OT: Sources: Eagles expected to franchise, trade Nick Foles

Status
Not open for further replies.

Visionman

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2017
Posts:
7,995
Liked Posts:
4,451
I think we already know Foles wouldn't do that.

Why? Because Eagles engaged the $25mil option on Foles, and the next day Foles paid the $2mil to get out of it. Foles doesn't want to ride the pine (even for a lot of money) he wants to start. He's already 30 years old, and he knows he can't remain sharp or get better unless he starts. Sitting retards skills. He has the clout to get to a team that will start him.

The Eagles did not want him on that 25m option either, as there's no way they could pay it. And they couldn't trade him on it, either.

But they could trade him on the tag, and in fact would have to, because they can't afford him. And it would give a degree of control over which team he went to, as he could nix any deal by saying he won't sign a long term deal. Eagles would have to take whatever they could get from the teams Foles is willing to play for.
 

Burque

Huevos Rancheros
Joined:
Mar 11, 2015
Posts:
15,961
Liked Posts:
10,858
If I were Foles, I'd sign the franchise tag the moment it was offered. 20+m for riding the pine, and still be a FA in a year...

Oh fuck yes! If I were him I would sign it immediately and then demand that if I am traded it is to a team that is either A: playing me on the franchise tag for a year and not offering me a deal I am willing to accept. or B: I am traded to a team that I WANT to go to and they are paying me generational money to be their starter for the next several years.

The Eagles could fuck themselves here. He could sign it and be like "Naw, I'm good" to any offers for teams willing to trade for him if he isn't feeling it.
 

Burque

Huevos Rancheros
Joined:
Mar 11, 2015
Posts:
15,961
Liked Posts:
10,858
I am guessing the players try to do away with the tag all together although not sure if the owners will cave.

I would be totally cool with a one year franchise tag, and if after that year you don't have a contract in place you are an UFA. I am sure it is annoying to the players to be in this odd do I have a team or not for up to three years.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
The Eagles did not want him on that 25m option either, as there's no way they could pay it. And they couldn't trade him on it, either.

But they could trade him on the tag, and in fact would have to, because they can't afford him. And it would give a degree of control over which team he went to, as he could nix any deal by saying he won't sign a long term deal. Eagles would have to take whatever they could get from the teams Foles is willing to play for.
Not sure if you know this... Eagles don't have to tag him, because right now, since he voided the contract, he's set to be a 2019 FA in March. Eagles are not on the hook for anything right now. Free and clear.

The only thing the Eagles might be considering is franchising him in order to trade him for a pick. It's their right, but they intrinsically have less bargaining power because other teams know Eagles can't afford him. Teams might decide they will wait for the Eagles to release Foles and just try to make Foles the best offer, save themselves a 3rd round pick.

On the other hand, if a team is desperate to get Foles, fearing Foles won't select them, they'd gladly pay a 3rd for a tagged Foles.
 

Les Grossman

Well-known member
Joined:
Jun 22, 2011
Posts:
13,628
Liked Posts:
12,377
Not sure if you know this... Eagles don't have to tag him, because right now, since he voided the contract, he's set to be a 2019 FA in March. Eagles are not on the hook for anything right now. Free and clear.

The only thing the Eagles might be considering is franchising him in order to trade him for a pick. It's their right, but they intrinsically have less bargaining power because other teams know Eagles can't afford him.

Actually, to be technically correct, it's not within their right to franchise tag Foles for the purposes of trading him. I believe the rules for franchising him are to be in "good faith" for retaining/negotiating a long term contract. I'd bet given the circumstances and all that's happened, Foles would have a VERY good case to appeal the franchise tag designation.
 

Les Grossman

Well-known member
Joined:
Jun 22, 2011
Posts:
13,628
Liked Posts:
12,377
Eagles’ apparent tag-and-trade plan for Nick Foles would violate the CBA

With the contract dance between the Eagles and quarterback Nick Foles already progressing to the point at which the final decision rests in the hands of the team, the player needs to take full advantage of his leverage. And he has plenty.

With the Eagles apparently hoping to tag and trade Foles, Foles and his representatives should be prepared to counter any attempt to block his path to the open market, either by persuading the Eagles not to do it or by challenging the effort, or both.


