The WR battle of 2019

[swede700]

6 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Things have changed since 2009. I am going to trust the current CBA over anything that happened back then. Nothing in the current CBA implies a trade would allow for an unsigned franchise player to sign a longer contract with a team he is traded to after signing his one year deal post July 15. Other teams can no longer sign franchise players to offer sheets after July 15th as they could back in 2009 either.

Here is the relevant information from the current CBA:

https://www.thefootballeducator.com/nfl-cba-article-10-franchise-transition-players/

Here is the text of section 2(k):

That means that a team that trades for Clowney would not be able to sign Clowney to a long term contract until after the season.

I disagree with your interpretation based upon the language of the CBA you posted...solely because of the reference directly to "Prior Club."  There is clearly a loophole that allows a new team to extend it.

Edited August 28, 2019 by swede700

[Cearbhall]

22 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I disagree with your interpretation based upon the language of the CBA you posted...solely because of the reference directly to "Prior Club."  There is clearly a loophole that allows a new team to extend it.

I suppose a grievance could be filed and an arbitrator would decide, but it looks pretty clear. The player can sign only a one-year contract with his prior club AND the contract may not be extended until after the season.

A team cannot trade for the franchise player until he has signed the contract with is prior club; teams cannot trade unsigned players. The contract with the prior club cannot be for more than one year.  That contract cannot be extended until after the season.

If you can cite anything suggesting that interpretation is wrong I'll discuss that. If not, I see no reason to discuss the topic further. You are free to think what you want to think. Hanging your hat on a 10 year old report about a previous CBA that was never proven accurate even in its time (since, you know, Cassel signed before the deadline) is at beast precarious given the plain language of the current CBA and the more recent media reports that the traded player would not be able to be extended until after the season.

[swede700]

 

 

 

 

2

2 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I suppose a grievance could be filed and an arbitrator would decide, but it looks pretty clear. The player can sign only a one-year contract with his prior club AND the contract may not be extended until after the season.

A team cannot trade for the franchise player until he has signed the contract with is prior club; teams cannot trade unsigned players. The contract with the prior club cannot be for more than one year.  That contract cannot be extended until after the season.

If you can cite anything suggesting that interpretation is wrong I'll discuss that. If not, I see no reason to discuss the topic further. You are free to think what you want to think. Hanging your hat on a 10 year old report about a previous CBA that was never proven accurate even in its time (since, you know, Cassel signed before the deadline) is at beast precarious given the plain language of the current CBA and the more recent media reports that the traded player would not be able to be extended until after the season.

Fair enough, I guess we'll see what happens, but I don't believe it's anywhere near as clear as you believe it is.  I see a clear loophole...and I don't even think it requires a grievance to determine it.

[swede700]

 

 

 

 

Just now, swede700 said:

Fair enough, I guess we'll see what happens, but I don't believe it's anywhere near as clear as you believe it is.  I see a clear loophole...and I don't even think it requires a grievance to determine it.

Since it won't let me edit my post, I only wanted to say further that I'm not completely relying on an old article,  I think the section of the CBA quoted only reinforces what the article says.

[Klomp]

@swede700 Check your browser extensions to solve that problem. For example, Grammarly was doing that to my posts for awhile. Haven't had a problem since disabling it.

[swede700]

5 minutes ago, Klomp said:

@swede700 Check your browser extensions to solve that problem. For example, Grammarly was doing that to my posts for awhile. Haven't had a problem since disabling it.

Will do, I'll try that, especially considering I have Grammarly installed too.  Appreciate it.  

[SemperFeist]

If DeVante Parker is getting released by Miami, I’d definitely look at him as WR3. 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

1 hour ago, SemperFeist said:

If DeVante Parker is getting released by Miami, I’d definitely look at him as WR3. 

I would too.

I liked him coming out in 2015 and Miami hasn't been receiver friendly his entire time there (I think Landry was the last to hit 1,000 in 2016?).

Maybe a fresh start with a competent quarterback could do him well. He's had spurts where he plays like a solid WR but when you have Tannehill, previously retired Jay Cutler (LOL), and Brock Osweiler throwing you balls, that might be hard to do on a regular basis.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Vikes_Bolts1228

[vike daddy]

2 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

If DeVante Parker is getting released by Miami, I’d definitely look at him as WR3. 

he played with Teddy, right?

[Robb_K]

5 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

If DeVante Parker is getting released by Miami, I’d definitely look at him as WR3. 

WOW!!!  So would I.  I hope The Vikings can grab him!  They need someone else who can get open and catch the ball at WR, especially if Thielen or Diggs gets hurt.

[swede700]

Is he actually healthy?  We already have several WRs on the roster who have the tendency to get nicked up...do we need another?  And why would he get released?  Didn't they just extend him?  

Edited August 29, 2019 by swede700

[VikeManDan]

9 hours ago, vike daddy said:

he played with Teddy, right?

I believe they did for at least one year.

[Kparty15]

17 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

If DeVante Parker is getting released by Miami, I’d definitely look at him as WR3. 

I haven’t heard anything about DeVante Parker potentially getting released.  Everything that I’ve heard is that they are trying to move Kenny Stills, but keep Parker.  Parker would be a huge upgrade to our WR group if he did become available, but he doesn’t play special teams at all.

 

I think it’s more likely that Josh Doctson becomes available instead of Parker.

[swede700]

26 minutes ago, Kparty15 said:

I haven’t heard anything about DeVante Parker potentially getting released.  Everything that I’ve heard is that they are trying to move Kenny Stills, but keep Parker.  Parker would be a huge upgrade to our WR group if he did become available, but he doesn’t play special teams at all.

 

I think it’s more likely that Josh Doctson becomes available instead of Parker.

Doctson is available for trade.  That was published either earlier this week or last.  

[SemperFeist]

3 hours ago, Kparty15 said:

haven’t heard anything about DeVante Parker potentially getting released.  Everything that I’ve heard is that they are trying to move Kenny Stills, but keep Parker.  Parker would be a huge upgrade to our WR group if he did become available, but he doesn’t play special teams at all.

Parker has some cryptic social media posts on his Instagram and Snapchat, that was leading people to speculate that he was either being released, or was going to be part of a trade.