Question on Favre to Minny

[AtlPackFan]

I really don't know how this works so be kind if I am missing something really obvious. :oops:

Let's say that Favre is traded to Tampa...or wherever. What is to keep the Vikings from going to that team and blowing them away with an offer for Favre (think Herschel Walker). Can the terms of the trade include that whoever he is traded to can't turn around and trade him to Minny, Chicago for a certain amount of months, years???

[Fritz]

I don't think that the Pack can dictate a player's future once they trade him. TT might try to get informal assurances but even that might seem insulting.

I think if he trades Favre, he takes his chances after that. That's why it's incumbent upon him to get as much as he can for Favre, if he trades the guy. If Taylor's worth a second, then Favre's got to be worth more than that, in my opinion.

[billy_oliver880]

I really don't know how this works so be kind if I am missing something really obvious. :oops:

Let's say that Favre is traded to Tampa...or wherever. What is to keep the Vikings from going to that team and blowing them away with an offer for Favre (think Herschel Walker). Can the terms of the trade include that whoever he is traded to can't turn around and trade him to Minny, Chicago for a certain amount of months, years???

I was just thinking that myself. I sure hope that the packers would "poison pill" the trade agreement if that were to occur.

[retailguy]

Poison pills such as discussed above aren't allowed. You can have a "gentleman's agreement" but it won't be enforced by the NFL.

[Gunakor]

I really don't know how this works so be kind if I am missing something really obvious. :oops:

Let's say that Favre is traded to Tampa...or wherever. What is to keep the Vikings from going to that team and blowing them away with an offer for Favre (think Herschel Walker). Can the terms of the trade include that whoever he is traded to can't turn around and trade him to Minny, Chicago for a certain amount of months, years???


Nothing in particular would stop them, but I don't see why you'd trade for a player to help improve your football team only to trade him away the next day.

Minnesota can't discuss a deal with Tampa while Favre is still property of the Green Bay Packers. Until that deal is made, not a word can come from the Vikings about a deal. So at the earliest, Favre wouldn't make it to Minnesota before the end of preseason. Which means he probably wouldn't be the starter on week 1. Which means we wouldn't have to watch him run out of the visitors tunnel at Lambeau, and gives us a better chance at a split with the Vikings at least in 2008. I think that might soften the blow a tad.

[Patler]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

For example, trade him for the higher of the teams 2nd round pick in 2009; or the compensation received in a subsequent trade of Favre during the 2008 season (edit - originally mistyped as "during the 2009 season") plus the teams fourth round pick in 2009.

[Fritz]

You ought to be a GM Patler.

The Lions could use someone who knows a little about football.

[Zool]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

For example, trade him for the higher of the teams 2nd round pick in 2009; or the compensation received in a subsequent trade of Favre during the 2009 season plus the teams fourth round pick in 2009.

Exactly. I said this last week that if they trade him, it better be for conditional picks. Like a 2nd and 6th in 09 and a 7th in 10 and a 7th in 11. If Favre plays for someone other than the traded to team in the next year, the picks become firsts.

[Guiness]

Poison pills such as discussed above aren't allowed. You can have a "gentleman's agreement" but it won't be enforced by the NFL.

Given the current state of poison pills (the Minne/Seattle one is still allowed, isn't it?) I'd say it's more a matter of not being thought up than not allowed. See Patler's response. Something that says if he is traded again during the '08 season, any compensation they receive for him is assigned to the Pack, as well as the initial compensation...it doesn't stop his movement, but certainly makes it onerous.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

For example, trade him for the higher of the teams 2nd round pick in 2009; or the compensation received in a subsequent trade of Favre during the 2009 season plus the teams fourth round pick in 2009.

I would imagine any stipulation similar to this one would stop a trade dead in its tracks. Not that it does'nt exist, but it seems like an awful steep price to pay in order to maintain some leverage in the player's dealings.

[cheesner]

The only way around this, though, is for the traded team to release Favre, and then Minny signs Brett directly. The Vikes could then trade a 2nd round pick to that team, as a means of returning the favor, for a marginal player.

The conditional trade clause would have to cover releasing Favre also.

[Patler]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

For example, trade him for the higher of the teams 2nd round pick in 2009; or the compensation received in a subsequent trade of Favre during the 2008 season plus the teams fourth round pick in 2009.

I would imagine any stipulation similar to this one would stop a trade dead in its tracks. Not that it does'nt exist, but it seems like an awful steep price to pay in order to maintain some leverage in the player's dealings.

It would stop a deal only with a team who intends to act as an intermediary in getting Favre to a different team, and who hopes to gain from the double trade. If a team really wants Favre for themselves, it would be no impediment at all.

JUST REALIZED I HAD A TYPO, might have confused you! I meant a trade during the 2008 season. Sorry.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

For example, trade him for the higher of the teams 2nd round pick in 2009; or the compensation received in a subsequent trade of Favre during the 2008 season plus the teams fourth round pick in 2009.

I would imagine any stipulation similar to this one would stop a trade dead in its tracks. Not that it does'nt exist, but it seems like an awful steep price to pay in order to maintain some leverage in the player's dealings.

It would stop a deal only with a team who intends to act as an intermediary in getting Favre to a different team, and who hopes to gain from the double trade. If a team really wants Favre for themselves, it would be no impediment at all.

JUST REALIZED I HAD A TYPO, might have confused you! I meant a trade during the 2008 season. Sorry.

