PDA

View Full Version : crabtree probably out for year, do 49ers now reconsider cruz?



Pages : [1] 2

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:04 PM
I think most likely not but you never know, they are knocking on the door of super bowl championship.

Rudyy
05-22-2013, 04:05 PM
I don't think so. No.

Eli TO Shockey
05-22-2013, 04:06 PM
Not happening.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:06 PM
Cruz isn't available to other teams

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:07 PM
Cruz isn't available to other teams

your right,,,is there any way they could get him?

nhpgiantsfan
05-22-2013, 04:07 PM
How would that work. Now that the restricted free angency period is over, are they even aloud to make him an offer. I thought the Giants own the rights to him now at least for 2013.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 04:08 PM
your right,,,is there any way they could get him?Yeah, give us two first rounders.

Buddy333
05-22-2013, 04:08 PM
Cruz isn't available to other teamsCould a team offer a trade and contract that would make it possible?

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:08 PM
How would that work. Now that the restricted free angency period is over, are they even aloud to make him an offer. I thought the Giants own the rights to him now at least for 2013.

yeah the heat has fried my brain,,,,I was wondering if a trade could be made?

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:09 PM
your right,,,is there any way they could get him?

Yes, but he would first have to belong to the Giants, which he doesn't, technically, at the moment.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:10 PM
Could a team offer a trade and contract that would make it possible?

The Giants can't trade what they don't own. If this had happened on April 15th, things would be smokin lol

ryan12
05-22-2013, 04:12 PM
time for mario to step up good thing they got bolden

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:12 PM
Yes, but he would first have to belong to the Giants, which he doesn't, technically, at the moment.

I think he stays put but the 9ers do have the ammo to pull such a thing off if the time was right.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 04:14 PM
The Giants can't trade what they don't own.Easily remedied by Cruz signing the tender with another deal in place.

The only matters at question would be if Cruz wanted to go to SF, and if what SF was offering satisfied JR's terms. The fact that Cruz is unsigned is a non factor, really.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:15 PM
Easily remedied by Cruz signing the tender with another deal in place.

The only matters at question would be if Cruz wanted to go to SF, and if what SF was offering satisfied JR's terms. The fact that Cruz is unsigned is a non factor, really. how about patrick willis? j/k, that would be all too tempting and not remotely possible.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:16 PM
I think he stays put but the 9ers do have the ammo to pull such a thing off if the time was right.

There is no animosity between Cruz and the Giants. Once Cruz in under a contract, tender or long term, his hands are tied. The Giants want to play in the 2014 Super Bowl. They would very likely see Nicks and Cruz as an integral part of that. Getting picks in the next draft doesn't help them get there and I don't think Cruz wants to play anywhere else. Is it a possibility, sure. Likely? not really.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:17 PM
There is no animosity between Cruz and the Giants. Once Cruz in under a contract, tender or long term, his hands are tied. The Giants want to play in the 2014 Super Bowl. They would very likely see Nicks and Cruz as an integral part of that. Getting picks in the next draft doesn't help them get there and I don't think Cruz wants to play anywhere else. Is it a possibility, sure. Likely? not really.

dont think there is any animosity, but money talks and like you said, highly unlikely but possible.

Buddy333
05-22-2013, 04:18 PM
Easily remedied by Cruz signing the tender with another deal in place. The only matters at question would be if Cruz wanted to go to SF, and if what SF was offering satisfied JR's terms. The fact that Cruz is unsigned is a non factor, really.Don't think it happens but there is a way then.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:18 PM
Easily remedied by Cruz signing the tender with another deal in place.

The only matters at question would be if Cruz wanted to go to SF, and if what SF was offering satisfied JR's terms. The fact that Cruz is unsigned is a non factor, really.

I don't see where Cruz has a say at this point. The tender offer period is over. A trade requires he be under contract. A trade doesn't require the player even be asked if he wants to go. Why would they want to deal Cruz now?

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:22 PM
I don't see where Cruz has a say at this point. The tender offer period is over. A trade requires he be under contract. A trade doesn't require the player even be asked if he wants to go. Why would they want to deal Cruz now?

if jerry gets blown away with the right deal why not? i have learned to never say never,,,the 9ers are on the cusp of having a super bowl championship team, maybe even a dynasty type team. they very well could up the anty if they feel cruz helps seal the deal, teams over pay all the time. this is all hypothetical and I am in no way saying this will happen.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 04:24 PM
I don't see where Cruz has a say at this point. Cruz has a say because, like you said, he has to be under contract to be dealt. Therefore, he could block any potential trade simply by not agreeing to a contract/tender from NY. If NY can't get him under contract, or tender, then they can't be trade him.

If, however, Cruz wants to go to SF, and NY wants to trade him there, he could just sign the tender with the agreement of getting a new deal in SF.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:24 PM
if jerry gets blown away with the right deal why not? i have learned to never say never,,,the 9ers are on the cusp of having a super bowl championship team, maybe even a dynasty type team. they very well could up the anty if they feel cruz helps seal the deal, teams over pay all the time. this is all hypothetical and I am in no way saying this will happen.

And we want to help them with the Conference?

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 04:24 PM
Don't think it happens but there is a way then.There is a way, which says nothing at all because everyone has their price.

Cruz will be a Giant for at least next year.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:25 PM
Cruz has a say because, like you said, he has to be under contract to be dealt. Therefore, he could block any potential trade simply by not agreeing to a contract/tender from NY. If NY can't get him under contract, or tender, then they can't be trade him.

If, however, Cruz wants to go to SF, and NY wants to trade him there, he could just sign the tender with the agreement of getting a new deal in SF.

Why would we trade our most productive receiver to a conference rival when we want to win the SB? It makes no sense to me.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:25 PM
And we want to help them with the Conference?

if we attain the pieces that help us attain our goals why not? he could be gone next year anyway, then we get nothing.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:28 PM
if we attain the pieces that help us attain our goals why not? he could be gone next year anyway, then we get nothing.

Look, the team is already talking about winning the SB IN THEIR HOUSE. What incentive beyond that period of time can they possibly see as worth giving a Conference Rival OUR most productive receiver? Now if we're talking about the 2014 season, maybe, but still doubtful.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 04:29 PM
Why would we trade our most productive receiver to a conference rival when we want to win the SB? It makes no sense to me.For compensation, aka the reason good players get traded every time, in any league.

But let's be clear, I'm not advocating for a Cruz trade.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:29 PM
Why would we trade our most productive receiver to a conference rival when we want to win the SB? It makes no sense to me. beacause our most productive player could not be here next year, it makes perfect sense to me.

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:30 PM
Consider Cruz for what? They can't sign him, and we sure as hell won't trade him.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:31 PM
Look, the team is already talking about winning the SB IN THEIR HOUSE. What incentive beyond that period of time can they possibly see as worth giving a Conference Rival OUR most productive receiver? Now if we're talking about the 2014 season, maybe, but still doubtful.because he could hold out until week 9, sign his tender, and leave for more money at the end of the season. the chances of the giants not playing in the super bowl are greater than them playing in it.

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:32 PM
if we attain the pieces that help us attain our goals why not? he could be gone next year anyway, then we get nothing.We'd likely get a 3rd round comp pick. But, I'm not a fan of trading good players to good teams in the conference. If SF wanted to trade for him, we'd need to rob SF blind to make it acceptable. Like two 1sts and a little extra.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:32 PM
beacause our most productive player could not be here next year, it makes perfect sense to me.

If our goal is to win the Super Bowl in 2014, how does it make sense to send your most productive receiver packing so a rival will benefit from his production? He is very likely going to be here under a long term contract.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:32 PM
Consider Cruz for what? They can't sign him, and we sure as hell won't trade him.

sure they can if he has a deal in place with the 9ers,,then signs his tender with the giants, then immediately gets traded. they might if they think he will walk after this season, which is very possible.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:33 PM
We'd likely get a 3rd round comp pick. But, I'm not a fan of trading good players to good teams in the conference. If SF wanted to trade for him, we'd need to rob SF blind to make it acceptable. Like two 1sts and a little extra.

But what do two first next year do for the run for the Super Bowl this season?

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:33 PM
sure they can if he has a deal in place with the 9ers,,then signs his tender with the giants, then immediately gets traded. they might if they think he will walk after this season, which is very possible.

He cannot make a deal with any other team, that window has closed.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:33 PM
If our goal is to win the Super Bowl in 2014, how does it make sense to send your most productive receiver packing so a rival will benefit from his production? He is very likely going to be here under a long term contract.

because as of now he is not here,,and you dont mortgage your future for one season of a player who could very well leave at the end of the season.

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:34 PM
But what do two first next year do for the run for the Super Bowl this season?Nothing, but it would help long term. Pretty much, I'm saying that the only acceptable trade terms would be terms that SF would not make.

ELI_HOF_NYG
05-22-2013, 04:35 PM
He cannot make a deal with any other team, that window has closed.

has it? nfl front offices can always find a way if the will is there.

