NFLPA wants inquiry on Welker deal?

[DW Toys]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

But according to Pioli, there was never an offer sheet or a plan for one. It was a straight trade of a player.

Cousin 39,
I agree with you. It appears the players union is using Welkers agent as a dumb "mark", to test the theory of collusion. But a trade, if no offer sheet was signed, does not constitute collusion in this case.
Next case.
DW Toys

 

[Jimke]

One difference in this situation and others that we have had in the

past is that the player himself is quite happy to be with the Pats.

 

[patchick]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

Cousin 39,
I agree with you. It appears the players union is using Welkers agent as a dumb "mark", to test the theory of collusion. But a trade, if no offer sheet was signed, does not constitute collusion in this case.
Next case.
DW Toys

I agree that this case would be a lousy test of the theory that the owners as a group are colluding to avoid poison pill provisions. But rather than alleging a broad conspiracy, the union may simply be citing a straightforward CBA violation. Reading over the CBA excerpt posted earlier in this thread, it was explicitly crafted to prohibit teams from agreeing to trade terms in order to circumvent the RFA offer/match process.

Was there any harm done to Wes Welker or his agent in this case? Doesn't seem like it. Welker is signed to the team he wanted at the dollars he wanted. But the union's long-range goal is to promote free player movement, so I could see them wanting to stamp out this kind of backroom deal and force teams toward poison pill offers.

 

[NE39]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

Under the terms of the CBA, the Patriots could get Welker by using a poison pill for the same money, and only a 2nd round draft choice. By entering into this trade, and then signing Welker, the Patriots proved that they found those terms desirable.

I'm not saying that this proves the NFLPA's case [which will probably never even be heard], but it proves that the Patriots believed that extending Welker an offer sheet would have been in their own best interests.

It proves no such thing. Poison pill or not, there was a chance the Dolphins would match the offer and keep the player. That is their right. By trading for the player, the Pats guarantee they get him. That is why they gave they extra 7th, for the Dolphins to relinquish their right to match.

What court? Any disputes under the CBA will be handled by arbitration as specified in the CBA. There is a long history of this. The arbitrator or special master has a wide degree of latitude in determining what information he will consider.

Bottom line is media reports prove nothing. Unless they can prove the Patriots were going to sign Welker to an offer sheet, they have no case. The Patriots decided to trade for him to ensure they got the player, instead of taking the chance the Dophins would match. They have the right to do that.

I believe that Welker's agent would say that the Patriots were going to extend an offer sheet because:

A. As we know from numerous credible press reports, the Patriots were going to extend an offer sheet.

B. The Miami article that started this thread said that it was Welker's agent who initiated the complaint.

But how does Welker's agent know the Patriots intentions? If the Patriots say they wanted to execute a trade to acquire the player instead of sign an offer sheet because they wanted to be certain the Dolphins didn't match, that is their right. Even if a poison pill was included, the Dolphins still had the right to match. The Pats eliminated that possibility by negotiating a trade.

Intentions most certainly can be inferred. You don't need a brain scan or a whistleblower to win a collusion case.

In fact, many of the MLBPA's successful collusion claims were based entirely on the rate at which free agent salaries increased.

I didn't think it was fair, but that's how the arbitrator ruled, and that's the environment we live in.

No arbitrator expects colluding parties to admit their collusion.

If the Patriots say they preferred to trade for the player to be certain they got him, then that is their right. Just because they might have signed him to an offer sheet does not mean the colluded to keep his price down.

By trading for the player, they eliminated any chance the Dolphins might match an offer. Welker's agent might not like that, but he didn't have to negotiate an extension after the trade either.

Seriously, what is the basis of a claim? If it is only that the Patriots could have offered him a contract and not have to given up the 7th, then that isn't any basis. The fact they gave up an extra 7th to be certain that the Dolphins didn't match is their right.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

First, by the way, the poison pill has been tested in arbitration, in the Steve Hutchinson case and upheld.

Second, when I posted after the report about how Kraft supposed "stepped in" that this could be a problem, I got pretty savagely responded to here. I think it is a real issue.

In fact, I think it's fairly clear that the Patriots did indeed seek to circumvent the UFA rules and collude to avoid offering Welker a better contract than the one he would have been offered had they not decided to collude. Will Welker be able to prove that? I don't know.

