AndyJohnson

Is there a rule that you cannot tag a player and trade them, or tag them in order to trade them?
There is RAMPANT speculation, even people talking about teams filing grievances against with the league, and speculation that BB (aka scummy rule breaker) will just lie to pretend that wasn't his intention.

Can someone PLEASE once and for all clarify and show where this RULE exists?

I'm guessing Miguel would be the authority.

Please do not respond with opinion, guess or uncertainty.
Cousin's girlfriends uncle's neighbors bosses barber does not count as authority.

Joker

here's the rules on franchise tagging...I would guess the answer you seek is somewhere in here...

• A club can designate one franchise player or one transition player in any given year.

• The salary level offer by a player's old club determines what type of franchise player he is.

• An "exclusive" franchise player -- not free to sign with another club -- is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of April 16, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.

• If the player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries of last season at his position, or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, he becomes a “non-exclusive” franchise player and can negotiate with other clubs. His old club can match a new club's offer, or receive two first-round draft choices if it decides not to match. The signing period for non-exclusive franchise players to sign with new clubs is March 3 through November 9 (10th week of the season).

• A transition player has received a minimum offer of the average of the top 10 salaries of last season at the player's position or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.

• A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation. Transition players can be signed from March 3 through July 22

Joker

I see nothing in the rules that would have anything to do with what these "people" are prattling on about.

AndyJohnson

Thanks, you've set the ground level, showing rules that do not include anything about not being able to trade.
Now, if anyone has a rule in addition to these that says that, please respond here.

ctpatsfan77

Those rules are actually a simplification of the CBA, which is posted in its entirety on NFLPlayers.com. [You can browse it section-by-section here; near the upper left is a link to download a 3MB PDF file.]

In any case, this provision in Article XIV, on contracts in general, is the closest I can find in the CBA to such a rule:

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

patchick

Thank you, this seems quite clear:

If I'm reading this correctly...

The "good faith" concerns focus primarily on an extended but NOT accepted tender; i.e. you can't use the control that the tender gives you to try to strongarm the player into an unfair deal. Once the tender is accepted, "good faith to employ" is moot. The player is now signed to a guaranteed contract, and you're 100% on the hook...barring a trade. And trades are explicitly permitted.

Joker

Now what does "extending " mean? Does this mean AFTER a franchise tag is applied, THEN when there's an extension later on? Or is the act of applying the franchise tag an extension?

patchick

In this case it appears extend=reach out/offer, not lengthen.

Metaphors

Not sure why people think that trading a player under tender (franchise, transitional, restricted) is a problem. As you quote, the CBA explicitly states that teams don't give up rights under this process. The only thing that would be frowned upon would be team efforts to somehow force the player to accept different (persumably less favorable) terms.

I have never seen anything that suggests it is bad form to use a franchise tag with the goal of initiating a trade. As long as the player either gets the tender amount or freely renegotiates a more favorable contract, everything is right with the world. Unless Cassel was somehow threatened or forced to sign the tender or other terms as part of a trade, can't see the basis for complaints.

jmt57

The way I interpet the wording, the 'good faith' refers strictly to the next line, in attempting to coerce the player to sign a contract for less than the franchise tender. The fact that it expilicitly goes on to specify that a team can still trade the player - and in fact, can even franchise the player with the intention of trading him.

The 'Pats are breaking the rules' because they are 'franchising Cassel with the intent of trading him' is another one of those untrue comments that gets repeated so many times that people assume it must be true.


Edit: Excellent job Joker and ctpatsfan77 digging up that info - thank you.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.