NE39

Doesn't sound like it will amount to much, but it is interesting:

LINK

Box_O_Rocks

Bastiches!

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ChoWZa

I guess the agent's point of view was, if the Patriots made an offer they(the fins) would have had to make an offer substantial enough the Dolphins would not have matched and this whole process was averted. Also I don't understand why people say "4 games in Miami and entire contract is guaranteed" The Patriots play the dolphins twice in the regular season and if they played again in the playoffs and the SB was held in Miami.. yeah.. anyway.

But if the Patriots made an offer it 'could' have included the "poison pill" which Miami cannot match anyway, which has been deemed legal.

I don't think the agent has much ground here.

Welker/Teams are happy. Move on.

hwc

It's not Welker's agent. It the players union, the NFL Agents Association, looking to accuse the owners of collusion for NOT using poison pill contracts. Their position is that the owners all agreed not to use poison pills -- collusion. The Welker deal is their best vehicle for stirring it up, because the media reported an offersheet that was never signed.

Welker's happy with the deal. The Pats are happy with the deal. The Fins are happy with the deal. This is just a sideshow that doesn't have much to do with the deal itself. It's political.

Sorna

Read again:

Sounds like Welker's agent is the one not happy.

solman

Thus spake Harvey Fialkov South Florida Sun-Sentinel

The article says that Welker's agent has complained that Welker trade violates the CBA which prohibits the Patriots from bribing Miami not to match an offer sheet.

Here is the relevant CBA section:

It seems pretty clear that this section was violated, but I don't see how it hurt Welker (who appears to have received the same five year deal as was originally rumored).

The article says that investigations like this usually go nowhere, but usually collusion is hard to prove. In this case, the collusion seems pretty obvious. I wonder if the NFLPA can afford to ignore an obvious violation with negligible consequences. In the future there may be an obvious violation where the player does suffer, and they wouldn't want to set a negative precedent.

Although I didn't like the idea of giving up a pick for nothing, I don't fault the Patriots for playing at the edge of the CBA.

I just wish that playing it fast and loose had earned us a material advantage.

Isaac

Actually the poison pill hasn't really been tested through arbitration yet and it's entirely possible that it wouldn't stand up. This may be a major reason the Patriots traded instead of using it.

Sorna

What is the worse that could happen? Does the trade get reversed and the picks returned? Or do the Patriots keep Welker and Miami keeps the picks but they both get fined?

solman

The CBA is supposed to protect the players, and the penalties in the anti-collusion section are focused on paying actual and punative damages to the affected players. But I'm not entirely sure that the penalties in the anti-collusion section are applicable to this type of violation.

Either way, the actual damages to Welker are negligible, so it makes sense that the penalty should also be negligible.

solman

If the NFLPA wants to challenge the disuse of poison pills, this deal is the wropng test case.

The claim here is that by giving up a seventh round draft pick, the Pats were effectively bribing Miami not to match.

If the NFLPA wants to allege collusion over the disuse of poison pills, several other RFA offer sheets will offer the NFLPA a good test (if PFT is to be believed). I don't think that the seven day match period has expired on those offers yet, so we'll have to wait and see what the NFLPA does. I imagine that their lawyers will wait for a team to actually match one of these offers before filing a complaint.