Can Someone Explain something to me?

[Lurker64]

On NFL.com Adam Schefter has an article (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8094bd7a&template=with-video&confirm=true) on Favre that includes the following:


If the Packers agree to trade Favre to any team, the quarterback can veto the deal simply by declining to report. Then Favre's rights would revert back to Green Bay, which would be forced to take him back along with his $12 million base salary -- or release him.

Is this situation unique to Favre? If so, why? If not, does this mean that it's essentially impossible in the NFL to trade any player to a team he doesn't want to be traded to?

Patler? Somebody?

[vince]

This cannot be correct. See Jake Plumber.

Under this scenario, Favre could just show up to Green Bay, get traded, then refuse to show up to the team who he's been traded to and be sent back to Green Bay. To play? No. He could do this with every team and force the Packers to pay him?

No.

[Pacopete4]

I can be correct.. See Terrell Owens

[vince]

The Packers could trade his rights for future considerations, which would depend on his performance.

[vince]

Actually Lurk, now that I think about the Plummer situation, he didn't retire until after he was traded.

This may be the key to why Brett has not filed for reinstatement. Since Brett has not been reinstated into the league, his rights may well go back to the Pack, which may also be why the Packers are waiting for him to file.

That would make this situation unique to Brett.

[NewsBruin]

I don't know if all NFL contracts are like this. The article seems as though this issue is not unique to Brett, and I've not heard it reported anywhere else. Maybe it's true that any player can void a trade by not showing up. On the other hand I think we would have seen that before. On the other, other hand, this is almost identical to Jake Plummer's post-retirement trade, and I don't think the Bucs ever got their draft pick back.

So, I don't know. Still, I believe the guy has some facts wrong.


It is not unlike the case involving Pro Bowl wide receiver Terrell Owens in 2004. Back then, the 49ers agreed to trade Owens to the Baltimore Ravens for a second-round draft pick. But Owens refused to play in Baltimore and negotiated with other teams as if the trade never would go through.

Eventually, he was right. San Francisco was forced to send Owens to Philadelphia for a conditional fifth-round pick and defensive end Brandon Whiting.

If I remember right, there was a disagreement between T.O. and the Niners about the date to get out of his contract. Owens and his attorney thought their contract allowed him more time to void his remaining years. and the 49ers made the trade to Baltimore, thinking that T.O. had to comply by the CBA. However, I believe Owens' contract had a later voidable date or earlier Free Agency date than the CBA, and his clause applied over and beyond the CBA.

The 49ers took T.O. to arbitration to get the trade to stand. Before the arbitrator could rule, SF made a deal to give back the Ravens' pick and take the Eagles' 5th rounder and player.

The Niners weren't "forced" to do anything. They settled before the ruling, likely because they decided that Owens had a winning case. If they were confident that they would win, they wouldn't have settled. If it were just a case of Owens not reporting to Baltimore, they could have traded him elsewhere.

2nd Round Pick > 5th Rounder and a guy who played 5 games for the Niners> Nothing.

[retailguy]

On NFL.com Adam Schefter has an article (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8094bd7a&template=with-video&confirm=true) on Favre that includes the following:


If the Packers agree to trade Favre to any team, the quarterback can veto the deal simply by declining to report. Then Favre's rights would revert back to Green Bay, which would be forced to take him back along with his $12 million base salary -- or release him.

Is this situation unique to Favre? If so, why? If not, does this mean that it's essentially impossible in the NFL to trade any player to a team he doesn't want to be traded to?

Patler? Somebody?

I think the situation is somewhat unique to Favre, but not for the reasons you think.

It would make sense that every team would put a provision in the contract nullifying the compensation if the player didn't report (ala Terrell Owens). It would also make sense that the original team would get the rights back to the player in question, otherwise that player would then be a free agent, and that wouldn't work, at all.

So, I think what they're saying is that failure to report nullifies the trade and everything goes back to the way it was before the trade happens.

