Buddha Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by Hokieskin Buddha, where do you find the CBA? Here you go... http://www.nflpa.org/members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 My understanding is... If the Redskins held a press conference, Stated Coles had signed when in truth he hadn't... THEN they would be breaking the rule however everyone knew the Redskins were talking with Coles, working a deal... but never stated publicly he had signed with the Redskins until he actually did Wednesday night. The Jets would have to have an official press release from the Skins dated before Wednesday, stating that Coles had SIGNED. without that they don't have a snowballs chance in he!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 I think the Jets like almost every other team based there decsions this year based on past history. They felt safe that there restricted free agents would stay at home because seldom has a restricted free agent sign with a new team. I am sure someone hear can look up the stats. I bet it has only happened a dozen or less times in the history of the NFL. They just didn't expect Mr. Snyder to think out of the box and act on it. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathByLinebacker Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Like MichealM and The Evil Genius have mentioned, every player reaches an agreement before signing a contract or offer sheet. Having a rule against that basically makes RFA's unattainable (unless they are willing to blindly sign documents the terms of which they have not agreed to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Rereading what Glazer wrote - what I think he means is that RFA's cannot reach an agreement with a team without also signing a contract. The Jets are saying that we reached an agreement and held up signing Coles to a deal to gain some type of advantage. Glazer and the Jets say that the CBA doesnt allow this - and if the only thing in the CBA is what Buddha posted - I dont think they have a valid argument. But I am no lawyer - so what do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Does anyone know where to find out how many times has it happened in the past 10 years that a RFA signed with a new team? I would like to see how many RFA have there been in the past 10 years and how many times they have signed with a new team. I bet it is a really low percentage of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor The Invincible Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 How can they prove there was an agreement in place? Or, is there some sort of Time Limit that is placed on an agreement before the sheet is signed? I'm a little confused on what exactly the Jets are protesting. (And Buddha, you are wrong my friend, that CBA article is talking about the RFA, not the team.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Guys, I think the crux of the argument is this. Rules prohibit a team from removing a RFA from the pool and allowing other teams to sign them without that team having a signed agreement in place to forward to the league and the players current team. The policy behind this is clear. It is to keep teams and owners from reaching an agreement with players verbally and saying "we're not going to make this official until we can clear the cap room t submit this to the league. Until then, rest assured we've got a deal and you don't have to go to other teams". The Jets are saying that this is exactly what happened. Coles came in and agreed to the deal but we didn't have the cap room to sign him when he agreed to it. We had to wait until we cleared the cap room in order for it to be submitted to the league. The Jets are crying foul becuase another team, with a higher draft pick, in essence could have come in and offered Coles another contract that he may have liked better and taken. In essence, they're saying that we agreed to the deal but with held the deal until a later date so that we could keep him off the market. If they can prove that (that'll be the day) then there may be fines and penalties. However, I remember one WP article stating that the team and Coles had (and this is the key portion) agreed IN PRINCIPLE to a contract but his agents had to come in and "IRON" out the final details. Snyder will just argue that the final details weren't ironed out until after we restructerd Lavar and Wynn's deals. Pretty smart move, if they get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by tommy-the-greek Does anyone know where to find out how many times has it happened in the past 10 years that a RFA signed with a new team? I would like to see how many RFA have there been in the past 10 years and how many times they have signed with a new team. I bet it is a really low percentage of the time. Tommy, RFAs changing teams in the past few years was basically an unheard of thing. As our man Pasta-belly noted recently, Over the past three seasons, for instance, an average of just three restricted players have changed teams. Last spring kicker Kris Brown, who went from the Pittsburgh Steelers to the Houston Texans, was the lone restricted player to find a new address. http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1518788.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCS:BraveCaringSoul Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Something stinks here and it aint limburger cheese. Objectivity in human matters is an illusion. The league office is in New York city. The lawyers who work at the league office live in or near New York city. Many of those lawyers are presumably Jets fans. Perhaps the lawyers who were involved in evaluating the Skins RFA offers for the league wanted the Jets to come out on top when the smoke cleared. Their presumed impartiality would merely be the first casualty in what I am now calling "the Morton/Coles fiasco". It is time for Snyder and "fortress Redskins" to go to the mattresses. If it smells it stinks and gentlemmen this mess smells foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 I think its an attempt by the Jets to make the issue over having to meet the option component of the contract. According to Moton's people, failure to do so should make him Redskin property, a claim probably the team would support. They hope by pushing this claim, we'd side with the Jets on Morton. If that happens, I bet this issue is dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 As soon as Mrs. Greek goes to pick up the Kids I am going to turn on Mike and the mad dog to hear the jet fans call up and cry the blues.