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

[Rory Sparrow]

1. The Eagles can't trade him to whoever they want as the other team has to agree

I love this comment. I imagine Ryan Pace calling up John Lynch..."We are going to trade you Jordan Howard, and you are going to give me 2 first round draft picks whether you like it or not. Got it?"

Hence why Foles has some control or leverage as the agent noted.

A false statement. The agent never used the term "leverage" in your first article. You keep using that word.

2. He can't be traded unless he signs the tender so your argument again makes no sense. He has some leverage because he can refuse to sign

OMG! I thought we had moved on from iueyedoc's idiocy. Foles can "refuse to sign" regardless of being traded or not! The downside is that if he refuses to sign, he'll earn $0! So, in your logic, Foles would have "leveraged" himself into a current salary of $0!

or he can refuse to negotiate a long term deal which may impact what if anything teams offer the Eagles. This has been explained by an NFL agent.

Again, Foles can refuse to negotiate a short term deal, a 10-day contract, a 25 year contract...the length is inconsequential. He can chose to retire. When does "leverage" come into play?

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Wow. Team can't use money on another player that is dedicated to a current player. Shocking.

Sadly (and pathetically), I already went over this exact same 'complicated' issue with Remy in Post #91 of this thread, yet here we are in Post #199 with Remy still harping on it.

If not, then that would be 25 million that they couldn't spend on FAs until they moved Foles

So if the Eagles pay Foles $25M and no other NFL team takes Foles’ contract off their hands, then the Eagles can’t turn around and spend that same $25M on free agents? Wow. This is so complicated. No wonder NFL teams hire ‘capologists’.

 

[FirstTimer]

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/eagles/why-would-nick-foles-sign-franchise-tag

This link is hilarious. "Franchise legend" Nick Foles...who the team is wanting to trade. :aj:

The only recourse the Eagles have in that situation is to apply the tag and sit on Foles’ rights until he signs.

That's a pretty strong recourse seeing as the Eagles have complete control over Foles location of work and if he chooses to show up and earn money or not.

I love how this article makes it seem like the salary cap gymnastics the Eagles would have to do is different than what any other team has to do on a yearly basis to sign free agents or franchise players. This is normal. The Steelers have done it, the Saints have done it, etc. This is business as usual in the NFL. Let's reiterate here that the OWNERS invented the franchise tag to screw the players. They know how to use it, they know how to work around it. It's not rocket science.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmar...ion-option-to-become-free-agent/#73e8db7f6273

This is even funnier. Foles option was $20 million. The tag would be around $25 million. You really think an extra $5 million is a massive difference to Philly in this scenario? Foles could have accepted the option that paid him $20 million (that the Eagles were clearly willing to pay for one season) and it wouldn't have screwed Philly..and now you're acting as though an extra $5 million is some kind of terrible inconvenience?

:aj:

Your own sources fucked you.

 

[remydat]

They weren't willing to pay for one season. It was discussed they picked up option to trade him as well.

Let's revisit when you have anyone other than you, Rory or CCS posters claiming Foles has absolutely no leverage. Until then I will side with the agents and people that cover NFL for a living.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

This is even funnier. Foles option was $20 million. The tag would be around $25 million. You really think an extra $5 million is a massive difference to Philly in this scenario? Foles could have accepted the option that paid him $20 million (that the Eagles were clearly willing to pay for one season) and it wouldn't have screwed Philly..and now you're acting as though an extra $5 million is some kind of terrible inconvenience?

:aj:

Your own sources fucked you.

I like the irony that the majority of CCS people saw no problem with Pace bringing in Glennon for one season at $15M with Trubisky on his first contract, but the idea that the Eagles would bring back Foles for one season at $20M with Wentz on his first contract is somehow incomprehensible.

 

[FirstTimer]

I honestly can't find any sports site

5 seconds on Google

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...nsition-difference/1w7mwh36nqnfw1qb7lne9t9ka0

The franchise tag gives players basically no leverage, unless a player decides to not sign it and sit out the next season

Players in the NFL hate the tag. Ask Von Miller.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...sign-franchise-tag-its-a-league-wide-problem/

calling the tag itself a problem for players that he can help fix.

“No, I’m not gonna play on the franchise tag. It just doesn’t make sense in any way,” Miller said on ESPN.

Miller claims that his issue isn’t about the money. His issue is that the franchise tag is inherently unfair to NFL players because it restricts their ability to find out their true market value.

 

[FirstTimer]

They weren't willing to pay for one season.

Yes they were.

They picked up his option. He could have taken it and played for the season at $20 million. If the Eagles couldn't trade him he would have been on their books for $20 million.

 

[remydat]

I like the irony that the majority of CCS people saw no problem with Pace bringing in Glennon for one season at $15M with Trubisky on his first contract, but the idea that the Eagles would bring back Foles for one season at $20M with Wentz on his first contract is somehow incomprehensible.