First, Foles should take the position that, if the Eagles apply the franchise tag, he’ll immediately accept it, putting him under contract for 2019 at roughly $25 million, fully guaranteed. That’s cash and cap dollars that will apply to Foles on the Eagles’ books, unless and until Foles is traded. Foles also should make it clear that he won’t be signing a long-term deal, with the Eagles or anyone else. That would make it much harder to trade him, since his new team would be stepping into a Kirk Cousins-style conundrum, which would entail Foles costing $25 million for 2019 and, if tagged again, $30 million for 2020.

That could be enough to scare away any team that believes it will parlay a trade for Foles into a long-term deal, especially if the team wants to pay less than $55 million over the first two years. In turn, that could persuade the Eagles not to tag Foles in the first place.

Second, Foles and his agents should challenge the franchise tag, if it’s applied. Article 4, Section 8, subsection (b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement states as follows: “A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season.” If the Eagles would simply be tagging Foles to trade him, Foles should invoke this provision and fight the tag, via an expedited grievance that would be resolved before the start of free agency.

What could the Eagles say in response? Whatever it is, Foles should force them to try to come up with something other than what their strategy for the tag would apparently be: A placeholder aimed at getting the Eagles a draft pick now instead of a compensatory pick later. If the Eagles attempt with the straight face to argue that this isn’t the plan, Foles should use this ESPN report as the starting point for a scorched-earth effort to review text messages and emails to determine whether and to what extent the Eagles have spoken to other teams about a tag and trade.

Yes, the Eagles have the right under the rules to tag Foles. But unless they truly intend to employ Foles at the amount of the tag for 2019, they’re abusing the rules. Is that how the Eagles should be showing gratitude to the quarterback who delivered the team’s only Super Bowl championship?

That’s a question Foles and his agents should be asking now, as the Eagles finalize their strategy. With so many people seemingly accepting the idea that the Eagles have every right to tag and trade Foles, the sooner Foles and his agents make sure everyone realizes that: (1) the strategy isn’t appropriate; and (2) Foles will fight it, the more likely the Eagles will possibly decide to do the right thing and let Foles hit the open market.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...de-plan-for-nick-foles-would-violate-the-cba/
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
Actually, to be technically correct, it's not withing their right to franchise tag Foles for the purposes of trading him. I believe the rules for franchising him are to be in "good faith" for retaining/negotiating a long term contract. I'd bet given the circumstances and all that's happened, Foles would have a VERY good case to appeal the franchise tag designation.
That is interesting. That would be Foles' choice.

Kind of goes back to if Foles and Eagles being in cahoots. Would Foles really prefer to be a FA, or would he want to be tagged for 2019 -- that is, if he's tagged he's starting with some $25 mil for 2019... might that be a good place for a QB like Foles to begin negotiations with his new team?

Meanwhile, on the Eagles side, they can sketch out a deal with another team for a 3rd rounder. Maybe all three are happy with this.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Not the Raiders concern.............

It actually was. Had the Bear and Mack not come to proposed terms, the Bear would not have made the trade. This is, however, a poor case example since the Bears were willing to make him the highest paid D player in the league. Foles' situation may be different since we're talking about something like a 3rd for a team to have exclusive rights to negotiate, at least for a while. If there seems to be a willingness of both Foles and the team to negotiate in good faith, a 3rd is not a great deal to risk for that opportunity.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,745
Eagles’ apparent tag-and-trade plan for Nick Foles would violate the CBA

With the contract dance between the Eagles and quarterback Nick Foles already progressing to the point at which the final decision rests in the hands of the team, the player needs to take full advantage of his leverage. And he has plenty.

With the Eagles apparently hoping to tag and trade Foles, Foles and his representatives should be prepared to counter any attempt to block his path to the open market, either by persuading the Eagles not to do it or by challenging the effort, or both.


First, Foles should take the position that, if the Eagles apply the franchise tag, he’ll immediately accept it, putting him under contract for 2019 at roughly $25 million, fully guaranteed. That’s cash and cap dollars that will apply to Foles on the Eagles’ books, unless and until Foles is traded. Foles also should make it clear that he won’t be signing a long-term deal, with the Eagles or anyone else. That would make it much harder to trade him, since his new team would be stepping into a Kirk Cousins-style conundrum, which would entail Foles costing $25 million for 2019 and, if tagged again, $30 million for 2020.

That could be enough to scare away any team that believes it will parlay a trade for Foles into a long-term deal, especially if the team wants to pay less than $55 million over the first two years. In turn, that could persuade the Eagles not to tag Foles in the first place.