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:35 PM
because as of now he is not here,,and you dont mortgage your future for one season of a player who could very well leave at the end of the season.But, as of now he can't be anywhere else, either.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:35 PM
because as of now he is not here,,and you dont mortgage your future for one season of a player who could very well leave at the end of the season.

Nicks isn't here either, let's trade him because we do own him and he's not practicing voluntarily

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:36 PM
has it? nfl front offices can always find a way if the will is there.Another team cannot sign Cruz to an offer sheet. Cruz would need to sign his tender and then need to be traded.

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:36 PM
Nicks isn't here either, let's trade him because we do own him and he's not practicing voluntarily And he might not be here next year, either.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:37 PM
Nicks isn't here either, let's trade him because we do own him and he's not practicing voluntarily
I'm not positive but I think we could trade Cruz. We still have his rights.

ImElectric2
05-22-2013, 04:37 PM
Is it a full moon? The board is out of control with nonsense today. This is as useful an.exercise as considering the Giants potential to make a trade with the Buccs for Revis. It's not.gonna happen. Also, every team has a greater chance of not playing in the super bowl than actually playing in the super bowl....what's your point?

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:37 PM
I'm not positive but I think we could trade Cruz. We still have his rights.

We can when he's under contract

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:38 PM
And he might not be here next year, either.

You can erase the red lol

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:39 PM
We can when he's under contract
Are you sure? I mean the Colts traded the rights to John Elway when he had no contract.
We traded the rights to Phil Rivers (plus other stuff) for the rights to Eli.

flashnando
05-22-2013, 04:40 PM
I think most likely not but you never know, they are knocking on the door of super bowl championship.

I never hope injury on any player but if it has to happen, I am glad it happened now and not when Cruz was available to all teams.

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:40 PM
I'm not positive but I think we could trade Cruz. We still have his rights.He'd need to sign his tender first.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:41 PM
Are you sure? I mean the Colts traded the rights to John Elway when he had no contract.

I didn't pay that much attention but Peyton had to have agreed if he wasn't under contract but he would have been a UFA not an RFA.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:41 PM
I never hope injury on any player but if it has to happen, I am glad it happened now and not when Cruz was available to all teams.
Right now....I think I'd rather have the 1st round pick.

Drez
05-22-2013, 04:41 PM
You can erase the red lolWell, I suppose red doesn't really fit. I wasn't being sarcastic, per se, I was just mocking that as a valid excuse to trade a player.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:42 PM
He'd need to sign his tender first.
Why? We own his rights and we could trade his rights.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:42 PM
Right now....I think I'd rather have the 1st round pick.

So much remorse

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:42 PM
I didn't pay that much attention but Peyton had to have agreed if he wasn't under contract but he would have been a UFA not an RFA.
Peyton was released so he could sign anywhere he wanted.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:43 PM
So much remorse
That's me being sick of the whole Cruz thing.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:43 PM
Why? We own his rights and we could trade his rights.

Look, we know you hate he's asking for more money than you think he should get, but trading him to the 49ers, when their stated goal is to get to the home field Super Bowl just doesn't make sense. Any reward they could get now would not help that effort.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:44 PM
That's me being sick of the whole Cruz thing.

Not unhappy with Nicks too?

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:45 PM
Look, we know you hate he's asking for more money than you think he should get, but trading him to the 49ers, when their stated goal is to get to the home field Super Bowl just doesn't make sense. Any reward they could get now would not help that effort.
Oh...I'm not advocating that we trade him. I was making the technical point that we probably could.

No....there is no chance that will happen.

Shockeystays08
05-22-2013, 04:45 PM
If our goal is to win the Super Bowl in 2014, how does it make sense to send your most productive receiver packing so a rival will benefit from his production? He is very likely going to be here under a long term contract.

The goal is to win the Super Bowl every year, not just 2014 because it's at our stadium. If we could get a deal that would strengthen our team for the long haul why not make a deal. You seem to imply no Cruz no Super Bowl. That's silly!

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:45 PM
Well, I suppose red doesn't really fit. I wasn't being sarcastic, per se, I was just mocking that as a valid excuse to trade a player.

I got it, just busting and clarifying with one post :cool:

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:48 PM
Not unhappy with Nicks too?
I don't know what that's about. Maybe he'll show tomorrow. They are "voluntary".

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:48 PM
The goal is to win the Super Bowl every year, not just 2014 because it's at our stadium. If we could get a deal that would strengthen our team for the long haul why not make a deal. You seem to imply no Cruz no Super Bowl. That's silly!

I've never said that about any player, not even Eli. You have only so many shots at the brass ring and so much of your chances depend on chemistry. Eli needs Nicks and Cruz to have the best possible chance at getting to the 2014 SB. Cruz does strengthen the team for the long haul.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:49 PM
I don't know what that's about. Maybe he'll show tomorrow. They are "voluntary".

Agreed, just seems odd but I don't worry too much about participation until we get to training camp.

GameTime
05-22-2013, 04:53 PM
trade possibilities or not they dont need Cruz so bad that they would give up the farm for him. They lost Crabtree who but they have other WRs in house and they have Vernon Davis at TE....

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 04:56 PM
I've never said that about any player, not even Eli. You have only so many shots at the brass ring and so much of your chances depend on chemistry. Eli needs Nicks and Cruz to have the best possible chance at getting to the 2014 SB. Cruz does strengthen the team for the long haul.
I'll be honest...I'm not as desperate for Cruz because I truly believe that Randle is going to be huge for us.
If we sign Cruz to big bucks, its going to be tough to keep Randle down the road.
I like the idea of him just signing the tender. It gives us more options as a team.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 04:58 PM
I'll be honest...I'm not as desperate for Cruz because I truly believe that Randle is going to be huge for us.
If we sign Cruz to big bucks, its going to be tough to keep Randle down the road.
I like the idea of him just signing the tender. It gives us more options as a team.

I understand, but I think signing Cruz now will give us Nicks and Cruz with Randle for a few years. The CAP situation really isn't a dire after 2013.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 05:02 PM
I understand, but I think signing Cruz now will give us Nicks and Cruz with Randle for a few years. The CAP situation really isn't a dire after 2013.
If Cruz just signed a tender we could franchise him next year and that would be about $6.5MM for 2 years. With no dead money if we released him after that.
Then we could sign Randle to his 2nd deal.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 05:07 PM
If Cruz just signed a tender we could franchise him next year and that would be about $6.5MM for 2 years. With no dead money if we released him after that.
Then we could sign Randle to his 2nd deal.

Why would they want to piss him off? That's an emotional approach. That smacks of "**** him, we'll show him who's boss." They are not at odds over the contract they expected a negotiation and they have one. Just yesterday Tisch, who is becoming quite the Chatty Cathy, said a deal is coming. They have absolutely no reason to say anything but what they have said has been positive. Cruz, very properly, is saying nothing.

pacco_diablo
05-22-2013, 05:09 PM
If I'm trading rookie football cards...

Cruz for Willis is the ONLY deal I'd make. Well maybe Bowman and the 49ers 2014 2nd round pick for Cruz.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 05:10 PM
If I'm trading rookie football cards...

Cruz for Willis is the ONLY deal I'd make. Well maybe Bowman and the 49ers 2014 2nd round pick for Cruz.

Right...... Why don't you just throw in the new stadium as well?

pacco_diablo
05-22-2013, 05:27 PM
Right...... Why don't you just throw in the new stadium as well?

Strictly rookie football card trading...

I'd be curious to see how many 9'ers fans would be interested. Probably not many. Willis is a bad boy.

giantsfan420
05-22-2013, 06:07 PM
well they did use their 1rst 2 drafts ago on AJ Jenkins, with the idea he would be their slot guy. So, dont know if SF is panicking yet. But, were SF to offer us a crazy deal, like 2 firsts and a 2nd alongside a longterm contract offer cruz would accept, a trade could def. be made.

gumby74
05-22-2013, 06:10 PM
Strictly rookie football card trading...

I'd be curious to see how many 9'ers fans would be interested. Probably not many. Willis is a bad boy.

How much is a John Elway rookie card worth? I was cleaning out my childhood bedroom the other day and found one.

Drez
05-22-2013, 06:42 PM
If Cruz just signed a tender we could franchise him next year and that would be about $6.5MM for 2 years. With no dead money if we released him after that.
Then we could sign Randle to his 2nd deal.What world are you living in where the franchise tag number for a WR is $3m? lol

Redeyejedi
05-22-2013, 06:50 PM
The 49ers have had crazy luck with health. Last Season they had their Top 13 Defensive players start and play every game until week 16. We were down how many guys before week 1. Thats a huge advantage in contiguity

Toadofsteel
05-22-2013, 06:51 PM
We don't actually have cruz under contract, but we do control his player rights (same deal as with an exclusive rights FA) now that the period for RFA offer sheets has passed. If Cruz doesn't play (which means signing the tender or another contract with the Giants), he doesn't accrue a season, and thus is still an effective ERFA (on the greatly reduced tender rate I might add).

