BennyVW
I'm the Man in the Box
Len is going on about the increase of 4 year deals the last year or too.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insi...squarelli_len&id=2889724&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233
He fathoms that teams are strong arming players to sign the longer deals (after the 2nd round the standard was for players to get 3 year contracts) because they are cheaper...
But the real part of why we signed our picks to 4 year deals is so that we don't have to worry about the poison pill deals if a player ever gets to Restriced Free Agency. If a player signs a 4 year deal, by the time it's done they are a vested veteran therefore they can no longer be a RFA.
The reality is that the teams can't outlaw the poison pill because the unions would demand something in return. Therfore, if they just sign most of the picks to longer contracts and get rid of a lot of the RFA's then it turns into a non-issue. The only problem is it's illegal. It's called collusion; Teams working together to limit player movement.
As we are one of the three teams leading the charge in 4 year deals it's possible we may receive some backlash once the sock puppets figure out whats going on. Hopefullly there is no "gentelmen's agreement" and it's just a case of our front office being smart. We get to keep our players if we want them, in exchange however we are having to increase the Signing bonus, and there are escalator clauses in some of the contracts. BUT at least there will be no teams poaching the players that we have developed until they are UFA's....
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insi...squarelli_len&id=2889724&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233
He fathoms that teams are strong arming players to sign the longer deals (after the 2nd round the standard was for players to get 3 year contracts) because they are cheaper...
But the real part of why we signed our picks to 4 year deals is so that we don't have to worry about the poison pill deals if a player ever gets to Restriced Free Agency. If a player signs a 4 year deal, by the time it's done they are a vested veteran therefore they can no longer be a RFA.
The reality is that the teams can't outlaw the poison pill because the unions would demand something in return. Therfore, if they just sign most of the picks to longer contracts and get rid of a lot of the RFA's then it turns into a non-issue. The only problem is it's illegal. It's called collusion; Teams working together to limit player movement.
As we are one of the three teams leading the charge in 4 year deals it's possible we may receive some backlash once the sock puppets figure out whats going on. Hopefullly there is no "gentelmen's agreement" and it's just a case of our front office being smart. We get to keep our players if we want them, in exchange however we are having to increase the Signing bonus, and there are escalator clauses in some of the contracts. BUT at least there will be no teams poaching the players that we have developed until they are UFA's....
