Under new rules, deals are possible, but most GMs may balk. Jack Bechta
Several GMs around the league have indicated to me that there might be more trade action in 2010 than in any previous year of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
There are two reasons driving this thinking:
• The top eight finishers are restricted from participating in free agency because of the new 2010 uncapped year rules, unless they lose a player. However, one way to get into the mix is to be aggressive in making a play for restricted free agents (RFAs). These top teams are usually looking for a missing piece to get them over the top or keep them there. This action may start on the first day of free agency.
• The other stimulus lies in the 212 restricted free agents who will be tendered in the coming weeks. This group of players, especially starters, is considered the most valuable commodity of any team’s roster. They are young, their tender salaries are cheap, and most teams are willing to part with them for draft picks. So this scenario can develop into trade opportunities for many clubs.
The RFA tender scale, offer and acceptance compensation/tender salary:
• First- and third-round pick compensation/$3.17-million base salary
• First-round pick compensation/$2.52-million base salary
• Second-round compensation/$1.75-million base salary
• Same-round pick compensation/$1.17-million base salary
So here’s the catch: Although tender salaries for RFAs are not negotiable under the CBA, trade compensation between teams is. For example, if the Chargers decide to give wide receivers Vincent Jackson and Malcom Floyd high tenders, they can then sit back and entertain trades with various compensation packages. I’m just speculating here, but the Chargers might take a high second and third for Floyd compared to the first and third they tendered to keep him. Or they could also take a player coupled with a draft pick. So teams with multiple RFAs will tender and sit back, then listen to abstract offers before starting serious negotiations with their restricted players or matching a boiler-plate offer. As a result, the environment leading up to the draft can be ripe for multiple trades.
I personally don’t believe we’ll see a lot of trade activity because it can sometimes lead to professional suicide for a GM or head coach. Ask Mike Ditka, who gave up eight draft picks for Ricky Williams. It was the beginning of the end for him.
Jerry Glanville was never forgiven by many in Atlanta for escorting Brett Favre out the door. On the other hand, it helped Packers GM Ron Wolf become a fixture in Green Bay.
(Short sidebar: In the 1998 draft, Wolf was desperately trying to trade up to draft Tim Dwight, one of my clients, in the fourth round. After Atlanta took Dwight ahead of the Packers in the fourth, Wolf called to tell me he “tried to trade up for Tim, but ever since Favre, nobody will trade with me anymore.”)
I’ve written that many owners will pull back below the salary floor to pocket some cash. This will translate to draft picks becoming even more valuable. Outside of picks 1-10 in the first round, owners love late first-round picks, plus seconds and thirds, because of the value-type player you can capture versus the cost of the draft slot.
The plot thickens in 2010.
Follow me on Twitter: jackbechta
In that 212 RFA's are a bunch of guys who haven't lived up to their draft position that teams would tender in hopes of getting any kind of return for them.
Darren Colledge comes to mind and could be tendered below his original 2nd round pick spot.
I think the Packers would be happy to get a 3rd for the guy.
I tend to agree with you that there will not be a lot of trading this year.
At issue is that the team who is offering the RFA player has invested in that player for at least four years and has decided to let the player go for an untested rookie. That should tell you something about the quality of the player. See Corrie Williams with Cleveland.
Of course, if the trade involves a player who has been on a team for one or two years and who has not had the opportunity to play, a bit more of a reward is possible for the acquiring team.
Funny quote from Wolf about nobody trading with him after Favre. My dad got to a similar point with us when playing Monopoly. "Look, I'll give you the Reading and Short Line for Water Works." "Forget it dad." "But you'll have a monopoly! This is a good deal for you." "Nope." "I'll throw in a free landing." "Not a chance."
There was just an unspoken agreement. If one of us traded with him, then he'd leverage the rest of us into trades, and pretty soon he's cornered half the board, with free landings on everything. The only way to keep him from winning was to make him play his own cards and freeze him out of everything else. Just "nope, I don't care. Yes, it's a great trade for me, and I don't want it."
Dan -
Great tip down memory lane...Umm, not.
Jerry Glanville will never be forgiven for trading Favre? Really? Favre was a partying alcoholic in Atlanta that couldn't get beyond 3 on the QB depth chart. Favre was so immature and without needed strucutre that he NEEDED the Packers as much as the Packers needed him.
Gee, keep Favre in Atlanta during his youth surrounded by partying (and all associated substances) or let him develope in rural Green Bay? You are completely adding to his fictitous legend if you think he would have grown up and thrived in Atlanta. Favre would have crashed and burned, out of the league in 5 years and in rehab. He NEEDED the Packers, discipline and Mike Holmgren.
You are trying to rewirte history as if Favre always was a God, shame on you.
Its amazing how many Favre "haters" are out there. Would probably be worth a PHd study.
He is only a HOF multi-record holder.
He was a wild one in Green Bay as well..he settled down, when his girl friend (who became his wife) laid down the law and threatened to go home to Ms. and break up with him.
He had become a father as well.
Green Bay had no fall back position..they had to make him work out.
But...."Love won out".
making side who are more agent friendly than others? If so, is it more the norm for people in this position to be friendly to agents or do you more often run into the opposite where people are hostile because of previous contracts/bad deals that didn't work in their favor.
The chargers made a mention specifically in this article. I have just observed that they appear to have released many players to the draft. Is this a financial consideration? Alternatively, is it just coincidence that the last three articles that I have read highlighted the changes to The Chargers line up? Interesting times in the NFL!
When it comes to Super Bowl tickets,...
QB took road less traveled, hiring...
Introducing three more rounds...
A GM’s draft choices, hires and...
Stanford used to have a reputation...
Feb 16, 2010
12:47 PM
Word on the street is that the Final Eight plan also restricts those teams from being active in the trade market.