In this case, that means that Favre again becomes part of the 80 man roster and his salary goes right back on the books. The reason players get traded is that they WANT to continue playing in the NFL, and don't have the personal situation that Favre has (being a legend and all...). Most of these guys are just earning a living...

[PackerPro42]

All it's saying is that if Favre doesn't report to camp his rights revert back to the Packers thereby "vetoing" the trade. The situation's unique because most players choose not to be a total douche bag.

[mission]

All it's saying is that if Favre doesn't report to camp his rights revert back to the Packers thereby "vetoing" the trade. The situation's unique because most players choose not to be a total douche bag.

:knll:

[Joemailman]

Since Favre is retired, it makes sense that he can't be forced to report to a team that trades for him. You can't force him to end his retirement. Not sure how that makes him a douche bag.

[vince]

So can anyone comment on how the Jake Plummer situation is/was different? Perhaps the Bucs chose to keep his rights rather than send the back to the Broncos?

[MJZiggy]

So can anyone comment on how the Jake Plummer situation is/was different? Perhaps the Bucs chose to keep his rights rather than send the back to the Broncos?

I think you answered your own question. The Bucs traded for him and just hung onto his rights instead of voiding the trade.

[Lurker64]

Suppose Favre officially applies to the NFL for reinstatement and the Packers add him to their 80 man roster, and he reports to camp as a Green Bay Packer, would this situation change at all then or would he still have the option to refuse to report where he is traded thereby returning his rights to us?

[vince]

So that could happen again in this situation. If, say, the Packers traded Brett Favre's rights and a 7th rounder to the Bucs for their 7th rounder...

[MJZiggy]

I doubt it, depending on if he contract has a no-trade clause in it...

[digitaldean]

So can anyone comment on how the Jake Plummer situation is/was different? Perhaps the Bucs chose to keep his rights rather than send the back to the Broncos?

When Denver traded Plummer and he subsequently retired, the Bucs filed for Plummer to pay back his contract bonus to them (since they had his contract through the trade).

He ended up paying Tampa $3.5 million not to play there and stay retired.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/06/10/plummer-will-pay-bucs-35-million/

[vince]

Suppose Favre officially applies to the NFL for reinstatement and the Packers add him to their 80 man roster, and he reports to camp as a Green Bay Packer, would this situation change at all then or would he still have the option to refuse to report where he is traded thereby returning his rights to us?
According to the article, the situation is the same..


Now, if and when Favre sends a letter to the NFL and the Packers asking to be reinstated and he officially unretires, Green Bay will have approximately 24 hours to reinstate him. If and when Favre unretires, the Packers -- who already have said they refuse to release their quarterback -- will have only two viable options.

»They can take back Favre in whatever role they have for him.

Or…

»They can search for a city in which Favre is willing to play and take a substandard deal from that team for their legendary quarterback.

Neither option would appear to be particularly appealing to the Packers, but they are better than the only other alternative, which is to release Favre, giving him the freedom to sign with any of the Packers' three divisional rivals in the NFC North.

[Lurker64]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.

[vince]

So can anyone comment on how the Jake Plummer situation is/was different? Perhaps the Bucs chose to keep his rights rather than send the back to the Broncos?

When Denver traded Plummer and he subsequently retired, the Bucs filed for Plummer to pay back his contract bonus to them (since they had his contract through the trade).

He ended up paying Tampa $3.5 million not to play there and stay retired.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/06/10/plummer-will-pay-bucs-35-million/

Favre has no cap hit repayment opportunity in this case, and he wouldn't want the Bucs to hold onto his rights. The Packers would though.

The Bucs could just agree with a wink and a handshake to hold on to Brett's rights in the event that he decides to retire again, saying that, if Brett decides to return, they want him to play for them.

[vince]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.
It certainly doesn't sound right to me either.

[Rastak]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.
It certainly doesn't sound right to me either.


Who would make a trade that wasn't contingent on the guy reporting and passing a physical?

[vince]

The Bucs did when they traded for Jake Plummer.

[Rastak]

The Bucs did when they traded for Jake Plummer.


And how stupid was that?

Think about it.

We'll give you a number 1.