Where this comes into play, is that there could be a three-party talk at that point if the niners were THAT serious about offering Cruz a contract: Reese, the Niners FA, and the Cruz party would all take part, and all would have to sign off on it (not to mention the league office itself). Technically, it would be the Giants signing Cruz to the terms the Niners are offering, then immediately trading that contract to the niners in exchange for whatever is agreed upon (if it's anythign less than two firsts, it's nowhere near fair for the giants), but it would be abstracted into the niners signing Cruz.

However, the niners would have to offer the house for that kind of thing (they would immediately have to give in to the 10-12 million that Ton Condom initially put forth, plus however many players/picks going to the Giants), so I doubt this would EVER happen. For them, it's basically the chance that Manningham always wanted to be a #1, it's up to him to become that. At least, whenever he comes back from ACL rehab...

Redeyejedi
05-22-2013, 06:52 PM
What world are you living in where the franchise tag number for a WR is $3m? lol Yeah the Franchise number for WR's is like 11 million

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 07:10 PM
Yeah the Franchise number for WR's is like 11 million

I think we're getting the tender and the franchise tags mixed up.

slipknottin
05-22-2013, 07:41 PM
There is no way the 49ers can get Cruz unless they convince Cruz to sign his tender, and convince the giants to trade him.

So not happening

Eli TO Shockey
05-22-2013, 07:42 PM
people still collect football cards?

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 07:42 PM
There is no way the 49ers can get Cruz unless they convince Cruz to sign his tender, and convince the giants to trade him.

So not happening

So simple, yet eloquent :cool:

Eli TO Shockey
05-22-2013, 07:56 PM
So simple, yet eloquent :cool:

I still dont get how this thread got so long. lol

Flip Empty
05-22-2013, 07:57 PM
The Niners could just sign Brandon Lloyd.


Right now....I think I'd rather have the 1st round pick.

A Niners 1st is likely to be 28-32. Bit of a rip-off, if you ask me,

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 08:00 PM
I still dont get how this thread got so long. lol

Learning curve

Toadofsteel
05-22-2013, 08:25 PM
There is no way the 49ers can get Cruz unless they convince Cruz to sign his tender, and convince the giants to trade him.

So not happening

Read what I said 3 posts above yours...

Still, I concur that the end result is not happening.

slipknottin
05-22-2013, 08:38 PM
Read what I said 3 posts above yours...

Still, I concur that the end result is not happening.

you said the same thing I said, just with a much longer explanation.

Drez
05-22-2013, 09:00 PM
Yeah the Franchise number for WR's is like 11 millionMS's combined amount is only 2/3s the franchise number.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 09:30 PM
What world are you living in where the franchise tag number for a WR is $3m? lol
The first round tender is approx. $2.85MM. The franchise tage for a WR is a little over $10MM.
Now.....when you add the two and divide by two....what do you get?

Its not hard.

Drez
05-22-2013, 09:49 PM
The first round tender is approx. $2.85MM. The franchise tage for a WR is a little over $10MM.
Now.....when you add the two and divide by two....what do you get?

Its not hard.That is not what you said. You said $6.5m for two years, not $6.5m per year for two years. There is a difference between the two statements.

And either way, that in no way accurately describes the situation.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 09:54 PM
That is not what you said. You said $6.5m for two years, not $6.5m per year for two years. There is a difference between the two statements.

And either way, that in no way accurately describes the situation.
I don't know how you don't understand this. If we pay him $2.85MM this year and the franchise amount for WR's next year. (I was going with about $10.5MM) then you have essentially a commitment of around $13MM. If you think I meant $6.5MM for a total of 2 years, then you misunderstood.
So the average for the 2 years is about $6.5MM. So we could keep Cruz for 2 years at an average salary of $6.5MM. No bonus, no dead money to include in the cap in 2015.
I have to admit I am shocked that I have to explain this.

I looked back and I see that I didn't add the "/yr" after $6.5MM. I have to say that you should have understood that.

And hoe does that not accurately describe it.

RoanokeFan
05-22-2013, 09:57 PM
I don't know how you don't understand this. If we pay him $2.85MM this year and the franchise amount for WR's next year. (I was going with about $10.5MM) then you have essentially a commitment of around $13MM. If you think I meant $6.5MM for a total of 2 years, then you misunderstood.
So the average for the 2 years is about $6.5MM. So we could keep Cruz for 2 years at an average salary of $6.5MM. No bonus, no dead money to include in the cap in 2015.
I have to admit I am shocked that I have to explain this.


If Condon decides it's best to take the tender, he will get Reese to agree to not apply the franchise tag in 2014. It's not going to happen, but Cruz is entitled to a payday whether we like it or not.

BigBlue1971
05-22-2013, 10:03 PM
with the Giants nearing a contract resolution with Cruz i doubt seriously if they would now consider trading him!

with the 49ers i wouldnt trade him to under any circumstance. they are a direct threat and adversary to our success. dont give em nothing extra!

besides we need him here!

Drez
05-22-2013, 10:03 PM
I don't know how you don't understand this. If we pay him $2.85MM this year and the franchise amount for WR's next year. (I was going with about $10.5MM) then you have essentially a commitment of around $13MM. If you think I meant $6.5MM for a total of 2 years, then you misunderstood.
So the average for the 2 years is about $6.5MM. So we could keep Cruz for 2 years at an average salary of $6.5MM. No bonus, no dead money to include in the cap in 2015.
I have to admit I am shocked that I have to explain this.I understand that's what the math is.

However, that is not what you stated. Saying $6.5m for two years says the TOTAL value of the salaries over two years is $6.5m, not that the average of the two years' salary is $6.5m. I didn't misunderstand anything, you just didn't state it properly. I'm sorry that you cannot admit that you were unclear in your statement.

Nor does it, despite the fact that the math is not incorrect, accurately describe what would actually be transpiring.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:06 PM
If Condon decides it's best to take the tender, he will get Reese to agree to not apply the franchise tag in 2014. It's not going to happen, but Cruz is entitled to a payday whether we like it or not.

Then he can sit as far as I'm concerned. If he is not willing to sign the tender which is his only avenue to play football, he's an idiot.
WE ARE HOLDING ALL THE CARDS. We have all the leverage since we own his rights. Its not a negotiation with a free agent where he can get other offers. He has no place to go.
Do you honestly think he will sit? Which BTW, will put him right back where he is right now, next year.....as a RFA.

You can't compare what Welker got, or Wallace got to Cruz. Those guys were unrestricted.
These provisions were collectively bargained so a player couldn't hold a team hostage without serious pain to the player.
Why on earth would the team give up that leverage by taking the option to franchise off the table?

Its Negotiating 101.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:07 PM
I understand that's what the math is.

However, that is not what you stated. Saying $6.5m for two years says the TOTAL value of the salaries over two years is $6.5m, not that the average of the two years' salary is $6.5m. I didn't misunderstand anything, you just didn't state it properly. I'm sorry that you cannot admit that you were unclear in your statement.

Nor does it, despite the fact that the math is not incorrect, accurately describe what would actually be transpiring.

As I said, I see that I omitted the " /yr". In my post.
You still couldn't figure out what I was saying?

slipknottin
05-22-2013, 10:25 PM
As I said, I see that I omitted the " /yr". In my post.
You still couldn't figure out what I was saying?

It confused me too.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:27 PM
It confused me too.
You do see my point though. $2.85MM this season and $!0+ MM next season. It averages to about $6.5MM/ yr.

My point is that since he's restricted, he doesn't have a lot of options. Not because we are hard asses. But because that is the system collectively bargained by the players and owners.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 10:41 PM
So simple, yet eloquent :cool:That's the exact same thing I said on page 1...

slipknottin
05-22-2013, 10:43 PM
That's the exact same thing I said on page 1...

though if the 49ers offered two first rounders, even if the giants agreed to it, that still doesnt get them Cruz...

Would need Cruz to sign his tender, essentially agreeing to go to san fran. Which he may not like at all, rumors are he wants to stay in NY..

Drez
05-22-2013, 10:44 PM
You do see my point though. $2.85MM this season and $!0+ MM next season. It averages to about $6.5MM/ yr.

And even though that's how the math works out, that still comes no where close to accurately describing the situation.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:45 PM
And even though that's how the math works out, that still comes no where close to accurately describing the situation.
How so?

It seems simple to me.

Drez
05-22-2013, 10:51 PM
How so?

It seems simple to me.If you don't understand how that isn't an accurate description, then I don't know if I can explain it to you.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 10:53 PM
though if the 49ers offered two first rounders, even if the giants agreed to it, that still doesnt get them Cruz...Would need Cruz to sign his tender, essentially agreeing to go to san fran. Which he may not like at all, rumors are he wants to stay in NY..No, I was referring to a post I made in response to Roanoke saying that we couldn't trade an unsigned player. Here it is:
Easily remedied by Cruz signing the tender with another deal in place. The only matters at question would be if Cruz wanted to go to SF, and if what SF was offering satisfied JR's terms. The fact that Cruz is unsigned is a non factor, really.To be clear, the "easily remedied" part is referring to Cruz being considered an "unsigned player."

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:53 PM
If you don't understand how that isn't an accurate description, then I don't know if I can explain it to you.
You keep repeating that its not accurate but you don't explain why its not.

