Can someone who KNOWS clarify the legality of tag-and-trade?

[Ring 6]

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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

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:

Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation:
(a) In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club or player engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith.
(b) A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount. The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract, under this Agreement, or under the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract, this Agreement, or the Settlement Agreement.

 

[patchick]

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.]

Thank you, this seems quite clear:

A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount. The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract, under this Agreement, or under the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract, this Agreement, or the Settlement Agreement.

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]

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?

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

 

[Metaphors]

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:

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.

 

[mgteich]

If our interpretations are correct, Cassel gave up his rights when he signed the tender. Minny, the jets and the others can be pi$$ed that they cannot have Cassel for two firsts without negotiations with the patriots, but Cassel decided against. The patriots will now

1) pay Cassel $14.6M.

2) trade Cassel to a team that will be willing to give a pick for a one-year contract,

3) work with Cassel and his agent(s) to get a win-win deal for the patriots, Cassel and a team they jointly agree to.

4) wait until the team has more information on Brady (or has secured a veteran backup for lots less than $14.6M) and trade Cassel wherever.

It seems that Cassel had little faith that he is worth a solid contract in the market place and two firsts. He could have waited and had all the cards in his hand.

 

[pats63]

sounds like the pats are doing everything right....teams are piss off they don't have te player or brains....so in other words puck off

 

[PatsFaninME]

It amazes me to what extent people will go to claim Belichick is somehow cheating. Just shows how brilliant Belichick is and how far ahead of the rest of the NFL Coaches/GM's he is.

 

[mayoclinic]

There are a lot of idiots out there, and a lot of people that hate the Pats because of their success, so whatever we do people will cry foul. When Brady went down a lot of people thought we were screwed. Belichick kept calm and stuck with an unproven Cassel when a lot of people thought our season was down the drain and that he should trade for a journeyman vet QB. Now his prescience and confidence in Cassel is going to pay off in a big way, and some of the same people are insane with jealousy. They will cry foul whatever happens.

The NFLPA has nothing to complain about. The Pats showed faith in Cassel when no one else did, and he is $14M richer for it, the most lucrative franchise tag ever signed. He will either play at that rate or get rewarded with a lucrative long term deal consistent with one of the better QBs in the league.

No one forced Cassel to sign the franchise tender. He obviously has a lot of regard for the Pats and is aware that he wouldn't be where he is today without their mentoring and confidence in him. Having signed the tender, he is the Pats' property and they can trade him anytime they want (subject to league trading deadlines, of course). He retains the ability to effectively kill a trade by refusing to sign a long term deal with teams that he wouldn't want to play for, which gives him essentially the same control as he had when he was a FA. The Pats will likely give him permission to seek a deal with other teams, but they have the ultimate say on what compensation they will accept.

I believe that the CBA is clear in this area, and precedent with other teams will also argue against any foul. If any other team than the Pats were involved, it would be a non-issue. But because it is us, people will cry foul no matter what. We should expect it, but not be worried about it.

 

[Patsrock]

I know you said no guessing. But I think once he signed his franchise tender any complaints by NFLPA and other teams no longer exist. He did not have to sign the tender he could have gone out an talked to other teams.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It seems that Cassel believed no team would be willing to pony up a solid contract in the market place and two firsts. He could have waited and had all the cards in his hand.

It's not a question of his perceived value, it's a question of whether he felt that a team would offer two firsts for him.

 

[Deus Irae]

If our interpretations are correct, Cassel gave up his rights when he signed the tender. Minny, the jets and the others can be pi$$ed that they cannot have Cassel for two firsts without negotiations with the patriots, but Cassel decided against. The patriots will now

1) pay Cassel $14.6M.

2) trade Cassel to a team that will be willing to give a pick for a one-year contract,

3) work with Cassel and his agent(s) to get a win-win deal for the patriots, Cassel and a team they jointly agree to.

4) wait until the team has more information on Brady (or has secured a veteran backup for lots less than $14.6M) and trade Cassel wherever.

It seems that Cassel had little faith that he is worth a solid contract in the market place and two firsts. He could have waited and had all the cards in his hand.

There are several other possibilities that you ingore....

1.) Concern that the team would rescind

2.) The possibility that a deal has already been made in principle

3.) The likely reality that the team has been forthright about their intentions to trade/keep Cassel, so that the signing was nothing more than a formality.

 

[JoeSixPat]

If our interpretations are correct, Cassel gave up his rights when he signed the tender.

He could have waited and had all the cards in his hand.

What cards does Cassel no longer hold?

He can still block a trade with any team by refusing to sign a long-term contract to consumate the deal.

That's a pretty powerful card AND as a fall back he gave himself the assurance of at least $14.65 million for this season ALONE - creating a worst case scenario where he collects more in 2009 and 2010 when he'd go back into free agency (or tagged again at a 10-20% hike) and get another upfront guaranteed signing bonus... likely much more than he'd be getting guranteed for the first two years if he signs a long-term contract with the Pats or another team this year.

As I said all along, it made sense for Cassel to sign the tender from a money perspective. I still think he wants to start and that means accepting a trade to another team - but he's made it clear he's not about to accept a discount for doing so. I can't really blame him for that.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I know you said no guessing. But I think once he signed his franchise tender any complaints by NFLPA and other teams no longer exist. He did not have to sign the tender he could have gone out an talked to other teams.

If I were Matt Cassel, I think I might just tell the NFLPA, thanks but no thanks. I've just gotten a $14 million raise on my salary from last year and there is the possibility that I might get a new contract for double that, at least...

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What cards does Cassel no longer hold?

He can still block a trade with any team by refusing to sign a long-term contract to consumate the deal.

Granted it's not likely, but he couldn't block a deal for a team willing to pay the franchise price.