As for a $38 million contract (or whatever) not being any "better" than the one Welker signed because of no guaranteed money, the minute the Patriots make that argument, they are conceding they gave a 7 for nothing, which is pretty close to conceding the case.

Those saying that Welker cannot prove his case are basically suggesting that Kraft is prepared to testify (if he is required to testify) that the media reports were false -- that he did not step in to avoid using the poison pill. You're also saying that the Patriots are prepared to testify that they would not have tried a poison pill. Because that's the question that's going to be asked. It's not simply "did you tender an offer," but "were you prepared to do so," because if they were, I think a pretty strong (nearly unrebuttable) presumption arises that they declined to do so as part of an agreement to defeat UFA rights.

And ultimately, the Patriots' case kind of falls apart over one very simple point: They could have used the poison pill to get Welker. Whether with the "Miami" provision or some other, it is clear they could have used it and given only a 2 and didn't. There aren't too many inferences you can draw from that. I think this greivance is likely to get some traction. What the remedy will be, I don't know.

I also think it's wrong that damages are the only remedy under the CBA. I think reformation or recission are also possible.

As for why Welker's agent is doing this, assuming he's still the agent, he could only be doing it with Welker's permission. And if Welker gave him the go ahead, it can mean a few things: (1) Welker has buyer's remorse about his deal (or maybe feels differently about it now that the Patriots have signed additional WRs), or (2) the NFLPA leaned on him hard to do this.

The Patriots and the Dolphins very clearly made a decision that poison pills are unseemly and the media reported that Kraft interceded to avoid using one. It will be interesting to see if they back away from that now.

 

[Maroney TD]

First, by the way, the poison pill has been tested in arbitration, in the Steve Hutchinson case and upheld.

The Patriots and the Dolphins very clearly made a decision that poison pills are unseemly and the media reported that Kraft interceded to avoid using one. It will be interesting to see if they back away from that now.

Yeah I was about to mention that the poison pill clause had been upheld by an abritator in the Hutchinson deal which is contrary to what someone earlier said.

While I think that the Pats did do the trade with Miami to avoid the poison pill, I think you could also say that it was mutually beneficial for both teams. For the Dolphins, they were already losing Welker for a 2nd rounnd pick so why not grab the extra 7th? It only makes sense that the Dolphins would want the extra pick if they're going to lose him anyways. For the Pats, they get to sign Welker to a more team friendly deal. While it does circumvent the poison pill clause, I think its also mutually beneficial which is why I don't think the Pats could get in trouble for it since it was in their best interest to trade the extra 7th pick for a more favorable contract. I don't think its collusion because the Pats are willing to give a 7th round pick to get a better deal on a contract.

 

[Jimke]

Another reason the NFLPA might be pushing this issue is their

dislike of Bob Kraft and the Patriot organization.

 

[DESERTPAT]

Bastiches!

Worse than that, they are fargin iceholes and corksuckers!

 

[NE39]

First, by the way, the poison pill has been tested in arbitration, in the Steve Hutchinson case and upheld.

No it wasn't. It has never been arbitrated.

In the Hutchinson case Seattle based their case on the fact they restructured Walter Jones contract and Hutchinson was no longer the highest paid OL on the team. They never challenged the validity of the poison pill, they said it no longer applied because Jones has been restructured. The arbitrator ruled that Jones was still the highest paid on the team, despite restructuring his deal. Thus, Seattle didn't match.

However, they never mounted a challenge to whether the poison pill provisions are legal under the CBA.

 

[solman]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

It proves no such thing. Poison pill or not, there was a chance the Dolphins would match the offer and keep the player. That is their right. By trading for the player, the Pats guarantee they get him. That is why they gave they extra 7th, for the Dolphins to relinquish their right to match.

If, as you say, the Patriots gave the Dolphins a draft pick to prevent them from matching the offer offer, it is a black and white violation of the CBA

There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal

This is a waste of time. Reread Pioli's statement. He has NEVER denied negotiating an offer sheet with Welker's agent. All the statements we have agree that an offer sheet was negotiated but never issued as a consequence of the trade. If Pioli comes out and denies that the Patriots and Welker negotiated an offer sheet, then there might be an actual factual dispute. As of now there is unanimity.

 

[Metaphors]

No it wasn't. It has never been arbitrated.

