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]
[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.
[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.
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.
[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..
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.
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]