Can Someone Explain something to me?

[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/...cs-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.