POSTED 11:45 p.m. EST, February 21, 2006; UPDATED 12:36 a.m. EST, February 22, 2006

 

STEELERS NOT HOPPING ON HOPE

 

Contrary to recent published reports suggesting that the Steelers are hot for safety Chris Hope, a league source tells us that Hope is not one of the team's top priorities as free agency approaches.

 

On February 20, ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli wrote that the Steelers have made "verbal overtures" to Hope's agent.  The source for the story was, coincidentally, Hope's agent.

 

"They've told us that Chris is one of their top targets [to re-sign]," Braylon Bennett (a/k/a Some Dude We've Never Previously Heard Of) told Pasquarelli, "and we're taking them at their word."

 

Just how low of a profile does Bennett have?  He has negotiated only one active contract.  And his first name isn't even spelled right in the Monday report.  It's actually "Bralyn," according to the NFLPA's web site.

 

Hey, "Bray" or "Bra" or whatever the shorthand version of your name is, you're about to get a lesson on how not to negotiate with the Steelers.  

 

Word is that the folks in the 'Burgh are extremely unhappy with Bennett's posturing, primarily since the team doesn't regard Hope as a "top target."

 

And as seasoned NFL agents well know, the path to getting a deal done with the Rooneys does not include a stopover on Piss 'Em Off Lane.

 

Drafted near the bottom of round three in 2002, Hope has spent four years with the Steelers.  He was a restricted free agent in 2005, and the Steelers offered the low-end, one-year tender of $656,000.  Hope received no offers from any other teams.  

 

Though we don't know where Hope will be playing in 2006, we have a pretty good idea as to where he won't be playing, if his agent continues to misstate the team's position to the media in a manner that makes mad the team that knows a thing or two about letting former draft picks walk away.

 

EARLY WEDNESDAY ONE-LINERS

 

The Ravens could be slapping the franchise tag on RB Jamal Lewis (nearly a year after the law slapped handcuffs on him).

 

The Vikings called the Ravens last week regarding a possible trade involving QB Daunte Culpepper.

 

The Chargers are $25 million under the 2006 cap.

 

The Chargers will permit the following free agents to test the market:  WR Reche Caldwell, CB Jamar Fletcher, G Bob Hallen, LB Ben Leber, TE Justin Peelle and DE DeQuincy Scott.

 

The Lions might use the franchise or transition tag on OL Jeff Backus.

 

Memphis RB DeAngelo Williams is hoping to catch Reggie Bush on the draft board (absent the involvement of a guy named "Gillooly," we don't see it happening).

 

When LB Ray Lewis signed a seven-year contract in 2002, the team encouraged him instead to ink a four-year deal, which would have made him a free agent in 2006.

 

RB Michael Bennett isn't in the Vikings' plans (was he ever?).

 

The Bus admits that he was "arrogant" on the ball-popping play that nearly ended the Steelers' season in Indy.

 

Mike Tice says that if he hadn't gotten a job in coaching for 2006, he would have considered television (he and Gloria could have moved in with her parents).

 

Larry Weisman of USA Today looks at the primary candidates to be tagged.

 

The Rams have re-signed FB/LS Chris Massey.

 

Eight members of the Packers will spend the next few months playing for various teams that would have a pretty good chance of beating Green Bay.

 

Broncos DE John Engleberger has humperdinked his way to a three-year deal with a $750,000 signing bonus.

 

From the "Bob Glauber Was Here" file, a Wednesday article in The Palm Beach Post regarding the Ricky Williams situation contains this sentence:  "Unlike Philadelphia receiver Terrell Owens, who was reinstated after being suspended by the Eagles for detrimental conduct, Williams will not plead his case to neutral arbitrators." 

 

Broncos S John Lynch has signed a two-year extension, which puts him under contract through 2008.

 

POSTED 9:13 p.m. EST; UPDATED 9:37 p.m. EST, February 21, 2006

 

AGENT FEES DROPPING TO TWO PERCENT?

 

There's talk among NFL agents that the long-rumored drop in maximum fees from three percent to two percent is coming.  And possibly soon.

 

It's expected to be a major point of contention at Friday's meeting in Indy between NFLPA brass and agents.

