Free agency question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • X-Era
    What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
    • Feb 2005
    • 27670

    Free agency question

    I believe that neither Poz nor Whitner were restricted FA's last year. Neither have 6 years which is required to reach FA regardless of the CBA.

    So, doesn't that mean its likely that both will be restricted free agents once a new CBA is signed?

    I think that might have been what Poz was implying when he talked about having to wait and see on the CBA.

    If they were supposed to be restricted if the CBA was still in place, I can;t believe they would not include something that makes all the players in this category restricted again.

  • Dr. Lecter
    Zero for Zero!
    • Mar 2003
    • 67930

    #2
    Re: Free agency question

    It is likely that UFA will revert to 4 years with the new deal.
    Originally posted by mysticsoto
    Lecter is right in everything he said.

    Comment

    • X-Era
      What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
      • Feb 2005
      • 27670

      #3
      Re: Free agency question

      Originally posted by Dr. Lecter
      It is likely that UFA will revert to 4 years with the new deal.
      Why does it seem that the previous CBA allowed had players be a restricted FA before they hit UFA?

      Comment

      • Dr. Lecter
        Zero for Zero!
        • Mar 2003
        • 67930

        #4
        Re: Free agency question

        Originally posted by X-Era
        Why does it seem that the previous CBA allowed had players be a restricted FA before they hit UFA?
        Because the last year of the most recent CBA changed the year from 4 to 6. So this past year was an odd one.
        Originally posted by mysticsoto
        Lecter is right in everything he said.

        Comment

        • X-Era
          What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
          • Feb 2005
          • 27670

          #5
          Re: Free agency question

          Originally posted by Dr. Lecter
          Because the last year of the most recent CBA changed the year from 4 to 6. So this past year was an odd one.
          Heres my problem. Last year Youboty was a RFA because he was drafted in 06. How can the NFL allow it be that the 07 group skips restricted FA? That wouldn't make sense.

          I think the NFl will make them restricted when the new CBA is done.

          Comment

          • Dr. Lecter
            Zero for Zero!
            • Mar 2003
            • 67930

            #6
            Re: Free agency question

            Originally posted by X-Era
            Heres my problem. Last year Youboty was a RFA because he was drafted in 06. How can the NFL allow it be that the 07 group skips restricted FA? That wouldn't make sense.

            I think the NFl will make them restricted when the new CBA is done.
            I doubt it. The player's union won't stand for the time period for UFA to decrease. especially in light on the upcoming rookie cap.
            Originally posted by mysticsoto
            Lecter is right in everything he said.

            Comment

            • X-Era
              What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
              • Feb 2005
              • 27670

              #7
              Re: Free agency question

              Originally posted by Dr. Lecter
              I doubt it. The player's union won't stand for the time period for UFA to decrease. especially in light on the upcoming rookie cap.
              Why would it not be the same as it's been under the previous CBA?

              Found this:

              "Restricted Free Agent" (RFA). And, of course, you would be right. A RFA is "any Veteran player with three or more accrued seasons, but less than five accrued seasons (or less than four accrued seasons in any capped year)...

              From:

              Ask the Commish.Com NFL Free Agency 101. We provide customized player rankings, cheatsheets, projections, forums, blogs fantasy points allowed and Sit or Start analysis.


              Both are under 5 accrued seasons and both would have been restricted under the old rule. Why would the NFL be willing to change it now?

              Why is it not likely that the previous rule would apply again?

              Comment

              • Dr. Lecter
                Zero for Zero!
                • Mar 2003
                • 67930

                #8
                Re: Free agency question

                Originally posted by X-Era
                Why would it not be the same as it's been under the previous CBA?

                Found this:

                "Restricted Free Agent" (RFA). And, of course, you would be right. A RFA is "any Veteran player with three or more accrued seasons, but less than five accrued seasons (or less than four accrued seasons in any capped year)...

                From:

                Ask the Commish.Com NFL Free Agency 101. We provide customized player rankings, cheatsheets, projections, forums, blogs fantasy points allowed and Sit or Start analysis.


                Both are under 5 accrued seasons and both would have been restricted under the old rule. Why would the NFL be willing to change it now?

                Why is it not likely that the previous rule would apply again?
                Next year will be a capped year, so it will be 4 years. So if that rule does apply, they would be UFA.
                Originally posted by mysticsoto
                Lecter is right in everything he said.

