New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagan714 (Post 586637)

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

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

+1 on the sense of humor, I sincerely hope it is still intact after reading my reply.

Collusion - The anti-collusion language in the CBA is not there to protect players, that is the agents job; it is also not there to protect either team from a bad deal, that is the job of the Director of Player personnel/ EVP-General Manager, Ryan Pace/Mickey Loomis in regards to the Saints.

The anti-collusion language is in the CBA to prevent impropriety and preserve the integrity of the CBA, Salary Cap, and in this case Franchise Tags. If Jimmy signs a long term deal it will certainly be one large enough to effect the Tight End franchise tag for the next 5 years. Re-read the definition of collusion you quoted and pay particular attention to it defining it as an agreement between 2-3 parties that has an impact on others, "others" being people that are not sitting at that table. It is far reaching in its implications.

OLD School - I see you use that term heavily to describe your self. Exactly how "OLD School" are you? Are we talking Beaver pelts on the banks of the mighty Missisip, or trading stone on the banks of the Nile River? In all of my years of hiring and being hired I have never come across a situation where a previous employer is given a call or sits in on a hiring interview/compensation negotiation. I have seen it where a spouse sits in and it never ends well, I have also had guardians of minors sit in when hiring someone under 18 years old at my request, simply because I want their guardian to understand my expectations and for me to understand theirs. But hey... If you want your old boss sitting in on your hiring process at a new employer, what ever floats your boat.

The reason a prospective employer would not call a current employer and give them a heads up is rather simple in concept. In this scenario, the new team doesn't want to have Loomis cave to Jimmy just to keep him as that would mean Loomis could either give Jimmy what ever he wants to prevent the meeting, or Loomis could jack his offer a little just enough to cause the new team to have to pay more. Jimmy Graham doesn't want both teams at the table either. Its poker and its hard to not tip your hand when someone os there that could inadvertently express approval or disapproval at an offer a third party made to him.

Cut throat business - I do agree that its not a good business practice because there is always the opportunity to have it done to you in return. It is a very haphazard business practice to not evaluate all of the possible ways you could get your throat cut before, during, and after negotiations. Entering into a deal of any sort with nothing but blind faith is a very risky proposition and will sooner or later end up in a bad deal. Trust no one in a multimillion dollar business deal and you will come out a heck of a lot better; just because I can see all of the ways I could get screwed, doesn't mean I am screwing anyone. When millions of dollars are on the table body language is read and everyone is under the looking glass.

Sproles - Sproles wish was to be released, not traded, so it was ignored.

Loomis's quote - '"Anytime you're in a good place and you've had success, which he's had with us, it's definitely painful to have the team say, 'We don't want you anymore,'" Loomis said. "But I'm not in the business of consulting players on the moves we make in management." The rule is the rule and exceptions are not the rule.

Mickey Loomis - I also believe his integrity is in tact. Loomis recognizes that neither the players or opposing teams are his enemy, his enemy is the CBA and Salary Cap. Loomis is good at his job, which is not to interpret the CBA and cap rules in a transparent, "spirit of", fashion. It is his job to find the holes in it, and exploit those holes to make it work for his employer.... Which sort of flys in the face of "old school", above board, transparent business practices that you have associated your self with.

The NFL is not one big happy family as you see it. It is a beast with multiple layers, and each layer has to watch out for it self.
Owners - They have yet to close the double-dip loop hole which allows a player to be paid by two teams in the same season.
NFLPA - Entered into the present CBA only looking at $ and never at the language that allowed Roger Goodell to act as appellate of his own rulings. Would never bring up the above Double-dip, they are fighting for players.
Agents - Out to reap from everyone.
Players - All want to get paid.

But I digress... The Saints have nothing to trade, once they do, there will be dead money associated. Loomis would not be at the table or on speaker phone if Graham negotiates with another team.