CHECK OUT THE RUMOR MILL ARCHIVES!

 

POSTED 9:45 p.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

TWO PERCENT ISSUE STILL IN PLAY

 

Although it appeared as of Thursday that the NFLPA would abandon efforts to reduce the maximum agent fees from three percent to two percent, we're now told that the issue will be presented for a vote at the upcoming meeting of the player representatives in Hawaii.

 

The issue came up during Friday's agent seminar in Indianapolis, at approximately 4:00 p.m.  A source who was in the room tells us that, before the fee question arose, the seminar was "flying by," with none of the topics giving rise to much if any controversy.

 

The source said that, when the fee percentage question was raised, "guys woke up."

 

One of the men who spoke against the potential move was Harold Lewis, an experienced agent with 37 active clients.  He questioned the gradual reduction over the years in maximum fees, from five percent to four.  From four to three.  Now, potentially, from three to two.

 

"Next it will be, 'Let's go to one,'" Lewis said at the meeting, per our source.  Lewis then observed that, eventually, the agents will have to pay for the privilege of representing the players.

 

In a way, some of them already are.  As we explained on Thursday, agents invest thousands of dollars into the pre-draft preparation of new players, and the players don't reimburse the agents for these expenses.  Instead, the agent pays his expenses out of his fee -- if, of course, there's enough of a fee to cover the expenses.

 

And then the agents do all sorts of other stuff for which they typically don't get paid, such as tax preparation and legal work (for the agents who are lawyers) and hand holding and damage control and anything else the player wants.

 

The problem is that, as former NFL player turned agent Vann McElroy explained at the meeting, the players don't understand how the process works and they're not sufficiently mature or experienced to appreciate the overall value of the benefits they receive.  As a result, there's a danger that, if the players are left to their own devices at the rep meeting in Hawaii, they'll vote to reduce the fees.

 

Indeed, we're told that the player reps nearly voted to make the change a year ago, and that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw had to be pulled out of the men's room to persuade the players to table the issue.

 

Despite Upshaw's past efforts, the concern is that the NFLPA administration won't do enough to make the players understand the issues.  To counter this reality, a suggestion was made at the meeting to send McElroy as a representative of the agents, so that he could explain the situation to the players.

 

Per multiple sources, the NFLPA downplayed the possibility of giving the agents a voice at the meeting of player reps.  And that's a mistake, in our opinion.  Really, what does it hurt to provide the players with the perspective of a guy who played the game and who realized only after his on-field career ended the complexities and nuances of the business? 

 

Shouldn't the NFLPA want the reps to have access to complete, balanced, and accurate information?

 

Write it down, folks -- if the fees are cut, good agents will leave the business.  And most of the guys who'll quit are those who are grinding it out with the second-day picks and free agents.  It's already a tough way to make a living, and it'll become harder for the players who don't come into the league as stars to find and keep jobs if they can't find and keep agents who bust their asses to locate and/or create opportunities.

 

PLAYERS WANTED TO WIPE OUT SOME FEES

 

In addition to cutting the maximum fees by 33 percent, we're also told that players at one point wanted to amend the rules to prevent agents from earning any fee on minimum salaries, restricted free agent tenders, transition tenders, and franchise tenders.

 

The logic, we assume, is that players don't think that the agents don't actually do anything to get that money.  Instead, the players surely view it as an automatic process, requiring no skill on the part of the agent.

 

But, again, it's not that simple.  The offer made in any given year is the latest phase in the player's career -- and most agents have an integral role in getting the guy in position to attract that offer.  Dating all the way back to the thousands of dollars spent to get the guy trained prior to the draft, the agent has been there, working with and for the player.

 

Regardless, it's our understanding that the players have backed off of their initial stance.  But that could make them even more determined to simply impose an across-the-board reduction on all fees. 

 

POSTED 6:32 p.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

MARVIN PROMISES TO CUT LEAKER

 

Bengals coach Marvin Lewis issued a stern warning on Friday for whoever it was that leaked last month details regarding the halftime incident involving receiver Chad Johnson during the team's playoff loss to the Steelers.

 

By way of background, we reported the following on January 9:

 

"Per the source, the last few minutes of intermission were ticking away, when the players were startled by the sight and sound of a helmet slamming against the glass pane of the training room door.  Inside, receiver Chad Johnson and receivers coach Hue Jackson were engaged in an altercation.  At one point, Johnson was seen holding Jackson in a headlock.  Coach Marvin Lewis entered the training room to intervene, and Johnson (per the source) took a swing at him."

