Favre to play again and NOT in GB? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2008-07-17 11:41 PM in reply to: #1538649 |
Master 1359 South of SLC | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? tupuppy - 2008-07-17 6:47 PM Rollin' Thunder - 2008-07-17 5:55 PM Lifelong Cowboys fan and I will tell you this -- I would take him any day over Romo. Give us a shot with Brett and I would happily support tha decision. Mike There's an idea. Take a quarterback who sucks when he plays in Dallas and make him your starter so he can suck for 8 games a year. P.S. Green Bay fan and Farve fan. P.P.S. Love watching his ball slinging style AND look forward to having a QB who plays more within the system and doesn't take the high risks. Come on -- I have tons of respect for you as one of the old school members here...but I think you are wrong. Brett Farve would kick some serious in Dallas. Our receivers are not the best, but they are pretty darn good. The O Line has holes, but they can protect someone slow (read Tony Romo). Realistically, Romo cannot get it done in the post-season. Farve would be the best bet we have at a real shot at the big dance. Miie |
|
2008-08-06 1:41 PM in reply to: #1523751 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? |
2008-08-06 3:45 PM in reply to: #1585756 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Wow talk about the Madden curse knocking players out.. what a pay cut he's going to take |
2008-08-06 3:48 PM in reply to: #1586228 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Gaarryy - 2008-08-06 4:45 PM what a pay cut he's going to take The Bucs have more than enough room to pay him and Garcia is only making $2mil anyway. I say the Jets should trade for him and then immediately trade him to Minnesota. |
2008-08-06 3:52 PM in reply to: #1586242 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? chadtower - 2008-08-06 3:48 PM Gaarryy - 2008-08-06 4:45 PM what a pay cut he's going to take The Bucs have more than enough room to pay him and Garcia is only making $2mil anyway. I say the Jets should trade for him and then immediately trade him to Minnesota.
That's if he actually gets traded.. and I'm sure he will. But now that he's an active player on the GB roster they can keep him through the preseason then release/cut him and don't have to pay his 12mil this year.. so they can decide do they want a mid round draft pick or some extra cap relief.. I doubt they would do it since they would really look bad but to me both sides have really looked like idiots so far |
2008-08-06 3:54 PM in reply to: #1586256 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Gaarryy - 2008-08-06 4:52 PM But now that he's an active player on the GB roster they can keep him through the preseason then release/cut him and don't have to pay his 12mil this year They can't. He'll be a Viking within an hour of them cutting him and that's exactly what they do not want. Right now the whole process is about preventing him from playing for Minnesota. |
|
2008-08-06 3:59 PM in reply to: #1586263 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? chadtower - 2008-08-06 3:54 PM Gaarryy - 2008-08-06 4:52 PM But now that he's an active player on the GB roster they can keep him through the preseason then release/cut him and don't have to pay his 12mil this year They can't. He'll be a Viking within an hour of them cutting him and that's exactly what they do not want. Right now the whole process is about preventing him from playing for Minnesota.I understand that but it gives him no practice time and he has to go somewhere new in the first week of the season,, It would be hard for anyone to learn a brand new system in one week.. at least for the first few weeks he can hand off to Peterson? [that beast of a RB] but he would be very rusty no training camp, just off the street cold, it would pretty much waste his year... I think they have to wait till then to cut him to be able to dump his salary anyway.. they could wait till the last day before the game to release him or do what was done to keyshaw or TO.. put him on the unable to preform list.. and just pay him to do nothing.. I do like your idea of the Jets getting him then trading him to the Vikings |
2008-08-06 4:10 PM in reply to: #1586242 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? chadtower - 2008-08-06 3:48 PM Gaarryy - 2008-08-06 4:45 PM what a pay cut he's going to take The Bucs have more than enough room to pay him and Garcia is only making $2mil anyway. I say the Jets should trade for him and then immediately trade him to Minnesota.
I'm sure any trade agreement will have a poison pill provision preventing such a thing. If we morons can think up this possibility, the GB management has as well. A funnier scenario would have the Pack trading Favre to TB, who would then trade Garcia to the Vikes, where he would lead them to the SuperBowl. If you believe that the Vikes are just a QB short of being a contender. |
2008-08-06 4:15 PM in reply to: #1586306 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? good point.. on the trade poison pill provision.. just when I was thinking I is a smart one.. |
2008-08-06 9:16 PM in reply to: #1523751 |
COURT JESTER 12230 ROCKFORD, IL | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Go Aaron Rodgers and shame on all the chucklehead fans who booed him at the family night scrimmage during player introductions. He's just the one caught in the middle, not the one to boo and blame. |
2008-08-07 12:09 AM in reply to: #1523751 |
Champion 6285 Beautiful Sonoma County | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Everything I know about Brett Favre, I learned from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93278575 /> |
|
2008-08-07 8:05 AM in reply to: #1523751 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? |
2008-08-07 8:10 AM in reply to: #1523751 |
Elite 2706 Hurst, Texas | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Yep, and Bear was spot on with the poison pill issue. If Favre goes to Minnesota from the Jets, the Jets owe Green Bay three first rounders. |
2008-08-07 8:15 AM in reply to: #1523751 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2008-08-07 8:22 AM in reply to: #1587227 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? OldAg92 - 2008-08-07 9:10 AM Yep, and Bear was spot on with the poison pill issue. If Favre goes to Minnesota from the Jets, the Jets owe Green Bay three first rounders. Where is that being reported? I don't see it anywhere and I would bet that's against the rules. If this is true expect the NFLPA to be all over this one. It will be too late for Favre but they can't consider it in their best interests to allow one team to control the personnel actions of two others. |
