Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Falcons in trouble

Jackie Lee

By Jackie Lee,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted (edited)

the “legal tampering” period is pointless.

it was said on the radio that the panthers reached out to Luvu after the burns trade but were told “he had already agreed to a deal.”

No, he hadn’t. The contract wasn’t signed. But these handshake agreements these teams are reaching with players are seemingly ironclad, and I cannot recall an example of a player agreeing to sign somewhere before being approached with a better deal and reneging on the deal in hand.

i get it, principally, if you agree to do something, it is honorable to do it. But it has completely defeated the point of the “legal tampering” window and effectively free agency just starts a little bit earlier than it did before, and the same teams that were cheating before are cheating now.

a proper “legal tampering” window should be nice and quiet, with teams negotiating over the course of the window. The news getting out should lead to the concern that your team may get one upped. 

Edited by Growl
  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jackie Lee Grand Master

Jackie Lee

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 minutes ago, Growl said:

the “legal tampering” period is pointless.

it was said on the radio that the panthers reached out to Luvu after the burns trade but were told “he had already agreed to a deal.”

No, he hadn’t. The contract wasn’t signed. But these handshake agreements these teams are reaching with players are seemingly ironclad, and I cannot recall an example of a player agreeing to sign somewhere before being approached with a better deal and reneging on the deal in hand.

i get it, principally, if you agree to do something, it is honorable to do it. But it has completely defeated the point of the “legal tampering” window and effectively free agency just starts a little bit earlier than it did before, and the same teams that were cheating before are cheating now.

a proper “legal tampering” window should be nice and quiet, with teams negotiating over the course of the window. The news getting out should lead to the concern that your team may get one upped. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WUnderhill Grand Master

WUnderhill

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Growl said:

the “legal tampering” period is pointless.

it was said on the radio that the panthers reached out to Luvu after the burns trade but were told “he had already agreed to a deal.”

No, he hadn’t. The contract wasn’t signed. But these handshake agreements these teams are reaching with players are seemingly ironclad, and I cannot recall an example of a player agreeing to sign somewhere before being approached with a better deal and reneging on the deal in hand.

i get it, principally, if you agree to do something, it is honorable to do it. But it has completely defeated the point of the “legal tampering” window and effectively free agency just starts a little bit earlier than it did before, and the same teams that were cheating before are cheating now.

a proper “legal tampering” window should be nice and quiet, with teams negotiating over the course of the window. The news getting out should lead to the concern that your team may get one upped. 

I don’t know the full details, but I do believe Kendricks just did that switching from an agreement with the 49ers to the Cowboys. I think what is likely happening is that most people have this inner code that they will not renege on a deal once they have agreed to it, whether it is official in writing or not. I say this as somebody who works in sales and sees it all the time. Also, they may worry about their reputation throughout the league for future deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

 

That’s great but until it’s more commonplace then you’re gonna have a latent advantage for teams that tamper illegally versus teams that don’t. “Legal tampering wasn’t designed to combat tampering, it was acknowledging that you couldn’t fight it and you were forcing the idea of a fair opportunity 

also I think staying home isn’t quite the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...