 

The team initially responded with a "no comment," and Johnson flatly denied that anything happened.  He called a press conference the day after the story broke for the sole purpose of reiterating his denial. 

 

Lewis at first was conspicuously silent.  Eventually, Lewis explained his decision to keep quiet:  "I don't think I need to respond to some knucklehead's rumor.  It's laughable for anyone to think that Chad would swing or push anybody.  They really don't know him.  It is what it is. It's over with.  It's done and we move forward."
 

But it apparently wasn't, and isn't, over.  It turns out that whoever it was that blabbed is going to get a shoe in the butt from Marvin.

 

"Unfortunately we had somebody else who was more selfish than Chad," Lewis said.  "That person won't be with us next year, I'll tell you that.  Those people aren't good for you. . . .  We had an outburst at the bad time and, frankly, a guy saying something that probably he shouldn't have said outside of the locker room when things occur in your house all the time."

 

Lewis acknowledges that there indeed was an incident involving Johnson, but Lewis claims that the details were embellished. 

 

Lewis concedes that Johnson, as we'd reported, was complaining that the ball wasn't thrown his way enough during the first half of the game.  “[H]e didn't voice it in the right way," Lewis said.  "He was correct.  He didn't voice it in the right way."

 

But Lewis says that Johnson merely "rais[ed] his voice." Lewis also indicated that Johnson was wrong to do so. 

 

Still, the guy who's in far deeper tiger turds is the one who spoke out.

 

"In the big scheme of things," Lewis said, "that person needs to look at themselves.  No. 1 for speaking about it and No. 2 for embellishing on it.  For not really telling the truth.  That’s even worse."

 

But doesn't that also apply to Johnson who was "not really telling the truth" when he declared that nothing happened?

 

Besides, how does Lewis know who spoke?  And how does he know it wasn't more than one player who talked?

 

The bigger issue here, as we see it, is whether Lewis can cut a guy simply because he blabbed to some "knucklehead" regarding things that happened in the locker room.  The CBA doesn't contemplate such an action, and the guy who gets released would be able to pursue a non-injury grievance if the team attempts to fire him for talking.

 

Instead, the more prudent course of action for the Bengals would be to attempt to recover all or part of the alleged offender's signing bonus (if he indeed received one) pursuant to the so-called "loyalty clause" that the team now places in every contract.  The key language, based on a version of the deal we eyeballed a few years back, is as follows: 

 

"If player makes any public comment to the media, including but not limited to the newspaper, magazines, television, radio or Internet that is derogatory or critical of club, club coaches, or club management, player shall forfeit and shall immediately return and refund to the club that amount of bonus herein provided."  

 

As to the application of the clause, the issue could be whether statements regarding the locker room conduct of another player constitute derogatory or critical commentary regarding the "club," since the version of the clause that we've seen does not expressly prohibit derogatory statements regarding a teammate.

 

But regardless of whether the loyalty clause was violated, cutting a guy for talking isn't justified by the CBA -- and the Bengals undoubtedly will find themselves smack dab in the middle of a grievance if they try to poop-can whoever it is that they think blabbed.

 

We also look forward to our impending stay in the Judith Miller memorial jail cell, since there's no way in hell that we're ever going to disclose to anyone the identity of our source(s).  In fact, we'll be listening to more Johnny Cash music than usual in order to get into the whole prison mindset.

 

POSTED 2:53 p.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

UPSHAW FAKING IT?

 

There's a theory making the rounds in media circles that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw is spewing doom-and-gloom rhetoric regarding the status of the CBA negotiations as the result of a plan by Upshaw and Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to get the owners to reach an agreement regarding the issue of expanded revenue sharing.

 

On Friday, Upshaw was extremely pessimistic during a meeting with agents regarding the prospects of getting a new deal done.

 

The fact that the media was invited to the portion of the agent seminar in Indianapolis during which Upshaw spoke has strengthened for some the notion that it's all a ruse aimed at prodding the owners to get their house in order ASAFP.

 

An industry source opined to us on Friday that, despite the "sky is falling" routine, a deal could be worked by the time the owners meet in Dallas on March 7.  This would mesh with things we've been hearing for the past couple weeks regarding progress at the bargaining table.  

 

So perhaps things are moving in the right direction -- and perhaps all that's needed now is a spark from the owners to extend 12 years of labor peace.

 

NO LAWSUIT WILL HAPPEN

 

Pay little attention to the talk regarding a possible lawsuit by the big-money teams if revenue sharing is expanded.  Earlier this week, there were reports that a vote to force the "have-mores" to give up local revenue to the "have-somes" could result in litigation.   