Bears were well under the cap when they signed Glennon. Eagles are not and would need to clear cap space to apply tag.

I love how you seem oblivious to cap implications.

 

[FirstTimer]

https://deadspin.com/the-franchise-tag-is-just-a-way-for-nfl-teams-to-cheat-1536418471

Conceptually, the idea is presumably rooted in the belief that a "franchise player" should stay with his team forever. This is a childish, sentimental notion. It's also criminally unfair. Once a player's contract expires, shouldn't he have some control over whether he stays or goes?

Even if you buy into the idea that keeping a player in one place for the duration of his career is a worthy goal, there are ways of accomplishing it without completely obliterating a player's financial leverage.

 

[remydat]

5 seconds on Google

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/...nsition-difference/1w7mwh36nqnfw1qb7lne9t9ka0

Players in the NFL hate the tag. Ask Von Miller.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...sign-franchise-tag-its-a-league-wide-problem/

So it says it gives them no leverage unless they refuse to sign. Translation - They have leverage. Thanks. Refusing to sign or refusing to negotiate with certain teams is leverage per the above.

And yes we agree it restricts their ability. That doesn't mean they have no leverage as your article does in fact point out they have leverage under certain conditions.

Try again!

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Bears were well under the cap when they signed Glennon. Eagles are not and would need to clear cap space to apply tag.

I love how you seem oblivious to cap implications.

Wow...a team that needs to clear cap space to bring back their Super Bowl winning QB? Has that ever happened in the NFL before? Usually after a QB wins the Super Bowl, the GM tells the QB "yeah...you see...we have to pay these other guys, too...and there isn't anything I can do...so here is your outright release....sorry."

That's why guys like Brees, Brady, Rogers, Wilson, Roethlisberger, etc. are switching teams when their contracts run out.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Hey, I see Remy's point.

If I don't show up to work anymore, the only recourse my company has is to either fire me or withhold my pay until i work again. I have all the leverage though.

 

[FirstTimer]

NFL Players Hate the Franchise Tag

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/2...se-tag-salary-holdout-eric-berry-kirk-cousins

Why do NFL players dread the franchise tag?
1) Say goodbye to leverage

The biggest issue is that the tag strips players of almost all leverage during a time when they’re hoping to cash in on big seasons. Getting tagged essentially locks you in with your current team for one year, with little hopes of testing the free agent market.

Granted, there’s the “non-exclusive” tag, which gives players the right to negotiate with other teams, but there’s a major catch — if an opposing team makes an offer the original team doesn’t match, they give up two first-round draft picks as compensation. Those are incredibly huge assets to give up for one player, so naturally, teams generally don’t make the jump. Therefore, the player is stuck with his team even under the non-exclusive tag.

 

[remydat]

https://deadspin.com/the-franchise-tag-is-just-a-way-for-nfl-teams-to-cheat-1536418471

This article just says it is unfair (I agree). Does not mean they have zero leverage. Nothing in the above disputes the notion that refusing to sign or refusing to negotiate with other teams is not leverage. Show me where someone argues like you and Rory that those specific things are not really leverage.

Try again!

 

[FirstTimer]

But yeah.no sports sites or players have said anything about it. Jesus Christ. remy is citing AGENTS. Players hate this damn thing. Ask people like Eric Berry, Kirk Cousins, Bell, Miller, etc.

 

[remydat]

Wow...a team that needs to clear cap space to bring back their Super Bowl winning QB? Has that ever happened in the NFL before? Usually after a QB wins the Super Bowl, the GM tells the QB "yeah...you see...we have to pay these other guys, too...and there isn't anything I can do...so here is your outright release....sorry."

That's why guys like Brees, Brady, Rogers, Wilson, Roethlisberger, etc. are switching teams when their contracts run out.

This may be the dumbest thing you have ever said. Wentz is their franchise QB not Foles.

 

[FirstTimer]

This article just says it is unfair (I agree).

The article says literally this:
"obliterating a player's financial leverage."

 

[remydat]

Hey, I see Remy's point.

If I don't show up to work anymore, the only recourse my company has is to either fire me or withhold my pay until i work again. I have all the leverage though.

No one claimed players have all the leverage. Just that they have some.

But yeah.no sports sites or players have said anything about it. Jesus Christ. remy is citing AGENTS. Players hate this damn thing. Ask people like Eric Berry, Kirk Cousins, Bell, Miller, etc.

Hating something and having no leverage are two different things.

Try again!

 

[FirstTimer]

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/nfls-franchise-tag-unfair

https://247sports.com/nfl/pittsburg...sponsible-for-the-LeVeon-Bell-saga-121522240/

 

[FirstTimer]

No one claimed players have all the leverage. Just that they have some.



Hating something and having no leverage are two different things.

Try again!

Yeah..you're done now. "Couldn't find any sports sites that agreed with Rory and I" and I'm just copying and pasting stuff now to make you look dumb.