? Yup. Does that mean the owners can't also collude? Nope.

Everyone knows D Smith is looking like an idiot these days. That doesn't mean owners aren't also breaking rules.

[NCRAVEN]

The AGENTS are the ones that kickstarted this. The guys actually working for the players. The guys that are seeing really really low offers for most players.

Right, but you're "proof" was D. Smith

And, you mean the agents, the guys that get a percentage of a contract? Yup, no reason they would like to see no cap and higher contracts...