NFL Lockout: The Transition Period Dates for Starting the NFL Season

by Chris Pokorny on Jul 11, 2011 11:00 AM EDT in General News

According to a report from ESPN this morning, things continue to look positive when it comes to the players and the owners agreeing on an end to the lockout. Sources tell ESPN that a deal could conceivably be reached by July 21, a date that is now going to be considered the new "deadline" for getting things worked out. As I talked about yesterday, the biggest holdup still seems to be the rookie wage scale.

If a deal is reached by July 21, ESPN released potential dates for the start of the NFL season from a document called "The Transition Rules." The NFL supposedly drafted several documents, one of which contained dates for the lockout ending on July 1. Sources provided potential revised dates to ESPN that would include free agency, the start of the season, etc. Here they are:

July 21 -- Educate the clubs on the new league rules and allow voluntary training for teams and agents.

July 25 -- Sign undrafted rookies, as well as give free agents a chance to re-sign with their teams.

July 28 -- League year starts and free agency begins.

Aug. 2 -- Rosters must be set at 90 players.

Aug. 3 -- Deadline for restricted free agents to sign offer sheets.

Aug. 7 -- A four-day match period for teams to match restricted free-agent offer sheets.

Aug 12 -- Deadline for rookies to sign contracts (not yet agreed upon).

Aug. 16 -- Signing period for restricted free agents ends, as does the signing period for franchise and transition tenders.

Aug. 29 -- Deadline for players to report to earned credit for an accrued season toward free agency.

When I originally read the list above, two dates stuck out. The first one was July 28, which is when the league year would start and free agency would begin. That means training camp could commence on time, even if teams are also scrambling to sign players. We might not see Mike Holmgren driving around in a golf cart during camp sessions; he'll probably be busy trying to handle signings and what not.

The second interesting date was August 12, which is a "deadline for rookies to sign contracts." Does that mean the rookies will be given an ultimatum? Perhaps as part of the new CBA, the proposed rookie wage scale has a formula for what teams need to offer a player (plus their position) who was drafted at a certain spot. What happens if the rookie doesn't sign that deal by the deadline?

We seem to be getting closer, and I think everyone is determined to make sure football happens.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

i don’t understand how they could have a deadline on signing rookies. that would give more favor to the owners being able to force the rookie into the smallest contract possible. it sounds nice because then you don’t have to worry about hold-outs, but there have got to be other rules to it. unless if they do agree on some sort of rookie wage scale where each player knows exactly what they’re making regardless, with maybe bonuses and such being the difference from players and teams to decide, i just don’t think that would work.

and as far as a rookie wage scale, i certainly agree on that, but there shouldn’t be any wiggle room for the rookies and owners to hussle. if you set a minimum and maximum for each position and draft pick, then you’ll always have the owners arguing for the minimum and the players arguing for the maximum. it needs to be one single number as a base pay with bonuses being the addition the agents can debate about.

Yvan Eht Nioj.

by Brownsbacker488 on Jul 11, 2011 1:12 PM EDT reply actions

I think if we see a rookie wage scale that is exactly what it will be.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jul 11, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

the one thing that will get confusing is how they determine the pay for each position. it seems obvious to have a QB earn the most, and maybe a LT more than a RT, but what about a player like Cribbs who doesn’t have a defined role? should the pay simply be determined by the draft slot selected to help control confusion?

Yvan Eht Nioj.

by Brownsbacker488 on Jul 11, 2011 5:35 PM EDT reply actions

I think position will matter in higher rounds. Someone will probably at some point get screwed because he plays multiple roles and gets paid to do the lesser of the two. They should make the first contract short so it doesn’t matter too much to a guy’s lifetime earnings.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jul 12, 2011 5:42 AM EDT up reply actions

three years max, preferably two, with restricted free agency kicking in afterwards.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jul 12, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions

I think this is what the owners will want, but I don’t know if I like it. It would have to be a pretty complex algorithm for me to be ok with it. A RB’s career is already in full swing after a year, and guys who step in and make huge impacts should get paid for it. How exactly should “huge impact” be determined? That’s tough.

But guys like Joe Thomas, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman, Calvin Johnson, Patrick Willis, etc. should be able to be paid like stars in year 2-3.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jul 12, 2011 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe the initial contract should have a clause to force the team to restructure a contract with a player if say by year two that player is performing better than expected or is taking a certain number of snaps as a starter. in that same clause it could potentially force the player to have to resign for multiple years with the same team in order to keep the balance between the two. this seems really confusing though…

i was talking to my boss about this the other day and we both agree that there needs to be a rookie wage scale with shorter terms, but he made a good point that it will virtually cut the necessity to draft a QB in the high rounds unless you know someone is an absolute lock. if you figure a player can only sign a max of three years, that’s typically the point where young QBs become elite (assuming they’re good enough.) so if that’s a case for a team they could potentially lose out on all that time and effort because another team might offer a better deal.

Yvan Eht Nioj.

by Brownsbacker488 on Jul 12, 2011 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions

I think clubs could keep a guy who was going to hit a FA. Stud QBs rarely hit free agency for good reason. Sure, people could get lebronned, but they could always be leaving much more money with their old team (at the team’s discretion).

Regardless, it sounds like the contracts will be 4 years with a 5th year option.

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by rufio on Jul 13, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

I actually like the way the NBA handles things in regards to star players, and hear me out on that. I like that the team a player is leaving can always offer them the most money. That discourages stars from moving around. In the NBA players have found a way around that, but in the NFL one star doesn’t make as big of a difference so I don’t think we would see players conspiring to form “super teams.”

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jul 13, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions