Another Loophole

[Jared A]

Just wanting to point his out...

Now that New Orleans is bidding on Wilfork also... I can trade the "rights" to WIlfork to Dallas, and they can just match, rather than an open bidding war.

[sportznut]

Just wanting to point his out...

Now that New Orleans is bidding on Wilfork also... I can trade the "rights" to WIlfork to Dallas, and they can just match, rather than an open bidding war.

I'm pretty sure you can't trade a player's rights once there is a bid on said player.

I'm not positive though.

[Jared A]

Actually... you can.

I traded for the rights to Jordan Gross last year. Even though he was a transition player. I then matched the offer.

[Troy S]

Just wanting to point his out...

Now that New Orleans is bidding on Wilfork also... I can trade the "rights" to WIlfork to Dallas, and they can just match, rather than an open bidding war.

I'm not sure I see that as a loophole or something to prevent, but that could be open to further discussion next year. Teams can trade the rights to a player they have tagged. Having a bid placed doesn't change their status. They are still a free agent until the bidding is over. We allow teams to trade the rights to tagged players as has been done in the NFL with tagged players traded. Once the offer-sheet is official and player removed from the free agency process, though, they are no longer a free agent but signed to that highest bid offer-sheet and their status changes from franchise tagged to player with an active contract. Then up to the home team if they want to match that active contract or not.

But teams can trade player rights so long as the player is tagged and still on the market. From the league perspective, it's desired that players get bids and that the market is fair to arrive at the best price amongst teams interested. Whether one team matches it or their rights traded to a different team to match, we haven't view that as something that needed to be prevented but could be further discussed and modified in the future if most did.

But we view the bidding process as NEGOTIATION. If a team can trade a franchise tagged players rights that player's status only changes when they have signed a new deal. Until the bidding is complete, no new deal signed. With any trade of a free agent's rights, the player remains on the market in the bidding process and his rights just transferred to the new team.

One thing we do once a restricted player has a bid is not allow compensation to be changed after the fact because it wouldn't be fair to the bidding team if the compensation required suddenly changed on them after the fact or even if it was lowered in hopes that a different team to put in a different counter-bid at a different price. Teams can lower required compensation so long as no bids and no interest at high price but not after bidding started.

But a team that places a bid on a franchise tagged player hasn't gotten anything yet and doesn't have any claim to the player yet. Their bid could be beat by another bidding team still. They are only "negotiating" with the player and talking about a potential deal until the 24 hours is up and then it's signed. Once signed, then the highest bidding team is in a different position. The player transferred to their roster by default in signing the player to an offer-sheet, and the player will remain with them unless the home team matches within the necessary time. But until the offer-sheet is official, the highest bidder doesn't have any expectation of anything because they could be out-bid at any moment by any other team with the necessary compensation requirement and interest in the player.

Say Matt Cassel was tagged and really wanted to sign with Denver and his old coach McDaniels... he could negotiate an offer-sheet with them, but before he signed it New England (who owned his rights as a tagged player) could deal him to another team in the NFC. That team wouldn't get him, but his "rights" if no contract signed yet. The player could still try to sign with Denver if they really wanted him, but his new team holding his rights could match it and keep him or let him go to that highest bidder and get the compensation instead of New England who dealt his rights away.

[Jared A]

Gotcha... but as soon as the time has "elapsed" and the player signs... you can't.

That makes sense.

[Dan R.]

The only real problem there that I see is that it's another form of price-fixing.

Instead of Dallas and New Orleans competing to sign Wilfork (as an example), Dallas could decide that NO's contract offer is as high as they want to go, so they trade for his rights. Now you have one person bidding instead of two, and NO won't bid against itself. Thus the price is "fixed" as the last contract offer NO made before the trade and Dallas matches

[Jared A]

However,

If New Orleans saw that deal go through... he could increase his offer on him.

[sportznut]

The only real problem there that I see is that it's another form of price-fixing.

Instead of Dallas and New Orleans competing to sign Wilfork (as an example), Dallas could decide that NO's contract offer is as high as they want to go, so they trade for his rights. Now you have one person bidding instead of two, and NO won't bid against itself. Thus the price is "fixed" as the last contract offer NO made before the trade and Dallas matches

Yeah, but that really doesn't matter if the minimums are raised.

Then, even to trade for one's rights and match an offer, you're still not going to get yourself a "bargain."

That still fixes the issue at hand here.