                Comment

                • X-Era
                  What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
                  • Feb 2005
                  • 27670

                  #9
                  Re: Free agency question

                  Originally posted by Dr. Lecter
                  Next year will be a capped year, so it will be 4 years. So if that rule does apply, they would be UFA.
                  According to the definitions at the bottom of this, both are currently restricted free agents:

                  The official source for NFL news, video highlights, fantasy football, game-day coverage, schedules, stats, scores and more.


                  UFA (Unrestricted free agent)
                  Player in uncapped year with six or more accrued seasons whose contract has expired.
                  RFA (Restricted free agent)
                  Player in uncapped year with at least three accrued seasons whose contract has expired.
                  EFA (Exclusive restricted FA)
                  Player whose contract expires at a time when he has fewer than three accrued seasons.
                  Franchise
                  Free agent who has been designated as a franchise player.
                  Transition
                  Free agent who has been designated as a transition player.
                  Released
                  Vested veteran whose contract has been terminated and can sign with any club.
                  Last edited by X-Era; 01-08-2011, 05:35 PM.

                  Comment

                  • Buddo
                    Registered User
                    • Mar 2007
                    • 1864

                    #10
                    Re: Free agency question

                    Nothing is necessarily as simple as it seems atm. I don't honestly know if this is the case, but what constitutes FA atm, may not be precisely as you are quoting, mainly because there were all sorts of caveats built into the last CBA for the transition back to FA. Some of those, may well still be relevant to this year's FA situation, where a new CBA hasn't been agreed.

                    In any circumstance of a new CBA being in place for this coming season, you can bet your bottom dollar that the players union, will ensure that the likes of Whitner and Poz, will be FAs, as they would expect to be. They wouldn't be able to get agreement to a new deal otherwise tbh, especially with so many guys from last year, who were RFAs when they had expected to be UFAs.

                    Comment

                    • YardRat
                      Well, lookie here...
                      • Dec 2004
                      • 86146

                      #11
                      Re: Free agency question

                      The compromise is going to be a trade-off of a rookie salary cap for quicker free agency.
                      YardRat Wall of Fame
                      #56 DARRYL TALLEY
                      #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS

                      Comment

                      • better days
                        Registered User
                        • Jan 2010
                        • 22028

                        #12
                        Re: Free agency question

                        Originally posted by YardRat
                        The compromise is going to be a trade-off of a rookie salary cap for quicker free agency.
                        Why? Vets should want a rookie cap.

                        Comment

                        • YardRat
                          Well, lookie here...
                          • Dec 2004
                          • 86146

                          #13
                          Re: Free agency question

                          Originally posted by better days
                          Why? Vets should want a rookie cap.
                          Because from a union standpoint (and they are repping all of the players, not just 'vets'), a rookie cap is a concession on their part that they will want balanced out with a quicker shot at a bigger contract.

                          Good compromise, IMO.
                          YardRat Wall of Fame
                          #56 DARRYL TALLEY
                          #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS

                          Comment

                          • psubills62
                            Legendary Zoner
                            • Sep 2008
                            • 11295

                            #14
                            Re: Free agency question

                            Originally posted by Dr. Lecter
                            I doubt it. The player's union won't stand for the time period for UFA to decrease. especially in light on the upcoming 18-game season.
                            Fixed it for you.
                            "Misguided political correctness tethers our intellects."
                            - Nicholas Cummings

                            Comment

                            • Ickybaluky
                              Registered User
                              • Jul 2003
                              • 8884

                              #15
                              Re: Free agency question

                              The 6 year UFA window in the uncapped year was a concession for just that year. The idea was the uncapped year was not what the owners wanted, but the players also wouldn't be happy because of other restrictions (6 yrs to UFA, no minimum cap, restrictions on top-8 teams, etc.). The differences in the CBA were designed to get both sides to the bargaining table, however the end result was the terms were more favorable to the owners.

                              The union actually wants to reduce the UFA window to 3 years and get rid of the tags (franchise/transition, etc.). That is their negotiating position. It likely will go back to what it was before (3 yrs RFA, 4 yrs UFA).

                              No way the union goes more than 4 years to UFA. In a sport with an average career of less than 4 years and a 100% injury rate, it would be unacceptable.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X