Drawing Parallels b/w Gronk trade and Brown trade? NFL Regulations for Trades?

patfanken said:

BTW- I have always thought that Detroit report to somewhat spurious. Why didn't one of the many great reporters we have covering this team get wind of it when it was happening. Why didn't we hear about it until SEVERAL months after it happened. Just sayin'

Click to expand...

Huh? There were TONS of trade rumors about Gronkowski last spring. There was even a Friday in June in with multiple people reporting that Gronk had been traded. Patriots completely denied it.

No way to know what really happened because in the NFL, everybody lies [/I]all the time. Team execs, coaches, agents, ball boys, everyone. Straight up lie right to people's faces, on TV, one day, and then the next day say the exact opposite, without any acknowledgement, let alone embarrassment.

lamafist said:

Huh? There were TONS of trade rumors about Gronkowski last spring. There was even a Friday in June in with multiple people reporting that Gronk had been traded. Patriots completely denied it.

No way to know what really happened because in the NFL, everybody lies [/I]all the time. Team execs, coaches, agents, ball boys, everyone. Straight up lie right to people's faces, on TV, one day, and then the next day say the exact opposite, without any acknowledgement, let alone embarrassment.

Click to expand...

The gronk trade rumors in June were from a guy posting on Reddit.

lamafist said:

Huh? There were TONS of trade rumors about Gronkowski last spring. There was even a Friday in June in with multiple people reporting that Gronk had been traded. Patriots completely denied it.

No way to know what really happened because in the NFL, everybody lies [/I]all the time. Team execs, coaches, agents, ball boys, everyone. Straight up lie right to people's faces, on TV, one day, and then the next day say the exact opposite, without any acknowledgement, let alone embarrassment.

Click to expand...

Tons of RUMORS. those are just speculations from the "connect the dots" wing of the media. They do that with EVERY Pats player who is either making a lot of money or getting long in the tooth. Those reports have no more value than what we do here most days.

As to the lying. I can't agree more. This is the "fog of war" that every FO puts forth in the ultra competitive NFL. But that's my point. Since what we hear is all so speculative, I think its very fair to wonder just how serious any trade rumors for Gronk last season actually were.

what do you think the league is going to be able to do? Fine them?

Good luck with that.

patfanken said:

Tons of RUMORS. those are just speculations from the "connect the dots" wing of the media. They do that with EVERY Pats player who is either making a lot of money or getting long in the tooth. Those reports have no more value than what we do here most days.

As to the lying. I can't agree more. This is the "fog of war" that every FO puts forth in the ultra competitive NFL. But that's my point. Since what we hear is all so speculative, I think its very fair to wonder just how serious any trade rumors for Gronk last season actually were.

Click to expand...

This wasn’t a rumor:

Gronk confirms he nixed Lions trade: 'Brady's my QB'

HailHydra said:

Imagine we have the desire to trade a player like Marcus Cannon, for example, in the future, but he refuses to be traded to a team like the Cardinals, Raiders, Giants, etc. due to their ineptitude. Obviously he can't refuse to be traded, but he can refuse to show up to practice - something that would very likely nix the entire trade. Players can abuse that power to virtually choose that they are being traded to a team that they approve of.

Click to expand...

And the problem with this is? Let the player have at least a little leverage. More importantly what is the solution? How do you force someone to report instead of retire?

I'd say that choosing to retire and foregoing future earnings is really not abusing any power.

AndyJohnson said:

The player agrees that he can be traded and the team agrees he can quit, but he has to return his unearned signing bonus.
You lost me with being sued.

Click to expand...

It's really not that complicated. The OP asked if there should be restrictions or penalties for players that disrupt trade talks by refusing to report somewhere. My stance is simple: if teams have the right to cut a player without cause at any moment of the contract, I have no issue with a player exercising his right to prevent a trade to a team he has no interest playing for.

Giving back part of the signing bonus has always been an issue if a player retires during a contract. So that isn't a new penalty the NFL could add to prevent players from stopping trades.

HailHydra said:

Imagine we have the desire to trade a player like Marcus Cannon, for example, in the future, but he refuses to be traded to a team like the Cardinals, Raiders, Giants, etc. due to their ineptitude. Obviously he can't refuse to be traded, but he can refuse to show up to practice - something that would very likely nix the entire trade. Players can abuse that power to virtually choose that they are being traded to a team that they approve of.

Click to expand...

Now imagine the company you work for says they are trading you to a company in Buffalo, and then says you can’t refuse to stop working for them.

chasa said:

what do you think the league is going to be able to do? Fine them?

Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

The league should force them to play hard while they are at it.

AndyJohnson said:

Please explain what I said that was incorrect.

And where did I say anything they were doing was outside of their contract? You kinda made that one up.

Do you not find it strange to be calling a stranger on a message board names?

Click to expand...