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Does anyone know of a radio station on the net that does washington sports talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 http://www.sportstalk980.com/jacor-common/streaming_disclaimer.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 edit.... disregard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 redskins56, You're reading into the rule two policy considerations. The first is protection of the prior team: they have an interest in keeping all channels for offers to the player open to maximize the chance that they'll snag the best positioned draft pick as compensation should they not match the deal. The purpose underlying this consideration is not met here since the fact that Coles had a deal in principle but had not yet signed the deal was a very well known fact. This put other prospective suitors on notice that they had a shot, albeit limited, to tender Coles a better deal. The other problem with this policy consideration is one of causation. Assuming arguendo that the 'Skins ran afoul of the rule's policy of protecting the prior team, how were the Jets harmed? Was there in fact another team out there that would've offered Coles a better deal and thus fetched them a higher draft selection? I certainly doubt it. This would be different if you had a situation where an RFA was being courted by several suitors, one of which was a serious contender and one that would've provided them a better draft choice. Unfortunately for the Jets, that ain't the case here. The second policy consideration is player protection. This one's obvious: you don't want a successor team like the 'Skins leading on a player by telling him that there's a deal but it's not yet official. The league has an interest in preventnig a player from prematurely taking himself off the market and possibly forgoing other potentially more lucrative contracts. This is especiallly true given these days of the salary cap where the more a free agent waits, the less money there will be for him to agree to. Is there an argument that the 'Skins turned this policy on its head? Hell no. Why? First of all, is Coles unhappy? Nope. He's ecstatic. In addition, was there another deal out there that he would've taken? Nope to that too. Bottom line: the purposes underlying the rule in this case are hardlyserved by strictly and woodenly applying them to what happened here. When the purposes of a rule would be frustrated as they would be inthis case, they shouldn't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by BallCoachSpurrier Something stinks here and it aint limburger cheese. Objectivity in human matters is an illusion. The league office is in New York city. The lawyers who work at the league office live in or near New York city. Many of those lawyers are presumably Jets fans. Perhaps the lawyers who were involved in evaluating the Skins RFA offers for the league wanted the Jets to come out on top when the smoke cleared. Their presumed impartiality would merely be the first casualty in what I am now calling "the Morton/Coles fiasco". It is time for Snyder and "fortress Redskins" to go to the mattresses. If it smells it stinks and gentlemmen this mess smells foul. Tags is actually a big 'Skins fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 This is horsecr@p. The Jets are reading way too much into this rule. It would have to be interpreted as unrealistically expansive for their complaint to make any sense. We're talking major logical faults if they rule against the Skins in this matter. From my perspective, this rule is primarily written to protect the player, not the team. The Jets got hosed, and now they're whining about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganggreen76 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Laveranues and his big mouth might have done you guys in. On Tuesday he was quoted in the NY papers as saying he asked the Jets not to match the Redskins' offer sheet. What deal? The Jets didn't receive the offer sheet until yesterday. We'll take two #1' and two #3's Mr. Tagliabu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All In Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Amazing how we are playing them in the opener. I'm looking forward to that as much as if was against the Eagles or Cowboys. Can't wait for the opener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSkin Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Saying that L.Coles did not want the JETS to match the offer sheet does not meen that any deal was done. If the JETS are trying to read into everything, L.Coles' statement could simply mean that he did not want the JETS to match any future offer sheet that could be on the way. This is all based on interpretation, and I do not see the JETS getting anything out of this. Sorry guys. If anotehr team wanted to step up and grab him, then they would have done so, and would have complained to the JETS. Nice little soap operah we have going here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Goldenstar95, I agree that applying the rule rigidly would not serve to further the policy of protecting the player. However, IMHO my reading of this is different. I'm not saying the Skins violated the rule, what I am saying is that the rule is set up to prevent situations where a team can take a player off the market for other teams without filing a signed offer sheet with the league and the players current team. Essentially the Skins did just that, if in fact it went down the way the Jets are saying. I have my doubts that this is what occurred. The point of causation you referenced is not quite correct. Your stating that the Jets were not harmed. Although this is may very well be true, that is a measure of damages, not causation. Causation in this scenario would be when the Skins reached an agreement with Coles and did not forward it to the league and the Jets because they couldn't with their current cap situation. Damages would be what impact that had upon the Jets. The rule is not set up to prevent a team from being damaged in a quantifiable way, such as lost income or the like. What the rule is set up to do is prevent a team from agreeing with a RFA to a contract and NOT officially tendering the offer sheet to the other team and the league, effectively removing that player from the RFA pool. Its not that other teams may