Second, Foles and his agents should challenge the franchise tag, if it’s applied. Article 4, Section 8, subsection (b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement states as follows: “A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season.” If the Eagles would simply be tagging Foles to trade him, Foles should invoke this provision and fight the tag, via an expedited grievance that would be resolved before the start of free agency.

What could the Eagles say in response? Whatever it is, Foles should force them to try to come up with something other than what their strategy for the tag would apparently be: A placeholder aimed at getting the Eagles a draft pick now instead of a compensatory pick later. If the Eagles attempt with the straight face to argue that this isn’t the plan, Foles should use this ESPN report as the starting point for a scorched-earth effort to review text messages and emails to determine whether and to what extent the Eagles have spoken to other teams about a tag and trade.

Yes, the Eagles have the right under the rules to tag Foles. But unless they truly intend to employ Foles at the amount of the tag for 2019, they’re abusing the rules. Is that how the Eagles should be showing gratitude to the quarterback who delivered the team’s only Super Bowl championship?

That’s a question Foles and his agents should be asking now, as the Eagles finalize their strategy. With so many people seemingly accepting the idea that the Eagles have every right to tag and trade Foles, the sooner Foles and his agents make sure everyone realizes that: (1) the strategy isn’t appropriate; and (2) Foles will fight it, the more likely the Eagles will possibly decide to do the right thing and let Foles hit the open market.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...de-plan-for-nick-foles-would-violate-the-cba/

Lies I was told that Foles has no leverage, lol.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,086
Liked Posts:
23,414
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
The discussion shouldn't really be about leverage anyway. Eagles are trying to get a little back for grooming Foles. Foles may be amiable or not. I don't think leverage will have much to do with what ultimately happens. We have no idea if this is a power play by either side but ultimately he'll end up somewhere he deems acceptable since he'll need to sign the bottom line for anyone to play him.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
Actually, to be technically correct, it's not within their right to franchise tag Foles for the purposes of trading him. I believe the rules for franchising him are to be in "good faith" for retaining/negotiating a long term contract. I'd bet given the circumstances and all that's happened, Foles would have a VERY good case to appeal the franchise tag designation.

I agree. The purpose of the franchise tag was for teams to be able to retain their good players while trying to work out a long-term deal. Even the "Kurt Cousins" situation was kind of a perversion of the franchise tag, in that the Redskins weren't actively negotiating a long-term deal with Cousins...they were simply 'buying time' to decide whether or not they wanted to offer Cousins a long-term deal.
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,163
It actually was. Had the Bear and Mack not come to proposed terms, the Bear would not have made the trade. This is, however, a poor case example since the Bears were willing to make him the highest paid D player in the league. Foles' situation may be different since we're talking about something like a 3rd for a team to have exclusive rights to negotiate, at least for a while. If there seems to be a willingness of both Foles and the team to negotiate in good faith, a 3rd is not a great deal to risk for that opportunity.

Exactly...so what leverage does he have again?
 

FirstTimer

v. 2.0: Fully Modded
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
May 4, 2010
Posts:
27,077
Liked Posts:
15,163
Eagles’ apparent tag-and-trade plan for Nick Foles would violate the CBA

With the contract dance between the Eagles and quarterback Nick Foles already progressing to the point at which the final decision rests in the hands of the team, the player needs to take full advantage of his leverage. And he has plenty.

With the Eagles apparently hoping to tag and trade Foles, Foles and his representatives should be prepared to counter any attempt to block his path to the open market, either by persuading the Eagles not to do it or by challenging the effort, or both.


First, Foles should take the position that, if the Eagles apply the franchise tag, he’ll immediately accept it, putting him under contract for 2019 at roughly $25 million, fully guaranteed. That’s cash and cap dollars that will apply to Foles on the Eagles’ books, unless and until Foles is traded. Foles also should make it clear that he won’t be signing a long-term deal, with the Eagles or anyone else. That would make it much harder to trade him, since his new team would be stepping into a Kirk Cousins-style conundrum, which would entail Foles costing $25 million for 2019 and, if tagged again, $30 million for 2020.

That could be enough to scare away any team that believes it will parlay a trade for Foles into a long-term deal, especially if the team wants to pay less than $55 million over the first two years. In turn, that could persuade the Eagles not to tag Foles in the first place.

