Can Someone Explain something to me?

[Lurker64]

On NFL.com Adam Schefter has an article 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]

Re: Can Someone Explain something to me?

On NFL.com Adam Schefter has an article 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.

[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...