not inquire, its that the player would willing stand pat and not negotiate with other teams because he already has the deal. The rule is there to prevent teams from arbitrarily agreeing to offer sheets with RFA BEFORE they are actually in the position to make it official. It isn't provided to prevent actual damages. If you like it is there to prevent potential damages. Therefore, if the rule is violated, damages need not be shown, the mere violation of the rule is what seems to be actionable in an administrative sense. The problem here for the league and the Jets is that no one with the Skins or in Coles' camp is going to come out and say, "yeah we had the agreement done, we were just waiting to file it until the cap space was cleared". If in fact the Skins delayed the filing of the agreement on purpose until they cleared enough cap room, that is subtrifuge and they would be in violation of the rule. I don't think that either the League or the Jets will be able to show this is the case. In all honesty I'm sure there were details that had to be covered with Coles' representatives. Furthermore, he left Redskin Park BEFORE his representatives met with the team. He couldn't sign the agreement until it had been finalized with the team and his agents. He would have had to come back to Redskin Park or the team would have had to send the documents by courier, all causing a delay in the finalization and signing of the agreement. The Jets are reaching in order to make the Skins spend time, money and effort because they are pi$$ed that they gambled on offering an up and coming player too little of a qualifying offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokieskin Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by ganggreen76 Laveranues and his big mouth might have done you guys in. On Tuesday he was quoted in the NY papers as saying he asked the Jets not to match the Redskins' offer sheet. What deal? The Jets didn't receive the offer sheet until yesterday. We'll take two #1' and two #3's Mr. Tagliabu. The CBA says the RFA, which is Coles, has to submit the offer sheet not the team so how do you penalize the skins? Besides, if the skins were punished, then the league couldn't give the jets more draft picks that would hurt the division rivals of the Jets more than the skins. That is just stupid. What would happen is the skins would be stripped of picks or fined, like minnesota timberwolves were in the nba. I think the contention of the jets is that they want the league to look into whether or not the skins had a signed document somewhere and were sitting on it until they cleared the cap space, like the twolves with joe smith in the nba. If Snyder did do that then he deserves to be fried but I highly doubt that he did. Besides, he didn't say deal, he said offer sheet. If anything the delay gave the jets time to talk to Coles, make up, and sign him for a reasonable contract, one without a 13 mill signing bonus. I think at the begining of FA Coles wanted to stay a jet until they lowballed him bc he was a RFA. He wanted them to show him the money. He found out how much the Jets really valued him. They obviously didn't think he was one of the best recievers in the NFL bc they refused to pay him like one. No matter what Jets fans think, the Jets FO doesn't think Coles is that good bc they aren't willing to pay him like an elite reciever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 I just dont see where in the CBA the langauage states that you have to sign a player to a deal after you reach a verbal agreement with them. Perhaps I am missing that part...but I would love to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 However, IMHO my reading of this is different. I'm not saying the Skins violated the rule, what I am saying is that the rule is set up to prevent situations where a team can take a player off the market for other teams without filing a signed offer sheet with the league and the players current team. I'm not sure we're talking about anything different here. I agree that the rule prohibits teams from taking players off the market by promising them that an official agreement is on the way. The 'Skins arguably did that. Are you saying then that the 'Skins violated the rule if the Jets and league can prove this? I don't think so, because, as alluded to before, the critical fact that the contract wasn't signed was well known to everyone and that there were no other takers for Coles. This leads me to the next point. The point of causation you referenced is not quite correct. Your stating that the Jets were not harmed. Although this is may very well be true, that is a measure of damages, not causation. Causation in this scenario would be when the Skins reached an agreement with Coles and did not forward it to the league and the Jets because they couldn't with their current cap situation. Damages would be what impact that had upon the Jets. This is, in fact, a matter of causation and damages. These two issues, especially as manifested here, are often inextricably intertwined. This often occurs in situations where damages or harm is speculative -- distinguish the situation where damages or harm are certain but the extent of damages or harm are uncertain -- as is the case with newly formed businesses claiming economic injury. When you parse through the semantics, it becomes clear that if the rules were followed, the result wouldn't have been different. And that, when I learned it way back when, was an issue of causation and not damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Just a theory: Possible reason for such a rule: Imagine this scenario: Danny reaches an agreement with LC, but we won't have the cap space untill after June 1, so we tell him "if you just don't sign any other offers till then, then there's a $13M bonus waiting for you". Meanwhile, the Jets offer him a long-term deal with an $8M bonus. LC turns them down, and waits for June 2. In a case like that, by reaching an "under the table" agreement with a player, then you're interfering with his present team's ability to reach an agreement. I think, if I'm the Skins, my defense is "it wasn't under the table". He wasn't off the market: Anybody who thought they had a better offer was perfectly free to make it. After all, every article that said "he's agreed", also said "he hasn't signed". In short, the only people hurt by the fact that he hadn't signed the offer was the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.