voodooido

This was the point I was making. I was just too lazy to go into detail.

TheOak

Tobias-Reiper

April's Fools stopped being clever of funny once I turned 11.

hagan714

need you forget the power of the tag

sign the tag and play or sit out for a year.

If the two sides are threatening each other with extremes and a third party intervenes and makes an offer to appease both parties it can be done. it has been done.

I will spell it out for you so you understand what happens when all three parties sit at the table.

Parties one and two do you have and agreement?
Parties two and three do you have an agreement?

if the answer to both questions is YES they go to the next step

The issue of the tag. it is unsigned which is a good thing because it makes it a whole lot easier. less paper work

they take the picks jimmy signs and the tag is removed.

HE DOES NOT NEED TO SIGN THE TAG !!!!!!!!

All the tag does is guarantee you picks for your best player thats it. The picks limit the options out there.
He gets traded
or signs at fair dollar value
or sits out for a year.

ok i will force feed you some more

Section 14(a)

Section 14(a) states that, if a transition player hasn’t signed a contract by July 22, only the player’s current club may negotiate or sign him thereafter.

Section 15(a) contains no similar deadline for franchise players, stating only that, if the player hasn’t signed a contract with “a Club” by the Tuesday following the 10th week of the regular season, the player can’t play for any team that year.

Read together, these provisions imply that an unsigned, non-exclusive franchise player can be signed to an offer sheet up until the Tuesday following the ninth week of the regular season, since the prior club must have one week to match before the contract is finalized.

The only potential caveat to this approach comes from the July 16 deadline restricting the prior team’s ability to sign a franchise player to a multi-year deal. The correct interpretation of the CBA could be that matching the offer is different from signing the player to a multi-year deal. Otherwise, the CBA as a practical matter allows a team to sign a non-exclusive franchise player to an offer sheet after July 16, with the player’s prior team having no ability to match.

Confused?

The point is that unsigned, non-exclusive franchise players remain fair game

-if any team decides for whatever reason that it’s not happy with its current depth chart and an unsigned, non-exclusive franchise player is the answer that team can still make a run at that player
- prior club must have one week to match before the contract is finalized.
- prior club gets two first-round pick

Look as long as he is unsigned he can talk to any club he wants. those clubs would know his cost is two #1's and his contract. There is no mention in the CBA that a franchise player must sign the tag prior to trading.

all we get is one week to match.

So stop jumping me every time i bring it up. you are wrong

"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins

lee909

If he signs elsewhere he hasn't been traded just moved as a FA because the Saints refused to match the deal. The picks received are compensation picks. Its not like Loomis teading him for a 1st/2nd and third this year.

hagan714

agreed but with any player movement were a team receives compensation for the player lost from the other team is basically a trade. i know that falls into nit picking.

but in principle by the saints not agreeing to match is basically approving a trade.

The main point is we can get our picks and not sign Jimmy and have no dead money.

including the saints was polite business practice on my part. something that is second nature to me.

TheOak

Brother there is no need to get defensive, no one is "jumping you", we are trying to help you get your head wrapped around a few things is all. As frustrated with this as you may be I am willing to bet that there are at least a half a dozen members of this forum that have learned a crap load about the CBA/Tag/ Contracting process just by reading our discussions. Isn't that one of the great things about B&G? Members can come here and learn about things in layman terms that they may not have the time to go through the entire CBA to learn? The term "trade" is not semantics, it is specific and a completely different approach to the Non-Exclusive Franchise Tag.



I am not going to give up on you so I will try a different approach and explanations as to why your approach has a few misunderstandings . No need to start yelling.



1. Three parties do not sit down in this case. Keep in mind the difference between a trade and a Non-Exclusive Franchise tag.

Trade - The player has no say so or involvement (Sproles), its between two teams.

Non-Exclusive Franchise Tag - The tagging team has no say so in anything until the player signs an offer sheet from another team or signs the contract that is associated with the Non-Exclusive Franchise tag. Why would the Saints not be at that table? Because.... Jimmy Graham has no contract with any team, and the CBA forbids it.



2. The quoted text above. That is correct, there is no mention because there is no need for it, its moot. The CBA recognizes the fact that until a players Signs the contract that accompanies the Tag the player is not owned by any team, meaning no team owns the rights to trade him.