 

Curiously, the "L" word was first raised by NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw, perhaps in conjunction with his broader goal of painting a bleak picture in order to force the owners to work together.

 

 "There's no way it happens," said an industry with intimate knowledge as to the workings of the league.

 

And that makes sense to us.  It's one thing for a periodic legal spat to originate from a maverick like Raiders owner Al Davis; it's quite another thing for multiple teams to come together and sue the remainder of the owners.

 

In the end, everyone is getting richer and richer.  Rather than worrying about whether one guy should be getting richer than another, they should be focusing on the thing that will enable them all to make more money -- continued labor peace and harmony.  

 

POSTED 1:00 a.m. EST; LAST UPDATED 9:06 a.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

RUMORS FLY OF VICKLESS FALCONS

 

One of the biggest rumors making the rounds in Indianapolis on the first day of the scouting combine is that quarterback Mike Vick wants out of Atlanta.

 

Though there's no specific information to prompt a conclusion that Vick has taken steps to engineer an exit from the team, his repeated criticism of the coaching staff since the end of the 2005 season has fueled speculation that a divorce could be coming.

 

Most recently, Vick took aim at Falcons offensive coordinator Greg Knapp, saying that Knapp "needs to know exactly what type of talent he's working with. . . . You've got to be creative.  There's no reason I should be passing for only 2,300 yards for the season.  My passing attempts per game are not even that high.  I hope it's not that they don't believe in me, because I believe in me."  (Knapp, by the way, attempted to downplay Vick's comments.)

 

Earlier this month, Vick said that he's "a little lost" in the Falcons' version of the West Coast offense.  "We're not dinking and dunking the way it's supposed to be done" he said.  "It may be hurting me.  It may be hurting the offense."

 

The talk in Indy is that Vick might refuse to restructure his contract, in the hopes that the team will trade him.  Adam Schefter of The NFL Network reports that talks aimed at reducing Vick's 2006 cap number have occurred. 

 

The root of the problem appears to be Vick's relationship with coach Jim Mora.  The perception in some circles is that Vick "hates" Mora.

 

Indeed, we raised the question of whether Mora and Vick can coexist on December 26, based on their respective comments following a Falcons' loss to the Bucs on Christmas Eve after a chip-shot field goal was blocked in overtime.

 

Said Vick of the blown opportunity to win the game:  "It kind of put everything in perspective, like maybe this just ain't our year."

 

Said Mora when asked whether the blocked field goal made him conclude that "it just wasn't meant to be":  "That's a loser's attitude, and I would like to think we don't have a whole lot of losers in the locker room . . . .  People like that don't accomplish much in life."

 

Apart from the huge cap hit that the Falcons would take by moving Vick now, they'd have trouble finding someone to give up significant value for him.  As we hear it, a lot of teams regard him as a pain in the ass -- and as a guy who will only be successful if an offense is specifically designed to enhance his strengths, and to conceal his weaknesses.

 

POSTED 10:51 a.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

UNION PUSHING FOR STANDARD FORFEITURE LANGUAGE

 

Word out of the agent seminar in Indy (wireless e-mail is a wonderful thing) is that the NFLPA wants to insert into the Collective Bargaining Agreement standardized language regarding the circumstances in which a team may recover bonus money or other payments based upon player conduct.

 

Previously, it's an issue that has been left to the negotiation of individual contracts, with teams inserting varying language regarding the behaviors that will trigger a forfeiture.

 

The insertion of CBA language would create a uniform set of rules that would apply to all player contracts, taking the issue out of the individual player contracts.  The standard language also would delineate with specificity the limits to a team's efforts to recover money already paid.

 

In the past, players have been found liable to repay money when, for example, they have retired with years remaining under their contracts (Barry Sanders, Ricky Williams), or when they have been suspended for violations of league policy (Dale Carter).  Most recently, the Eagles launched an effort to recover bonus money from receiver Terrell Owens after his suspension for conduct detrimental to the team was upheld by an arbitrator.

 

In our view, the NFLPA should leave the matter to individual negotiations.  For a lot of  guys, it's never a problem.  For some players, extra protections are needed.  It's something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis by the player, the agent, and the team.

 

Moreover, the collective bargaining dynamic dictates that for each "thing" one side wants, there's some other "thing" that has to be sacrificed.  In this case, the union isn't doing the players a favor as a collective unit by seeking universal language that, in the end, only ever applies to a handful of guys.    