You jumped in on the side of a pister claiming that players are "abusing their power" by refusing to play if they are traded saying they agreed to a contract that makes them at-will employees. You seem to have mistaken a contract for a covenant. A contract has narrow legal implications, and a signatory is free to utilize any extra-contractual leverage they have against the other party unless they've signed away those rights or unless they violate law. Neither an NFL contract nor labor law prohibits what Brown or Gronk did.

You're just angry that players are using that leverage and trying to justify the fact you believe the contract they signed implies they should just sit down and let the owners do whatever they want to them. I am calling you a name because it's funny that it makes you so mad, and also because it's true.

primetime said:

You jumped in on the side of a pister claiming that players are "abusing their power" by refusing to play if they are traded saying they agreed to a contract that makes them at-will employees. You seem to have mistaken a contract for a covenant. A contract has narrow legal implications, and a signatory is free to utilize any extra-contractual leverage they have against the other party unless they've signed away those rights or unless they violate law. Neither an NFL contract nor labor law prohibits what Brown or Gronk did.

Click to expand...

Please reread. I said absolutely nothing negative about a player doing anything.
What I responded to was “how is it fair to cut a guy with 4 years left on his contract” by STATING THE FACTS. There was literally no opinion in anything I said.

You're just angry that players are using that leverage and trying to justify the fact you believe the contract they signed implies they should just sit down and let the owners do whatever they want to them. I am calling you a name because it's funny that it makes you so mad, and also because it's true.

Click to expand...

You made this up out of whole cloth. There is no a word in my post that comes to close to that.
As far as name calling, I forgive you. It’s not your fault that you are a human who makes something up to call another person bame because you thinks it’s funny that people don’t like being called names. Someone raised you that way or taught you that. It’s not your fault. I truly hope you can gain lightenment and I understand it’s not easy dealing with others with your socialist sensibilities so you don’t really have much choice but to act superior and arrogant toward everyone to deal with that.
Good luck to you!!!![/QUOTE]

AndyJohnson said:

Is it really necessary that you act like this?

Click to expand...

Apparently it is.

Crazy Patriot Guy said:

It's really not that complicated. The OP asked if there should be restrictions or penalties for players that disrupt trade talks by refusing to report somewhere. My stance is simple: if teams have the right to cut a player without cause at any moment of the contract, I have no issue with a player exercising his right to prevent a trade to a team he has no interest playing for.

Click to expand...

Nor should you, or anyone. That’s part of what they bargained for in the cba.

Giving back part of the signing bonus has always been an issue if a player retires during a contract. So that isn't a new penalty the NFL could add to prevent players from stopping trades.

Click to expand...

I’m sorry if you took me as saying that’s new. It has always been in place. Perhaps you misunderstood that I was stating what is bot any change, which really isn’t needed because there is nothing wrong with the player doing that.
My post agrees with you, I just don’t understand where the part about suing came in.

AndyJohnson said:

As far as name calling, I forgive you. It’s not your fault that you are a human who makes something up to call another person a MSN’s you thinks it’s funny that people don’t like being called names. Someone raised you that way or taught you that. It’s not your fault. I truly hope you can gain lightenment and I understand it’s not easy dealing with others with your socialist sensibilities so you don’t really have much choice but to act superior and arrogant toward everyone to deal with that.
Good luck to you!!!!

Click to expand...

lmao you're so mad

primetime said:

lmao you're so mad

Click to expand...

I’m not mad at all.
I am curious why that would be so important to you though
You may want to find a hobby. Spending your time insulting people on the internet so you can try to make them mad seems like a big waste of time.
Perhaps you could do some charity work, or buy a sandwich for a homeless guy. That would probably turn your hate into a good feeling!!!!

Employees have too many rights! Employers are the real ones we need to crusade for.

Elijah said:

Employees have too many rights! Employers are the real ones we need to crusade for.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with you there.
By and large employees are replaceable. A lot of employers can get by with one less employee but not many employees can get by with one less job.
And the ones that have the least leverage are the ones who need protection.
We have a whole history or legislation and court rulings that show just the opposite of what you say here.

AndyJohnson said:

My post agrees with you, I just don’t understand where the part about suing came in.

Click to expand...

It was just something I threw out there since there is no stipulation that says a player has breached his contract if he doesn't want to play for another team. There's no legal action the team can take. They can cut him. If the player retires, they can try to get some signing bonus back. That's it, and that's the way it should stay. And we are on the same page on that it seems.

primetime said:

lmao you're so mad

Click to expand...

By the way, if it did make me mad, I would much rather be the guy who got mad because someone insulted me that be the guy rejoicing over being able to throw an insult at a random person on the internet and make them mad.
I suspect we are very different people.

Crazy Patriot Guy said:

It was just something I threw out there since there is no stipulation that says a player has breached his contract if he doesn't want to play for another team. There's no legal action the team can take. They can cut him. If the player retires, they can try to get some signing bonus back. That's it, and that's the way it should stay. And we are on the same page on that it seems.

Click to expand...

Right, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying there was a suggestion that the team could or should sue the player which of course is silly (other than the signing bonus issue).