tazinib1 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 NFL owners are still pushing hard for the opportunity to use the right of first refusal on players entering their fifth and sixth seasons, according to FoxSports.com's Jay Glazer.Per Glazer, the owners' consent of four years as the start of free agency is "contingent" upon the players agreeing to three right-of-first-refusals per team in 2011. Owners have always agreed to four years in the past, so they shouldn't count on getting their way on an issue the players will vigorously oppose this time around. Although four- and five-year vets still seem likely to reach unrestricted free agency, don't rule out some kind of one-time-only compromise once the lockout is lifted. could somebody explain this to me? I'm lost with this...yes it appears simple but your dealing with me here. Give me a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_bone65 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 By the title, I figured Lord Opie had started this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 By the title, I figured Lord Opie had started this thread. Lord Opie, Taz they are both challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 as for the quote, I agree, it's odd. I'm thinking it's just another bargining chip that the owners throw out there that they're willing to lose just to create a little more leverage. It's dumb. I'm not so sure. It's pretty simple - the owners want an opportunity to match the best FA offer for a 5th year or 6th year player and retain them. It's not an unreasonable position - after all, the team has spent 4 years training the players from a rookie forward and have incorporated them into the team's system. They may have marketed the team in part by using the fact that they have that player on the roster, and the fans might identify with that player. So the owners are saying that sure, after 4 years if we haven't extended your contract through mutual agreement, go ahead and seek out your best deal with others teams, but we'd like to be able to match it when you get your best offer and keep you for another year or two. The player isn't getting their ability to optimize compensation damaged by this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 Lord Opie, Taz they are both challenged. Only when I'm drinking...and I quit that 3 weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) I agree with you philosophically, but isn't this request by the owners for this year only? It's not like they're trying to protect their teams in this regard every year. And if the owners are suggesting that they didn't plan on the contingency that they'd lose 4th and 5th year players with the new CBA, then they're lying or dumb. It's quite possible that they have included this as a bargaining chip that they will throw into the pot as a concession. It's also very possible that they want this condition because FA will occur after the draft, and they won't be able to fall back on drafting guys to fill holes that they may lose in FA. Do you think planning for ensuring that your team isn't left with a gaping hole at a position with what appears to be an abbreviated TC by including something like this in the deal really is dumb? Looks pretty insightful to me... Edited July 1, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 "three right-of-first-refusals per team in 2011" is pretty steep wouldn't you agree? It would basically cut the FA market in half. I'm not so sure the players would be down with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 It's also very possible that they want this condition because FA will occur after the draft, and they won't be able to fall back on drafting guys to fill holes that they may lose in FA. Do you think planning for ensuring that your team isn't left with a gaping hole at a position with what appears to be an abbreviated TC by including something like this in the deal really is dumb? Looks pretty insightful to me... this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 "three right-of-first-refusals per team in 2011" is pretty steep wouldn't you agree? It would basically cut the FA market in half. I'm not so sure the players would be down with that. Why would it cut the market? Now you've lost me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 It's also very possible that they want this condition because FA will occur after the draft, and they won't be able to fall back on drafting guys to fill holes that they may lose in FA. Do you think planning for ensuring that your team isn't left with a gaping hole at a position with what appears to be an abbreviated TC by including something like this in the deal really is dumb? Looks pretty insightful to me... Hard to argue with this. Of course, if I were a player that would fall under the YP category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 Why would it cut the market? Now you've lost me. Maybe I'm not understanding the "right of first refusals" then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Maybe I'm not understanding the "right of first refusals" then. Right of first refusal means that a player can go out as a FA and get the best deal he can from any other team, but that after he swings his best deal that his original team can match that best offer and keep him under the same terms that are equal to the best offer he found from another team. Edited July 1, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 Right of first refusal means that a player can go out as a FA and get the best deal he can from any other team, but that after he swings his best deal that his original team can match that best offer and keep him under the same terms that are equal to the best offer he found from another team. And owners want 3 of these for this year? That's nuts. No way the players will agree to that. If they do, they are cutting