Question on NFL Contracts and Trading

[Fritz]

Does anyone know if an NFL contract allows a player with certain years of experience to deny his team the ability to trade him? Since Favre's been around so long, is there a clause that allows him to say no to any trade?

This is an awkward situation. The longer this drags on, the uglier it will get. If TT has his hands tied vis a vis trading Favre, he may just release him sooner rather than later, just to get this over with. He may feel it's less damagaing to release Favre now than it would be to let this drag out and try to get a third round pick halfway through training camp.

[pbmax]

No, but if said potential trading partner doesn't want a Jake Plummer scenario where all they will get is unallocated signing bonus money, then that team is going to want an assurance that the player will show up. Unless the trade is for low stakes/picks and is conditional on the players attendance.

Moreso, if the trading partner needs Favre to redo the contract, then he has leverage as well.

If the Packers want anything of value in return, Favre is going to need to agree to the destination. In essence, he has a de facto trade veto. Not by CBA, but by practical considerations.

[cpk1994]

Does anyone know if an NFL contract allows a player with certain years of experience to deny his team the ability to trade him? Since Favre's been around so long, is there a clause that allows him to say no to any trade?

This is an awkward situation. The longer this drags on, the uglier it will get. If TT has his hands tied vis a vis trading Favre, he may just release him sooner rather than later, just to get this over with. He may feel it's less damagaing to release Favre now than it would be to let this drag out and try to get a third round pick halfway through training camp.Releasing Favre now and letting fall right into to the Vikings lap would be 10000000 times worse than dragging it out. Try explining that one to the stockholders.

[Fritz]

Ah. Thank you. And of course the Packers cannot simply hang onto Favre, either. They can't keep a roster spot for him just to let him sit.

TT doesn't really have a lot of leverage. He may be better off trying to arrange a trade and if he can't get it done, say, a week or so into training camp, then just releasing Favre.

[MJZiggy]

Does anyone know if an NFL contract allows a player with certain years of experience to deny his team the ability to trade him? Since Favre's been around so long, is there a clause that allows him to say no to any trade?

This is an awkward situation. The longer this drags on, the uglier it will get. If TT has his hands tied vis a vis trading Favre, he may just release him sooner rather than later, just to get this over with. He may feel it's less damagaing to release Favre now than it would be to let this drag out and try to get a third round pick halfway through training camp.

He doesn't really have his hands tied, because if Favre doesn't cooperate with the trade his options are to reretire (again) or ride the pine. TT cannot be forced to give him away.

[Fritz]

Technically, yes Zig, but I think TT knows better than to keep Favre on the roster with no intention of playing him. That would be a soap opera that could destroy the team. Ain't no way it could work.

[cpk1994]

Technically, yes Zig, but I think TT knows better than to keep Favre on the roster with no intention of playing him. That would be a soap opera that could destroy the team. Ain't no way it could work.THere is no way Brett's ego will allow him to sit at camp and do nothing after all the shit he pulled to get reinstated. Don't have to worry about that soap opera.

[bobblehead]

Ah. Thank you. And of course the Packers cannot simply hang onto Favre, either. They can't keep a roster spot for him just to let him sit.

TT doesn't really have a lot of leverage. He may be better off trying to arrange a trade and if he can't get it done, say, a week or so into training camp, then just releasing Favre.

What I expect to happen today is that the packers will announce they have given Bus Cook permission to arrange a trade with an AFC team. If Brett goes to the ravens (my personal choice) it really doesn't matter what we get for him, even a 5th beats unconditionally releasing him.

I know this isn't likely, but fun to discuss BUT...what if the vikings made a big offer, like a first and a third. I know we don't want him in minnesota, but wow, that would be hard to refuse.

[MJZiggy]

I'm using it more as the idea that make it worth Brett's while to be cooperative about getting a trade done if TT finds someone who wants to trade for him. If Favre pulls a prima donna "I won't go there," he knows TT has the option of making things difficult for him and he also knows it's in his own best interest to get something done sooner than later. He has not seen a pro football field since last season ended and will have to learn a whole new team and a whole new offense. Dragging this out is in no one's best interest.

[Fritz]

Hmmm. This would suggest that both sides have an interest in settling this quickly. Maybe a trade will be investigated, and if it's determined that that won't happen, Favre will get his release. I think it's interesting to consider how long TT can wait - it is to his advantage to wait for a certain period of time, to give teams' QB's a chance in early training camp to get hurt or suck - but that if TT waits too long, it hurts his chances of trading Favre or getting as much as he might.

Same scenario for Favre. He has some leverage by waiting in that the Packers can't just hang on to him and cost themselves a roster spot and heartache; on the other hand his value diminishes if he can't get into camp and start training.

BTW, no one has yet mentioned that Favre is a guy who really likes to lean on one or two receivers he's comfortable with, and the longer he waits to get into a camp, the harder that transition will be. IF he goes to the Vikes, who's his trusted receiver? Robert Ferguson? Sydney Rice? Bernard Berrien?

[sheepshead]

Good points. This waiting game is likely to go on for a while unless Parcels or someone steps in with a deal that makes everyone happy.

[vince]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the Packers could trade his rights for "future considerations," which could depend on whether he actually decides to play for said team (if no, $1), how he performs (sliding draft pick). They could also include poison pills that would ensure the team wouldn't releases him right away to go to Minnesota or Chicago (like five first round picks or someting extreme).