Cool.

Hey, the player never reported?


Sorry sucker.

[vince]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.
It certainly doesn't sound right to me either.


Who would make a trade that wasn't contingent on the guy reporting and passing a physical?
The point that Lurker is making is that any player traded to a team he doesn't want to play for can just not show up, thereby rescinding the trade and sending him back to his original team. That gives the player a strong veto power that isn't right.

[Rastak]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.
It certainly doesn't sound right to me either.


Who would make a trade that wasn't contingent on the guy reporting and passing a physical?
The point that Lurker is making is that any player traded to a team he doesn't want to play for can just not show up, thereby rescinding the trade and sending him back to his original team. That gives the player a strong veto power that isn't right.

I hear ya but it is right. How many times has a player trade been canceled due to a player not passing a physical? The rights revert back. No report, no physical, no trade.

Unless the team waives it and keeps the player. Perhaps the Bucs thought they could convince him to play?

[vince]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.
It certainly doesn't sound right to me either.


Who would make a trade that wasn't contingent on the guy reporting and passing a physical?
The point that Lurker is making is that any player traded to a team he doesn't want to play for can just not show up, thereby rescinding the trade and sending him back to his original team. That gives the player a strong veto power that isn't right.

I hear ya but it is right. How many times has a player trade been canceled due to a player not passing a physical? The rights revert back. No report, no physical, no trade.

Unless the team waives it and keeps the player. Perhaps the Bucs thought they could convince him to play?
Yes the TEAM should have the right to reject a player and therefore a trade based on a physical examination, but the player under contract can't (or shouldn't be able to) just veto a trade because he doesn't like the city or has prejudged the coach.

Perhaps that's the way it works in a traditional player-for-pick simple trade, but teams ought to be able to make trades conditional on performance, so a team who trades for a player who doesn't show up doesn't owe the old team anything, but they still own their rights for the term of the contract he signed - unless of course, there's a no-trade clause built into the contract.

[Rastak]

I hear you but how exactly do you suggest they force a player to play for a team?

Gun point? They aren't slaves.

Do you think a team wouldn't make the trade contigent upon reporting? As I said they could waive that but if the dude refuses to show up I can't see how the other team keeps the picks or players.


I have seen deals where a player for player trade when changed to a pick when one player refused to report.

[vince]

I hear you but how exactly do you suggest they force a player to play for a team?

Gun point? They aren't slaves.
They can't. The player either plays for that team or retires. He shouldn't have the option to go back to the old team.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.
It certainly doesn't sound right to me either.


Who would make a trade that wasn't contingent on the guy reporting and passing a physical?
The point that Lurker is making is that any player traded to a team he doesn't want to play for can just not show up, thereby rescinding the trade and sending him back to his original team. That gives the player a strong veto power that isn't right.

I hear ya but it is right. How many times has a player trade been canceled due to a player not passing a physical? The rights revert back. No report, no physical, no trade.

Unless the team waives it and keeps the player. Perhaps the Bucs thought they could convince him to play?

The situation with plummer isn't accurate. Plummer actually retired on the eve of the trade. While he didn't announce it till like a week later, it was known that he was contemplating retirement.

Like Favre, plummer never turned in his retirement paperwork. The bucs did try to convince him to unretire.

The bucs originally wanted to give a 4th for him. Instead they gave the Broncos a conditional draft pick for Plummer and nothing for him if he no showed for training camp.

[Rastak]

I hear you but how exactly do you suggest they force a player to play for a team?

Gun point? They aren't slaves.
They can't. The player either plays for that team or retires. He shouldn't have the option to go back to the old team.


Sorry, see edit above. I have seen trades fall through when a player doesn't report. I can see you wish it was some other way but it isn't.

[Rastak]

As the other guy above pointed out, the trade was renegotiated. The Bucs could have just canceled it.

[retailguy]

As the other guy above pointed out, the trade was renegotiated. The Bucs could have just canceled it.