What the hell are you talking about?

Flip Empty
05-22-2013, 10:54 PM
The average doesn't stop a 10 mil cap hit from being a 10 mil cap hit. That's more than what the Giants are reportedly offering him.

You say he's a 6 mil receiver, no? A franchise tag would make him a 10-11 mil receiver.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:55 PM
No, I was referring to a post I made in response to Roanoke saying that we couldn't trade an unsigned player. Here it is: To be clear, the "easily remedied" part is referring to Cruz being considered an "unsigned player."
Was Eli signed when SD traded him to us?

I'm not positive, but its the rights to a player that is being traded.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 10:55 PM
If you don't understand how that isn't an accurate description, then I don't know if I can explain it to you.That logic was soooo last March.

slipknottin
05-22-2013, 10:56 PM
Was Eli signed when SD traded him to us?

I'm not positive, but its the rights to a player that is being traded.

Teams can not trade an RFA that has not signed his tender. His rights, whatever you call it, cant be traded. Its the equivalent of trading a UFA not under contract, cant be done.

Rookies are different.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:56 PM
The average doesn't stop a 10 mil cap hiy from being a 10 mil cap hit. That's more than what the Giants are reportedly offering him.
Since he's being paid in one year deals. The hit would be $2.85 MM this year and $10+ MM next.
But we also can negotiate a deal next season with Cruz having the franchise tag as leverage.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:57 PM
Teams can not trade an RFA that has not signed his tender.

Rookies are different.
OK..that's fair. I said I wasn't sure.

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 10:59 PM
Was Eli signed when SD traded him to us?I'm not positive, but its the rights to a player that is being traded.I really don't know if it's different for draft picks. I'm pretty sure Cruz's rights are fully ours after the trade window closes, but I dont know how that affects an unsigned trade. Don't really care though, if JR likes an offer, and Cruz likes the contract, a deal would be struck.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 10:59 PM
I really don't know if it's different for draft picks. I'm pretty sure Cruz's rights are fully ours after the trade window closes, but I dont know how that affects an unsigned trade. Don't really care though, if JR likes an offer, and Cruz likes the contract, a deal would be struck.
Well Slip is saying that its different with rooks. he would lead me astray......would he?

gmen0820
05-22-2013, 11:01 PM
Well Slip is saying that its different with rooks. he would lead me astray......would he?I said I don't know. Technicalities like that in the NFL really don't interest me.

Morehead State
05-22-2013, 11:10 PM
I said I don't know. Technicalities like that in the NFL really don't interest me.
I love technicalities.

JJC7301
05-22-2013, 11:58 PM
It blows my mind that no other team made him an offer. Afraid to give up the 1st rounder? Plenty of 1st rounders are busts.

gmen0820
05-23-2013, 12:09 AM
It blows my mind that no other team made him an offer. Afraid to give up the 1st rounder? Plenty of 1st rounders are busts.And zero first rounders get more than 8 million a year.

appodictic
05-23-2013, 01:04 AM
If they can get Cruz we should getnballard

giantsfan420
05-23-2013, 01:07 AM
And zero first rounders get more than 8 million a year.for at least 5 yrs too.

RoanokeFan
05-23-2013, 07:51 AM
Then he can sit as far as I'm concerned. If he is not willing to sign the tender which is his only avenue to play football, he's an idiot.
WE ARE HOLDING ALL THE CARDS. We have all the leverage since we own his rights. Its not a negotiation with a free agent where he can get other offers. He has no place to go.
Do you honestly think he will sit? Which BTW, will put him right back where he is right now, next year.....as a RFA.

You can't compare what Welker got, or Wallace got to Cruz. Those guys were unrestricted.
These provisions were collectively bargained so a player couldn't hold a team hostage without serious pain to the player.
Why on earth would the team give up that leverage by taking the option to franchise off the table?

Its Negotiating 101.

And the guys holding all the cards have, by most accounts, offered up to $8M (certainly $7M). You need to get a grip if you think they are going to reduce their offer now.

The only pone talking about him sitting is you lol

rebelfan1966
05-23-2013, 10:10 AM
Mario Manningham will get more action then.....

Morehead State
05-23-2013, 10:20 AM
And the guys holding all the cards have, by most accounts, offered up to $8M (certainly $7M). You need to get a grip if you think they are going to reduce their offer now.

The only pone talking about him sitting is you lol
Why is it certainly $7MM.
And if it is. How many years? What the guarantee money? What's the cap hit? Is the offer backloaded? Can we release him after 2 years with a small cap hit? These are the details that matter.
The "annual average" isn't really important.
I'm curious why all these "accurate" reports about demands and offers aren't being reported. Just the "annual average". ......Which is meaningless.


Or maybe "most accounts" are just conjcture and rumor that gets regurgitated in the media, like the Nicks story.

pacco_diablo
05-23-2013, 10:30 AM
How much is a John Elway rookie card worth? I was cleaning out my childhood bedroom the other day and found one.

Man really depends on the condition of the card. If it's in true mint condition, you could probably get a couple hundred out of it. I've got one too and always kept it in the best condition I could. The condition of the card itself is flawless. However, and I didnt find this out until many years later, the centering of the card (the way it was cut) is off. I was deflated. My entire 84 collection that I bought in 86 from my art teacher is cut bad.

pacco_diablo
05-23-2013, 10:36 AM
people still collect football cards?

The last set I got was in 93. It's a shame because the value of cards just arent what we had always hoped for. I think there is still a market though for the "greats" rookie cards and of course the rare cards.

RoanokeFan
05-23-2013, 10:47 AM
Why is it certainly $7MM. And if it is. How many years? What the guarantee money? What's the cap hit? Is the offer backloaded? Can we release him after 2 years with a small cap hit? These are the details that matter. The "annual average" isn't really important. I'm curious why all these "accurate" reports about demands and offers aren't being reported. Just the "annual average". ......Which is meaningless. Or maybe "most accounts" are just conjcture and rumor that gets regurgitated in the media, like the Nicks story. Because the media is conspiring against you. The details of any contract are made known after the deal is signed. Until then...

RoanokeFan
05-23-2013, 10:50 AM
Mario Manningham will get more action then..... Very likely

Morehead State
05-23-2013, 10:53 AM
Because the media is conspiring against you. The details of any contract are made known after the deal is signed. Until then...
I knew you'd come around.

RoanokeFan
05-23-2013, 11:04 AM
I knew you'd come around. It's a diversion.

giantscolombia
05-23-2013, 11:04 AM
Mario Manningham will get more action then.....
Isnt he injured as well?

Morehead State
05-23-2013, 11:09 AM
Isnt he injured as well?
Yeah...He tore up his knee late last year and I have no idea when he's expected to be back.

jecomerfor
05-23-2013, 11:55 AM
The Giants currently own his rights. They could trade his rights to the Niners (or any other team), if they were to make an offer the Giants were willing to accept.

However, if no teams were willing to sign him to a contract when the comp was a #1 + the contract, why would they offer the Giants more now in a trade?

RoanokeFan
05-23-2013, 12:21 PM
The Giants currently own his rights. They could trade his rights to the Niners (or any other team), if they were to make an offer the Giants were willing to accept.

However, if no teams were willing to sign him to a contract when the comp was a #1 + the contract, why would they offer the Giants more now in a trade?

I believe he has to be under contract to trade and they aren't going to trade him. Nicks, on the other hand, who is now becoming a cancer, could be traded and we'd be well rid of him

Morehead State
05-23-2013, 12:22 PM
I believe he has to be under contract to trade and they aren't going to trade him. Nicks, on the other hand, who is now becoming a cancer, could be traded and we'd be well rid of him
I'm sure you meant that in red.

RoanokeFan
05-23-2013, 12:23 PM
I'm sure you meant that in red.

Maybe I just wanted to get ahead of the curve. It has already started

MattMeyerBud
05-23-2013, 01:09 PM
I think most likely not but you never know, they are knocking on the door of super bowl championship.

even if they COULD go after him as a RFA, which they can't, why would they? They just got Boldin this offseason

RoanokeFan
05-23-2013, 01:43 PM
even if they COULD go after him as a RFA, which they can't, why would they? They just got Boldin this offseason

Don't insert facts, it's just too confusing

Drez
05-23-2013, 06:51 PM
even if they COULD go after him as a RFA, which they can't, why would they? They just got Boldin this offseasonAs good as Boldin is, he isn't really a home run threat. Not like Cruz. But, yeah, I had completely forgotten that they had picked up Anquan in FA.

Flip Empty
05-23-2013, 08:06 PM
Boldin is more of a tight end at this point in his career.

jomo
05-23-2013, 08:19 PM
Boldin is more of a tight end at this point in his career.Yes based on his speed, but not a terribly effective blocker off the line.

brad
05-23-2013, 09:23 PM
I think most likely not but you never know, they are knocking on the door of super bowl championship.

At this point the only team that can sign Cruz is the Giants. if he doesn't reach an agreement, he doesn't play this year. I guess it is possible that the Giants trade him, but would have to sign him... pretty sure that is correct, can anyone confirm?

