An interesting CBA provision - New England Patriots Forums

***ctpatsfan77*** · 03-08-2006, 11:39 AM

The ESPN article noted that one of the new provisions in the final deal the owners are mulling would, effectively, prevent teams from ever using the transition tag more than twice on a player. The third time a team franchised a player, they would have to offer the franchise tag number for a quarterback, regardless of what position he plays. . . .

***BelichickFan*** · 03-08-2006, 11:42 AM

Hopefully they'll attack more useful things like a rookie salary scale which would be good for owners and players.

***FreeTedWilliams*** · 03-08-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

The ESPN article noted that one of the new provisions in the final deal the owners are mulling would, effectively, prevent teams from ever using the transition tag more than twice on a player. The third time a team franchised a player, they would have to offer the franchise tag number for a quarterback, regardless of what position he plays. . . .

Would this provision by retroactive? If so then that answers the "Why didn't the Pats just tag Adam again" question. I doubt that it would have been retro-active, but paying 16 mil for a kicker, even Adam, would be a tough nut. I believe that a few left tackles, have been tagged for at least two years in a row.

alexhb · 03-08-2006, 12:51 PM

I don't think it's in the Patriots best interest to have a salary scale for the rookies as they'll (knock on wood) be picking towards the end of the first round each year. It's a relative competitive advantage that the worst teams also get saddled with crappy contracts for unproven rookies at the top of the first round.

***BelichickFan*** · 03-08-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexhb

I don't think it's in the Patriots best interest to have a salary scale for the rookies as they'll (knock on wood) be picking towards the end of the first round each year. It's a relative competitive advantage that the worst teams also get saddled with crappy contracts for unproven rookies at the top of the first round.

Well I'm a football fan too and it would be good for the league. I don't disagree with your statement, though.

alexhb · 03-08-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Well I'm a football fan too and it would be good for the league. I don't disagree with your statement, though.

True, it would be better for the league. I'm surprised it hasn't been pushed by Arizona, San Francisco or Houston who've had to deal with these bad contracts. Imagine how irked we'd all be if we payed what they did for Alex Smith?

What we all take for granted with this league is the non-guaranteed nature of player contracts which really hurts teams in baseball and basketball. The NFLPA looks like it's doing a bad job relative to the other professional sports unions and that's why they're digging in for their bigger share of the pie (IMHO).

***DaBruinz*** · 03-08-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexhb

True, it would be better for the league. I'm surprised it hasn't been pushed by Arizona, San Francisco or Houston who've had to deal with these bad contracts. Imagine how irked we'd all be if we payed what they did for Alex Smith?

What we all take for granted with this league is the non-guaranteed nature of player contracts which really hurts teams in baseball and basketball. The NFLPA looks like it's doing a bad job relative to the other professional sports unions and that's why they're digging in for their bigger share of the pie (IMHO).

Except that, when it comes to benefits, the NFLPA has some of the best. Like 250K - 300K PER PLAYER.

Things like matching your 401K deduction 2-1.

The players have it very well, they just want MORE.