Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
C
cfrs15 Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
C
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Unless someone offers him a "poison pill" contract.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
N
Legend
Offline
Legend
N
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Quote:

Unless someone offers him a "poison pill" contract.




those are pretty much not allowed since the Hutchinson/Burleson deals between Seattle and Minnesota.

you can still frontload a deal to make the team wary about paying that much upfront to a player, but no more clauses about playing in a particular city so many times a year.

and i'm sure Holmgren knows the ins and outs of such deals from that fiasco anyways.


#gmstrong
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
C
cfrs15 Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
C
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
I don't think the NFL legally took them out. I think they are just frowned upon. Remember when the Vikings traded Favre to the Jets they had a poison pill in there. If the Jets traded Favre to the Vikings the Packers got something like the Jets next ten 1st round picks.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
N
Legend
Offline
Legend
N
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850


#gmstrong
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
C
cfrs15 Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
C
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Poison Pill...

Quote:

It's tender time in the NFL. For teams that have not already done so, they must apply one of five available tenders to their restricted free agents by Thursday to secure the right of first refusal and more for those players. Those tenders take on added significance this year, the first to begin without a salary cap since 1993, because more players than usual will be restricted.

The problem for those restricted players hoping to land a big contract is that competing teams will be very hesitant to sign them to offer sheets for two reasons. The first is an exceptionally deep draft; most franchises will be loathe to give up their precious picks in a deep draft to land a restricted free agent. The second is if the player is truly worth giving up picks for, odds are his team will match the offer sheet. Some teams look at signing a player to an offer sheet as just doing the other team's work for them, since the original team can match the offer and retain the player.

But what if those teams could ensure the offer would not be matched? That might change things a little bit. All any team need do is insert a term that is pretty much unmatchable. It's called a poison pill.

For example, if Bill Parcells wants to reunite with former Cowboys undrafted free agent Miles Austin, Miami could craft an offer sheet that says Austin's contract would need to be the highest on the team and 100 percent guaranteed if he plays more than four games in the state of Texas. Surely Jerry Jones would have to let Austin go since he wouldn't want to pay him more than Tony Romo or DeMarcus Ware, let alone guaranteeing the entire contract.

Poison pills are a completely legal and acceptable way to acquire tendered players in the NFL. An arbitrator ruled so in a grievance the Seahawks filed in 2005 after the Minnesota Vikings snuck a fast one past Seattle to secure All-Pro left guard Steve Hutchinson. The Seahawks quickly returned the favor by inserting their own poison pill to steal Nate Burleson from the Vikings. Yet amazingly, even though two players of that caliber were acquired in such a manner, there has not been another poison pill acquisition.

The only logical explanation for the lack of poison pill use in one of the most competitive and cutthroat industries in the U.S. is that some type of gentlemen's agreement is in place. With the job turnover for coaches and executives and the ever-present insecurity that entails, how can it possibly be that not one of these 32 teams has had a desire to do what it takes to sign any of these tagged or tendered players?

One ex-GM I spoke with said he never heard anything about not using a poison pill from his owner. He theorized that most people's reluctancy to tender offer sheets to restricted free agents has more to do with not wanting to give up draft choices.

To be clear, I don't blame the ownership if it does have a gentlemen's agreement in place. I don't think poison pill contracts are good for the league as a whole. The problem, of course, is that there is another name for a gentlemen's agreement: Collusion.

Executives in the league office get very uncomfortable when they hear that term, and rightfully so. If the league were found guilty of such a claim, their anti-trust exemption could be in jeopardy.

Given the snail-like pace of the current CBA negotiations and the increasing threat of a lockout in 2011, the NFLPA likely is willing to use every chip it can to get the best deal. Any collusion claim, especially if it involved the lack of poison pill use, could be an extremely big chip.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has already said he is going to be watching team expenditures very closely in this uncapped environment for any sign the teams have come together and decided collectively to keep player costs low.

So what does all this mean for the average fan who couldn't care less about CBA negotiations? It means if your team elects not to improve via restricted free agency, it had better say it is because it doesn't want to give up any draft choices. Because having a fear that the other team will match their offer should not apply in an era in which the poison pill is a legitimate mechanism.




SI.com

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2010/03/grossi_free_agent_breakdown.html

Strange new free-agent world complicates opportunities for the Cleveland Browns

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Fans expecting the Browns' new management tandem of President Mike Holmgren and General Manager Tom Heckert to make a big splash in free agency, which begins at 12:01 Friday morning, might be disappointed.