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 07:53 AM
At this point the only team that can sign Cruz is the Giants. if he doesn't reach an agreement, he doesn't play this year. I guess it is possible that the Giants trade him, but would have to sign him... pretty sure that is correct, can anyone confirm?

Players have to be under contract to be traded and it's POSSIBLE, but what evidence is there that either side is that unhappy?

fansince69
05-24-2013, 07:57 AM
Players have to be under contract to be traded and it's POSSIBLE, but what evidence is there that either side is that unhappy?someone else pointed this out...a team can trade the rights to a player....the giants did id with a OL name gary Zimmerman back before the 86 season.....not saying they will....saying they could

fansince69
05-24-2013, 08:03 AM
someone else pointed this out...a team can trade the rights to a player....the giants did id with a OL name gary Zimmerman back before the 86 season.....not saying they will....saying they couldits the same way we got eli....he wasn't under contract....we traded for the rights to sign him

Drez
05-24-2013, 08:24 AM
someone else pointed this out...a team can trade the rights to a player....the giants did id with a OL name gary Zimmerman back before the 86 season.....not saying they will....saying they couldYou cannot trade the rights to a RFA. Also, what happened in '86 is meaningless today. Completely different rules.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 08:32 AM
You cannot trade the rights to a RFA. Also, what happened in '86 is meaningless today. Completely different rules.I understand rules change....don't talk to me like I am 5...It may not happen often...but until I see something more than your opinion...I will assume that if 2 teams wanted to do it there is a way they can make it happen.....again I am NOT saying this will happen....I just find it hard to believe that it is forbidden by rule

Drez
05-24-2013, 08:42 AM
I understand rules change....don't talk to me like I am 5...It may not happen often...but until I see something more than your opinion...I will assume that if 2 teams wanted to do it there is a way they can make it happen.....again I am NOT saying this will happen....I just find it hard to believe that it is forbidden by ruleYou CANNOT trade the rights to a RFA. It's not my opinion. It's the rules. Would trading a player that even has limited free agent status not be a violation of his free agency? Unsigned drafted players are completely different, because they do not have any rights of free agency at that time. Cruz, while the window for him to exercise his free agency has expired, is still a free agent. We just happen to hold his rights. He cannot be traded until he is under contract with the Giants.

If you understand that 1986 fell under completely different rules, then why bring it up? It's not germane to the discussion and holds no bearing. ****, they didn't even have Plan B in '86.

And if you think that THAT was me talking to you like a 5 year old, then you better toughen up.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 08:55 AM
someone else pointed this out...a team can trade the rights to a player....the giants did id with a OL name gary Zimmerman back before the 86 season.....not saying they will....saying they could

The CBA has changed since 1986 and Cruz is an RFA so I think he has to be under contract to sign. If a team was so disposed, I suppose they could make a player's life so ugly that he would agree to a trade and sign, but I am pretty sure that's not the case here.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 09:22 AM
You CANNOT trade the rights to a RFA. It's not my opinion. It's the rules. Would trading a player that even has limited free agent status not be a violation of his free agency? Unsigned drafted players are completely different, because they do not have any rights of free agency at that time. Cruz, while the window for him to exercise his free agency has expired, is still a free agent. We just happen to hold his rights. He cannot be traded until he is under contract with the Giants.

If you understand that 1986 fell under completely different rules, then why bring it up? It's not germane to the discussion and holds no bearing. ****, they didn't even have Plan B in '86.

And if you think that THAT was me talking to you like a 5 year old, then you better toughen up.so because you state that it is a rule...therefore it is? show me the rule ...I can not find it....How can it be an infringement to his free agent status?..the player is not being traded....his right to sign a tender is being traded...he would still have the same status just with another team...I am not saying I am right and you are wrong.....I am saying to me this is common sense....and I am not aware of a rule like that....if there is a rule....I would like to know ......you may very well know something I do not.....but just because you state it....does not mean I have to believe you......it would make no sense to me that if I had the rights to a player that I could not trade those rights.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 09:28 AM
I can't find the actual rule written anywhere either. But I've heard it from numerous reporters/nfl people, and every trade of an RFA that has happened the RFA needed to sign their tender first.

Wes welker for instance signed his tender with the dolphins so they could trade him to the pats. Chris ivory this season was a RFA, and he signed his tender then was traded to the jets.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 09:33 AM
I can't find the actual rule written anywhere either. But I've heard it from numerous reporters/nfl people, and every trade of an RFA that has happened the RFA needed to sign their tender first.

Wes welker for instance signed his tender with the dolphins so they could trade him to the pats.ty.I appreciate the knowledge...but my original claim stands ...if they want to make a trade they can....but obviously the player has to consent in this case..

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 09:35 AM
ty.I appreciate the knowledge...but my original claim stands ...if they want to make a trade they can....but obviously the player has to consent in this case..

No, the team can't make a trade unless the RFA signs his tender offer.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 09:38 AM
No, the team can't make a trade unless the RFA signs his tender offer.hence why I said with the players consent....him signing a tender would be consent....no?

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 10:05 AM
hence why I said with the players consent....him signing a tender would be consent....no?
I honestly don't know the rule. I mean rookies can be traded even if they aren't under contract. Its been pointed out that rookies are different, or at least the rule for rookies is different.
That's probably right, but if someone can point out the actual rule that would be helpful.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 10:11 AM
I honestly don't know the rule. I mean rookies can be traded even if they aren't under contract. Its been pointed out that rookies are different, or at least the rule for rookies is different.
That's probably right, but if someone can point out the actual rule that would be helpful.I was trying to say basically the same thing.....I really wasn't trying to be a pain....just wanting to know more than someone just claiming this is the rule....you must believe me....sometimes I think we are misunderstood Moorhead

Toadofsteel
05-24-2013, 10:17 AM
I honestly don't know the rule. I mean rookies can be traded even if they aren't under contract. Its been pointed out that rookies are different, or at least the rule for rookies is different.
That's probably right, but if someone can point out the actual rule that would be helpful.

If it were to happen, it would technically be Cruz signing with the Giants (on the niners terms) and immedately being traded to the niners, but it would be abstracted into the niners signing cruz directly... however, the niners would have to sacrifice multiple firsts at this point for it to be anywhere near a fair trade (or Aldon Smith or something) for it to be fair... not to mention the money they would have to immediately give Cruz.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 10:49 AM
I honestly don't know the rule. I mean rookies can be traded even if they aren't under contract. Its been pointed out that rookies are different, or at least the rule for rookies is different.
That's probably right, but if someone can point out the actual rule that would be helpful.

All we need is one example of a RFA being traded before signing his tender... Feel free to look. But there isn't one

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 10:57 AM
[QUOTE=slipknottin;771973]All we need is one example of a RFA being traded before signing his tender... Feel free to look. But there isn't one
Slip... I'm not claiming you're wrong. I'm saying that I don't know the rule. I was just asking if anyone could cite the actual rule that rookies can be traded without a signed contract but not vets. You must be getting it from somewhere. I'm asking from where.

Calm down.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:01 AM
its the same way we got eli....he wasn't under contract....we traded for the rights to sign him How is that even remotely the same?

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:04 AM
All we need is one example of a RFA being traded before signing his tender... Feel free to look. But there isn't one

You may be wrong Slippy.

From Wikipedia under "Restricted Free Agents"

Team consummating a trade. The Miami Dolphins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Dolphins) offered wide receiver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_receiver) Wes Welker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Welker) a second-round tender in 2007. Although it was widely rumored that the New England Patriots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Patriots) would offer Welker a seven-year, $35 million deal, the Patriots ultimately traded their second- and seventh-round draft picks to the Dolphins for Welker, signing Welker to a five-year, $18 million contract.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:05 AM
I honestly don't know the rule. I mean rookies can be traded even if they aren't under contract. Its been pointed out that rookies are different, or at least the rule for rookies is different. That's probably right, but if someone can point out the actual rule that would be helpful. How does someone become a rookie? He is offered a contract.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:05 AM
How is that even remotely the same?
Its the same because Eli was not under contract and he was traded. Cruz is NOT under contract now but we still own his rights.

It seems that Miami traded Wes Welker who was a RFA in 2007 to the Pats without Welker signing any tender offer.

I may be wrong but its the way I'm reading it.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:06 AM
How does someone become a rookie? He is offered a contract.
You may be wrong RF. We own Cruz's rights. If we traded him to SF, they would be in the same position we are.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:09 AM
You may be wrong RF. We own Cruz's rights. If we traded him to SF, they would be in the same position we are.that is all I was trying to say....

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:09 AM
that is all I was trying to say....
I think you are right. Look at the example of Welker I cited in 2007.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:12 AM
I think you are right. Look at the example of Welker I cited in 2007.I did a couple hours ago when I was discussing this with Drez....I can not find any examples or rules to contrary....I do not usually disagree with slip...but just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean it can't

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:13 AM
Its the same because Eli was not under contract and he was traded. Cruz is NOT under contract now but we still own his rights. It seems that Miami traded Wes Welker who was a RFA in 2007 to the Pats without Welker signing any tender offer. I may be wrong but its the way I'm reading it. In order to accomplish the Welker trade did he have to go through the formality of signing with Miami?

