More trade news: The #Chiefs are deep in talks with the #49ers on a trade for star pass-rusher Dee Ford, sources say. Things have escalated and this could get done by the end of the night. Ford needs to work out a new contract with SF, which is a big piece of this.
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
I was listening to a podcast where it was explained to me that if the Chiefs wanted to get on the ball, get ahead of the curve, and get Chris Jones extended, then Dee Ford HAD to go. Once he was tagged and it was let known to him and his agent that the Chiefs were shopping him, he HAD to be moved, great deal or not.
This cannot be the way it worked. You cannot franchise tag a player and then shop him - at least that was all over the media here around Philly regarding Nick Foles possible franchise tagging. The teams are only supposed to tag players they plan on keeping for the upcoming season. If you tag someone and then immediately start shopping the player, the team would be in violation of league rules.
Other teams must initiate the transaction talks about franchised players.
Eagles’ apparent tag-and-trade plan for Nick Foles would violate the CBA - PFT
Second, Foles and his agents should challenge the franchise tag, if it’s applied. Article 4, Section 8, subsection (b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement states as follows: “A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season.” If the Eagles would simply be tagging Foles to trade him, Foles should invoke this provision and fight the tag... [Reply]
Originally Posted by DelFan:
This cannot be the way it worked. You cannot franchise tag a player and then shop him - at least that was all over the media here around Philly regarding Nick Foles possible franchise tagging. The teams are only supposed to tag players they plan on keeping for the upcoming season. If you tag someone and then immediately start shopping the player, the team would be in violation of league rules.
Other teams must initiate the transaction talks about franchised players.
Eagles’ apparent tag-and-trade plan for Nick Foles would violate the CBA - PFT
Second, Foles and his agents should challenge the franchise tag, if it’s applied. Article 4, Section 8, subsection (b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement states as follows: “A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season.” If the Eagles would simply be tagging Foles to trade him, Foles should invoke this provision and fight the tag...
Thanks for the clarification. That would mean that the Packers and the 49ers reached out to KC after Ford was tagged? That doesn't seem likely because Ford wanted to stay here, or so he said. Or, Ford and his agent decided to test the market?
I don't think Ford had actually signed the tag agreement yet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
Thanks for the clarification. That would mean that the Packers and the 49ers reached out to KC after Ford was tagged? That doesn't seem likely because Ford wanted to stay here, or so he said. Or, Ford and his agent decided to test the market?
I don't think Ford had actually signed the tag agreement yet.
Ford said he was happy he got tagged - which no FA ever does. No one likes playing that extra year on the tag.
He knew what type of tag it was and I'm sure knew he could work on a trade (which ='s new long term contract.) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate:
Dude, for a 1st round pick I better get more than a "raw talent" who needs major development, and who can't consistently be on the field/show up for games.
That MORON who had the audacity to compare Ford to D. Thomas must have missed that part of Thomas' career where he came in to the league destroying worlds and setting sack records in his SECOND ****ING SEASON.
It would have been great had Ford proven himself tough, smart, and elite. But that is NOT what happened, and he is now traded at exactly the right time.
Ford 6'2" 243
Thomas 6'3 255
Ford Played DE at a college in Alabama
Thomas Played DE at a college in Alabama
Ford Converted to OLB in pro's
Thomas Converted to OLB in pro's
Ford Elite first step
Thomas Elite first step
Ford Liability against the run and pass pro
Thomas Liability against the run and pass pro
But they are literally NOTHING alike... fucking idiot... [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
We were a snap away from going to the Superbowl. I'd rather see urgency and them trying to do whatever it took to get us over the top this year than try to set themselves up financially even though I acknowledge that it is important. This should be a **** it...we're all in year like the Rams had last off season and unless we make big trades the next couple days, I don't see major improvements happening defensively.
Right now, we have gotten appreciably worse on defense.
These idiots complain about our defense last year fail to realize that the problems were in the secondary and at ILB. Both of those fall directly at the feet of Veach.
Other than Kendall Fuller, our secondary was comprised of journeyman that were picked up RIGHT BEFORE THE SEASON STARTED. And our ILB sucked absolute ASS and they were both acquired by Veach, one via trade, and the other via a 5 year, $48MM FA contract.
Originally Posted by Rausch:
What people aren't considering is that we gave a low 1st round pick for Ford, got only one good year out of him, and got a 2nd round pick back in compensation.
That's damned good value for a one dimensional player with one good year...
OR we could have retained his services for one more year and NOT signed the Mathieu (EDGE>>>>>SS, especially for essentially the same money), then let him walk next year, and receive essentially the same pick next year as a compensatory pick.
AND MATHIEU IS A ONE DIMENSIONAL SAFETY!!!!! [Reply]
Yes, but if he plays under the franchise tag this season, we're on the hook for the entire ~16mm salary this year. It hits our cap this year. There's no deferring and no restructuring - it limits what we can do otherwise. And this for a guy who might not even fit into the scheme. [Reply]