Like everyone else, Holmgren and Heckert are grappling with new league rules that take effect when the league enters an uncapped year for the first time since 1993.

"Free agency is going to be completely different this year," Heckert said. "Especially because we don't know what the future holds. It's going to be a little bit of a wait-and-see approach for everybody."

Free agency without a salary cap sounds like nirvana for players with expired contracts and owners with deep pockets. But with the lifting of the cap comes several built-in measures that may clamp the lid on unlimited spending by teams.

• Players need six years in the league to qualify for unrestricted free agency instead of four.

• Players with four or five years experience become restricted free agents. Signing them comes at the additional price of draft pick compensation. It could be as high as first- and third-round picks and as low as the player's original round drafted.

• Teams that played in the conference championship games -- New Orleans, Minnesota, Indianapolis and the Jets -- can only sign the same number of unrestricted free agents as they lose.

• Teams that lost in the divisional playoff round -- Arizona, Dallas, San Diego and Baltimore -- can sign one unrestricted free agent for $5.5 million or more in the first year of his contract, plus others for less than $3.7 million in the first year of their contracts.

• Free agents can not receive base salaries more than 30 percent higher than their 2009 salaries. Signing bonuses and other contract incentives don't apply.

• There is also no salary floor, no minimum at which every team must spend on team salaries.

• There are no cap "penalties" for terminating a player with multiple, high-priced salaries left on his contract. Thus, there are expected to be more high-profile names dumped by their teams to escape future contract commitments.

Are you confused? Or are you getting the picture that the owners are using the rules to curb spending and teach players a lesson?

When the salary cap was first instituted in 1994 -- after decades of labor disputes and three player strikes -- it was set at $34.6 million per team. Last year it was $123 million. That unrestrained growth in salaries is one reason owners opted out of the current labor agreement last fall.

Clouding the picture, as Heckert alluded to, is the fact that nobody knows how the rules will change again in 2011. Will a salary cap return? Will owners stage a lockout in 2011 to tear down the whole system and start from scratch?

Nobody knows. Hence, teams are being conservative with their own free agents, too. Heckert said the Browns will not sign any of their own 14 potential free agents to long-term contracts. He said the team would tender most of their eight restricted free agents, which include linebacker D'Qwell Jackson, running back Jerome Harrison, linebacker Matt Roth, and fullback Lawrence Vickers.

It's a turning point in the evolution of the NFL. And other leagues are watching, too, because the labor agreements of Major League Baseball and the NBA also expire after 2010.

So how does this all affect the Browns?

Some teams might decide to make a run at the Super Bowl in 2010 and spend big. The Browns, who have a few laps to go to catch the contenders, will not do that.

"I don't think we're going to sign 12 guys," Heckert said, apparently pulling a number out of air. "But if there's players out there we think can help us, we'll go after them."

Under the direction of coach Eric Mangini last year, the Browns signed eight unrestricted free agents -- and five other "street" free agents, meaning players without teams -- and re-signed one of their own. Mangini also orchestrated four trades -- three coming on draft day -- that helped to stock the team with four additional picks in the 2010 draft.

Those extra draft picks are in the third, fifth (two) and sixth rounds. They might make it a little more palatable for Heckert to swim the murky waters of restricted free agency.

Restricted free agents require giving up a draft pick in compensation if the old team doesn't match the offer. Heckert isn't a big fan of that, but the fact is most of the best free agents this year are restricted because they fall into that fourth- and fifth-year category.

"Everybody's thinking, 'Our first five picks are going to be Pro Bowl players,'" Hecker said. "No one wants to give up draft picks. That's just the way the NFL works. You're so excited about the draft guys coming out that you're saying, instead of giving up a second-, third- or fourth-round pick, you think you can get a better guy in the draft.

"And obviously there's a financial difference in what you're paying second- or third-round guys and you're probably going to have to go after restricted guys just to get 'em. I would think there would be a little more movement [in restricted free agency] just because the number is less, but people just don't want to give up draft picks."

What the Browns do in the draft April 22-24 will depend on what needs they fill in free agency. They have needs everywhere on offense -- quarterback, running back, receiver, and offensive line. On defense, cornerback and safety are obvious concerns, and the search for a blue-chip pass rusher is never ending.

Addressing team needs in general -- via free agency, trades and the draft -- Heckert said, "I believe, and Mike believes, and I think Eric believes you build an offensive and defensive line. That's how you win over the long period.

"We played well at those positions, but you can always do better. Those are positions we're definitely going to look at, especially when you're talking about rushing the passer and protecting the quarterback. If you can't do it, you can't win. Those are always going to be top priorities."


