Are there clues in free agency and trades to a lockout next year?

[pstall]

There are some really bad teams right now. Some may be just skimming salaries and sandbagging for costs.

I'm curious peoples take on teams signing or NOT signing and the amounts that are going around if that gives any clues to next year being a lockout.

[PunchImlach]

Teams don't need to pay the players in a lockout, so the only clues for a 2011 stoppage would be a build-up of tension leading up to and throughout the 2010 season (uncapped year, other poison pills taking effect, etc).

If there is an uncapped 2010, the probability of a work stoppage will go way up.

[Khyber53]

The key will be to see if there is a crapload of offseason moves this year. Stars, midliners and scrubs. If it is larger than normal, you can imagine that it might be moves by ownership to hamper the union by keeping people moving.

That's a bit conspiracy-theory in its nature, but it could be a sign. The lack of big name trades by the recent trade deadline, though, I haven't got any idea if there are clues there.

[PunchImlach]

The key will be to see if there is a crapload of offseason moves this year. Stars, midliners and scrubs. If it is larger than normal, you can imagine that it might be moves by ownership to hamper the union by keeping people moving.

That's a bit conspiracy-theory in its nature, but it could be a sign. The lack of big name trades by the recent trade deadline, though, I haven't got any idea if there are clues there.

Actually, the sign will be a lot LESS moves this coming offseason.

Here is why: One of the poison pills in the CBA stipulates that the "age" for free agency moves from four seasons of experience to six seasons, so that automatically cuts down on the amount of players available. Second, it stipulates that the top 12 teams in football (i.e. playoff teams) are forbidden to sign any players until they LOSE players to free agency. That, too, cuts down on the amount of movement. Third, with a lockout looming, owners will be really, really averse to handing out new contracts going into 2011/2012 and beyond, since they don't know how the payroll/salary landscape might change moving forward, whether cap cap vanishes, goes down, stays stationary, guarantees and bonus structure differ, etc etc. They won't want to hand out long-term deals and then get stuck with them in the future.

So, yeah, less movement = more likely lockout. The more unrest caused by these poison pills taking effect, the more likely a lockout would be in 2011.

[carpanfan96]

Actually, the sign will be a lot LESS moves this coming offseason.

Here is why: One of the poison pills in the CBA stipulates that the "age" for free agency moves from four seasons of experience to six seasons, so that automatically cuts down on the amount of players available. Second, it stipulates that the top 12 teams in football (i.e. playoff teams) are forbidden to sign any players until they LOSE players to free agency. That, too, cuts down on the amount of movement. Third, with a lockout looming, owners will be really, really averse to handing out new contracts going into 2011/2012 and beyond, since they don't know how the payroll/salary landscape might change moving forward, whether cap cap vanishes, goes down, stays stationary, guarantees and bonus structure differ, etc etc. They won't want to hand out long-term deals and then get stuck with them in the future.

So, yeah, less movement = more likely lockout. The more unrest caused by these poison pills taking effect, the more likely a lockout would be in 2011.

exactly, free agency will be alot slower and smaller then normal. You also have to consider that each team will have 2 franchise tags next year instead of just one.