The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

[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