 

POSTED 9:45 a.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

BLOOM COMES IN LIGHT

 

A league source tells us that former Colorado receiver/kick returner weighed in at the combine on Friday at a light 173 pounds. 

 

So while Bloom is the same height (5'9") as star receivers Santana Moss and Steve Smith, he's 12 pounds behind their listed weights of 185 each.

 

It's not a good development for Bloom, who'll need to pack on at least a dozen pounds of muscle before the draft.  He also might have to gain the weight while at the same time improving his time in the 40-yard dash, which some expect will be in the range of 4.5 seconds.

 

Not bad -- but not nearly good enough for a guy who's biggest strength is his speed.

 

POSTED 9:39 a.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

UPSHAW COMES OFF AS "DR. DOOM"

 

One of our sources in Indy tells us that NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw painted a bleak picture on Friday morning for NFL agents regarding the status of efforts to work out an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 

Per the source, Upshaw said that if the deal isn't done by March 2, "there's no looking back."

 

"He was Dr. Doom," added the source.

 

Upshaw said that plans to leave Indianapolis on Friday, and that no further talks are scheduled between now and next Thursday's deadline.

 

Even so, there's no real reason to cut off the talks on the eve of the start of free agency.  The deal is in place for the next two years, and the uncapped year doesn't kick in until 2007.  Although the union has the right to force the uncapped year, it won't nearly be as sweet for the players as advertised -- especially if the year without a salary cap is followed by a year without a pay check.

 

POSTED 8:30 a.m. EST; UPDATED 9:06 a.m. EST, February 24, 2006

 

CHAD WANTS TO STAY WITH JETS?

 

One of the rumors coming out of the early phases of the scouting combine is that quarterback Chad Pennington wants to stay with the Jets, and that the current contract impasse is driven by his agent, Tom Condon, who wants to save face by not agreeing to a significant pay cut.

 

We've previously suggested that, if the refusal to reduce Pennington's salary is being driven by Condon's desire to not give his competitors ammo for negative recruiting in the future, Condon should walk away and allow someone else to work out a reduced deal for Pennington.

 

Then again, we're not quite sure why Pennington would want to stay in New York, given that the team recently has purged several key players -- and soon might add Pro Bowl center Kevin Mawae to that list. 

 

Besides, it seems as if the Two Utes who are running the show in New York already have decided to move on, with their attention reportedly focused on grabbing Vandy quarterback Jay Cutler in round one of the draft.  It's possible, of course, that the team has planted such rumors in order to squeeze Pennington. 

 

If that's the strategy, it's apparently working.

 

Now all they need to do is find a way to get Condon to act in his client's best interests.

 

TEAMS EXECS GETTING RESTLESS OVER CBA

 

Some of the scuttlebutt in Indy is that team executives are becoming frustrated with the failure of the NFL to work out an extension to the CBA. 

 

We've sensed for a couple of weeks now that the guys charged with signing the players to contracts recognize the significant problems that the final capped year of the current agreement will present -- such as incentives hitting the cap when earned, the 30 percent rule, and the possibility of having two different phases of free agency, one based on the current CBA rules and another based on an extended CBA that could be reached at some point between March 1 and September 1.

 

On the other hand, we don't get the impression that the players fully appreciate the challenges they'll face on the open market this year.  Part of the problem, as we see it, is that the only players in a position to care about those issues are the ones who'll actually be free agents.  For any player under contract for 2006, they have no reason to worry about it (unless, of course, they get cut at some point). 

 

For the players who'll be on the shelf as of March 3, the union apparently hasn't made clear to them the possible limits of their compensation due to the looming uncapped year -- and it's also possible that their agents have refrained from being fully candid about what the player reasonably can expect until the agents have a chance to engage in a series of "hypothetical" conversations with potential suitors at the combine.

 

FINS EXPECT 'PEPPER TO BE FREE

 

On Thursday, we expressed skepticism regarding a report that the Vikings have received good news as to the condition of quarterback Daunte Culpepper's knee, which included a declaration that he's expected to be ready for the 2006 season.

 

And now it all makes even more sense.

 

According to Jason Cole of The Miami Herald, the Dolphins believe that the Vikings will cut Culpepper before his $6 million roster bonus comes due in the middle of March, which is making the Dolphins unwilling to trade for him.

 

So in order to trade Culpepper, the Vikings need to create the impression that, if they can't trade him, they'll pay the $6 million to keep him.  Even if they really won't.