In the Hutchinson case Seattle based their case on the fact they restructured Walter Jones contract and Hutchinson was no longer the highest paid OL on the team. They never challenged the validity of the poison pill, they said it no longer applied because Jones has been restructured. The arbitrator ruled that Jones was still the highest paid on the team, despite restructuring his deal. Thus, Seattle didn't match.

However, they never mounted a challenge to whether the poison pill provisions are legal under the CBA.

I don't think that is true. I believe the Hutchinson case determined that you could have a provision that guaranteed a portion or all of the contract, but you couldn't have different contract terms. So I can't submit a contract that pays $7M if someone plays in Minnesota but pays $100M if they play in Washington. But I can guarantee the $7M if they play in Washington.

In reality, there really is no difference since all you need to do is backload the contract with obscene money that is never intended to be paid...making a guarantee clause in the contract impossible to match.

 

[Jimke]

One thing that is unique about this situation is that it involved the

trading of an RFA. The CBA must permit the trade of an RFA or the

NFL would have turned it down. After the trade, Welker signed a contract

he and his agent had probably agreed to before hand. Why did the agent

let his client sign the deal if neither liked it?

 

[hwc]

The surprising thing about this article was that it named Welker's agent as the complaining party.

Have you ever been in a union? When the union says you are complaining, you are complaining.

Anyone who has heard Wes Welker's radio interview (it's probably still available at the WEEI website) knows that he is thrilled with his deal.

Leave it to the NFL Agents Association to squabble over two phony years tacked on the end of contracts. Nate Clement's agent probably wants a piece that action.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

Reading over the CBA excerpt posted earlier in this thread, it was explicitly crafted to prohibit teams from agreeing to trade terms in order to circumvent the RFA offer/match process.

I think I'm missing the point here. This is the section of the CBA that seems to be in question:

"...or in exchange for a Club’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent."

Wouldn't this mean that Miami would give the Pats some sort of compensation...not the other way around? Meaning Miami gives the Pats a seventh round pick in exchange for not submitting an offer sheet since the Dolphins really want to keep Welker....thus keeping Welker's options limited and his earning power down.

If order for the events to unfold the way they did, here is what had to have happened:
1) Welker signs the Dolphins tender contract, making him property of Miami and no longer a free agent.
2) The Patriots trade for Welker

You can't trade a restricted free agent (otherwise they really aren't "free"). All the back-room discussions about offer sheets and compensation become moot once Welker gives up his rights as a free agent.

 

[NE39]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

If, as you say, the Patriots gave the Dolphins a draft pick to prevent them from matching the offer offer, it is a black and white violation of the CBA

No, it is against the CBA to offer a pick in exchange for the Dolphins not matching an offer sheet. That would be a violation.

Perhaps I worded that wrong. There was no offer sheet in this case. Instead, the Patriots offered them trade compensation for the player, who was signed to a 1-Yr/$1.3M contract. They agreed on compensation and made the deal. Welker then signed a contract extension. How is that an violation?

Teams work out alternate compensation on players all the time. They have the right to trade for the player. The Patriots traded Tebucky Jones, who was a franchise player, for less than 2 first round picks. He then worked out an extension with New Orleans. Was there collusion in that case? By your logic, Jones ability to earn money was hurt by the trade.

You can't set trade value for teams. The Pats traded the Dolphins for Welker, who at the time was working under a 1-Yr deal. Both sides agreed on terms. Then the Pats extended Welker. Unless there is proof of some sort of offer sheet, which there is none that we know of (media reports don't qualify), there is no case.

This is a waste of time. Reread Pioli's statement. He has NEVER denied negotiating an offer sheet with Welker's agent. All the statements we have agree that an offer sheet was negotiated but never issued as a consequence of the trade. If Pioli comes out and denies that the Patriots and Welker negotiated an offer sheet, then there might be an actual factual dispute. As of now there is unanimity.

We don't know what Welker's agent and the Patriots negotiated, we only know an offer sheet was never executed. That is the only fact here.

If Welker hadn't signed an extension, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, the Patriots traded a 2nd and 7th for Welker's right's under a 1 Yr/$1.3M contract. Both sides agreed on value and made a trade.

