Could Mankins and Brady receive a career exemption from the franchise tag

I was just reading that Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are trying to negotiate a career exemption from the franchise tag. My understanding is they need to sign off on the new CBA since they are plaintiffs in the anti trust suit against the NFL. Reggie White received such an exemption in 1992 when he was the lead plaintiff in the anti trust suit from the 1987 filing.

Do you think Mankins and Brady would be in line to receive such exemptions as well? Both are listed as plaintiffs in the anti trust suit. I am sure this issue is more important to Mankins since he is currently carrying the franchise tag.

I doubt it for this market but I was thinking about this recently and believe that there should be such a mechanism for veteran players. Imo teams should be able to use the franchise designation for one new deal, and I would be fine with it still being applied 2 years running under the current rules, however i think that after a player has signed two multi year deals with a team and has had the franchise on them after their rookie deal expired that they should be exempt from further use of the tag. I don't think it is fair to Brady or Manning or any other player that they can never have any say on where they play, and if they spent 8-10 years playing for their original team and wanted to back to their hometown team or play in a certain city or for a certain franchise that they have earned that right and shouldn't be denied an opportunity where they may feel they have a chance for a ring or where they want to live and raise their families.

If after 8-10 years a team doesn't have enough good will with a star player to get a deal done without locking them down then they really shouldn't have the right to deny them their opportunity to go out on the real free market.

I think that the contract that Brady just signed is the last one he will have with this team.

Patspsycho said:

I think that the contract that Brady just signed is the last one he will have with this team.

Click to expand...

I would agree only if Brady is retiring. If not, I believe he stays with the Pats..

FWIW I got a chance to listen to Schefter on Mike and Mike Friday and he said while he doubts it'll happen, the players debated with the owners for about 2-4 hours about that issue. So he said it was definitely discussed and doesn't think it'll happen.

I don't quite understand the reason why they feel entitled in the settlement. Were the circumstances any different back then with Reggie White?

DaBruinz said:

I would agree only if Brady is retiring. If not, I believe he stays with the Pats..

Click to expand...

I disagree that Brady will stay a Pat for his entire career if he decides to play for the Patriots after the end of this contract. Two major reasons.

1. BB has shown time after time he will only pay for future performance. He has let go of players who had great seasons the previous season if he feels their best years are behind them. Great examples are Ty Law, Willie McGinest, and Mike Vrabel. The big caveat is if BB feels Brady will give him the best value at the position at that time.

2. Most great players have a hard time retiring and end up playing for another team at the end of career. Brett Farve was actually more of the norm than the exception. Many teams are willing to pay these big name players money if it means putting people in the seats. Montana and Unitas played for other teams at the end of their careers.

hallfamebrady said:

I disagree that Brady will stay a Pat for his entire career if he decides to play for the Patriots after the end of this contract. Two major reasons.

1. BB has shown time after time he will only pay for future performance. He has let go of players who had great seasons the previous season if he feels their best years are behind them. Great examples are Ty Law, Willie McGinest, and Mike Vrabel. The big caveat is if BB feels Brady will give him the best value at the position at that time.

2. Most great players have a hard time retiring and end up playing for another team at the end of career. Brett Farve was actually more of the norm than the exception. Many teams are willing to pay these big name players money if it means putting people in the seats. Montana and Unitas played for other teams at the end of their careers.

Click to expand...

That unfortunately is going to be the reality.

I doubt it will happen. The who concept of free agency and the franchise tag were foreign concepts to the NFL. The salary cap for nearly the first decade was only used to keep elite players. Back in 1993, a guy like Mankins probably wouldn't have gotten franchised.

At the time of the agreement in 1993, giving Reggie White an exemption from the franchise tag wasn't considered as big as of a deal as it would be today. In fact, the Patriots didn't even use the franchise tag for nearly the first decade it was available (Adam Vinatieri was the first Patriot to receive it in 2002).

hallfamebrady said:

I disagree that Brady will stay a Pat for his entire career if he decides to play for the Patriots after the end of this contract. Two major reasons.

1. BB has shown time after time he will only pay for future performance. He has let go of players who had great seasons the previous season if he feels their best years are behind them. Great examples are Ty Law, Willie McGinest, and Mike Vrabel. The big caveat is if BB feels Brady will give him the best value at the position at that time.

2. Most great players have a hard time retiring and end up playing for another team at the end of career. Brett Farve was actually more of the norm than the exception. Many teams are willing to pay these big name players money if it means putting people in the seats. Montana and Unitas played for other teams at the end of their careers.

Click to expand...

Brady is a once in a lifetime type player. Law, McGinest, Vrabel were never the unanimous best 1 or 2 best players in the leaugue, not even close. They also played positions that required speed and young legs to some extent. You can't compare a 35 yo LB or CB to a 35 yo QB.

I think your caveat will hold true. Unless Hoyer, Mallett or someone else give the Pats a better chance to win over Brady than they won't replace him. I don't see that happening for a very long time.