Agreed, if it were a trade to a team that only wants Favre. I just can't imagine a team not wanting to protect themselves. For instance, although highly improbable; what if Favre struggles to pick up th O if he were traded to a non WCO. That team may want to abandon the plan and deal him off. Granted this is highly unlikely, but a clause like that would really back a team into a corner if for some reason Favre does not work out. Or demands a release. :lol:

[Ballboy]

Who cares?


If the Packers don't want him to play for them, let him go play somewhere else......what, are the Packers afraid that Brett might come back to beat them?......the solution to that is simple then, let him play for the Packers!!

[pack4to84]

The only way around this, though, is for the traded team to release Favre, and then Minny signs Brett directly. The Vikes could then trade a 2nd round pick to that team, as a means of returning the favor, for a marginal player.

The conditional trade clause would have to cover releasing Favre also.
If he is release he would be subject to waver rules. Which would go by last year final standings in which the Bears would be one of the first teams to get a crack at claiming him off wavers, because of there bad record.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the Packers don't want him to play for them, let him go play somewhere else......what, are the Packers afraid that Brett might come back to beat them?......the solution to that is simple then, let him play for the Packers!!

This makes no sense. Teams sometimes have players of value that don't fit into their team. Why would they just give them away to other teams?

For instance, if Favre were brought back as a starter, it might make Rodgers expendable. Do you think they should just release Rodgers? Hell no, he is worth draft picks on the market.

[Lurker64]

I believe a lot of what would keep Favre from being traded again would be that if traded to team A he would ask for a gentlemen's assurance that Favre would not be traded again this year. If Favre were traded by team A this year in contradiction to the promise the GM of team A made to Ted Thompson, it would become known in GM circles that "the GM of team A is dishonest in his dealings and is not to be trusted." Which is something that will greatly hurt his ability to deal with other teams in the future.

Nobody wants to work out trades (picks or players) with a guy who is known to blatantly mislead you when it suits him. Reputation as a "fair and honest dealer" is important in NFL GM circles.

[Patler]

The only way around this, though, is for the traded team to release Favre, and then Minny signs Brett directly. The Vikes could then trade a 2nd round pick to that team, as a means of returning the favor, for a marginal player.

The conditional trade clause would have to cover releasing Favre also.
If he is release he would be subject to waver rules. Which would go by last year final standings in which the Bears would be one of the first teams to get a crack at claiming him off wavers, because of there bad record.

Veterans (4+ years) are not subject to waivers if they are released before the trade deadline. If released after the trade deadline they are subject to waivers, but can elect to become free agents at the end of the season even if their contract has not expired.

[Packerarcher]

If other teams would go through all this trouble to get a WINNING QB,how in the hell can you people not see that TT is a dumbfuck for not letting him come back. It's not to comlpicated you put the best player on the field,and that sure the FUCK isn't Rodgers.

[The Leaper]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

True...but you have to get the other team to AGREE to it, and it typically pertains to a player's performance and not about future transactions of the player.

This is different from a "poison pill"...which refers to teams constructing a restricted free agent offer that would be crippling to the player's current team if they chose to match the offer.

The Packers don't have much leverage...they've made it clear they are moving on, so if Favre turns in his paperwork then Thompson is FORCED to move him. Throwing conditions on a trade agreement when you don't have much leverage will only make the deal LESS sweet. I'm assuming Thompson is going to want to get as much as he can...so tacking on conditions isn't going to help that.

[Patler]

Conditional trades are done all the time.

True...but you have to get the other team to AGREE to it, and it typically pertains to a player's performance and not about future transactions of the player.

This is different from a "poison pill"...which refers to teams constructing a restricted free agent offer that would be crippling to the player's current team if they chose to match the offer.

The Packers don't have much leverage...they've made it clear they are moving on, so if Favre turns in his paperwork then Thompson is FORCED to move him. Throwing conditions on a trade agreement when you don't have much leverage will only make the deal LESS sweet. I'm assuming Thompson is going to want to get as much as he can...so tacking on conditions isn't going to help that.

I agree, it all depends on what is important to TT. I was simply suggesting that if TT is concerned about a team trading for Favre for the primary purpose of trading him to a third team (personally, I think that is very unlikely) there are ways to discourage a team from doing that.

On the other hand, if the team really wants Favre for their own use, what would they care about any consequences of a "re-trade" in 2008? It's not something that would happen.

Ultimately, TT's leverage in swinging a deal will depend primarily on one thing - how many teams are interested in acquiring Favre. If there is only lukewarm interest from a couple teams, the teams may be willing to take their chances getting him as a FA. If a couple teams want him badly, the price will go up as the teams try to ensure getting him.

[Ballboy]

If the Packers don't want him to play for them, let him go play somewhere else......what, are the Packers afraid that Brett might come back to beat them?......the solution to that is simple then, let him play for the Packers!!

This makes no sense. Teams sometimes have players of value that don't fit into their team. Why would they just give them away to other teams?

For instance, if Favre were brought back as a starter, it might make Rodgers expendable. Do you think they should just release Rodgers? Hell no, he is worth draft picks on the market.

First off, back off a bit HH.

This whole topic was brought up about TRADING Brett, not releasing him. What makes no sense is why the Packers, who clearly don't want him, wouldn't trade him for at least something. Tell me HH, what did the Packers gain by Brett retiring? Who cares if they get a 2nd, 3rd or even a 7th rounder for Brett - thats alot more than they got when he retired!!!!

Your "for instance" isn't even close what the situation is, so why you are trying to twist what I am saying into something as silly as that is beyond me.

[mmmdk]

Favre hasn't even file his reinstatement. What kind of game is Brett paying? The more this drags on, the more I (presently) loathe Brett Favre. The latter will pass with time but I'm with TT, Packers & Dungy on this one - 100%