TheOak

No Sir. The Saints are not involved in any table meeting between Jimmy Graham and Oakland.. I stated that when you tried the scenario with Houston.

It has NEVER been done with a player not under contract.
The Saints have nothing to trade as there is no contract between the Saints and Jimmy Graham presently

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

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.