 

As we understand the issue, the NFLPA fears that younger players don't realize that three percent is the maximum chargeable fee, and that most consequently don't try to bargain for themselves a lower rate.

 

But if the concern is one of full disclosure, the union could easily fix the situation by requiring agents to affirmatively disclose that lower fees are available.  Indeed, the Standard Representation Agreement could be revised to set forth multiple different possible fee percentages, requiring the player to check the appropriate box to reflect the fee that has been agreed upon.

 

The union already requires such disclosures in other contexts.  For example, when an agent is paying other persons to assist in the recruitment of college players, the identity of those persons must be disclosed before the player signs with the agent.

 

So if the NFLPA isn't willing to require disclosure to the player that a lower fee is available, then it's hard to believe that the real reason for the move is the fact that players are unknowingly assuming that they can't get a better deal. 

 

As we've previously explained, the problem here is that the placement of unreasonable limitations on the money that agents legitimately can earn will drive agents who can make more money in other endeavors out of the business, leaving the NFL players to choose from guys who are making good money only because their volume is too great or from guys who don't have other professional options because, you know, their slapdicks or from guys who are crooked -- and who will make up the difference between the two percent and three percent by cheating their clients in other contexts.

 

We expect that his pill won't go down easy if/when the NFLPA makes its move, and we hope that the folks who are calling the shots will think this thing through very carefully before potentially scaring off some guys who provide good service to the union's constituents, and who deserve fair compensation for their efforts.

 

REVENUE SHARING IS THE BATTLE GROUND

 

Word around the league is that the NFL and the NFLPA essentially are in position to get a deal done on an extension of the CBA, but that the factor keeping the two sides from finalizing the agreement is the inability of owners to agree upon the extent to which currently unshared revenues will be split up among the 32 franchises.

 

The problem is that the NFLPA intends to include some of the millions in unshared revenues within the calculation that determines player salaries.  The NFL is willing to do so, but this will stick the teams earning less unshared revenues with lower profit margins, since their cap amounts will be driven up by the larger revenues earned by other franchises. 

 

The issue has been bubbling for months, and there are indications that it soon could explode, especially with talk of some of the big-money franchises suing their brethren if revenue sharing is expanded.

 

The teams already share millions in revenue, pursuant to an agreement made decades ago.  But now the teams who -- due to market size, ingenuity, and/or hard work --  are making more money from local sources that aren't shared don't want to continue to divide the wealth, thereby subsidizing other owners who, for whatever reason, can't make the same amount of money with their own franchises.

 

Last year, we proposed a system that would divert a set percentage of each team's unshared revenue into a fund that would pay all players extra money, based on factors such as cap number, total snaps, and/or objective performance indicators.  This would preserve the incentive for teams like the Redskins to earn as much as possible, and it would not reward teams like the Bengals, who opt not to sell the naming rights to their stadium.

 

It's too late for this approach to work, since the union already has its sights set on expanding the Defined Gross Revenue calculation to include unshared revenues.  Regardless, the impasse among the owners won't be resolved without a method that doesn't discourage the rich from getting richer, and that doesn't encourage the less-rich to sit on their hands, thumbs pointing up.

 

POSTED 5:01 p.m. EST, February 21, 2006

 

NFLPA MEETING WITH HANDFUL OF AGENTS

 

Multiple league sources tell us that the NFLPA will be meeting with a small group of hand-picked agents on Wednesday in Indianapolis, two days before a full-blown agent meeting held annually in connection with the scouting combine.

 

We're told that roughly a dozen agents were asked to meet with NFLPA execs regarding a variety of issues, including topics such as the ongoing CBA negotiations, disciplinary issues, and the possible reduction of the maximum fee that agents can charge, which currently stands at three percent of a player's earnings.

 

We're not yet privy to a list of the agents, but it likely includes the folks with the largest and most lucrative practices.  As a result, the group that will meet with the powers-that-be hardly represents a cross-section of the agent community, or of the players they represent.

 

This only reinforces the perception that the NFLPA's agenda is driven by a handful of high-profile and high-powered agents.  So when you're wondering, for example, why the NFLPA won't try to steer a big chunk of the unwarranted windfall that a small group of unproven rookies gets every year toward providing additional compensation for veteran players who have shown that they can perform, look no farther than the fact that, when it's time for the NFLPA to develop its platform, it looks to the guys who continuously are in line to get a piece of that first-round lottery prize.  