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,943
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,943
It's rumored that O.J Otogwe could be getting the lowest tender.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Report-Atogwe-could-get-low-tender.html

I definately wouldn't mind looking into acquiring him. But he plays free safety and if there is any chance in the world we could land Berry I wouldn't go after Otogwe.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
N
Legend
Offline
Legend
N
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
worst case scenario is that you get Berry and trade Atogwe for a midround pick next year.

we need safeties, i wouldn't use the possibility of Berry as a reason not to pursue Atogwe. now, it will depend on how much $$$ he wants as to whether or not we go after him.

i think he'd be worth what Sean Jones got last year....around $6mil/year for 3 years or so.


#gmstrong
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044
D
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
D
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044
j/c

brandon frye (seahawk tackle coming off injury) wasn't tendered and just turned 27. i'll be interested to see if holmgren will bring him in.

Quote:

The Seahawks elected to not tender OL Brandon Frye, making him an unrestricted free agent.

The move is disappointing in Frye's case because he held up fairly well when forced into 2009 spot starts on Matt Hasselbeck's blind side. He is also an athletic lineman, which figured to help his cause in zone-blocking guru Alex Gibbs' system. It's possible that Frye's 2009 neck injury did him in.




http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=4453

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
A
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
A
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
He was brought there after Holmgren left.


"The medium for the bad news was ESPN, which figured. The network represents much of what is loud, obnoxious and empty in sports today."
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044
D
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
D
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,044
thanks, didn't know that. i guess we'll see if there is still interest since he's a young tackle.

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
A
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
A
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
Theres ALWAYS interest in young tackles with playing experience. No way he can be worse than St. Clair.


"The medium for the bad news was ESPN, which figured. The network represents much of what is loud, obnoxious and empty in sports today."
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
B
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
B
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
j/c - not that this pertains us, in the least . . .

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/04/sproles-ready-free-agency/

Chargers will keep Sproles
By Kevin Acee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

updated March 4, 2010 at 11:55 a.m

The Chargers have changed their minds.

The team is placing a first-and-third tender on running back Darren Sproles, sources said Thursday morning.

Sproles had been notified last week the Chargers would not tender him as a restricted free agent and would allow him to test the market as an unrestricted free agent.

The move guarantees Sproles a salary of $7.27 million if he stays with the Chargers, unless the club can sign him to a long-term deal. He made $6.62 million last season as the Chargers' franchise player and is entitled to a 10 percent raise.

The Chargers' initial thinking in not tendering Sproles was that they couldn't justify paying a kick returner and third-down back that much. They had hoped to continue talking to him about a multiyear contract even as he tested the market.

A source said Sproles was scheduled to visit the Kansas City Chiefs this weekend and also St. Louis, Philadelphia and Washington.

It is unlikely he will take those trips now. Any team signing him would have to give the Chargers a first-round and third-round pick.

Earlier Thursday, before the Chargers decided to tender him, Sproles said he was excited about free agency.

“I’m just ready to see who wants me,” Sproles said.

Sproles reiterated several times that his “first choice” was to remain a Charger.

“First, it’s San Diego,” he said. “Then it’s my teammates. The people in the locker room, that’s who I’m comfortable with. They know what I like to do; I know what they like to do.”

Sproles carried 93 times for 343 yards (3.7 average) and caught 45 passes for 497 yards in 2009. He has over the past two-plus seasons shown himself to be among the most dynamic runners in the NFL.

The Chargers clearly see the 5-foot-6, 185-pound Sproles as a kick returner and third-down back.

“It’s always been on my mind — how do other teams want to use me?” he said. “Is it just on third down and returning? Or do some people want to use me more? That’s what I’ve always wondered?”

Sproles and the Chargers had agreed to talk again. But first he was going to find out what other teams were willing to give him — in both playing time and money.

“I’m still thinking I can still be a Charger,” Sproles said. “That’s what I feel … This is where I want to be, so we’ll try to get something worked out. But if not, we’ll see … ”

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
C
cfrs15 Offline OP
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
C
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Also another move by the Chargers...

Quote:

The San Diego Chargers confirmed the release of nose guard Jamal Williams




National Football Post

I assume Williams is done. He will be 34 when the season starts and has had weight issues in the past. Also, the Chargers run a 3-4 defense so if they released Williams (their starting nose tackle) it probably means he is done.

Page 2 of 2 1 2
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Unrestricted free agents...

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5