His contract is also a complicating factor.

[Scott Campbell]

No, but if said potential trading partner doesn't want a Jake Plummer scenario where all they will get is unallocated signing bonus money, then that team is going to want an assurance that the player will show up. Unless the trade is for low stakes/picks and is conditional on the players attendance.

Moreso, if the trading partner needs Favre to redo the contract, then he has leverage as well.

If the Packers want anything of value in return, Favre is going to need to agree to the destination. In essence, he has a de facto trade veto. Not by CBA, but by practical considerations.


By practical considerations, he'd have to slink back into retirement to void a trade.

[Scott Campbell]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the Packers could trade his rights for "future considerations," which could depend on whether he actually decides to play for said team (if no, $1), how he performs (sliding draft pick). They could also include poison pills that would ensure the team wouldn't releases him right away to go to Minnesota or Chicago (like five first round picks or someting extreme).


I'm sure it would be some sort of "conditional" trade. See Pacman Jones.

[Scott Campbell]

Good points. This waiting game is likely to go on for a while unless Parcels or someone steps in with a deal that makes everyone happy.


It can't go on too long. If Favre is going to play somewhere else, he's got to get his ass into camp.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't see the Packers needing to be in any big hurry. They were already prepared to get nothing for him if he stayed retired. Anything they get for him is gravy at this point.

[Fritz]

I thought this too, Scott, but I can imagine a team with legitimate playoff/Super Bowl aspirations (Tampa Bay?) getting three weeks into camp and having the starting QB go down. Bet they'd still be okay with getting a rusty Favre.

But the whold timetable question is interesting.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hmmm. This would suggest that both sides have an interest in settling this quickly. Maybe a trade will be investigated, and if it's determined that that won't happen, Favre will get his release.


I would abandon my own white grandmother before I would release Favre.

Better to sign him to be backup, and wait for a trade opportunity to the AFC.

The players are gonna rally behind Rodgers. If FAvre choices to play the brooding, age-discriminated veteran it won't fly. And i doubt he would do that. HE might retire.

[Gunakor]

Ah. Thank you. And of course the Packers cannot simply hang onto Favre, either. They can't keep a roster spot for him just to let him sit.

TT doesn't really have a lot of leverage. He may be better off trying to arrange a trade and if he can't get it done, say, a week or so into training camp, then just releasing Favre.

What I expect to happen today is that the packers will announce they have given Bus Cook permission to arrange a trade with an AFC team. If Brett goes to the ravens (my personal choice) it really doesn't matter what we get for him, even a 5th beats unconditionally releasing him.

I know this isn't likely, but fun to discuss BUT...what if the vikings made a big offer, like a first and a third. I know we don't want him in minnesota, but wow, that would be hard to refuse.

If the Queens are willing to part with a 1st rounder I'd consider it. If the Queens are willing to part with a 1st rounder PLUS, I don't think I'd hesitate too long. As I'm sure everyone has figured out by now, I am all about the long term success of the Packers franchise. An additional first AND third round pick does a whole helluva lot for the long term success of the Packers. I think I'd have to do it.

2 words to remember about this topic though as it relates to the Vikings. Hershel Walker. It won't happen again...

[Scott Campbell]

I thought this too, Scott, but I can imagine a team with legitimate playoff/Super Bowl aspirations (Tampa Bay?) getting three weeks into camp and having the starting QB go down. Bet they'd still be okay with getting a rusty Favre.

But the whold timetable question is interesting.


That might work out better for the team getting him than not having a QB at all. But it doesn't work out that well for Brett, who obviously would prefer to have a training camp under his belt. He's likely to play a lot better if he gets the added camp practice in.

[Scott Campbell]

I would abandon my own white grandmother before I would release Favre.


I don't think its very nice to get her hopes up like that Harlan.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They could also include poison pills that would ensure the team wouldn't releases him right away to go to Minnesota or Chicago (like five first round picks or someting extreme).

I asked about this a while ago and got no response from the peanut gallery.

I seriously doubt any such restrictions in a contract could be legal. A team owns a players rights, but they can't expect to control his opportunities after they trade him. That practically amounts to organized blacklisting.

I know that private industry can have "non-compete" clauses in contracts. But these clauses are often unenforcable. And those companies aren't using monopoly power to make them stick like the NFL would be doing.

[vince]

That could very well be, Harlan, but when you see the Vikings get away with stealing Hutch away from Seattle the way they did when he was supposedly protected, it seems like just about anything can be included in a contract between two parties to get around league rules and the agreements are upheld.

[Fritz]

TT is being pretty harsh if at that media event today he really did infer that Favre could come back as a backup. Dang. I'm very disappointed in Favre, but still, that's pretty harsh stuff there, Teddy.

[mngolf19]

TT is being pretty harsh if at that media event today he really did infer that Favre could come back as a backup. Dang. I'm very disappointed in Favre, but still, that's pretty harsh stuff there, Teddy.

TT is just calling his bluff. He's hoping that pushes Favre back to retirement. If Favre calls TT's bluff, then he'll force movement out of GB one way or another. No way you can keep Favre as the backup and think the lockeroom wouldn't be screwed up or that fan pressure on Arod at that point wouldn't be too much.