Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: if 2010 rules are in affect???????

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,563
    Post Thanks / Like

    if 2010 rules are in affect???????

    how does this affect the jets situation..i.e. edwards,holmes..etc...????

    t[B] could invoke the 2010 rules for free agency, meaning players would need six seasons of service before becoming unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire; previously, it was four years. The requirement for unrestricted free agents would be four years rather than the three years before 2010. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much - or as little - as they wanted. [/B]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    245-A
    Posts
    3,062
    Post Thanks / Like
    We'd also ONCE AGAIN be subject to the quid pro quo rule of Free Agent signings for the final four playoff teams. :(

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    9,405
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Gas2No99;4009058]We'd also ONCE AGAIN be subject to the quid pro quo rule of Free Agent signings for the final four playoff teams. :([/QUOTE]

    I actually think that's less relevant this year. If I remember, the Jets can replace free agents they lose, since the key moves would be to resign Holmes, Edwards, and Cromartie among others means that if they don't resign them then they can replace them.

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    380
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Batmans A Scientist;4009069]I actually think that's less relevant this year. If I remember, the Jets can replace free agents they lose, since the key moves would be to resign Holmes, Edwards, and Cromartie among others means that if they don't resign them then they can replace them.[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. So long as we're willing to shell out the money, we'll have the same talent level, if different players.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,421
    Post Thanks / Like
    This seems like a net gain for the Jets IF this is what happens. They would have Cromartie, Edwards and Holmes, all players who are playing for a big contract, under contract for one more year.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    380
    Post Thanks / Like
    Anyone know what would happen if someone signed a player to an offer sheet and we didn't match? Say, someone signs Holmes for absurd money, we get a 1st and 3rd, but does that count as a lost free agent so we can sign another player, or is that considered a trade, so we cannot sign another free agent?

    More theoretical than actually plausible, but interesting nonetheless.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,563
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4009072]This seems like a net gain for the Jets IF this is what happens. They would have Cromartie, Edwards and Holmes, all players who are playing for a big contract, under contract for one more year.[/QUOTE]

    i think this is the biggest question..none of these guys are ufa's?? all are rfa's under 2010 rules?? if so that is huge for next year..

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    E'Ville
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like
    This bodes well for Cro's chances of returning (he'd be a RFA), but keeping the WRs could be more of a pain in the azz.

    Santonio would also be a RFA, but he also said he won't sign a tender. That could get ugly.

    Braylon would be a UFA though, and would be one of the few available free agent WRs. I know Sidney Rice is a hot commodity, but he'd be in the same situation as Holmes. I really want him back, but some bobo team like the Redskins could drastically overpay.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,452
    Post Thanks / Like
    From SI

    2. Should teams sign players and conduct business as usual?

    Teams would be wise to proceed cautiously until a stay is granted or denied, and until the U.S. Court of Appeals decides on the NFL's appeal. Teams, however, should not act too cautiously, as they might unwittingly commit violations of federal antitrust law by refusing to sign players.

    First off, there is uncertainty as to whether the terms of the recently expired CBA control. In a previous case, Powell v. NFL, the Eight Circuit held that an expired CBA between the NFL and NFLPA remained in effect indefinitely, even if in negotiating a new CBA, the NFL and NFLPA were to break off negotiations. Here, however, the NFLPA has decertified and, as Judge Nelson conspicuously notes in her order, "the Players have exercised their right to abandon the collective bargaining framework of labor law in order to pursue individual contracts." For that reason, collectively bargained rules, such as restrictions on free agency or the salary cap, are unlikely to remain in effect. In fact, if teams proceed as if they are, they could run afoul of federal antitrust law (which generally disfavors competitors, such as teams, from conspiring in ways that limit competition, such as restrictions on signing players).



    [B]For the time being, therefore, there do not seem to be restrictions on players who are without contracts, including those previously viewed as "restricted free agents," from signing with teams (players already under contract will resume their contracts). Ironically, if teams refuse to sign players because of the uncertainty, they could commit a separate antitrust violation: a group boycott of free agent players.[/B]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us