 

Make no mistake about it -- the agents who'll convene with the NFLPA brass on Wednesday aren't elected representatives looking out for the good of all other players and agents.  Instead, they are the folks with the most power and influence, and the fact that the NFLPA specifically is looking to these folks for input prior to the full-blown meeting with all of the agents serves only to enhance the influence that these agents wield.   

 

POSTED 9:41 a.m. EST; UPDATED 10:10 a.m. EST, February 21, 2006

 

VIKES WOULD TAKE A TWO FOR DAUNTE

 

In response to recent reports regarding a deal that would send Vikings quarterback Daunte Culpepper to the Dolphins for more than a second-round draft pick, a league source with knowledge of the Vikings' pitch regarding Culpepper tells us that the Vikings are opening discussions with a  request for a first-round pick or a "second-round pick plus," and that the request is being interpreted as an offer to get a deal done for a second-round pick.

 

"No one would consider more than a two," said the source.  "Not with the roster bonus, knee, and the fact that he sucked last year without [Randy] Moss.  Besides, teams are leery about trading away first-round picks because of the recent past with guys like [Drew] Bledsoe, [Peerless] Price, etc."

 

Culpepper is due to receive a $6 million roster bonus on March 14, prompting some league observers to conclude that the deal will get done by then, if at all.  If no trade can be worked out, the Vikings would then have to decide whether to pay Culpepper the money -- or release him.

 

ROONEY CLARIFIES LAWSUIT THREAT

 

Steelers chairman Dan Rooney provides some key insight regarding the recent reports that a group of franchises have threatened to sue if the NFL adopts a revenue-sharing plan that encroaches upon currently unshared revenues.

 

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw recently said that nine teams are strongly opposed to enhanced revenue sharing, and that they will sue the others if forced to give up local revenue streams that they currently pocket.

 

"I think they might vote against revenue sharing, but what are they going to sue for?" Rooney told The Washington Post.  "They're trying to say if we get the votes [to approve a revenue sharing plan], they'll sue.  I don't see what they can sue about.  They have the right to vote no."

 

And if nine are going to vote against any such proposal, there's no need for a lawsuit because nine nays are enough to block the move.

 

Here's our interpretation -- one or two members of the Mudville nine might be wobbling.  Since it only takes one of them to join with the other 23 teams to impose their collective will on the remaining eight, the possibility that a change of heart could spark an unprecedented legal fight among the members of the Billionaire Boys Club might be enough to get the folks who might be on the fence to remain united in the Gang of Nine.

 

Revenue sharing is a key issue now because the NFLPA hopes to include currently unshared revenues in the determination of the team-by-team salary cap.  But the inclusion of the unshared revenues will result in a salary cap that, for lower earning teams, is too high -- forcing them to choose between skimping on player salaries and giving up a bigger chunk of their profit margin.

 

We proposed a solution to this mess a year ago.  Our idea was so compelling that we've forgotten the terms of it.  So we'll retreat to the archives, dust it off, and re-post it.  (Unless, of course, we look at it now and wonder what in the hell we were thinking.)

 

POSTED 12:12 a.m. EST, February 21, 2006

 

FINS TALKING TO VIKINGS ABOUT DAUNTE

 

Jason Cole of The Miami Herald reports that the Dolphins have held talks with the Vikings regarding a possible trade involving Minnesota quarterback Daunte Culpepper.

 

Per Cole, two sources confirmed the talks.  One source told Cole that the price for Culpepper will be more than a second-round pick.

 

We reported last week (and fully stand by the report) that the Vikings were asking for a second-round pick when calling teams last week to gauge interest in the veteran quarterback.

 

Any team that acquires Culpepper before March 14 will be required to pay him a $6 million roster bonus, unless he agrees to restructure his deal.  If there's a restructuring, Culpepper likely will want a raise.  The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported that Culpepper asked the team on January 31 to increase his 2006 wages from $8 million to $18 million.

 

The bigger problem with Culpepper is that he is recovering from three torn ligaments in his right knee.  The injury, suffered on October 30 of last year, could require 12-18 months of healing and rehab, which means that Culpepper might not be available at all for the 2006 season.