there own throats. But thanks for explaining. I kinda gathered that was the meaning but wasn't sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) And owners want 3 of these for this year? That's nuts. No way the players will agree to that. If they do, they are cutting there own throats. And again, I'll ask you to explain how they are "cutting their own throats". Players with more than 4 years in the league will still be able to go out and seek thier best deal in FA. The only difference would be that their original team can pay that new better deal rather than another team paying it. It actually could enhance FA value as teams jockey with one another in FA contracts, trying to force the original team to pay more than it would otherwise or release a player it wouldn't otherwise - kind of like a "poison pill" contract. Edited July 1, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Right of first refusal means that a player can go out as a FA and get the best deal he can from any other team, but that after he swings his best deal that his original team can match that best offer and keep him under the same terms that are equal to the best offer he found from another team. Would poison pill provisions be prohibited (such as a clause saying if he played more that 8 games outside the state of the team offering the contract an escalator would take effect) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 And again, I'll ask you to explain how they are "cutting their own throats". Players with more than 4 years in the league will still be able to go out and seek thier best deal in FA. The only difference would be that their original team can pay that new better deal rather than another team paying it. I get it now!! And if D-Will stops after Denver, my heart will be broken. I'm wondering if teams could use those 3 on the same player. That would suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Here's the question I should've asked early... Why are they introducing this NOW? They knew FA was going to be delayed a long time. Are they really caught by surprise? I don't think the owners are introducing it now - I think th talks have revolved around bigger issues than this (revenue allocations) and have finally evolved down to a level where these kinds of issues are being addressed. This simply wasn't important enough to be involved in discussions up to this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 They're not cutting their own throat, but they are weakening their salary negotiating position by removing a bidder from the process. Suppose only one other team wants a player? It's not like the player can go to the other team and say that the original team offered more and would the new team be willing to go over that. There'd be less back and forth with less demand. That is a potential downside, but if this was the case the player isn't a type being actively sought anyhow and is probably lucky to get whatever deal he can swing. Those kinds of players are usually the ones their original team says can take a walk when they try to leverage an offer from only one other team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) I understand why the owners want it but there is nothing in it for the players. So why would the players ever agree to it? Since the owners wheren't worried about something as insignificant as roster gaps it until now, I'm taking that as a positive sign that there is now a need to worry about roster gaps. Edited July 1, 2011 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) I understand why the owners want it but there is nothing in it for the players. So why would the players ever agree to it? Since the owners wheren't worried about something as insignificant as roster gaps it until now, I'm taking that as a positive sign that there is now a need to worry about roster gaps. You don't think one team might run up the price on a player knowing the original team could have a tough time matching it, or would get damaged enough in matching that they would be vulrnerable in seeking other FAs? Especially a key player or reduced strength significantly at a position for a division rival? This absolutely could increase the FA value of some players. Edited July 1, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 You don't think one team might run up the price on a player knowing the original team could have a tough time matching it, or would get damaged enough in matching that they would be vulrnerable in seeking other FAs? Especially a key player or reduced strength significantly at a position for a division rival? This absolutely could increase the FA value of some players. You mean the owers will intentionally overpay for a player just to fill a roster gap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 You mean the owers will intentionally overpay for a player just to fill a roster gap? You think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 You think? I don't know. I mean, I though the owner's whole point of putting everyone through all this $hit was that they were paying too much for players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I don't know. I mean, I though the owner's whole point of putting everyone through all this $hit was that they were paying too much for players. I what you say here is the case, why would owners offer up significant raises as part of their initial and continued positions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 I what you say here is the case, why would owners offer up significant raises as part of their initial and continued positions? Why would the owners do what? Put themselves in a position to be back to overpaying players because they didn't anticipate roster gaps if the labor dispute wasn't resolved until after the draft? I don't know why they would do that. 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.