The Favre and Montana situations were unique. I hated seeing SF choosing Young over Montana and I wasn't even a fan of the team.

I also believe that BB has got to hold Brady a little bit above everyone else he has ever coached because Brady's of production and commitment. Not to mention I don't see Kraft letting Brady go to another team. I don't see him playing for another team.

hallfamebrady said:

I was just reading that Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are trying to negotiate a career exemption from the franchise tag. My understanding is they need to sign off on the new CBA since they are plaintiffs in the anti trust suit against the NFL.

Click to expand...

I don't see any way one or two (or three or four) players have veto power over the whole deal and have the ability to hold the entire process hostage unless their get they way. First of all, the public pressure would be ENORMOUS if the NFLPA* and owners came to an agreement but a couple lone superstars held it up. Second of all, the primary reason behind the lawsuit is because there's no union. Once the union recertifies they can, as a group, vote on and approve a new CBA - which would make the lawsuit an entirely moot point.

Wolfpack said:

I don't see any way one or two (or three or four) players have veto power over the whole deal and have the ability to hold the entire process hostage unless they get they way. First of all, the public pressure would be ENORMOUS if the NFLPA* and owners came to an agreement but a couple lone superstars held it up. Second of all, the primary reason behind the lawsuit is because there's no union. Once the union recertifies they can, as a group, vote on and approve a new CBA - which would make the lawsuit an entirely moot point.

Click to expand...

Actually, it wouldn't; there'd still need to be either a settlement or the plaintiffs (i.e., the NFLPA*) would need to dismiss the case.

I do agree, though, that it would be terrible optics for one or two of those players to try to gum up the works over a "me first" issue. [Especially if it's rookie Von Miller. . . .]

ctpatsfan77 said:

Actually, it wouldn't; there'd still need to be either a settlement or the plaintiffs (i.e., the NFLPA*) would need to dismiss the case.

Click to expand...

No no... what I'm saying is that the case could proceed but they would lose royally. The whole point of the lawsuit is anti-trust violations on the part of the league. But with a CBA in place, there are no anti-trust violations.

Without a CBA, their lawsuit has a great deal of merit because the NFL's system does violate anti-trust laws. With a CBA, their lawsuit has absolutely zero merit and they'd do nothing in court other than make complete fools of themselves.

First to address then attempted hijacks...the tags will remain (they actually need them more now to help drive the salary train) and Brady will get another extension in 2013 unless his arms or legs are falling off... That will be his to retirement deal and will take him to 39 or 40 and he will either play out that deal or retire of his own accord and by mutual consent with a year left on the deal.

As for the exemptions, that is Brees and Manning's intrepid agent, Tom Condon, attempting to flex his remaining muscles after a deal got done that he had little or no input into (he was for years Gene Upshaw's personal agent and CBA confidant...). The reason White got a bone in the 1993 settlement was because the case actually went to trial and the class he represented won and what they won was FA so since a franchise tag was being implemented he was exempted. This suit has yet to get past preliminary motions... There is no way Polian will allow Manning to be exempt with a 3 day window and Condon holding a gun to his head... And no way Manning participates in a genuine holdup. He's just letting Condon flex for show.

Wolfpack said:

I don't see any way one or two (or three or four) players have veto power over the whole deal and have the ability to hold the entire process hostage unless their get they way. First of all, the public pressure would be ENORMOUS if the NFLPA* and owners came to an agreement but a couple lone superstars held it up. Second of all, the primary reason behind the lawsuit is because there's no union. Once the union recertifies they can, as a group, vote on and approve a new CBA - which would make the lawsuit an entirely moot point.

Click to expand...

This is correct as I understand it. Also, I believe a majority of the named plaintiffs signing off is all it takes to achieve a settlement.

And for the record, Mort says what they are angling for is no franchise tag for the plaintiffs going forward (as in 2012 or beyond...). Still don't think they will ultimately get that concession but that somewhat limits it's impact from our or Indy's standpoint. Not that many guys ever get tagged two years in a row. Would have more impact for a guy like Brees as leverage going forward.

I hope not, because Reiss things that Mankins would be long gone in a true free agent situation.

I wouldn't mind seeing this happen just to see what would happen to the market if Peyton Manning was a free agent. Also, let's see what Jim Sorgi has in the tank.

RelocatedPatFan said:

I wouldn't mind seeing this happen just to see what would happen to the market if Peyton Manning was a free agent. Also, let's see what Jim Sorgi has in the tank.

Click to expand...

Sorgi is long gone from Indy (backing up Jr. on the Giants). The Colts are now probing the Curtis Painter era...

MoLewisrocks said:

Sorgi is long gone from Indy (backing up Jr. on the Giants). The Colts are now probing the Curtis Painter era...

Click to expand...

Hand-me-downs with backup QBs...that's somwhat distrubing.