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

[HailHydra]

Last year, it was well known that - according to reports - Gronkowski was getting traded to the Lions before he came in, stated that he would retire if he were traded to the Lions, and ultimately nixed the trade.

Similarly, it appears that Brown ended a trade with the Bills that had been in progress, noting that he would not show up to the facilities. While Brown was much more vocal and assertive - to be nice - in his actions, it appears the overall narrative could be true. The other difference that I see is that Brown wanted a trade, while Gronkowski didn't. Yet, the end results remains that the players were able to dictate the results of a trade. Despite NE having Gronk's contractual rights, Gronk's actions prevented the team from going through with the trade. Brown, seemingly, did the same as well over the past week.

Should the NFL have some restrictions or penalties to prevent the players from having such an impact on trade talks?

 

[FoxboroFlyer]

The NFLPA would have a major issue with that, I'm guessing.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Last year, it was well known that - according to reports - Gronkowski was getting traded to the Lions before he came in, stated that he would retire if he were traded to the Lions, and ultimately nixed the trade.

Similarly, it appears that Brown ended a trade with the Bills that had been in progress, noting that he would not show up to the facilities. While Brown was much more vocal and assertive - to be nice - in his actions, it appears the overall narrative could be true. The other difference that I see is that Brown wanted a trade, while Gronkowski didn't. Yet, the end results remains that the players were able to dictate the results of a trade. Despite NE having Gronk's contractual rights, Gronk's actions prevented the team from going through with the trade. Brown, seemingly, did the same as well over the past week.

Should the NFL have some restrictions or penalties to prevent the players from having such an impact on trade talks?

What's wrong with players having power like this?

 

[Ring 6]

Last year, it was well known that - according to reports - Gronkowski was getting traded to the Lions before he came in, stated that he would retire if he were traded to the Lions, and ultimately nixed the trade.

Similarly, it appears that Brown ended a trade with the Bills that had been in progress, noting that he would not show up to the facilities. While Brown was much more vocal and assertive - to be nice - in his actions, it appears the overall narrative could be true. The other difference that I see is that Brown wanted a trade, while Gronkowski didn't. Yet, the end results remains that the players were able to dictate the results of a trade. Despite NE having Gronk's contractual rights, Gronk's actions prevented the team from going through with the trade. Brown, seemingly, did the same as well over the past week.

Should the NFL have some restrictions or penalties to prevent the players from having such an impact on trade talks?

You have it backwards.
Gronk was threatening to retire, so the patriots told him to commit to playing or they will trade him. He committed.
It was a threat to get him to stop goofing around not a serious attempt to trade him.

 

[HailHydra]

You have it backwards.
Gronk was threatening to retire, so the patriots told him to commit to playing or they will trade him. He committed.
It was a threat to get him to stop goofing around not a serious attempt to trade him.

Here's what I'm looking at per Mike Reiss @ ESPN:
"Earlier on Sunday, league sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter that the Patriots and Lions were deep into trade discussions last offseason that peaked during the week of the draft, when the teams nearly completed a blockbuster trade involving Gronkowski.

It wasn't that Gronkowski didn't want to play in Detroit; he didn't want to play anywhere other than New England, sources told Schefter. The Patriots had been discussing a trade with a few teams, and Gronkowski wouldn't have reported to any of them, according to sources."

 

[HailHydra]

What's wrong with players having power like this?

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.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's what I'm looking at per Mike Reiss @ ESPN:
"Earlier on Sunday, league sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter that the Patriots and Lions were deep into trade discussions last offseason that peaked during the week of the draft, when the teams nearly completed a blockbuster trade involving Gronkowski.

It wasn't that Gronkowski didn't want to play in Detroit; he didn't want to play anywhere other than New England, sources told Schefter. The Patriots had been discussing a trade with a few teams, and Gronkowski wouldn't have reported to any of them, according to sources."

It’s a story.
As it developed it was very clear what was happenning. The story fed to the press months later doesnt change that.

 

[Nehalem]

So what is the alternative?

Gronk keeps his mouth shut and gets traded to the Lions. And then refuses to play? Because you can't force someone to play if they don't want to.

Somehow I don't think the Patriots ending up with a 1st rounder(or whatever) for essentially nothing would go over well.

 

[Ring 6]

So what is the alternative?

Gronk keeps his mouth shut and gets traded to the Lions. And then refuses to play? Because you can't force someone to play if they don't want to.

Somehow I don't think the Patriots ending up with a 1st rounder(or whatever) for essentially nothing would go over well.

That’s the point. No one is trading for a guy who is publicly debating whether he will retire and making a soap opera out of it. There couldn’t have been real trade talks because there wasn’t a player to trade. Once the patriots called his bluff gronk stopped trying to be the darling of the media and social media.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

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.

If that is players "abusing power," what is it called when a team signs a contract with a player, then cuts him with 4 years remaining?

 

[Froob]

The NFLPA would have a major issue with that, I'm guessing.

True, but they also don’t seem to get anything they want.

 

[Ring 6]

If that is players "abusing power," what is it called when a team signs a contract with a player, then cuts him with 4 years remaining?

It’s called what they agreed to in their contract.
An NFL contract is not even intended to imply guaranteed employment. It is thoroughly understood that the team is agreeing to honor the contract only for so long as it chooses, with no reason necessary to terminate it.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

It’s called what they agreed to in their contract.
An NFL contract is not even intended to imply guaranteed employment. It is thoroughly understood that the team is agreeing to honor the contract only for so long as it chooses, with no reason necessary to terminate it.

Certainly. But there's nothing in that contract that says a player must accept a trade under penalty of being sued if he refuses to go. He can simply choose to quit football instead of playing for a team he has no interest in. My point is I don't consider that abusing power any more than a team cutting a player whenever they feel like.

 

[primetime]

It’s called what they agreed to in their contract.
An NFL contract is not even intended to imply guaranteed employment. It is thoroughly understood that the team is agreeing to honor the contract only for so long as it chooses, with no reason necessary to terminate it.

Nothing these guys are doing is outside of the terms of their contracts you authoritarian freak.

 

[Ring 6]

Certainly. But there's nothing in that contract that says a player must accept a trade under penalty of being sued if he refuses to go. He can simply choose to quit football instead of playing for a team he has no interest in. My point is I don't consider that abusing power any more than a team cutting a player whenever they feel like.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

Nothing these guys are doing is outside of the terms of their contracts you authoritarian freak.

Thanks for the response, not sure why you have to name call.
I don’t understand why you would direct this comment toward me since I said nothing of the sort. I simply explained why cutting a player with 4 years left on his contract is a right the player agreed the team has.

 

[Ring 6]

AndyJohnson dreams of 32 NFL owners lining up to spank him because he's been a very bad boy.

Is it really necessary that you act like this?

 

[primetime]

Thanks for the response, not sure why you have to name call.
I don’t understand why you would direct this comment toward me since I said nothing of the sort. I simply explained why cutting a player with 4 years left on his contract is a right the player agreed the team has.

Because you're an authoritarian freak.

 

[patfanken]

Retirement has ALWAYS been an option for a player who is traded, regardless of the sport. Nothing new or remarkable about that. The reality is that for most of these guys they are never going to make the same kind of money doing something else. Plus being traded is a possibility that comes with the job you signed up for, especially early in your career. Maybe after a decade of making big money, like Gronk, it becomes a legitimate option.

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'

 

[Ring 6]

Because you're an authoritarian freak.

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?