Blog Entry

Owners want right of first refusal free agents?

Posted on: June 23, 2011 6:16 pm
Edited on: June 23, 2011 6:29 pm
 
Posted by Will Brinson

It's beginning to seem likely -- or at least reports make it seem likely -- that players with four years of service time who were previously restricted free agents (RFAs) will, if a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is reached, become unrestricted free agents (UFAs).

If this happens, there will be an additional 500 or so people added to a free-agent class that will suddenly be bursting with talent. Unless the owners are able to convince the players to give them several "right-of-first-refusal" options on UFAs.

Which is what they're trying to do, according to Chris Mortensen, who told Howard Balzer of 101 ESPN Radio in St. Louis that "owners are asking that teams be able to have three or four right-of-first-refusals this year on UFAs."

What this would mean is that while guys like DeAngelo Williams of the Panthers would be able to negotiate with other teams, their original teams would have the right to match the highest offer those players got on the open market.

But it would also let teams determine the market ... without actually having to make an offer to their players.

Such speculation is probably fruitless, however, because there's little chance that the players would agree to creating these de facto franchise tags that might limit a large number of players' ability to cash in on their unrestricted free agent status.

Plus, if owners didn't see a reversion to free agency rules that existed before 2010 -- when a new CBA was negotiated -- happening from the get-go, it's hard to fathom what they were expecting to see.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Comments
fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 2, 2012 10:27 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 27, 2011 12:44 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



tomlye
Since: Nov 28, 2011
Posted on: November 30, 2011 12:00 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Apr 27, 2008
Posted on: June 25, 2011 1:20 pm
 

Owners want right of first refusal free agents?

To LSU and Whitebread.  You bath make good points.  I don't see that having 3 or 4 right to match players as being viable for the long term.  I do think it could make sense in this year alone because the free agency period is going to be compressed into a short time period.  It will be a matter af a few weeks as opposed to months.  I would propose a week or two for teams to attempt to sign their own free agents followed by a period of 3 or 4 weeks to sign free agents from other teams.  At that point the market value a team places on their own players can be measured against what other teams value that player at.  The player can then decide accordingly.  The only reason I would agree that teams should have right of first refusal is because the lockout/decertification has made it impossible (in theary) for teams to negotiate with their own players or other teams players for 3 months now. 



Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: June 24, 2011 7:05 pm
 

Owners want right of first refusal free agents?

I do not see the players giving in on this one, and I do not think I would either.  If a player completes his contract, he should be free to go wherever he wants.  Depending on the situation, a player may be willing to go somewhere else and play for less.  If the owner can match that, then the player has no shot of going to his chosen destination.  I have probably been on the owners side for most issues, but I would side with the players on this.  I don't like franchise tags at all, and this would make it worse.  I don't like necessarily like player movement, but if a player earns it, he should get it. 



Since: Jan 7, 2009
Posted on: June 24, 2011 3:27 pm
 

Owners want right of first refusal free agents?

The owners need to be protected at least partially whn it comes to FA. They draft and develope players, then poof, they sign with another team. I'm usually for the players on most things, but this isn't fair to the teams. Maybe they should be able to pay more for their FA's like the NBA. This is one of those questions that doesn't seem to have an easy answer. It might be that the compensation teams get for losing top talent should be considerably higher. When Carolina lost Peppers, they got all of a 3rd rd draft choice. When you lose all-pro talent, you should get more than a 3rd.



Since: Mar 15, 2010
Posted on: June 24, 2011 9:49 am
 

Owners want right of first refusal free agents?

Free Agency its what has ruined the nfl!



Since: Aug 29, 2009
Posted on: June 23, 2011 7:44 pm
 

Owners want right of first refusal free agents?

I say give it to them - with a 135% markup - that is.  That way present owners would have to bargain in good faith - of it also means the player could use the other team to raise their payday.



Since: Aug 23, 2006
Posted on: June 23, 2011 6:35 pm
 

Owners want right of first refusal free agents?

Blah blah blah blah blah get this thing done already


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com