Thread: Teams risking collusion charges?

POSTED 11:24 a.m. EST, March 2, 2007

TEAMS RISKING COLLUSION CHARGES?
pft.com

A league source tells us that more than a few NFL teams are reluctant to use the poison pill as a tool for crafting offer sheets to restricted free agents that can't be matched by the teams for which the restricted free agents currently play.

Under the device used by the Vikings against the Seahawks and the Seahawks against the Vikings in 2006, it's very easy to put a team in a position where it can't match a deal by including language that makes the full contract guaranteed if the player plays for the team that currently holds his rights.

Reaction to the tit-for-tat between Minnesota and Seattle was sharp, and representatives from the two teams were dressed down at the ownership meetings that followed the incident.
The message to all of the teams was to play nice in the future.

But efforts to write the loophole out of the CBA failed, which means that it remains a viable tool for enhancing player movement.
So if the teams choose not to use it so as to not "screw each other," that's collusion.

It remains to be seen whether teams ultimately fail to use the device, and whether the union pushes the issue if the poison pill isn't utilized.


Clearly, teams like the Chargers fear the use of the poison pill against them; otherwise, backup running back Michael Turner wouldn't have been tendered at the highest possible level.

I love the poison pill....what a clever way to pick up players! I'm glad our team knows how to work the loopholes because that tells me that if we want anyone bad enough we can get them if its possible....

The whole poison pill debacle last year was one of my favorite offseason moves, ever.
That was too funny watching the Seachicken fans going crazy and their lame counter of the poison pill letting them acquire a run-of-the-mill WR while Hutch is secured with the Vikings.
If I was gay I would stalk Rob Brzezinski.

I agree with Prophet.
Shows our guys are smart enough to get the guys we want.
;D

I bet the pill gets used a couple times this year because of the limited talent out there in the FA/RFA market.

It worked out great for us, but the idea might hurt teams(including the Vikings in the future). If I'm wrong please correct me on this, but doesn't this type of action guarentee money for the player. This could hurt teams because it would allow teams to pay a high price for marginal talent (ex: Denard Walker). This is just my opinion on the matter, I know Hutch was a great pickup but you don't want to dedicate your cap to some player that didn't live up to his potential.

I'm pretty much making this up, but I think the problem is not so much for the team making the deal, it's for the other team.
Remember the wording in the Burleson pill contract?
It said something like if he played more than 20% of his games in MN they would have to inflate his contract to $___.
Some unreasonable shit goes in making it virtually impossible for the other team to match the contract.
The only time it's funny is when you are doing it to someone else.
8)