SouthernJet Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 JETS MISUSING FRANCHISE TAG? - PFT Through their obvious efforts to trade defensive end John Abraham, the New York Jets could be in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Article XIV, Section 8 of the CBA requires that a team using the franchise tag "must . . . have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season." Thus, the team that slaps the tag on a guy like Abraham must genuinely plan to have him on the roster in 2006, and to pay him, at a minimum, the money that he's due pursuant to the tender. In other words, the Jet can't use the franchise tag solely as a device to restrict Abraham's ability to become a free agent in order to derive trade value. The challenge in this regard is to read the minds of guys like Eric Mangini and Mike Tannenbaum. Both are smart enough to say, "Yes, we have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender" if/when the bird gets sucked into the engine. So the proof would come from circumstantial evidence. In this case, it's being reported within a week after the use of the franchise designation that the team is trying to trade Abraham. But that's hardly dispositive. Smooth-talking lawyer types like Tannenbaum would say that the team still has a good faith intention to employ Abraham, but that the organization is merely conducting its due diligence as to the possible trade market for him. Short of an admission or an intercepted phone call or an e-mail that accidentally gets sent to a recipient outside of the organization, there likely will never be a smoking gun in cases of this nature. Besides, this isn't the kind of thing the NFL typically pursues. Other players have been traded out from under the franchise tag in the past, without a peep. The apparent remedy would be for Abraham to file a grievance aimed at invalidating the tender. But by the time the grievance would be resolved the window for getting Abraham a huge free-agent payday might close, since the really big money flows in the first two weeks. Our guess is that nothing will happen, and that teams will continue to violate Article XIV, Section 8 of the CBA without consequence -- unless, of course, the new CBA places greater limitations on the ability of teams to use the tag as a tool for trading guys who otherwise would be free agents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green DNA Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It is the Jets intention to employ the player, but at the request of the player and his agent, they are exploring trade opportunities. Full compliance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boozer76 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Who wrote this garbage? For goodness sakes every team in history that placed a franchise tag on one of their players has shopped him across the league. Where was this stupid story then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudcat21 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The writer fails to mention that Abraham asked to be traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The writer fails to mention that Abraham asked to be traded. seriously... this doenst make anyone a genious either... IF we do trade him for some great picks/players then we can start talking about who is slick/smooth or whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaumerJet Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It is the Jets intention to employ the player, but at the request of the player and his agent, they are exploring trade opportunities. Full compliance! Quite correct. Plus who ever it was at PFT, and I'm not naming names, isn't taking into account that Abraham has NOT signed his TENATIVE. Therefore the Jets have the right to trade him to any team they want up until the point he signs the TENTATIVE... A 4-year old would know that one! ARTICLE XIV - Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation: In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club or player engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith. Page 41 * The parties hereby agree that pursuant to Article 14, Section 8 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount. The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract, under the CBA, or under the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract, CBA, or Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. In other words - the Idiots at PFT got it wrong! Oh & Max, I'm sorry - I had to edit this one once I pulled up the CBA from NFLPA.com! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehands Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 How about the fact that we already employed him for a full year under the Franchise Tag? If that doesn't show we have a good faith intention to employee him when offering the tag I don't know what does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudcat21 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Isn't the money guaranteed when he signs the tender? Why would we guarentee the money if we didn't want to gainfully emplyee him? And who says we didn't want to gainfully employee him but only on another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 where was his page-long article about the circumstantial evidence with Herm & KC? Dooshey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 where was his page-long article about the circumstantial evidence with Herm & KC? Dooshey. On Jetnation.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 On Jetnation.com good one Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 where was his page-long article about the circumstantial evidence with Herm & KC? Dooshey. whose article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 whose article? The clown from PFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.