 

Meanwhile, five members of the team recently spoke out in support of keeping Culpepper in Minnesota.  According to Sean Jensen of The St. Paul Pioneer Press, left tackle Bryant McKinnie, tight end Jermaine Wiggins, defensive tackle Kevin Williams, nose tackle Pat Williams, and cornerback Antoine Winfield each said they hope that Culpepper will remain their teammate.

 

"That's crazy," McKinnie said of the possibility of shipping Daunte out of town.  "I don't agree with trading him.  Last year, they traded Randy Moss.  We already made one mistake [trading Moss].  Don't do it twice.  If that's the case, let me go."

 

Said Winfield:  "He's been injured, and he doesn't know his future.  If I were him, I'd be like, 'Dang, does this team even want me here?'"

 

Pat Willliams says he won't buy into rumors and reports of a trade until owner Zygi Wilf confirms they're true.  "Our owner hasn't said anything, so I don't believe it," he said.

 

But, Pat, you've got to realize that the team needs to be discreet about any efforts to shop the starting quarterback and current face of the franchise.  If they can't get good value for him, then they need to be able to keep him.  So if Wilf calls a press conference to say that they're trying to trade Culpepper, the chances of achieving long-term peace and harmony will be slim and none.

 

Nearly nine days after word first broke of the possible trade, we've got a feeling that the Vikings might have been only exploring their options as to Culpepper, and that in order to fully understand all of the pros and cons they needed to get an idea of what the trade market would be.  So they started calling teams who might be looking for a quarterback. 

 

The problem is that the teams who got the calls had no reason to be discreet.  As a result, word got out of the trade talks -- and the only option for the Vikings was to say nothing.

 

Indeed, the team has not denied the reports, which would be easy to do if the reports aren't true.  Instead, the most we've heard is a statement from Culpepper that he's been told by Wilf that there's no effort to trade him.

 

Still, there very well could be a point in the next week or so that the Vikings decide they won't get what they want for Culpepper, and at that time someone from the organization might announce, via a surgically-precise prepared text, that "there is no effort to trade Daunte Culpepper."

 

Not that there wasn't; only that there isn't.

 

FRIDAY MORNING ONE-LINERS

 

The agent for CB Brian Williams said that there were no talks on a long-term deal before the Vikings applied the transition tag to the veteran corner (and now that the Vikes have a right of first refusal via the tag, there doesn't need to be any).

 

Asked what he likes about Houston, USC RB Reggie Bush said, "No state tax."

 

Browns coach Romeo Crennel says that the quarterback position is open for competition.

 

Virginia LT D'Brickashaw Ferguson stepped to the podium on Thursday and led off by saying:  "My fellow Americans."

 

Said Pats coach Bill Belichick on the effects of the unsettled CBA on free agency:   "It's so hard to do a contract if you don't know what you are dealing with. . . .  I don't think you can do much of anything.  I don't know what we are working with.  So until that's defined it seems like an exercise in futility.  And in a way, we've tried to put more of our time and energy into football and the draft and kind of known quantities rather than trying to work on contracts in a system that you don't know what the system is."

 

Texans owner Bob McNair says that the revenue-sharing dispute among owners pales in comparison to the gulf between the NFL and the NFLPA as to the terms of the CBA.

 

The Eagles might be interested in Giants DT Kendrick Clancy.

 

With RB Edgerrin James most likely gone, the Colts are looking for tailbacks at the combine.

 

Broncos LB D.J. Williams received probation on a DUI charge from September 2005.

 

Georgia QB D.J. Shockley, a one-year starter at the college level, complains that his decision not to transfer has hurt his draft status (hey, D.J., coming off as a crybaby won't do much for your standing, either).

 

The Bills have cleared $3 million in net cap space by cutting former No. 4 overall pick Mike Williams.

 

Though Rex Grossman is the clear starter, the Bears are hoping to upgrade the quarterback position, in the event that Grossman blows out another wheel this year.

 

Vikings QB Brad Johnson is doing some major sucking up to coach Brad Childress.

 

Sid Hartman of The Minneapolis Star Tribune has some good advice for QB Daunte Culpepper -- "The smartest thing you can do if you want to remain with the Vikings is to get up here, start working with the new coaches and do your rehabilitation here instead of Florida."

 

The Eagles aren't expected to re-sign RT Jon Runyan.

 

The Niners have released nine players, including CB Ahmed Plummer and WR Johnnie Morton.

 

Don't stop here -- we've got the poop for February 23, 2006, February 22, 2006, February 21, 2006, February 20, 2006, February 19, 2006, February 18, 2006, February 17, 2006, February 16, 2006, and four years of rumor mill archives.