Skip to content

Talk of possible labor deal in July is likely wishful thinking

There’s a theory making the rounds that the St. Louis Rams opted not to negotiate a rookie contract with No. 1 overall pick Sam Bradford because the Rams believe there’s a chance that, come July, a new labor deal including a rookie wage scale will be struck.   Under this scenario, new rules regarding veteran player compensation and free agency would apply in 2011.

Though we can’t and won’t rule it out, a quick survey of some of our most astute sources has caused us to conclude that it most likely won’t be happening. 

For starters, the two sides aren’t talking.  NFL spokesman Greg Aiello advises that the last meeting occurred in Indianapolis in conjunction with the Scouting Combine.  But Aiello declined to disclose whether additional talks are scheduled.  To have any chance at working out a deal by the time training camps open, the two sides would have to create an artificial sense of urgency, lock themselves in a five-star resort for multiple weeks, and focus only on getting a deal done.

Also, the NFLPA likely would have to be willing to do a bad deal, in order to do a deal in July.  Well, if the NFLPA were willing to do a bad deal in July, the NFLPA simply would have done a bad deal in March, preserving the salary cap.

So why didn’t the Rams sign Bradford before the draft?  Despite what anyone has publicly said, we’re convinced that Bradford didn’t want to do it because Bradford’s camp believed he’d be picked no lower than No. 4 — either by the Redskins or a team with which the Redskins traded.
 

Permalink 11 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
11 Responses to “Talk of possible labor deal in July is likely wishful thinking”
  1. nfcbeast says: May 4, 2010 9:39 PM

    Blah blah blah…..any news on cheerleaders?

  2. Fonetik says: May 4, 2010 9:54 PM

    “some of our most astute sources”
    I assume this consists primarily of your and Rosenthal’s own assholes, right?

  3. mzezulak says: May 4, 2010 10:00 PM

    That would certainly swing leverage towards the Rams knowing he financially couldn’t (worse case) hold out the season and re enter next years draft, it would be financial suicide.

  4. GoBrowns19 says: May 4, 2010 10:04 PM

    Ok, so everyone agrees that a lockout would be catastrophic to all involved, players, owners, fans…everyone. But these guys haven’t even talked since February? What else is so important??? I’ll never understand rich people. What, does De Smith have a march on washington to put together?

  5. CookieFlash says: May 4, 2010 10:07 PM

    Overpaid!!!

  6. mr_snrub says: May 4, 2010 10:26 PM

    Ahh, how things have changed. With Tags it was actually Upshaw who held the leash (further proof that Bryant Gumbel is a bigger idiot than he is terrible play by play) and convinced the spineless Tags to convince the owners to accept a deal non-lucrative to the owners; all so Tags could cement his place in Canton – glad to see the voters haven’t yet fallen for that joke of a commish.
    Commissioner “quit screwing up my league and get the hell out of my way” has managed to take the union’s salary cap threat and turn it into a desired thing for the union. Yeah, Goodell has the NFLPA reeling and the person who carves those busts for Canton should get a head start and begin thinking of styles that reflect Goodell’s greatness over that spineless sap Tags.

  7. Vet735 says: May 5, 2010 12:08 AM

    The league wants a lockout. They want to give the players a little taste of what life is like without a fat paycheck. Then when the players come groveling back, there will be a deal.

  8. mackenzie1983 says: May 5, 2010 12:58 AM

    Get this crap over with. Everyone wants football in 2011 but if there isnt any at aleast there is college and the UFL.

  9. patpatriotagain says: May 5, 2010 1:02 AM

    mr_snrub, you could not be less correct. Upshaw was a tool who worked for the nfl. he received money from nfl. it was a major conflict of interest. to secure this lucrative business of his, he talked tough, but constantly screwed the players as in the acceptance of the franchise tag.

  10. TJ says: May 5, 2010 7:32 AM

    As someone mentioned before posting cheerleaders would be more interesting.

  11. Darron says: May 5, 2010 9:27 AM

    Maybe the Rams don’t even intend to sign Bradford. Why would the outgoing owner (Chip Rosenbloom) want to fork over a $30 million signing bonus out of his pocket when someone else (Kronke, Kahn, etc) will own the team by next year. With the sale up in the air, no new owner has been identified for sure that could step in and front the money. So why negotiate early? Let Bradford get to camp, leak a bunch of rumors about how crazy his salary demands are, try to do a lowball deal with the threat of a rookie wage scale next year, and not really care if he takes it or not.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!