The Tendering of Players
by hubcityraider on Feb 29, 2008 10:01 AM CST
13 comments
The recent tendering of Barber and Canty got me thinking about the tender process, rules, and philosophy.
There are various levels players can be tendered at. The situation I am most familiar with is Wes Welker last year as I followed it closely. The Phins tendered Wes at a level that would require a 2nd round pick as compensation. The only reason I can see for not tendering him higher is that they get to pay a player at that level less and would be perfectly willing to let him go with that draft pick as compensation? Otherwise why not tender him at a higher level?
I think the Phins underestimated how much another team may want Wes. The Pats came along and not only were willing to offer Wes a large contract (ended up with $9MM guaranteed), but they were also about to put a poison pill in the offer to make it impossible for Miami to match without cutting Chambers. In light of this, Miami accepted a trade and got a 2 and a 7 from the Pats and the Pats got to sign Wes without the potentially damaging poison pill.
So my questions:
Other than a slightly higher salary, what is the disadvantage of tendering players at the highest level? Is there a limit on number of players tendered at certain levels? Does a team have complete discretion to put any player at any level?
Also, the poison pill will be something to keep an eye on with Barber, but another team will have to really want him to do that and give up a 1 and a 3. Canty is safe I'm sure.
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
0 recs |
13 comments
Email
Print
Comments
poison pill question
If a player has a desire to actually play for his old team once he is tendered but wants to test the FA waters to see what his FMV really is, like MB3, why can't the player simply tell his agent that in the course of negotiations that they don't want a poison pill in the contract?
It seems to me that poison pills only work if the player doesn't really care or want to come back and play for his old team.
by Terry on Feb 29, 2008 10:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good question
Can the Boys offer the same contract or even a slightly smaller one without the poison pill, and the player has discretion to take the smaller offer?
Or is it possible that a tendered player is required to go to the higher contract if their current team doesn't match?
by hubcityraider on Feb 29, 2008 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would think the players agent could control
whether the poison pill would be included in the offer, it would be part of the negotiations. Rosenhaus would just have to say he doesn't want a poison pill in the offer.
by Terry on Feb 29, 2008 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's right
Based on what I know about contracts, the player can tell the other team that they don't want a poison pill during negotiations. The team would of course resist that, but it's fair game in terms of negotiating.
As for hubcity's question, I'm not sure, but I believe there was a big stink when MIN/SEA were fighting it out as to whether the poison pill was a material provision in the contract. This is total armchair lawyering, but my guess is that they said it was material, so the team that matches would either need to up the money or agree to the poison pill. I think the player is more or less required to go with the higher contract; they sign the offer sheet, so the original team has to match or beat the offer sheet. I confess, though, that I don't know what exactly would count as beating such an offer; more guaranteed money, bigger contract number, etc. It may be that matching is the only option, hence the poison pill working for Hutchinson and Burleson.
Since the player is the one that decides whether or not to sign the offer sheet, I think a player that signs a poison pill sheet is basically throwing away his relationship with his current team, anyway.
by grapejoos on Feb 29, 2008 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense
The player has control right up until he signs the offer sheet. If the poison pill is unacceptable and the offering team insists on it then the player just doesn't sign the offer sheet and accepts the level of tendered salary he is guaranteed.
by hubcityraider on Feb 29, 2008 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree Terry...that poison bill is bogus,
you either wanna play at home..or you don't....don't expect your home to to match any garbage contract..
by BoyzRback07 on Feb 29, 2008 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This may be a stupid question
But can someone describe to me what a poison pill is? I have obviously heard the term thrown around and I assume that the team making the offer makes it so large that the current team cannot match it. Is this correct?
by DC_fan on Feb 29, 2008 10:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Saying something in the contract like:
If the player plays 4 or more games in Texas in 2008, the entire contract is guaranteed.
by Brandon Worley on Feb 29, 2008 10:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Or putting in there that the player is guaranteed to be one of the 3 highest paid players on offense when the team trying to sign him knows that matching the numbers would make MB3 only the 4th highest paid Cowboy on offense. as an exapmple.
by hubcityraider on Feb 29, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
From what I understand
It's a clause offered in the contract that mandates something ridiculous (If the player chooses to sign with a team that plays in a city starting with the letter M, said team must give the team that initially offered the player a deal their backup nose tackle and do fifty push-ups).
by BudLight on Feb 29, 2008 10:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no, its a term in the contract
that makes it virtually impossible for the old team to match.
For example, if a team (other than Houston) wanted to sign MB3 and didn't want Dallas to match it, they could put a term in the contract that says the entire contract is guaranteed if MB3 plays at least 3 games in Texas in 2008.
Obviously, Cowboys play 8 games in Texas every year, so if they matched the contract, the contract would have to be guaranteed.
by Terry on Feb 29, 2008 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't the going theory on poison pills
That there is an agreement(secretly) amongst owners not to use it against each other when dealing with other players. Otherwise, you would've seen more of it.
by APerfectStar on Feb 29, 2008 12:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