2008-08-07 8:33 AM in reply to: #1587255 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? chadtower - 2008-08-07 8:22 AM OldAg92 - 2008-08-07 9:10 AM Yep, and Bear was spot on with the poison pill issue. If Favre goes to Minnesota from the Jets, the Jets owe Green Bay three first rounders. Where is that being reported? I don't see it anywhere and I would bet that's against the rules. If this is true expect the NFLPA to be all over this one. It will be too late for Favre but they can't consider it in their best interests to allow one team to control the personnel actions of two others.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp08/news/story?id=3522971
I doubt that anyone will have any recourse against the terms of a trade agreed to by both teams, no matter what kind of "legal opinion" you choose to render. |
|
2008-08-07 8:35 AM in reply to: #1523751 |
Elite 2706 Hurst, Texas | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Pulled from the espn article this morning: The NFL Network also is reporting that the Packers took great pains to ensure that Favre would not be traded to the Vikings by inserting a "poison pill" in the deal. If Favre were to be traded to Minnesota, New York would have to surrender three first-round picks to Green Bay. **ETA** Heh...John beat me to it. Edited by OldAg92 2008-08-07 8:35 AM |
2008-08-07 8:43 AM in reply to: #1587282 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? the bear - 2008-08-07 9:33 AM I doubt that anyone will have any recourse against the terms of a trade agreed to by both teams, no matter what kind of "legal opinion" you choose to render. Since when did actual standing have anything to do with the relationship between the players' union and the league? The union sues if the wind changes without their approval. |
2008-08-07 8:46 AM in reply to: #1587316 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? chadtower - 2008-08-07 8:43 AM the bear - 2008-08-07 9:33 AM I doubt that anyone will have any recourse against the terms of a trade agreed to by both teams, no matter what kind of "legal opinion" you choose to render. Since when did actual standing have anything to do with the relationship between the players' union and the league? The union sues if the wind changes without their approval. I'll bet you lunch there is nothing in the NFLPA contract with the league that prohibits this arrangement, and that we hear not more than a peep from the union. |
2008-08-07 8:49 AM in reply to: #1587327 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? the bear - 2008-08-07 9:46 AM I'll bet you lunch there is nothing in the NFLPA contract with the league that prohibits this arrangement, and that we hear not more than a peep from the union. I don't gamble but you could end up being right. I think it will be because the Jets don't actually try to trade him, though, more than what the contract does or doesn't allow. If they tried and were told no then the union would be all over it, IMO. |
2008-08-07 8:49 AM in reply to: #1587240 |
Elite 3371 | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? surfwallace - 2008-08-07 9:15 AM And Chad Pennington will be released later today. It is being reported that the Packers are going to pick him up b/c they need a good backup Bahaha. NY press is going to be all over Favre. Whether its good press or bad press is up to him. Hope he can learn plays fast. |
|
2008-08-07 9:51 AM in reply to: #1587337 |
Veteran 395 Randolph, MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? chadtower - 2008-08-07 9:49 AM the bear - 2008-08-07 9:46 AM I'll bet you lunch there is nothing in the NFLPA contract with the league that prohibits this arrangement, and that we hear not more than a peep from the union. I don't gamble but you could end up being right. I think it will be because the Jets don't actually try to trade him, though, more than what the contract does or doesn't allow. If they tried and were told no then the union would be all over it, IMO.
It's the same kind of move the Pats used when offering Welker a contract. Because he was restricted, the Fins could match any contract. In what was drawn up, the terms said that if Welker played 3 or more games in Dolphins Stadium during the contract, he would become the highest paid receiver in the league. So because if he went to the Pats he would only play 2 at most, theywould be screwing the Dolphins if they matched it. It was seen as shady, but not illegal, and they worked out a trade for compensation. |
2008-08-07 10:36 AM in reply to: #1587518 |
Expert 3974 MA | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? njkeating - 2008-08-07 10:51 AM It's the same kind of move the Pats used when offering Welker a contract. Because he was restricted, the Fins could match any contract. In what was drawn up, the terms said that if Welker played 3 or more games in Dolphins Stadium during the contract, he would become the highest paid receiver in the league. So because if he went to the Pats he would only play 2 at most, theywould be screwing the Dolphins if they matched it. It was seen as shady, but not illegal, and they worked out a trade for compensation. Yeah, but that's not similar at all. The Favre deal restricts a player. The Welker deal makes him highly paid. The union isn't going to see those two concepts as anything alike. |
2008-08-07 10:50 AM in reply to: #1587653 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? Guys, the use of bizarre "poison pills" in contracts is nothing new and they have been repeatedly upheld by league arbitrators. Remember the squabble between Minnesota and Seattle after Minnesota signed away Steve Hutchinson, then Seattle went right after Nate Burleson? Here is what Seattle did: Two "Poison Pill" provisions in the Nate Burleson's seven-year, $49 million offer sheet will make it virtually impossible for the Vikings to match the Seahawks offer • All $49 million would become guaranteed if Burleson plays five or more games in the state of Minnesota in any season of the contract. The Vikings, of course, play home games in Minneapolis, at the Metrodome. • The second provision would guarantee the full contract if Burleson is paid more on average per year than all of the Minnesota running backs combined. At least for now, the averages of the Vikings' tailbacks fall well shy of the $7 million average of the Burleson offer sheet. I think it was a great move by The Pack. Unfortunately, I think The Pack will only be getting a 4th Round pick for Favre in the end because I don't think things will go well for Brett in NY, he'll realize he made a mistake and he'll retire yet again. |
2008-08-07 11:30 AM in reply to: #1586804 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Favre to play again and NOT in GB? tupuppy - 2008-08-06 9:16 PM Go Aaron Rodgers and shame on all the chucklehead fans who booed him at the family night scrimmage during player introductions. He's just the one caught in the middle, not the one to boo and blame. X2 |
|