For the PFW Weekly guys

[Miguel]

I was listening to this week's roster report.

1.)Sean Gilbert has been the only franchise player that was signed by another team and his old team got two #1 picks by deciding not to match the offer. Galloway was a franchise player that was traded for two #1 picks.

2.)Before recommending that Graham be given the transition tag, I would look up what happened to Steve Hutchinson and Nate Burleson and see how the poison pills have made the transition tag meaningless.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I don't think many have talked about transitioning Graham.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Were they claiming Asante would net two #1's? LOL But I'd settle for a high two and/or some slot swaps and some more maneuvering fodder to give us added flexibility on day 1.

As for the transition tag, did I read where you could use both (or was that in 2006 to transition to the new CBA) or is it still one or the other? The commissioner has been pretty clear that he will take a dim view of any team that tries to utilize that loophole going forward. He reportedly has been negotiating with the union to get it closed although last I read they haven't been able to come to an agreement on a quid pro quo for doing him that favor.

 

[Miguel]

8:43 of the podcast

 

[Miguel]

As for the transition tag, did I read where you could use both (or was that in 2006 to transition to the new CBA) or is it still one or the other?

In a capped year, it was one or the other.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Were they claiming Asante would net two #1's? LOL But I'd settle for a high two and/or some slot swaps and some more maneuvering fodder to give us added flexibility on day 1.

That's the irritating thing, when we talk about Franchising no-one seriously thinks we'd get that. But The Jest Franchised John Abraham last year and traded him for the pick with which they took Nick Mangold. If they can do that with Abraham there's NO reason we shouldn't be able to get a 2008 #1 (lower value than a #1 this year) or a #2 this year and next, or something along those lines.

 

[Murphys95]

I was listening to this week's roster report.

1.)Sean Gilbert has been the only franchise player that was signed by another team and his old team got two #1 picks by deciding not to match the offer. Galloway was a franchise player that was traded for two #1 picks.

2.)Before recommending that Graham be given the transition tag, I would look up what happened to Steve Hutchinson and Nate Burleson and see how the poison pills have made the transition tag meaningless.

You might also add that Gilbert sat out for an entire season, refusing to play for the Redskins in '97. Carolina forked up the picks and the cash. Was it worth it? You be the judge. Or better yet, just say the name Sean Gilbert and most fans will respond, "Who?"

 

[Miguel]

The commissioner has been pretty clear that he will take a dim view of any team that tries to utilize that loophole going forward. He reportedly has been negotiating with the union to get it closed although last I read they haven't been able to come to an agreement on a quid pro quo for doing him that favor.

Without a deal with the union, taking a dim view of a team that uses poison pills means what?? How can the commish punish a team for taking advantage of agreed-upon rules??

 

[Miguel]

You might also add that Gilbert sat out for an entire season, refusing to play for the Redskins in '97. Carolina forked up the picks and the cash. Was it worth it? You be the judge. Or better yet, just say the name Sean Gilbert and most fans will respond, "Who?"

So true which is probably why those guys forgot about him

 

[JoeSixPat]

I would look up what happened to Steve Hutchinson and Nate Burleson and see how the poison pills have made the transition tag meaningless.

I'm amazed they haven't done anything to address the poison pill issue that came up last year.

Prior to the draft it seemed to me the Pats had an opportunity to use that to acquire an RFA punter (Green Bay's?) though at the time everyone was saying it was just a matter of time before they "re-closed" that loophole.

I never heard anything more about it - and from what you say I guess the league still hasn't clamped down on it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

They are working on it, but I think it recently took a back seat to a few other concerns like the new Merriman Rule (no post season awards for the cheaters). The union obviously wants something in trade for closing a loophole that they feel benefits their UFA's. But the league does have it's ways of punishing those who refuse to play ball nice. Especially owners looking for new stadium assistance or support for pet peeves like revenue sharing, or wanting to host a superbowl or avoid transatlantic or pacific road games, etc.

 

[RayClay]

I'm amazed they haven't done anything to address the poison pill issue that came up last year.

Prior to the draft it seemed to me the Pats had an opportunity to use that to acquire an RFA punter (Green Bay's?) though at the time everyone was saying it was just a matter of time before they "re-closed" that loophole.

I never heard anything more about it - and from what you say I guess the league still hasn't clamped down on it.

That provision by which the Vikes screwed Seattle out of Hutchinson is just wrong.

Of course the Walrus retaliating by signing Burleson to a 7yr. 7 mil$ contract, then not using him and overpaying for Branch was just stoopid.

 

[Miguel]

They are working on it, but I think it recently took a back seat to a few other concerns like the new Merriman Rule (no post season awards for the cheaters). The union obviously wants something in trade for closing a loophole that they feel benefits their UFA's. But the league does have it's ways of punishing those who refuse to play ball nice. Especially owners looking for new stadium assistance or support for pet peeves like revenue sharing, or wanting to host a superbowl or avoid transatlantic or pacific road games, etc.

Without an agreement by the union, any transition offer that does not include a poison pill is going to be scrutinized by the NFLPA and will probably be considered collusion by the NFLPA.

There is an excellent analysis on this on PFT.
http://profootballtalk.com/10-1-06through10-15-06.htm

If there is not an agreement with the union by 2/22, is a team, specifically the Pats, going to gamble that there will be one later on this year??

Note that once a player signs a transition tender he is guaranteed that tender amount.