The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

[Higskin]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

Flynn to get franchise tag?

Fantasy Football Breaking News - Rotoworld.com

Big risk IMO - he'd be tagged at ~$14 mil and if he was smart, would sign the contract right away. Then Packers have until Mar 13th to trade him or take the contract hit.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Higskin

Big risk IMO - he'd be tagged at ~$14 mil and if he was smart, would sign the contract right away. Then Packers have until Mar 13th to trade him or take the contract hit.

They can't trade him until the 13th. Anything negotiated prior to that is tampering and also teams can't franchise a player with the idea of trading him. So, if I'm a team wanting Flynn, I refuse to give them anything and then report them to the league for the violation.

[Higskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

They can't trade him until the 13th. Anything negotiated prior to that is tampering and also teams can't franchise a player with the idea of trading him. So, if I'm a team wanting Flynn, I refuse to give them anything and then report them to the league for the violation.

Should have written "found out if they could trade him by Mar13th".

Packers maneuvering franchise tag for Flynn?

"Though the Packers must franchise him by March 5, he won't count against their cap until March 13, the first day of the league calendar. The one thing they don't want to happen is to get stuck with Flynn on their roster at $14.4 million with no trade partner."

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

They can't trade him until the 13th. Anything negotiated prior to that is tampering and also teams can't franchise a player with the idea of trading him. So, if I'm a team wanting Flynn, I refuse to give them anything and then report them to the league for the violation.

Are you sure? W/out looking it up, it seems to me many a player has been franchised with the intent of getting a trade. How would you prove that the "intent to trade" (barring something idiotic like the GM saying "Oh, we don't want him, we just tagged him to trade him")?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Are you sure? W/out looking it up, it seems to me many a player has been franchised with the intent of getting a trade. How would you prove that the "intent to trade" (barring something idiotic like the GM saying "Oh, we don't want him, we just tagged him to trade him")?

Flynn departure may not aid Packers - JSOnline

So once the Packers tag Flynn, that $14 million counts against their salary cap. Flynn would automatically become the highest-paid player on the team in terms of annual salary.

NFL teams are prohibited from trading franchise players. In fact, the rules say you may not franchise a player with the intent to sign him to a contract and then trade him. However, this rule has been broken before and the NFL tends to look the other way.

This is where I got this from. Like you said, how could you really prove that?

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Flynn departure may not aid Packers - JSOnline





This is where I got this from. Like you said, how could you really prove that?

They sure looked the other way when the Pats traded Cassel...if my memory is correct.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

They sure looked the other way when the Pats traded Cassel...if my memory is correct.

I think he fell under the old CBA which I thought team were getting away with doing that and under the new CBA they added a claus that says they can't tag a player with the intention of trading him for value later.

[biffle]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think he fell under the old CBA which I thought team were getting away with doing that and under the new CBA they added a claus that says they can't tag a player with the intention of trading him for value later.

No, the rule is exactly the same now as it was then.

Plenty of players have been tagged with the intent of trading them. It's a nonsense rule and everyone knows it.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Son Of Man

They sure looked the other way when the Pats traded Cassel...if my memory is correct.

The main reason they could get away with it is because of the fear of Brady's health(ACL tear). They could make the claim that we had to sign him since we didn't know if Brady was going to be able to come back or not. Not sure Green Bay could say the same....lol

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

They can't trade him until the 13th. Anything negotiated prior to that is tampering and also teams can't franchise a player with the idea of trading him. So, if I'm a team wanting Flynn, I refuse to give them anything and then report them to the league for the violation.

?

It's only tampering if other teams try to talk with him or his agent. Other teams can talk to the organization. The organization can talk to other teams now even in effect shopping him to see what they could get for him. If they think there is enough interest they should tag him and see what trade they could get. It also would help out Miami if they plan to sign him and GB wants to help them out. Flynn doesn't see the open market and doesn't get a choice as to where he wants to go. Even if it is Miami. It also ensures he does not go to another NFC team.

It pisses me off but who cares.