Big Score 1 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Just an FYI for people who are under the impression that the Vikes & Brzezinski came up with the idea of a "Poison Pill" clause and were the first to use it. Pretty old concept actually. The first major instance of a "Poison Pill" I can remember, is with C Mart back in 1998. Parcells signed Martin to an offer sheet - a six-year deal for $36 million that included a one-year option for $4 million and a clause that would make Martin an unrestricted free agent after the 1999 season. At the time, Patriots head coach Pete Carroll was stunned. The Patriots' owner, Robert Kraft, was furious. The Pats filed a complaint with the NFL Management Council alleging that the one-year option was a ''poison pill'' that was negotiated with Martin's agent to get him out of New England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Just an FYI for people who are under the impression that the Vikes & Brzezinski came up with the idea of a "Poison Pill" clause and were the first to use it. Pretty old concept actually. The first major instance of a "Poison Pill" I can remember, is with C Mart back in 1998. 1399405[/snapback] They just brought it back to life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 The first major instance of a "Poison Pill" I can remember, is with C Mart back in 1998. 1399405[/snapback] Will Wolford in 1993 The league thought they had closed a loophole in the transition-player process in 1993. The Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause guaranteeing he be the team's highest-paid offensive player. The Bills already had quarterback Jim Kelly as their highest-paid offensive player. They argued the clause violated the collective bargaining agreement. An arbiter said it did not. The Bills declined to match the offer sheet, and Wolford signed with the Colts to become their highest-paid offensive player. After that decision, the league and the union amended the CBA. It now states that no team attempting to match an offer sheet for one of its transition players can be required by a Wolford-like clause to pay that player more than what the offering team would pay him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Captain Hook brought up the one from 1993ish. Will Wolford OT, had to be the highest paid player on the team. Colts stunk Bills had Kelly, Thurman, Bruce etc... I remember it well though he beat me to the post he made... I would even suspect there was stuff about supplying players with cars and homes and comp tickets back in the 60's and 70's. Not the same thing as there was no free agency then as we have now, but incentives that some teams couldn't or wouldn't match none the less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Yup. Point is to educate fellow Huddlers who may be too young, or not remember, these previous "Poison Pill" cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) It was funny that everyone was so upset. It's been done before. Why hadn't the NFL completely closed the loophole? Why hadn't someone else taken advantage of it since then? Edited April 2, 2006 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) the woolford one was similar, and it directly resulted in a rule change. i don't see how the martin one is at all the same, though. i don't see anything in there resembling a clause that makes it impossible for the old team to match. teams signing restricted free agents are always going to make it as difficult as possible for the old team to match. like when the rangers signed joe sakic to an offer sheet in like 1997, with a huge signing bonus and first year salary that they hoped the smaller market avalanche couldn't match. if it's dollars to dollars and years to years, that sort of thing is perfectly fair. what is NOT fair is an offer sheet that is for $15 million guaranteed for one team, and $49 million guaranteed for the other team to match. that is bullchit. it may have happend once before in the NFL, 15 years ago, requiring an amendment to the CBA to fix it. i don't see how that excuses the current example. it was shortsighted dick move circumventing the rules then, and it is the same thing now. Edited April 2, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 i don't see how the martin one is at all the same, though. i don't see anything in there resembling a clause that makes it impossible for the old team to match.1399449[/snapback] Azazello1313, If I'm remembering the Pats financial situation at that time correctly, they weren't in a position to sign him to the multi year contract and the one year contract did them no good as the clause in it prohibited placing tags on Martin thereafter. That was the "Poison Pill" clause, though different from the Seahawks, Vikes or Wolford "Poison Pills". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 It was funny that everyone was so upset. It's been done before. Why hadn't the NFL completely closed the loophole? Why hadn't someone else taken advantage of it since then? 1399448[/snapback] More importantly why did the NFL alow it to stand on appleal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Azazello1313, If I'm remembering the Pats financial situation at that time correctly, they weren't in a position to sign him to the multi year contract and the one year contract did them no good as the clause in it prohibited placing tags on Martin thereafter. That was the "Poison Pill" clause, though different from the Seahawks, Vikes or Wolford "Poison Pills". 1399482[/snapback] but the terms were the same for both teams, no? if, say, you draft a contract with a big first year cap hit for a free agent with a team with no cap space, you're essentially forcing their hand into not matching, but if the terms are the same for both teams then i think it's fair. the line gets crossed, IMO, when the offer sheet essentially has completely different terms for the different teams. it seems to me that happend with woolford and hutchinson, but not with curtis martin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 (edited) but the terms were the same for both teams, no? if, say, you draft a contract with a big first year cap hit for a free agent with a team with no cap space, you're essentially forcing their hand into not matching, but if the terms are the same for both teams then i think it's fair. the line gets crossed, IMO, when the offer sheet essentially has completely different terms for the different teams. it seems to me that happend with woolford and hutchinson, but not with curtis martin. 1399501[/snapback] Point is, if the Pats had matched, Martin would have exercised the one year option. Not so with the Jets. Hence it being a "Poison Pill". Doesn't really matter whether or not we agree, or disagree, that the Martin contract parameters fall into the catagory of a "Poison Pill" clause or not. Fact of the matter is, NFL franchises do clasify it that way. Edited April 2, 2006 by Big Score 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Point is, if the Pats had matched, Martin would have exercised the one year option. Not so with the Jets. Hence it being a "Poison Pill" 1399511[/snapback] yeah, i see your point...all it really did though is create a player's option. obviously, the jets knew that martin didn't want to sign a longer term deal with the pats. but still it was up to martin. the contract gave HIM the leverage to decide his own destiny. it's a fine line, but i think a player's option like martin's falls on the "fair" side of that line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 yeah, i see your point...all it really did though is create a player's option. obviously, the jets knew that martin didn't want to sign a longer term deal with the pats. but still it was up to martin. the contract gave HIM the leverage to decide his own destiny. it's a fine line, but i think a player's option like martin's falls on the "fair" side of that line. 1399522[/snapback] That's fine. Debating whether or not the Martin contract had a "Poison Pill" in it or not, was not really the point of this thread though. It was designed to make those unaware of previous instances of "Poison Pill" contracts and that have been in existence long before this most recent go round with the Vikes & Hutch. I think it has done that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin' 1399452[/snapback] no no no " if u dont cheet youre only cheeting yourself" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.