When it comes to the NFL, the only
thing Cleveland Browns fans want to worry about is whether or not
this team will ever win more than 5 games in a season again. But if
you want a fun NFL-related distraction that is more competitive than
the Browns have been in years, keep watch on the battle royale
shaping up between NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA executive
director DeMaurice Smith.
Smith has made almost a cottage
industry out of trying to reshape the image of Goodell from guardian
of the game to a power hungry dictator more concerned with his
stature then the welfare of the game or its players. Goodell for his
part treats Smith like the pest that he is.
Smith's strategy was borne from the
moment he ran for and won his current role following the death of the
previous executive director, Gene Upshaw. Smith took a strident
approach to his campaign by implying not all the subtly that Upshaw’s
relationship with Paul Tagliabue was bad for the players, never mind
that Upshaw and Tagliabue presided over the greatest expansion of
wealth ever of their sport.
Smith took this approach because he
knew that new commissioner Goodell has won his job by reflecting the
desires of a strong and vocal group of owners who felt about
Tagliabue like some players felt about Upshaw—that he was selling
them out. When Tagliabue pushed a settlement of the previous
collective bargaining agreement on the owners, there were many that
felt he went to far in terms of the guarantees that went to players.
It was hardly a secret that the owners
wanted to blow up the last agreement as soon as it was legally
possible and reclaim their economic footing. The recession of 2008
helped their argument.
So it made sense for Smith to play to
the fears of the players that Goodell was nothing more than a bag man
for the likes of Jerry Jones in Dallas and that strong, strident,
combative leadership was needed as a counterbalance.
Most players are about as vested in the
inner workings of their union as you’d expect, meaning not much at
all. In truth, most would prefer not to have their paychecks
lightened by union dues. But they’ll go along to get along and so
when Smith’s siren song found voice with the few who pay attention,
his hiring was almost a foregone conclusion. I wonder, though, if
anyone ever checked his resume. Smith had absolutely no labor
experience when he got his job and then went about proving how
disastrous that could be.
The owners weren’t exactly private
about their intentions with respect to getting out of the last labor
agreement and Smith wasn’t exactly private about what he was going
to do in response. Relying on his training as a trial lawyer and his
lack of experience as a labor lawyer, Smith turned to litigation to
get his way. It didn't work.
Smith seemed to be under the impression
that he could get the courts to stop the owners from not just
exercising their legal right to get out of the contract, but also get
them to force new terms and conditions on the owners that they
wouldn’t want to accept. It was always going to fail.
Labor laws strike a decent balance
between the workers and the owners in virtually all industries.
Those laws certainly provide needed protections to workers who ban
together to bargain collectively (as well as needed protections to
help them ban together in the first place). But they also
acknowledge that business owners are the ones at risk and thus don’t
require those owners to agree to any particular proposal put forth.
Both sides have the legal right to ask for anything and both sides
have the same right to always say no as long as all of this is done
in good faith.
The owners had, in their view, plenty
of economic incentive behind their proposals. It could hardly be
said they weren’t made in good faith. The players had good faith
reasons for saying no. Eventually though the only place this could
ever get settled was the bargaining table and not in court. No court
or administrative agency can dictate the terms of anyone’s labor
contract, simple as that.
Smith’s pushing the union into a
legal battle delayed bargaining for months without meaningfully
increasingly the union’s leverage. The owners were willing to lose
the season if necessary to take back control of their economic future
and the players, whose careers are fleeting, were always going to
cave. A more reasoned leader would have seen this from the outset
and set about to find the best bargain available in a bad situation.
As it turns out, the deal Smith did sign was not appreciably
different or better then what he could have had before he let his
members get locked out.
So Smith has been smarting from this
embarrassment ever since and has gone after Goodell at every turn.
Hardly a day goes by when the NFLPA isn’t challenging one issue or
another or reneging on one agreement or another.
Consider, three recent examples.
First, Smith agreed to HGH testing in
the latest collective bargaining agreement and has since been walking
back that commitment and it still isn’t resolved.
Second, the owners voted to make it
mandatory that all players wear thigh and knee pads, which is well
within their rights to unilaterally make that call under the
collective bargaining agreement. It shouldn’t be particularly
controversial given all the attention that player safety is getting
these days. Not surprisingly the union is contesting the owners’
right to force players to wear this protection. Remind me again who
cares more about safety?
Third, the union filed a complaint this
week alleging collusion by the owners in the uncapped 2010 season.