From what I remember this is correct. The trade was renegotiated primarily because Gruden thought he could talk Jake out of retirement. In the event that failed, I think the Broncos got a 7th round pick and the Bucs got the right to recoup the bonus, so in essence the Bucs traded a 7th round pick to Denver for $3.5million dollars....

[retailguy]

Lurker, what I meant by Favre being different is that he's in demand if he's released by A LOT of organizations. So if he doesn't show and subsequently gets waived then he has options. Now substitute Taco Wallace. If he refuses a trade, then gets waived, what's next?

That's the difference to me. Desirability.

[pbmax]

Yes, it is true. But Favre is unique in many ways. He doesn't want the payday here. He is not missing accruing years for FA or gaining on incentives. So he can miss the checks. Most players choose not to do that. He does not need another contract, so goodwill goes out the window.

Plummer retired rather than report, then the Broncos and Bucs redid the deal. If I recall, the Bucs knew this was possible before the deal. The Bucs kept his rights and recovered the bonus money.

That is why, if Favre is not on board, the best offer will be conditional and initially contain a low pick.


So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.

[vince]

Like Favre, plummer never turned in his retirement paperwork. The bucs did try to convince him to unretire.

The bucs originally wanted to give a 4th for him. Instead they gave the Broncos a conditional draft pick for Plummer and nothing for him if he no showed for training camp.
The Bucs also retained his rights....

So in this case then, the Packers could trade Favre to the Bucs for a conditional second round pick (if Favre shows up - nothing if he doesn't) and retain his rights even if Favre retires again right away, correct?

[pbmax]

Its not the players choice to go back to the old team. The only way that happens is if the trade is voided, which happens at the behest of a team.

If the team hasn't protected itself (say it didn't anticipate the problem and doesn't have a conditional option) then it may feel this is the best thing.




I hear you but how exactly do you suggest they force a player to play for a team?

Gun point? They aren't slaves.
They can't. The player either plays for that team or retires. He shouldn't have the option to go back to the old team.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Like Favre, plummer never turned in his retirement paperwork. The bucs did try to convince him to unretire.

The bucs originally wanted to give a 4th for him. Instead they gave the Broncos a conditional draft pick for Plummer and nothing for him if he no showed for training camp.
The Bucs also retained his rights....

So in this case then, the Packers could trade Favre to the Bucs for a conditional second round pick (if Favre shows up - nothing if he doesn't) and retain his rights even if Favre retires again right away, correct?

Well, i would expect us to get something regardless..the plummer precedent certainly shows that. IF he is worth a 7th for never playing...then brett is worth at least a 6th. :oops:

I think if we trade him..the bucs retain his rights...if i'm getting the gist of your question. If he is traded retired..then bucs keep his rights...as he never unretired.

IF he unretires and we trade him...i don't see your scenario ever coming to frution..as TT would want the pick. But, i guess we could word it so that we retain his rights.

[vince]

Like Favre, plummer never turned in his retirement paperwork. The bucs did try to convince him to unretire.

The bucs originally wanted to give a 4th for him. Instead they gave the Broncos a conditional draft pick for Plummer and nothing for him if he no showed for training camp.
The Bucs also retained his rights....

So in this case then, the Packers could trade Favre to the Bucs for a conditional second round pick (if Favre shows up - nothing if he doesn't) and retain his rights even if Favre retires again right away, correct?

Well, i would expect us to get something regardless..the plummer precedent certainly shows that. IF he is worth a 7th for never playing...then brett is worth at least a 6th. :oops:

I think if we trade him..the bucs retain his rights...if i'm getting the gist of your question. If he is traded retired..then bucs keep his rights...as he never unretired.

IF he unretires and we trade him...i don't see your scenario ever coming to frution..as TT would want the pick. But, i guess we could word it so that we retain his rights.
I don't think the Packers really want his rights. They've moved on. They just don't want his rights to fall into the wrong hands. So if Brett applies for reinstatement, worst case - they could trade him for a (conditional) song to a team that he may or may not play for. Brett's options then would be to play for that team or retire.

That's what pb said too. That's the way it should work, IMO, but that's different than what the original article says as I understand it.

