red
03-05-2007, 04:41 PM
from pft
PATS TRADE FOR WELKER
Peter King of SI.com reports that the New England Patriots have acquired Dolphins receiver Wes Welker for a second-round pick and a seventh-round pick in the 2007 draft.
But the Pats could have gotten Welker for only a second-round draft pick, if they had tendered to him a beefed-up offer sheet with a poison-pill provision making it fully guaranteed under circumstances that would have applied only if Miami had matched the offer. Though there was a chance that the Fins would have bitten the bullet and given Welker a fully-guaranteed $38.5 million contract, it was highly unlikely.
So did the Pats simply piss away a seventh-round pick? The easy answer is yes. But given that they didn't have to spend the next seven days worrying about whether Miami might match the offer, giving up one of the very last picks in the draft isn't much of a sacrifice.
Also, even though the league seemingly legitimized the whole poison-pill thing by attempting to strike a deal with the union that would have removed it from the CBA, there's no guarantee that the device will be upheld the next time a case involving it ends up in arbitration. Last year, the Seahawks inexplicably abandoned their arguments on the merits of the matter and showed up at the hearing claiming that, because they had pushed around some of the money in left tackle Walter Jones' contract, Steve Hutchinson would have been the highest paid offensive lineman on the team, and thus Seattle could match the offer sheet that Hutchinson had signed in Minnesota without the deal being fully guaranteed.
What if this time around the Fins had opted to argue that, even though the poison-pill does not require a team to pay more money by matching, the device as a practical matter entails more money because it eliminates the team's inherent ability to terminate the deal early? And what if the arbitrator had decided that the poison-pill is a form-over-substance device that violates the spirit of the CBA?
Bottom line -- the Pats avoided a bunch of potential worries and headaches for a throwaway pick in the bottom of the draft.
PATS TRADE FOR WELKER
Peter King of SI.com reports that the New England Patriots have acquired Dolphins receiver Wes Welker for a second-round pick and a seventh-round pick in the 2007 draft.
But the Pats could have gotten Welker for only a second-round draft pick, if they had tendered to him a beefed-up offer sheet with a poison-pill provision making it fully guaranteed under circumstances that would have applied only if Miami had matched the offer. Though there was a chance that the Fins would have bitten the bullet and given Welker a fully-guaranteed $38.5 million contract, it was highly unlikely.
So did the Pats simply piss away a seventh-round pick? The easy answer is yes. But given that they didn't have to spend the next seven days worrying about whether Miami might match the offer, giving up one of the very last picks in the draft isn't much of a sacrifice.
Also, even though the league seemingly legitimized the whole poison-pill thing by attempting to strike a deal with the union that would have removed it from the CBA, there's no guarantee that the device will be upheld the next time a case involving it ends up in arbitration. Last year, the Seahawks inexplicably abandoned their arguments on the merits of the matter and showed up at the hearing claiming that, because they had pushed around some of the money in left tackle Walter Jones' contract, Steve Hutchinson would have been the highest paid offensive lineman on the team, and thus Seattle could match the offer sheet that Hutchinson had signed in Minnesota without the deal being fully guaranteed.
What if this time around the Fins had opted to argue that, even though the poison-pill does not require a team to pay more money by matching, the device as a practical matter entails more money because it eliminates the team's inherent ability to terminate the deal early? And what if the arbitrator had decided that the poison-pill is a form-over-substance device that violates the spirit of the CBA?
Bottom line -- the Pats avoided a bunch of potential worries and headaches for a throwaway pick in the bottom of the draft.