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:14 AM
In order to accomplish the Seller trade did he have to go through the formality of signing with Miami?
I don't think so. They had the rights to Welker and that's what it seemed they traded. The contract was negotiated with the Pats.
There was no mention made of Welker signing his tender first.
I'll see if I can find more on it.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:16 AM
Trade to New England http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Patriotsgiants_046.jpg/220px-Patriotsgiants_046.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patriotsgiants_046.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf4/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patriotsgiants_046.jpg)
Welker (right) being interviewed after the final game of the undefeated 2007 Patriots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_season) regular season.


On March 1, 2007, the Dolphins offered Welker, a restricted free agent, a second-round tender (the second-lowest tender) of $1.35 million for a one-year contract. News reports indicated the New England Patriots, who were interested in Welker, had originally considered signing him to an offer sheet (Miami would have had seven days to match the offer); according to The Boston Globe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boston_Globe), that sheet would have contained a poison pill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_pill) provision that would have made the offer difficult for the Dolphins to match.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Welker#cite_note-12) Ultimately, however, the Patriots decided not to use such an offer and traded their 2007 second-round (Dolphins drafted Samson Satele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Satele)) and seventh-round (Dolphins drafted Abraham Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wright)) draft picks to the Dolphins for Welker.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:18 AM
You may be wrong RF. We own Cruz's rights. If we traded him to SF, they would be in the same position we are. I expect to be wrong every time I post an opinion. I still think a player has to technically be under contract. Either way, Cruz will be here in 2013.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:20 AM
I expect to be wrong every time I post an opinion. I still think a player has to technically be under contract. Either way, Cruz will be here in 2013.I agree Cruz is not going anywhere...and I never ever meant to imply he would....I was just trying to point out that I thought he could

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:20 AM
I expect to be wrong every time I post an opinion. I still think a player has to technically be under contract. Either way, Cruz will be here in 2013.
It appears we are free to trade Victor Cruz without having him under contract. As long as we own his rights.....and we do.
Just like we traded Phil Rivers without a contract.
Welker had a second round tender placed on him and Miami traded him to NE without having a contract in 2007.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2788847

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:21 AM
I agree Cruz is not going anywhere...and I never ever meant to imply he would....I was just trying to point out that I thought he could
Me too. I don't see him being traded at all. But just to get it straight, we CAN trade him without him signing a deal or the tender.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:21 AM
It appears we are free to trade Victor Cruz without having him under contract. As long as we own his rights.....and we do.
Just like we traded Phil Rivers without a contract.
Welker had a second round tender placed on him and Miami traded him to NE without having a contract in 2007.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2788847 Thanks Morehead....It just did not make sense to me

ny06
05-24-2013, 11:22 AM
If I was the 49ers management even after the Crabtree injury I wouldn't go after Cruz. The reason for that is Cruz is either going to sign the 1st round tender, so to acquire Cruz they will relinquish a 1st round pick. Second they will have to pay what he believes he is worth, and that's not going to be cheap by any means.
The 49ers are a talented team with a win right now roster, in the near future they will have plenty of young talented players at the end of their rookie contracts. To stay competitive and try to win right now is draft well and resign the core players on their team.

flashnando
05-24-2013, 11:23 AM
Its not that difficult really, its just a matter of the niners wanting him that bad. They can do a sign and trade for Cruz but they have to commit to Cruz with a contract.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:24 AM
Thanks Morehead....It just did not make sense to me

This was just a conversation about the rules and its no big deal what the rule really was, because I didn't know it myself. But I have to say its fun when Slip is proven wrong.
Does that make me a bad person?

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:25 AM
This was just a conversation about the rules and its no big deal what the rule really was, because I didn't know it myself. But I have to say its fun when Slip is proven wrong.
Does that make me a bad person?not a bad person...just a Red Sox fan....smiles

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:25 AM
Its not that difficult really, its just a matter of the niners wanting him that bad. They can do a sign and trade for Cruz but they have to commit to Cruz with a contract.
I don't think that's true at all. they could certainly work out a trade and ask that they be allowed to contact Cruz to negotiate a deal. But they don't have to have him signed to make the trade.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:25 AM
not a bad person...just a Red Sox fan....smiles
Flattery will get you everywhere.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:27 AM
It appears we are free to trade Victor Cruz without having him under contract. As long as we own his rights.....and we do. Just like we traded Phil Rivers without a contract. Welker had a second round tender placed on him and Miami traded him to NE without having a contract in 2007. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2788847 How do we know Rivers didn't have to sign with Arcorsi first?

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:30 AM
How do we know Rivers didn't have to sign with Arcorsi first?I don't think Rivers Or Eli had to sign....remember we didn't trade players....we traded the rights to those players.....I realize this is different than an rfa ...but it seems to me rights are rights no matter what player they pertain to

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:30 AM
How do we know Rivers didn't have to sign with Arcorsi first?
Are you suggesting that Rivers signed a contract with us in the half hour before we traded him to SD?

Come on my friend.........

Plus I cited the example of Wes Welker being an RFA and being traded to NE without signing a contract.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:31 AM
Are you suggesting that Rivers signed a contract with us in the half hour before we traded him to SD?

Come on my friend.........sometimes I think RF just likes playing devil's advocate

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:34 AM
Are you suggesting that Rivers signed a contract with us in the half hour before we traded him to SD?

Come on my friend.........

Plus I cited the example of Wes Welker being an RFA and being traded to NE without signing a contract.I am not sure it took all of a half hour

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:36 AM
I don't think Rivers Or Eli had to sign....remember we didn't trade players....we traded the rights to those players.....I realize this is different than an rfa ...but it seems to me rights are rights no matter what player they pertain to What is crystal clear is there is no factual information that has proven the issue one way or the other.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:37 AM
I am not sure it took all of a half hourjust for he record...he held out for 23 days ...so he couldn't have been signed...http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/7607989

fansince69
05-24-2013, 11:39 AM
What is crystal clear is there is no factual information that has proven the issue one way or the other.Honestly RF I agree and all I ever wanted was to know one way or the other

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:40 AM
Are you suggesting that Rivers signed a contract with us in the half hour before we traded him to SD? Come on my friend......... Plus I cited the example of Wes Welker being an RFA and being traded to NE without signing a contract. Electronic media makes signing documents a simple process

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:40 AM
What is crystal clear is there is no factual information that has proven the issue one way or the other.
RF.....Yes there is. I just cited you an exact example regarding Wes Welker. They tendered him, he then was traded to NE for a couple picks. He did NOT sign a contract with Miami first. The Dolphins had his rights but had no signed contract, yet they traded him. He then signed with NE. Its the exact same condition as where we are right now with Cruz.

I'm not sure how anything can be more concrete.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 11:43 AM
Electronic media makes signing documents a simple process
Contracts have to be worked out with lawyers and all the details have to be approved by the league. It takes days for that process to occur even if they are in a rush.

How long was it between our drafting Rivers and the trade was announced. Then how long was it before either player was signed?
Actually what you are suggesting is impossible because the announced signings for both players didn't happen for a long time after that.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 11:48 AM
RF.....Yes there is. I just cited you an exact example regarding Wes Welker. They tendered him, he then was traded to NE for a couple picks. He did NOT sign a contract with Miami first. The Dolphins had his rights but had no signed contract, yet they traded him. He then signed with NE. Its the exact same condition as where we are right now with Cruz. I'm not sure how anything can be more concrete. Were you citing a news article?

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:03 PM
Were you citing a news article?
Yes I was my stubborn friend.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2788847

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 12:06 PM
Yes I was my stubborn friend.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2788847

And just yesterday you suggested news media reports are less than accurate, factual, etc. in regards to the Cruz negotiations? So, your proof is the lack of a specific reference to a contract signing in a news article?

I am going to see if I can get an actual answer and let you know what I find.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 12:07 PM
And just yesterday you suggested news media reports are less than accurate, factual, etc. in regards to the Cruz negotiations? So, your proof is the lack of a specific reference to a contract signing in a news article?

I am going to see if I can get an actual answer and let you know what I find.and RF rushes to the net with a hard smash

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:08 PM
And just yesterday you suggested news media reports are less than accurate, factual, etc. in regards to the Cruz negotiations? So, your proof is the lack of a specific reference to a contract signing in a news article?

I am going to see if I can get an actual answer and let you know what I find.
This isn't an article talking about negotiations from unknown sources. This is a publicly announced trade that the NFL sanctioned.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:09 PM
and RF rushes to the net with a hard smash
This is a side to RF that I have never seen before.
I find it strangely intriguing.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 12:11 PM
This is a side to RF that I have never seen before.
I find it strangely intriguing.yes he is usually quite non committal to all of us dumb *****

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:12 PM
yes he is usually quite non committal to all of us dumb asses
He's fighting this fight to the last drop of blood.
I am impressed.

