Raiders willing to trade Asomugha

[RobertWeathers]

Last year we all know AL kicked the tires with vince.also looking at what he got for burgess a bum of a DE/OLB .

how about one 1st and one 2nd with vince thrown in.

Way too much for NA. Vince and a mid-round pick would do it (guessing)

Keep in mind OAK operated in 2008 negative in net income and quite possibly may have last year as well. If there isn't a season in 2011, they need to unload assets. AKA players now.

My point: All depends how desperate they are and what they are willing to take.

 

[DonBlackmon55]

oww, are the raiders stupid

so u first sign the guy to the most expensive deal for a db ever...and a year later want to trade him?

You're now in the AlTwilight Zone.........

 

[VJCPatriot]

They need to dump his salary but who would give up the cap room AND the pick for him? It might be funny if the Raiders had to cut him and he became a free agent outright.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

According to Rotoworld the Jets could reastically be interested in acquiring Asomugha somehow. That would be insane.

Only under the rules of an expiring CBA the final four teams are precluded from trading for a player they could not sign if he were a FA... So unless they lose a player to FA with a contract equal to Asomugha's...and they don't have anybody like that...

 

[Miguel]

Only under the rules of an expiring CBA the final four teams are precluded from trading for a player they could not sign if he were a FA.

The CBA says:"

No Club subject to the provisions of this Article may, for one League Year,
trade for a player it otherwise would not be permitted to sign as an Unrestricted Free Agent as a result of​

the provisions in this Article."

Since he is not an UFA and would not be an UFA on March 5th, NA can indeed be traded to a Final Eight team.

 

[emoney_33]

The CBA says:"

No Club subject to the provisions of this Article may, for one League Year,
trade for a player it otherwise would not be permitted to sign as an Unrestricted Free Agent as a result of​

the provisions in this Article."

Since he is not an UFA and would not be an UFA on March 5th, NA can indeed be traded to a Final Eight team.

I thought it was that since he is not a UFA, they "would not be permitted to sign him as a UFA"...

But that "as a result of the privisions of this Article".... so who exactly can't top 8 teams trade for

 

[moosekill]

The CBA says:"

No Club subject to the provisions of this Article may, for one League Year,
trade for a player it otherwise would not be permitted to sign as an Unrestricted Free Agent as a result of​

the provisions in this Article."

Since he is not an UFA and would not be an UFA on March 5th, NA can indeed be traded to a Final Eight team.

Pretty confusing language but I read it like Mo did. A team can't trade for a guy who isn't a UFA if they wouldn't have been able to sign him if he was a UFA. Too bad they make it so confusing

 

[emoney_33]

Pretty confusing language but I read it like Mo did. A team can't trade for a guy who isn't a UFA if they wouldn't have been able to sign him if he was a UFA. Too bad they make it so confusing

I don't get how do you trade for a UFA anyway?

 

[makoute]

How sweet would this be, however how serious are the Raiders in trading this guy? Although, I had to wonder when he signed the extension, what the hell was HE thinking?

Have you seen the money the Raiders are paying him.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I thought it was that since he is not a UFA, they "would not be permitted to sign him as a UFA"...

But that "as a result of the privisions of this Article".... so who exactly can't top 8 teams trade for

Another example of the clear-as-mud writing of the CBA.

[Personally, my interpretation is closer to yours than Miguel's—if the final eight team couldn't take on the remainder of that player's contract if he were a UFA, they can't trade for him, either.]

 

[spacecrime]

For those of us who knew the Raiders from the early 80's it's kinda sad actually.

For those of us who knew the raiders in 1976, it is kind of glorius actually.

 

[Patjew]

Watching "Full Color Football" has changed my thinking about Al Davis. It's a really well-done series.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

For those of us who knew the raiders in 1976, it is kind of glorius actually.

:eat3::woohoo:

 

[Joker]

I still hate Ben Dreith...not dislike...I HATE him

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I still hate Ben Dreith...not dislike...I HATE him

He feels the same way about us, may his fleas never sleep.

 

[Miguel]

Released players are fair game for "final eight" teams | ProFootballTalk.com

"The limitations of the Final Eight Plan, as Masonson explained it, apply only to players with six or more years of service whose contracts expire after the 2009 season."

 

[Miguel]

More on the finer points of the "Final Eight Plan" | ProFootballTalk.com

 

[BradyFTW!]

I know there's no chance of it happening, so I'm not even going to bother saying it.

PS, I'd rather keep Wilfork if the choice is VW or Asomugha.

It's a tough choice, but I think I'd take Asomugha. Essentially because, in today's NFL, I'd rather have an elite CB and a decent NT than an elite NT and a decent CB.

 

[RobertWeathers]

For those of us who knew the raiders in 1976, it is kind of glorius actually.

I hear you on that. .

I guess I'm nostalgic.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Another example of the clear-as-mud writing of the CBA.

[Personally, my interpretation is closer to yours than Miguel's—if the final eight team couldn't take on the remainder of that player's contract if he were a UFA, they can't trade for him, either.]

I agree, and since Miguel is referencing PFT (while I was relying on Pats1's sticky):

Final Eight Plan limitations apply to trades, too | ProFootballTalk.com

This is the PFT entry that the one Miguel referenced referred back to via link as providing the so called clarification. Sometimes I think when Florio asks for clarification he then extrapolates it into something other than what was offered:

For the next four teams (Cardinals, Cowboys, Ravens, Chargers), one unrestricted free agent may be signed at a base salary of $5.5 million or more, and an unlimited amount of others at a first-year salary of $3.7 million with a 30-percent limit on growth.

It had been assumed by many that these teams nevertheless could trade for an unlimited amount of players.

Under Section 7 of Article XXI of the CBA, they can't.

Here's the key language: "No Club subject to the provisions of this Article may, for one League Year, trade for a player it otherwise would not be permitted to sign as an Unrestricted Free Agent as a result of the provisions of this Article."

I interpret that as final 4 teams cannot trade for a player who, if he had been an UFA, they would not otherwise be able to sign (without having lost a similarly contracted player to FA). The JETS aren't losing any remotely similarly contracted player to FA since all their top tier starters remain under contract beyond 2010. They state the exception is franchise tagged players who can be signed to an offer sheet for the full compensation but not traded for for less...

Although considering what little draft capital the JETS also have this year, handing it all to Al for one more player to kill their cap come 2011-2012 presents kind of an enticing proposition from any competitors perspectives. And Knowing Al I'd imagine the only players he's really looking to unload are the ones he overpaid for who underperformed thereafter, as opposed to a guy like Nnamdi for whom he would still expect top tier draft compensation even given the contract...