[Rastak]

Like Favre, plummer never turned in his retirement paperwork. The bucs did try to convince him to unretire.

The bucs originally wanted to give a 4th for him. Instead they gave the Broncos a conditional draft pick for Plummer and nothing for him if he no showed for training camp.
The Bucs also retained his rights....

So in this case then, the Packers could trade Favre to the Bucs for a conditional second round pick (if Favre shows up - nothing if he doesn't) and retain his rights even if Favre retires again right away, correct?

Vince, that should work. Assuming you meant the Bucs retain his rights. If he doesn't report and the Bucs aren't out anything then I'm sure they would do it. In fact, in this case THEY would be the ones who could turn around and trade Favre's rights again for what they could get if he didn't want to report. I would think they'd do that, or try the ole "get some signing bonus trick". Either way, they would get a commodity for free.

[cpk1994]

So does that mean that it's essentially impossible to trade a player to a team he is unwilling to play for? I'm not sure what's unique about the Favre situation here.
It certainly doesn't sound right to me either.


Who would make a trade that wasn't contingent on the guy reporting and passing a physical?
The point that Lurker is making is that any player traded to a team he doesn't want to play for can just not show up, thereby rescinding the trade and sending him back to his original team. That gives the player a strong veto power that isn't right.

I hear ya but it is right. How many times has a player trade been canceled due to a player not passing a physical? The rights revert back. No report, no physical, no trade.

Unless the team waives it and keeps the player. Perhaps the Bucs thought they could convince him to play?I can give you an example Ras. Eric Dickerson to the Packers. E.D. failed the physical and the trade was voided.

[vince]

So IF the Packers are set to "move on," as they've said, they could facilitate a trade such as that, along with a conditional 7th for a 6th or something like that and a wink and a handshake to another team to keep his rights. The trade would obviously have to be to a team who would LOVE for him to "threaten" to show up in camp, unlike the Packers have maintained since the end of June up to now....

If both sides maintain their current entrenched positions, and push comes to shove, Brett is the one who's painted into a corner here.

That would explain a lot of what we heard (and what was edited out) in his interview with Greta.

[Rastak]

So IF the Packers are set to "move on," as they've said, they could facilitate a trade such as that, along with a conditional 7th for a 6th or something like that and a wink and a handshake to another team to keep his rights. The trade would obviously have to be to a team who would LOVE for him to "threaten" to show up in camp, unlike the Packers have maintained since the end of June up to now....

If both sides maintain their current entrenched positions, and push comes to shove, Brett is the one who's painted into a corner here.

That would explain a lot of what we heard (and what was edited out) in his interview with Greta.


Right, and if the Favre told the team he wouldn't report, they'd not do the wink and the handshake part. If they thought he would report, I would guess they might agree to keep the rights.

[vince]

I just read about Brett getting set to apply for reinstatement. If that report is true, I think he's going to be a Buc.

[PackerBlues]

another thing to consider about Favre holding off on applying for re-instatement is that by doing so, he is avoiding an aweful lot of bs that Thompson would throw his way. How many times have we seen coaches or players fined for voicing their opinions publicly? As it stands, Favre is untouchable until he is re-instated, so it kind of makes sense for him to hold off until he has aired his side of the argument to his satisfaction.

[The Leaper]

another thing to consider about Favre holding off on applying for re-instatement is that by doing so, he is avoiding an aweful lot of bs that Thompson would throw his way. How many times have we seen coaches or players fined for voicing their opinions publicly? As it stands, Favre is untouchable until he is re-instated, so it kind of makes sense for him to hold off until he has aired his side of the argument to his satisfaction.

That is a very good point that I had not thought of.

[The Leaper]

I don't think the Packers really want his rights. They've moved on. They just don't want his rights to fall into the wrong hands.

That's what I find so hilarious. Favre isn't good enough to play in Green Bay, but we are scared to death of him going somewhere else and beating us.

Which is it Thompson? Is Favre good enough to be dangerous? Apparently so. So why push a top 5 QB in the league out the door when he wants to play for your team?