Look at the Non-Exclusive Franchise Tag as a rebate coupon for an auction - An opposing team makes a bid on Jimmy, the Saints can match the bid or not and get 2 draft picks via the Coupon. The key is that the Saints only have a coupon, they have zero ownership in the item being auctioned, until a contract is signed with the Saints.



3. If you are going to attempt to "force feed" me (which is fairly aggressive and caustic), then do not muddle separate and distinct items, which actually caused you to confuse your self. So in answer to your question, no brother, I am not confused. It's crystal clear for me. Sections 14 (a) and 15 (a), they are both (a's) for a reason, they are not combined. Section 14 governs "Transition Players" and section 15 governs "Franchise Players". They are not the same, they are two of the three types of Tags.



In your "read together", you stated the "ninth week", and in your caveat you state "July 16".



Look at it this way - Jimmy Graham is not a player in the last year of his contract with the Saints and we are trying to get something for him. Jimmy Grahams contract with the Saints ended on the last day of the 2013 season, and all the Saints did was slap a tag on him that gives them the Right of First Refusal.. Not ownership.



Curious as to why Loomis would not be at any table where Jimmy Graham is negotiating with another team?



Two Distinct Reasons

1. Theoretically Jimmy can sit down and negotiate with 31 teams and Loomis has more important things to do with his time than sit in a negotiation where he has zero say-so.



2. Most important... The CBA, page 39 covers the Right of First Refusal process. On page 40 section 3(h) there is specific language that states there shall be No Consideration Between Clubs, that is called collusion. This prevents both clubs from being present so there is never a question of influence in one way or another. It also clearly outlines that before any trade can happen the NFLPA must approve in advance any such trade that takes place. Also that any such trade can not happen for a year unless the player agrees to it...



So I ask... Why would Jimmy have to agree to a trade to a new club if he already has an agreed upon offer letter with that club? He wouldn't, the only way Jimmy would have to agree to any part of a trade is if he signed a tender with the Saints to give them something to trade. [U]


You may also notice that sometimes I quote someone that I agree with and go into detail so other people can understand a little more.

vpheughan

after that happened K&B changed it's official color from Purple to Green!

hagan714

as long as jimmy is not signed he can talk to whoever he wants/ the only issue is the time frame. after a certain date it appears the saints would lose the option of matching. no one is sure how that will work out in the CBA since it has not happened. language is not clear on the issue. confused? we all are

lmao ass off at collusion. that only applies if the player is getting the short end of the stick.

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered

Collusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Collusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

saints have a long history for most part of being overly generous and loyal since Benson took over. so the idea of Collusion would shock the saints nation and the nfl as a whole. hell bounty gate was never proven. all they really got on us was untimely answered email. we are a clean organization.

what do you think goes on at winter meeting and all during the off season. teams talk players and their agents talk , they all talk

in no way do i think the saints would be dirty and under handed in any move concerning ripping a player off during contract talks with another club.

A call between teams is good business relations just giving a heads up that there are talking to a player.

Of course Jimmy would get an offer sheet he wants and feels is fair before doing anything.

the sit down is simple. saints decide to match or not. notify all parties involved and it a done deal either way. either across the table via conference call what ever the media you pick. I am old school and would think the news would be face to face in this matter. but thats just me. shake hands and seal the deal our part ways but do it like men eye to eye.

OLD school business ethic still do go on between teams. rare in today's cut throat and do not care who you hurt business world we have today. maybe i should have left that ideology out of my statements

as for the bit about

Trade - The player has no say so or involvement (Sproles), its between two teams.

plenty of trades have gone down in the past were teams have made deals that the players opinion is weighed in the matter. so there are exceptions.

I am sure Darren was very happy with eagles vs a franchise in the toilet. I would like to think the saints ignored a few teams to get darren a better landing spot without giving him away.

then again old school rose color glasses

"But look, I'm sensitive to how personal these things are to players. I get that. I respect Darren. A lot. He's done a lot for us. When we had the opportunity to trade him, I spoke with his representation a number of times. I wanted to put him in a place where he felt good about going, and yet I've got to consider the team's best interest first."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/team-re...0221--nfl.html

looks like i picked the right shades after all

"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins

RailBoss

April Fools ! really ?