Drez
05-24-2013, 12:13 PM
hence why I said with the players consent....him signing a tender would be consent....no? His signing his tender means he'd be under contract, and therefore tradable, with or without his consent ( unless of course we added a no trade clause or some other clause giving Cruz power over being traded).

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:16 PM
His signing his tender means he'd be under contract, and therefore tradable, with or without his consent ( unless of course we added a no trade clause or some other clause giving Cruz power over being traded).
He doesn't have to sign his tender. All that is required is that a team owns his rights, and we do.
I have proved it with geometric logic, just like Captain Queeg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 12:17 PM
This is a side to RF that I have never seen before.
I find it strangely intriguing.

I argued, almost alone, when Plaxico shot himself, as to what was going to happen to him. I was proven right.

I spent 35 years dealing in "facts" and we so rarely use them here this is a nice change of pace. I have posed the question to someone who should know the answer and will let you know what he says.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 12:18 PM
He doesn't have to sign his tender. All that is required is that a team owns his rights, and we do.
I have proved it with geometric logic, just like Captain Queeg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0

Hang on to your balls...bearings

fansince69
05-24-2013, 12:18 PM
He doesn't have to sign his tender. All that is required is that a team owns his rights, and we do.
I have proved it with geometric logic, just like Captain Queeg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0I am not sure how I feel about a RED SOX fan having my back....feels very strange

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:19 PM
I argued, almost alone, when Plaxico shot himself, as to what was going to happen to him. I was proven right.

I spent 35 years dealing in "facts" and we so rarely use them here this is a nice change of pace. I have posed the question to someone who should know the answer and will let you know what he says.
Roanoke....I gave you an example. It happened. Wes Welker was traded without signing his tender. Are you saying Miami and NE pulled a fast one on the league?

I'm even MORE intrigued now.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 12:21 PM
Roanoke....I gave you an example. It happened. Wes Welker was traded without signing his tender. Are you saying Miami and NE pulled a fast one on the league?

I'm even MORE intrigued now.Now everyone is going to accuse the pats of cheating

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:23 PM
I am not sure how I feel about a RED SOX fan having my back....feels very strange

Would it help to know that I was at Yankee Stadium for Thurman Monson's first career home run? When I was a little impressionable kid I was actually a Yankee fan.

But I've been a Sox fan since Roger Clemens pitched for the New Britain Red Sox and won an Eastern League championship.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 12:31 PM
Roanoke....I gave you an example. It happened. Wes Welker was traded without signing his tender. Are you saying Miami and NE pulled a fast one on the league?

I'm even MORE intrigued now.

Wes welker signed his tender first. He needed to to finalize the trade. Then he accepted the contract from the patriots

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:43 PM
Wes welker signed his tender first. He needed to to finalize the trade. Then he accepted the contract from the patriots
I only know what I read. I don't have a dog in this fight, but you ARE going to have to show me that he signed his tender. Because I've looked at several articles and none of them say that he signed anything before he was traded.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 12:47 PM
Would it help to know that I was at Yankee Stadium for Thurman Monson's first career home run? When I was a little impressionable kid I was actually a Yankee fan.

But I've been a Sox fan since Roger Clemens pitched for the New Britain Red Sox and won an Eastern League championship.I was at the stadium the night Mantle hit his last HR and I have been a yankee and Giant fan since that sept of 68.....I only use fan since 69 cause that was the first year I can really remember specific things about the Giants

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:50 PM
I was at the stadium the night Mantle hit hi last HR and I have been a yankee and Giant fan since that sept of 68.....I only use fan since 69 cause that was the first year I can really remember things specific things about the Giants
We're pretty close in age then. I started as a Giants fan in 67 with Fran's first year. 7-7.
Then you know what its like to root for a constant loser year after year. Some of our younger fans talk about a season with no SB championship as a bad season. If they only knew what we went through.......

fansince69
05-24-2013, 12:52 PM
We're pretty close in age then. I started as a Giants fan in 67 with Fran's first year. 7-7.
Then you know what its like to root for a constant loser year after year. Some of our younger fans talk about a season with no SB championship as a bad season. If they only knew what we went through.......I have said that many times on these boards.....

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:53 PM
I have said that many times on these boards.....
I had 2 children before we had our first playoff game. Which was a glorious win over Philly.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 12:54 PM
Roanoke....I gave you an example. It happened. Wes Welker was traded without signing his tender. Are you saying Miami and NE pulled a fast one on the league?

I'm even MORE intrigued now.

Not at all, I am saying there could well be technicalities that no one ever mentions that go on behind the scenes.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 12:56 PM
I had 2 children before we had our first playoff game. Which was a glorious win over Philly.I had 3 kids before our super bowl win...4 now....3/4 giants fans...one doesn'tcare

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:56 PM
Not at all, I am saying there could well be technicalities that no one ever mentions that go on behind the scenes.
Anything is possible. But I find it hard to believe that it wasn't mentioned in any article. You may want to ask your buddy about that Welker trade.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 12:57 PM
Anything is possible. But I find it hard to believe that it wasn't mentioned in any article. You may want to ask your buddy about that Welker trade.

Why would it matter to a media head? The point of the story is the trade, not who signed what.

I've asked someone who would know the answer, let's see if he responds.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:58 PM
I had 3 kids before our super bowl win...4 now....3/4 giants fans...one doesn'tcare
My daughter is a psycho Giants fan like I am. I loaned her my direct TV password so she could watch them when she lived in the UK on here computer.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 12:59 PM
Why would it matter to a media head? The point of the story is the trade, not who signed what.

I've asked someone who would know the answer, let's see if he responds.
As I said...anything is possible RF. You are very determined on this one.

MattMeyerBud
05-24-2013, 01:02 PM
As good as Boldin is, he isn't really a home run threat. Not like Cruz. But, yeah, I had completely forgotten that they had picked up Anquan in FA.

yea but it isn't like they are a huge throwing team, they still got VD, they still got Manningham and some other young receivers....

they wouldn't be in the market for overspending to land cruz

MattMeyerBud
05-24-2013, 01:03 PM
Boldin is more of a tight end at this point in his career.

hes older and isn't the swiftest of guys, but he was an integral part of a superbowl run where he was a beast at the receiver position.

Imgrate
05-24-2013, 01:03 PM
Anything is possible. But I find it hard to believe that it wasn't mentioned in any article. You may want to ask your buddy about that Welker trade. That was also under the old cba. Just something to keep in mind

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 01:11 PM
That was also under the old cba. Just something to keep in mind
That would be a strange provision to change. Does it really matter if they have to sign the tender first?

Imgrate
05-24-2013, 01:15 PM
That would be a strange provision to change. Does it really matter if they have to sign the tender first?Hard to say, not knowin

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 01:17 PM
That would be a strange provision to change. Does it really matter if they have to sign the tender first?

I think the NFLPA would definitely want to make sure their members are being treated properly in any circumstance that would involve their contracts.

fansince69
05-24-2013, 01:21 PM
I think the NFLPA would definitely want to make sure their members are being treated properly in any circumstance that would involve their contracts.they are kind of funny that way

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 01:31 PM
they are kind of funny that way

We can only hope lol

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 01:55 PM
That would be a strange provision to change. Does it really matter if they have to sign the tender first?

Yes it does. Because until they sign that tender teams do not own that players rights. That's why those players are free to talk to other teams about contracts and work out for them and such. They are free agents. The original team just receives compensation when they leave, they do not own them as they do with a player under contract or a player that has already signed their tender offer. Which is also why drafted players are different. They are not free agents. Their rights are owned y he team who drafts them and they can not negotiate with other teams

fansince69
05-24-2013, 02:06 PM
Yes it does. Because until they sign that tender teams do not own that players rights. That's why those players are free to talk to other teams about contracts and work out for them and such. They are free agents. The original team just receives compensation when they leave, they do not own them as they do with a player under contract or a player that has already signed their tender offer. Which is also why drafted players are different. They are not free agents. Their rights are owned y he team who drafts them and they can not negotiate with other teamsYes but in the case of RFA...once the period ends for them to sign elsewhere the only team they can sign a tender with is their original team....which means the rights have reverted back to the Giants in the case of Cruz

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:11 PM
I think the NFLPA would definitely want to make sure their members are being treated properly in any circumstance that would involve their contracts.
It would actually hurt the players to force them to sign the tender first. Then it would give the new team leverage since any refusal to play would be a violation of the contract, with all the fines included.

A player would be better of being traded without the singned tender since by rule the team MUST honor that tender amount.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:13 PM
Yes it does. Because until they sign that tender teams do not own that players rights. That's why those players are free to talk to other teams about contracts and work out for them and such. They are free agents. The original team just receives compensation when they leave, they do not own them as they do with a player under contract or a player that has already signed their tender offer. Which is also why drafted players are different. They are not free agents. Their rights are owned y he team who drafts them and they can not negotiate with other teams
Yes they do. The Giants own Victor Cruz' right as we speak, even though he hasn't signed a contract. That's what being a "restricted" free agent means.
The only question is...will Cruz sign the tender. If we didn't own hi rights, he could go to any team.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 02:28 PM
Yes they do. The Giants own Victor Cruz' right as we speak, even though he hasn't signed a contract. That's what being a "restricted" free agent means.
The only question is...will Cruz sign the tender. If we didn't own hi rights, he could go to any team.