Second, Foles and his agents should challenge the franchise tag, if it’s applied. Article 4, Section 8, subsection (b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement states as follows: “A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season.” If the Eagles would simply be tagging Foles to trade him, Foles should invoke this provision and fight the tag, via an expedited grievance that would be resolved before the start of free agency.

What could the Eagles say in response? Whatever it is, Foles should force them to try to come up with something other than what their strategy for the tag would apparently be: A placeholder aimed at getting the Eagles a draft pick now instead of a compensatory pick later. If the Eagles attempt with the straight face to argue that this isn’t the plan, Foles should use this ESPN report as the starting point for a scorched-earth effort to review text messages and emails to determine whether and to what extent the Eagles have spoken to other teams about a tag and trade.

Yes, the Eagles have the right under the rules to tag Foles. But unless they truly intend to employ Foles at the amount of the tag for 2019, they’re abusing the rules. Is that how the Eagles should be showing gratitude to the quarterback who delivered the team’s only Super Bowl championship?

That’s a question Foles and his agents should be asking now, as the Eagles finalize their strategy. With so many people seemingly accepting the idea that the Eagles have every right to tag and trade Foles, the sooner Foles and his agents make sure everyone realizes that: (1) the strategy isn’t appropriate; and (2) Foles will fight it, the more likely the Eagles will possibly decide to do the right thing and let Foles hit the open market.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...de-plan-for-nick-foles-would-violate-the-cba/

Eagles could win that case in about 5 minutes. We don't trust Wentz to stay healthy...they offer Foles a low ball long term team for optics..and keep attempting to trade him. This isn't difficult to get around. Have you been following the NFL and the way the league and teams run themselves?
 

legendxofxlink

Whistle Dixie
Joined:
Apr 25, 2014
Posts:
10,494
Liked Posts:
11,911
Location:
Tennessee
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nashville Predators
  1. ETSU Buccaneers
  2. Tennessee Volunteers
Eagles could win that case in about 5 minutes. We don't trust Wentz to stay healthy...they offer Foles a low ball long term team for optics..and keep attempting to trade him. This isn't difficult to get around. Have you been following the NFL and the way the league and teams run themselves?

Just mentioning "good faith" in a contract is ridiculous.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
The discussion shouldn't really be about leverage anyway. Eagles are trying to get a little back for grooming Foles. Foles may be amiable or not.

What do you mean when you say "Foles may be amiable OR NOT"? What if Foles is "not amiable"...does that mean that Foles will agree to earn $0 in 2019?
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,745
Foles would be suing the NFL because he has no leverage.

Read the whole story. It starts off saying this.


First, Foles should take the position that, if the Eagles apply the franchise tag, he’ll immediately accept it, putting him under contract for 2019 at roughly $25 million, fully guaranteed. That’s cash and cap dollars that will apply to Foles on the Eagles’ books, unless and until Foles is traded. Foles also should make it clear that he won’t be signing a long-term deal, with the Eagles or anyone else. That would make it much harder to trade him, since his new team would be stepping into a Kirk Cousins-style conundrum, which would entail Foles costing $25 million for 2019 and, if tagged again, $30 million for 2020.


Pretty much what I said. You are being purposefully obtuse.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
Read the whole story. It starts off saying this. This is what I said and a part of his leverage.


First, Foles should take the position that, if the Eagles apply the franchise tag, he’ll immediately accept it, putting him under contract for 2019 at roughly $25 million, fully guaranteed. That’s cash and cap dollars that will apply to Foles on the Eagles’ books, unless and until Foles is traded. Foles also should make it clear that he won’t be signing a long-term deal, with the Eagles or anyone else. That would make it much harder to trade him, since his new team would be stepping into a Kirk Cousins-style conundrum, which would entail Foles costing $25 million for 2019 and, if tagged again, $30 million for 2020.

Makes about as much sense as your previous comment about bargaining power...Foles can increase his bargaining power by proactively limiting his employer market. In this case, Foles can "leverage" himself into getting a big money long-term deal by making it clear that he won't be signing a long-term deal.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,801
Liked Posts:
37,745
Your strawmen used to be a bit better than this Rory.
 

Rory Sparrow

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 14, 2010
Posts:
4,850
Liked Posts:
3,735
Your strawmen used to be a bit better than this Rory.

I like the idea of Foles suing the NFL to gain leverage and avoid being franchise tagged, and you interpret this as "Foles has leverage because he is franchise tagged".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top