Free agency question

[X-Era]

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]

It is likely that UFA will revert to 4 years with the new deal.

[X-Era]

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?

[Dr. Lecter]

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.

[X-Era]

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.

[Dr. Lecter]

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.

[X-Era]

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:

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/

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?

[Dr. Lecter]

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:

http://www.askthecommish.com/freeagency/

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.

[X-Era]

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:

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency

<dl><dt>UFA (Unrestricted free agent)</dt><dd>Player in uncapped year with six or more accrued seasons whose contract has expired.</dd><dt>RFA (Restricted free agent)</dt><dd>Player in uncapped year with at least three accrued seasons whose contract has expired.</dd><dt>EFA (Exclusive restricted FA) </dt><dd>Player whose contract expires at a time when he has fewer than three accrued seasons.</dd><dt>Franchise</dt><dd>Free agent who has been designated as a franchise player.</dd><dt>Transition</dt><dd>Free agent who has been designated as a transition player.</dd><dt class="last">Released</dt><dd class="last">Vested veteran whose contract has been terminated and can sign with any club.</dd></dl>

[Buddo]

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.

[YardRat]

The compromise is going to be a trade-off of a rookie salary cap for quicker free agency.

[better days]

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.

[YardRat]

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.

[psubills62]

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.

[Ickybaluky]

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.