He could have gone to any other team willing to pay the price.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 02:37 PM
Yes they do. The Giants own Victor Cruz' right as we speak, even though he hasn't signed a contract. That's what being a "restricted" free agent means.
The only question is...will Cruz sign the tender. If we didn't own hi rights, he could go to any team.


No that's not what it means. The giants did not own rights, that's why he was free to talk to any team he wanted about a contract.

And btw,

"@corryjoel: @slipknottin RFAs must sign their tender in order to be traded."

Correyjoel = Joel Correy, who is a former agent, salary and cap expert. The guy who runs overthecap.com

fansince69
05-24-2013, 02:42 PM
He could have gone to any other team willing to pay the price.yes but wasn't that only till 4/20(I think)after that the only team he can sign with is US......so in theory at that point we have his rights

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:43 PM
No that's not what it means. The giants did not own rights, that's why he was free to talk to any team he wanted about a contract.

And btw,

"@corryjoel: @slipknottin RFAs must sign their tender in order to be traded."

Correyjoel = Joel Correy, who is a former agent, salary and cap expert. The guy who runs overthecap.com

Not really. The Giants always had the option to match and Cruz would by rule have to saty with the Giants.
The restricted nature of the condition is a tad murky. But ultimately the Giants could always keep Cruz and there would be nothing anyone else could do about it.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:45 PM
He could have gone to any other team willing to pay the price.
No he couldn't. This would be true only if the Giants didn't choose to keep him. The Giants get to decide if he stays a Giant. No one else.
If JR would be willing to match any offer, he MUST stay a Giant. He's not really a free agent.

RoanokeFan
05-24-2013, 02:45 PM
Not really. The Giants always had the option to match and Cruz would by rule have to saty with the Giants.
The restricted nature of the condition is a tad murky. But ultimately the Giants could always keep Cruz and there would be nothing anyone else could do about it.

Did you find any information to suggest that a player had to sign a tender to be traded as a RFA?

Both scenarios would have required he sign a contract. I haven't heard back from my source and have to go work with the horses for a few hours. Hopefully, he will have answered by the time I get back. Although I guess Joel Corey is as good a source as any.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 02:47 PM
Not really. The Giants always had the option to match and Cruz would by rule have to saty with the Giants.
The restricted nature of the condition is a tad murky. But ultimately the Giants could always keep Cruz and there would be nothing anyone else could do about it.

Did you miss the second part of my post?

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:47 PM
Both scenarios would have required he sign a contract
I don't think so. As I said, Welker was traded as a RFA. I have seen no indication that he signed a tender.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 02:48 PM
yes but wasn't that only till 4/20(I think)after that the only team he can sign with is US......so in theory at that point we have his rights

No. He just no longer had the ability to negotiate with other teams. Giants can not trade him until/unless he signs his tender offer

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 02:51 PM
I don't think so. As I said, Welker was traded as a RFA. I have seen no indication that he signed a tender.


Welker signed his rfa tender before he was traded. But because it was still during the RFA open period he was free before doing so to work out a contract with the patriots. The patriots were going to give him an offer sheet, but traded instead.

He then signed his offer sheet so he could be traded, then signed his contract with the patriots, which did away with his tender offer.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:52 PM
No. He just no longer had the ability to negotiate with other teams. Giants can not trade him until/unless he signs his tender offer

Where is that rule. You need to show me. I really don't care except that it would be fun to prove you wrong. But you can say it over and over again and it still doesn't make it true. Some ex agent may or may not know. I cited an example with Welker. Show me where he actually signed his tender and I will admit your correctness. (begrudgingly of course)

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:53 PM
Welker signed his rfa tender before he was traded. But because it was still during the RFA open period he was free before doing so to work out a contract with the patriots. The patriots were going to give him an offer sheet, but traded instead.

He then signed his offer sheet so he could be traded, then signed his contract with the patriots, which did away with his tender offer.
When you sign the tender that is a contract. You are no longer a RFA at that point. You can't negotiate with another team and you can't accept an offer sheet from another team.

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 02:55 PM
And BTW Slippy what you said makes no sense. The word is that the Pats were going to make a huge offer to Welker. Then when he was traded, they agreed to a much smaller contract. Why on earth would Welker sign a tender when he could get much more money from the Pats or by the Dolphins matching the offer?

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 02:56 PM
Where is that rule. You need to show me. I really don't care except that it would be fun to prove you wrong. But you can say it over and over again and it still doesn't make it true. Some ex agent may or may not know. I cited an example with Welker. Show me where he actually signed his tender and I will admit your correctness. (begrudgingly of course)

So I have an agent and cap expert telling us what the rule is and you say he doesn't know. Alright. What's your source saying otherwise?

You're best example is a story where neither of us can find any article about anything to do with welker signing or not signing his RFA tender. Why don't you find an article that says welker didn't sign it and it was thrown away instead? Because there isn't one of those either.

like I said, find a single case where an RFA was traded without first signing his tender. Not knowing if welker did or didn't does not prove your point at all.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 02:57 PM
When you sign the tender that is a contract. You are no longer a RFA at that point. You can't negotiate with another team and you can't accept an offer sheet from another team.

He can agree to a trade before he signs the tender, but he HAS to sign the tender for the trade to go through

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 02:58 PM
And BTW Slippy what you said makes no sense. The word is that the Pats were going to make a huge offer to Welker. Then when he was traded, they agreed to a much smaller contract. Why on earth would Welker sign a tender when he could get much more money from the Pats or by the Dolphins matching the offer?

No. The pats were going to give him the same contract either way, the difference would have been if they did the offer sheet they would have included a poison pill so Miami couldn't match. Would have made no difference for welker

fansince69
05-24-2013, 03:02 PM
He can agree to a trade before he signs the tender, but he HAS to sign the tender for the trade to go throughOk so even if this is true( at this point it seems to be more of moreheads determination )........It basically makes this almost like a no trade clause.....the team can work a deal for the player to be traded and he has to ok it by signing the tender...

Morehead State
05-24-2013, 03:03 PM
So I have an agent and cap expert telling us what the rule is and you say he doesn't know. Alright. What's your source saying otherwise?

You're best example is a story where neither of us can find any article about anything to do with welker signing or not signing his RFA tender. Why don't you find an article that says welker didn't sign it and it was thrown away instead? Because there isn't one of those either.

like I said, find a single case where an RFA was traded without first signing his tender. Not knowing if welker did or didn't does not prove your point at all.

I have two strong pieces of evidence.
1. There are tons of cases of drafted players (rights) being traded to other teams without the existence of a contract. So we know that there are circumstances where a player can be traded without being under contract. In other words...his rights are traded.
2. We have the example of Wes Welker in 2007, who, if he actually signed a tender on his own accord, would be sacrificing a huge payday. PLUS, there is no record any of us has found yet, that shows that he did that. (which would fly in the face of his own interests)
3. We know that a RFA cannot sign with another team after the RFA window has closed. He is the exclusive property of the original team. All he can do is sign the tender or negotiate a different deal. That tender is so important, that it immediately is applied to the teams cap # once it is assigned by the team.

All you have is some guy I never heard of. Do I believe him, or my own lyin' eyes?

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 03:05 PM
Ok so even if this is true( at this point it seems to be more of moreheads determination )........It basically makes this almost like a no trade clause.....the team can work a deal for the player to be traded and he has to ok it by signing the tender...

Exactly. A team can NOT trade an RFA until they have signed their tender. The team can work out a trade, the player can work out a new contract (if before the deadline they can do it on their own, after the deadline they need a teams permission), but the player must first sign his tender for the trade to go through.

slipknottin
05-24-2013, 03:07 PM
I have two strong pieces of evidence.
1. There are tons of cases of drafted players (rights) being traded to other teams without the existence of a contract. So we know that there are circumstances where a player can be traded without being under contract. In other words...his rights are traded.
2. We have the example of Wes Welker in 2007, who, if he actually signed a tender on his own accord, would be sacrificing a huge payday. PLUS, there is no record any of us has found yet, that shows that he did that. (which would fly in the face of his own interests)
3. We know that a RFA cannot sign with another team after the RFA window has closed. He is the exclusive property of the original team. All he can do is sign the tender or negotiate a different deal. That tender is so important, that it immediately is applied to the teams cap # once it is assigned by the team.

All you have is some guy I never heard of. Do I believe him, or my own lyin' eyes?

Rookies are different. They are not free to talk to other teams. They are not free agents in any sense of the term.

Restricted free agents are free agents. I already explained why welker didn't sacrifice a big pay day

And just because you never heard of him means he doesn't know anything? Pretty much every beat reporter in the nfl refers to him. He is THE best source for cap and salary info out there to the general public.

I'm waiting for proof any RFA has ever been traded without first signing their tender. Most of the links to welkers deal are dead links now, and the best you can do is find articles that don't mention his tender at all. That's not proof of anything, that's a lack of proof