Who is the NFLPA or Welker's agent to tell them they should have done something differently? Who are they to say the Pats should have signed him to an offer sheet instead of trading for his rights? The fact is, not trade could occur unless he signs his tender. The fact is, they couldn't have agreed to an extension if he did not agree to a new deal.

There is nothing to this case.

 

[NE39]

I don't think that is true. I believe the Hutchinson case determined that you could have a provision that guaranteed a portion or all of the contract, but you couldn't have different contract terms. So I can't submit a contract that pays $7M if someone plays in Minnesota but pays $100M if they play in Washington. But I can guarantee the $7M if they play in Washington.

Hutchinson's poison pill was that he had to be the highest paid OL on the team. Seattle had recently signed Walter Jones to a richer contract. That was the only provision in Hutchinson's deal.

When they came to arbitrator, Seattle decided not to challenge the validity of the "poison pill" in the CBA. Instead, they said they restructured Jones so the provision no longer applied to them. The arbitrator ruled against that, and they lost. However, whether or not the "poison pill" was valid under the rules of the CBA was not contested at the time and not ruled upon. No case has come up to challenge it.

When Seattle responded by signing Nate Burleson they inserted a number of other poison pills, including one where the player's contract became guaranteed if they played more than a certain number of games in a certain state. Minnesota never challenged the validity of the offer sheet, they just declined to match and took the draft pick.

 

[NE39]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

1) Welker signs the Dolphins tender contract, making him property of Miami and no longer a free agent.

This is the key point. Welker can't be traded unless he signs his tender. There was never any offer sheet, just a straight trade of a player who was operating under a 1 Yr/$1.3M deal.

The fact he signed an extension after that is a separate event.

 

[Metaphors]

When they came to arbitrator, Seattle decided not to challenge the validity of the "poison pill" in the CBA.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?p=518682

"A league spokesman and an attorney for the NFL players' union confirmed that a special master ruled against Seattle earlier Monday, saying a provision guaranteeing all of the $49 million in the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with Minnesota should he not be the team's highest-paid offensive lineman is valid."

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

When Seattle responded by signing Nate Burleson they inserted a number of other poison pills, including one where the player's contract became guaranteed if they played more than a certain number of games in a certain state. Minnesota never challenged the validity of the offer sheet, they just declined to match and took the draft pick.

That is exactly the poison pill the Pats were expected to insert into the Welker contract making it gaurenteed money if he played more than four games in the state of Florida.

I think that Pioli didn't want to play that game, that is why he made the trade instead. If you think about it, they traded the 219th pick (which will actually be @ the 235th pick after the comp picks are announced) for the sake of not having Miami, not hit one of our RFA with the same "poison pill" in the future.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

There is nothing to this case.

Respectfully, that's wishful thinking.

It's a clear violation of both the CBA and the labor law to deprive or to attempt to deprive a protected bargaining member of a CBA right through collusion.

Your premise seems to be that the NFLPA must prove there was colusion by something like a criminal burden of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt or something. That's not true. It's a preponderance of the evidence standard. Moreover, it's ultimately a case that will turn on intent, which is always proved by circumstantial evidence, by necessity.

The best argument I've heard you make is one that would go like this -- A club can decide that uncertainty about whether another team will match a contract with a poison pill is sufficient for it to give more in trade than the tender-level pick.

I think that's the Patriot's best shot, and it will be a test case. Respectfully, if I were deciding which side to take, I'd take the other side on the one.

I think an arbitrator can quite easily decide that it's always a simple matter to write a poison pill agreement that will work. And I think the NFLPA's lawyer gets to sit there and ask the dolphins representative under oath a series of hypothetical poison pill contracts and ask whether the Dolphins would match -- starting with reasonable ones and moving to exceptional ones. I think that would be pretty effective cross examination.

The reality is that it's a very simple matter to write a true poison pill that is foolproof. And an arbitrator is not going to miss that point. It's a critical weakness with the case.

Put another way, if the Patriot's try the position above, there are really only two conclusions an arbitrator could make:

1) The Patriots did in fact give the 7th to avoid poison pill uncertainty.

2) The Patriots gave the 7th to avoid the unseemlyness of using the poison pill.

Number 2 is a violation. Number 2 also is far and away the most reasonable conclusion -- in fact, it's the one we all came to on this very board right after the deal and the one that Kraft is reported to have desired and brought about (apparently without getting counsel from a labor lawyer first).