Did Redskins Bend Rules in Morris Trade?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Pretty compelling evidence against the Skins and Rams here, given that there was apparently no on-the-field motivation for the trades.

A slap on the wrist is probably in order.

Agreed

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

whether or not the rules were followed isnt even an issue here - what the skins and the rams did is allowed within the rules of the contract the NFLPA negotiated with the league.

I dont understand what, exactly, the NFLPA is expecting to happen here. really, all this will result in is the NFLPA wanting to close this loophole in the next CBA, and the league refusing to do so unless the NFLPA makes a concession. I would not be surprised at all if this whole thing was orchestrated to exploit a loophole the NFLPA didnt even know existed.

Kudos to the Redskins and Rams for giving the league extra leverage.

If you conspire to circumvent a provision of the CBA you're gonna have problems. While it may have been technically following the letter of the law, the arbitrator, who would undoubtedly be employed in a dispute, doesn't have to really care about technicalities. He can rule according to the spirit of the rule. The teams could definitely lose on this if they did indeed engage in shadiness. SS and Schneed are probably correct. A slap on the wrist may be in order.

[Schneed10]

Trading players just to cut them and avoid paying a portion of their salary is blatant mistreatment of the player and sure to anger the NFLPA. It's not gaining leverage in a negotiation, it's creating more animosity at the negotiating table.

And don't misunderstand, the Rams and Redskins were not collaborating to take some sort of negotiating tactic against the NFLPA. They were simply trying to save some money.

It sucks to do that at a player's expense; when a guy gets traded he's apprehensive about moving to a new situation, but also eager to impress his new coaches and earn his way onto the roster. To make a move with no intention of considering a guy for a roster spot is a blatant disregard for respecting players and their families.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Trading players just to cut them and avoid paying a portion of their salary is blatant mistreatment of the player and sure to anger the NFLPA. It's not gaining leverage in a negotiation, it's creating more animosity at the negotiating table.

And don't misunderstand, the Rams and Redskins were not collaborating to take some sort of negotiating tactic against the NFLPA. They were simply trying to save some money.

It sucks to do that at a player's expense; when a guy gets traded he's apprehensive about moving to a new situation, but also eager to impress his new coaches and earn his way onto the roster. To make a move with no intention of considering a guy for a roster spot is a blatant disregard for respecting players and their families.

Which is why I bet the NFL puts an end to this practice.

[CRedskinsRule]

could the nfl simply void the trades?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Trading players just to cut them and avoid paying a portion of their salary is blatant mistreatment of the player and sure to anger the NFLPA. It's not gaining leverage in a negotiation, it's creating more animosity at the negotiating table.

And don't misunderstand, the Rams and Redskins were not collaborating to take some sort of negotiating tactic against the NFLPA. They were simply trying to save some money.

It sucks to do that at a player's expense; when a guy gets traded he's apprehensive about moving to a new situation, but also eager to impress his new coaches and earn his way onto the roster. To make a move with no intention of considering a guy for a roster spot is a blatant disregard for respecting players and their families.

Preach

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

could the nfl simply void the trades?

certainly.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

could the nfl simply void the trades?

So both players can still get cut? Why bother?

One union official countered that the 85 percent rule applies only after a rookie has made the initial 53-man roster.

If this is true...there's no "controversy" at all.

[SmootSmack]

So it appears the issue isn't Morris and Davis being entitled to 85% of their salary, but that the 85% is to be distributed to the rookies that make the roster based on downs played at the end of the season

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaRe...20-%202012.pdf (bottom of page 54)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Buster

So both players can still get cut? Why bother?



If this is true...there's no "controversy" at all.

Well, I was understanding that they were traded so the original team would not cut them, and thus avoid paying the salary. Voiding the trade would re-obligate the drafting team to pay the salary if they chose to cut the player. BUT, it does not appear that it even relates to that... From Smoots link

(m) In League Years for which no Salary Cap is in effect, 85% of any amount contracted by a Team to be paid from the Team’s Rookie Allocation to a Rookie, but not actually paid by the Team to that player, either as a rookie, or as a re-signed first year player or practice squad player, which amount was not paid because that player was released, will be distributed to all rookies on such Team promptly after the end of the season on a pro rata basis based upon the number of downs played.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Trading players just to cut them and avoid paying a portion of their salary is blatant mistreatment of the player and sure to anger the NFLPA. It's not gaining leverage in a negotiation, it's creating more animosity at the negotiating table.

And don't misunderstand, the Rams and Redskins were not collaborating to take some sort of negotiating tactic against the NFLPA. They were simply trying to save some money.

It sucks to do that at a player's expense; when a guy gets traded he's apprehensive about moving to a new situation, but also eager to impress his new coaches and earn his way onto the roster. To make a move with no intention of considering a guy for a roster spot is a blatant disregard for respecting players and their families.

Great post. It's treating the players like cattle. Or stocks. Or whatever, but not like humans. These guys are kids. Fresh out of college, and probably pretty scared and uneasy about their future. And then this happens? Pretty shitty on the part of the Skins and the Rams.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Great post. It's treating the players like cattle. Or stocks. Or whatever, but not like humans. These guys are kids. Fresh out of college, and probably pretty scared and uneasy about their future. And then this happens? Pretty shitty on the part of the Skins and the Rams.

why is this such a horrible thing? its not like these guys arent paid for the time they practiced with the team in the offseason.

like you said, these kids are right out of college.... since they are college graduates, they should have some tools to help them get jobs like everyone else, should another NFL team not pick them up. I dont know why some people act like these guys are entitled to anything. They arent being treated like cattle - they ARE being treated like human beings. most human beings in this country get jobs for a company of some sort. if they only work at the job for a few months before getting fired for poor performance, they likely arent going to get severance. they certainly arent going to get 85% of the salary they would have made had they performed well enough to keep their job for a full year.

if these kids can't find work with another NFL team, and can't find a normal job like the rest of us, they can apply for unemployment like everyone else. they can move back home with thier families like most college grads end up doing nowadays. it doesnt matter what company you work for - companies view 99% of their employees as expendable and replaceable. there is no loyalty in the "real" world so why should the NFL be any different?

[MTK]

Agree with BHA, welcome to the real world kids, where life isn't fair and it often sucks. Get used to it.

[firstdown]

Also remember this rule only applies to an uncapped year so the teams may not have known about the rule.

[SmootSmack]

The respectable thing to do would have been simply to tell Morris he's not good enough right now and cut him outright. In the real world, if ESPN suddenly decides one day to let me go they're not going to say "bad news is we don't need you anymore, good news we're sending you to LA to work for Fox Sports" so now I'm packing my stuff, moving myself and my wife out to LA upset about losing one job but eager to start another with a company I think wants me...only to find out they don't want me either and I'm just being used by both as basically a write-off of on their balance sheet.

Further, the fact that he was even drafted means he didn't have a choice of what team to join in the first place. Not that it's a bad thing to be drafted, just saying