Recommended Posts

On 2/7/2019 at 6:37 PM, michaelredd9 said:

 

I'm trying to think of a player that was tagged by his team with the sole intention of trading him.  I can't think of an example.

 

 

Here is an example where it happened:

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agents-take-if-eagles-use-the-franchise-tag-on-nick-foles-heres-a-look-at-possible-risks-rewards/

There is a school of thought that franchising Foles strictly for trade purposes violates the CBA. Language requiring a good-faith intention to negotiate with a tendered player or keep him for the upcoming season at his tender exists in the CBA. A team insisting that a player agree to a contract for that particular season under the required tendered amount is specifically mentioned as violation. The good-faith intention may be superseded by other language within the same provision addressing the permissibility of trades.

The Patriots were allowed to trade Matt Cassel and linebacker Mike Vrabel (now Titans head coach) to the Chiefs for a 2009 second round pick (34th overall) while the quarterback was designated a franchise player in 2009. It was obvious New England wasn't going to pay Cassel $14.651 million to be Tom Brady's backup once he recovered from the torn ACL that sidelined him for practically all of the 2008 season. The type of language in question was a part of the labor agreement in existence when Cassel's designation was made.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good post ^

 

however, it's moot. The language doesn't forbid tagging for the sole purpose of trading... unless the team has zero intention of employing the player if a trade fails to happen. If it can be proved that PHI *planned* to revoke the tag should a trade not happen, then there's a problem. But that's very difficult to prove. If PHI "thinks" it might keep Foles, then that's good enough.

If PHI tags, fails to trade, waits for NYG and WAS to secure their QB, then revokes the trade, maybe, just maybe, Foles could have a case.

But that's also moot because Foles' agent should get him to sign the tag on day three of free agency. Then PHI is committed to the $25m and no worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LordOpie said:

good post ^

 

however, it's moot. The language doesn't forbid tagging for the sole purpose of trading... unless the team has zero intention of employing the player if a trade fails to happen. If it can be proved that PHI *planned* to revoke the tag should a trade not happen, then there's a problem. But that's very difficult to prove. If PHI "thinks" it might keep Foles, then that's good enough.

If PHI tags, fails to trade, waits for NYG and WAS to secure their QB, then revokes the trade, maybe, just maybe, Foles could have a case.

But that's also moot because Foles' agent should get him to sign the tag on day three of free agency. Then PHI is committed to the $25m and no worries.

 

Your right, that rule is flimsy at best. It's almost impossible to prove a teams intent. The only angle i could see would be that the Eagles couldn't sign him even if they wanted to. They don't have anywhere near the cap room. But even that can be debated. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.