Whatever claim the union had over that matter they waived when they
signed the new collective bargaining agreement. Both sides waived
all claims, known and unknown, that either had or could have had
about any issues under the old collective bargaining agreement, the
uncapped year, or the negotiations for a new agreement. Despite this
waiver, which Smith signed, he’s suing anyway buttressed by a
failed legal strategy which depends on the union's direct disavowal
of the agreement it signed—again.
In each case, and irrespective of what
the NFLPA might say publicly, these actions are about Smith trying to
build his stature on the back of Goodell. A more reasoned leader
would find a more reasoned approach but that hasn't been Smith's
style.
The owners and the players are under a
long term labor contract at the moment so an all out labor war isn't
in the offing. But these constant firefights aren't helping the game
and they aren't helping the players. They aren't even helping Smith.
The union should have strong leadership. Goodell does need a foil
and a counterbalance. But Smith at the moment isn't helping his
stature or the union's by constantly reneging on the agreements he's
signed.
**
People who never saw Feller pitch tend
to know about him through old photos and newsreels or, prior to his
death, from his gig as a so-called goodwill ambassador for the
Indians. He pull on a uniform occasionally and throw the ball
around. He'd also wax cranky on just about everything and everyone.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the cartoon character
Crankshaft was based on Feller.
But Feller had a certain charm anyway.
Jim Brown? Not so much.
Arguably the greatest running back ever
and certainly the best player to ever play for the Browns, Jim Brown
used to serve the role with the Browns that Feller did with the
Indians. But then Mike Holmgren was hired and for reasons that have
never been explained, adequately or otherwise, Holmgren jettisoned
Brown and his $500,000 salary from the Stadium while owner Randy
Lerner wasn't looking.
Since that parting, Brown has turned
into the cranky old guy. He raised a few eyebrows when the Browns
drafted Trent Richardson by calling Richardson ordinary. And he
still tweaking his old employer, Richardson and Holmgren, per an
interview Tony Grossi conducted with him recently for ESPN Cleveland.
Brown stuck by his assessment of
Richardson, calling him efficient. Brown just doesn't see greatness.
Fair enough since Richardson hasn't even played a down in the NFL.
But Brown did take another shot at Holmgren. He said the Browns are
still a mess and it is due in large part to what he feels is
Holmgren's lack of commitment to the team or the area.
Brown certainly is coming across as
embittered. Losing a half million dollar salary will do that to a
guy. But it's not as if Brown's comments lack a basis.
He explained in detail why he feels
Richardson is ordinary, mainly due to what Brown feels is a lack of
speed and quickness. Brown says Richardson has the opportunity to be
a good workhorse type back but fans shouldn't be expecting the second
coming of Emmitt Smith. On Holmgren, Brown rightfully points out his
penchant for giving revealing interviews to Seattle radio stations
while being mostly invisible to the Cleveland media.
The Browns have been a strange
organization for so long that it's hard to tell what Holmgren is
causing vs. what Holmgren is continuing. But alienating Brown was
one of Holmgren's dumbest ideas. Maybe it was a money saver but that
probably wouldn't have been necessary if Holmgren has not exercised
his dumbest decision to date, wasting a year in this franchise's life
by keeping Eric Mangini around for another year.
**
There seems to be a growing consensus
that Browns head coach Pat Shurmur isn't very good at his job, based
mostly on the team's performance last season.
It's an unfair conclusion to draw.
Shurmur was hamstrung from the moment
he got the job. First, he was hired a year too late because of
Holmgren's aforesaid dumb idea of retaining Mangini and his system
for an extra year. Then Shurmur was hamstrung by the NFL's labor
situation which prevented him from having any contact with any
players in the off season. That set Shurmur back and set the players
back. At most, the offensive scheme he was implementing wasn't fully
in place until late in the season.
Finally, Shurmur was handcuffed by the
front office's refusal to provide Shurmur with one credible receiver,
which is a kind of important position in the West Coast offense.
Sure, they drafted Greg Little, but he hadn't even played in a year
and when drafted he was immediately their best threat. That's how
bad it was.
Shurmur's now had a full off season.
The front office still hasn't helped him by again refusing to provide
him with credible receivers, but at least he now has a good running
back and a quarterback in whom he's more fully vested. This doesn't
represent a make or break year by any means for Shurmur but it will
tell us far more about what kind of head coach he might ultimately
be.
**
The Indians' sweep of the Tigers leads
to this week's question to ponder: What's more surprising, the play
of the Indians or the play of the Tigers?