trolls_r_us Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 OK Green Bay would NOT make the trade. BUT what if a team like Tampa Traded for him (in exchange for a 3rd rounder), THEN sent him to Minnesota for a 1st round pick next season? In that case, Tampa basically upgrades their 3rd rounder to a 1st rounder. What's to stop something like this from happening? Once GB trades him, they have NO SAY about what happens next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 OK Green Bay would NOT make the trade. BUT what if a team like Tampa Traded for him (in exchange for a 3rd rounder), THEN sent him to Minnesota for a 1st round pick next season? In that case, Tampa basically upgrades their 3rd rounder to a 1st rounder. What's to stop something like this from happening? Once GB trades him, they have NO SAY about what happens next. Maybe. But I am thinking the Packers could make a "no trade to an NFC North team" a condition to whatever trade agreement they made with the Bucs. Of course, even for that, they would likely have to have Favre agree to that, before he was traded. Sort of a non-wavierable no-trade clause. If he doesn't, his options are staying retired, or playing for the Packers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 It's true that the Packers can't control what a team did after Favre was sent their way. However, if there was a gentleman's agreement between two GMs, the latter would find himself struggling to make too many trades in the future. You shoot your credibility to hell in one go. That said, this is the NFL, and trades aren't too important. It might be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 It's true that the Packers can't control what a team did after Favre was sent their way. However, if there was a gentleman's agreement between two GMs, the latter would find himself struggling to make too many trades in the future. You shoot your credibility to hell in one go. That said, this is the NFL, and trades aren't too important. It might be worth it. sounds like the Pats might be involved then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 It's true that the Packers can't control what a team did after Favre was sent their way. However, if there was a gentleman's agreement between two GMs, the latter would find himself struggling to make too many trades in the future. You shoot your credibility to hell in one go. That said, this is the NFL, and trades aren't too important. It might be worth it. I don't think it would have to be a "gentlemen's agreement". I am pretty sure, the Packers could stipulate in their trade agreement that Favre have a "no-trade" clause, which could not be waived. Favre would have to agree to the condition The only option, then, for the team trading for him, would be to waive him. I know this has happened in other sports, although I can't recall it happening in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The easiest way to assure no 2nd trade is to make sure Favre has signed a restructured contract with enough signing bonus $ that trading him would cause a big cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I don't think it would have to be a "gentlemen's agreement". I am pretty sure, the Packers could stipulate in their trade agreement that Favre have a "no-trade" clause, which could not be waived. Favre would have to agree to the condition The only option, then, for the team trading for him, would be to waive him. I know this has happened in other sports, although I can't recall it happening in the NFL. why would Favre agree to such a clause when he can basically force the Packers to cut him just by showing up at camp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 What's to stop something like this from happening? Global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I don't think it is possible for the Packers to include anything in a trade that could exclude the other team from turning around and flipping him to another team of their choosing, besides just a handshake, "take him at his word" gentlemens agreement between the GM's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 why would Favre agree to such a clause when he can basically force the Packers to cut him just by showing up at camp? I agree. But, if you blieve the Packers, they are not going to cut him. His options, so the Packers say, are to play for them (as a back-up) or stay retired. I am not sure if Thompson will have the nads to cut Brett Favre. After watching Favre last night, I kind of get the feeling that he might not want it to go that far either. We shall see though. My point was, the Packers have some leveridge here with Favre. He is asking for an outright release, which they will not grant. So, if he wants to play for another team, it will have to be one that is palatable to the Packers. If the Packers and Favre can come to an agreement on what team that would be (rumour reported on ESPN is that Brett wants to play somewhere with cool weather!), the Packers could agree with that deal, as long as Favre agrees that a stipulation in whatever contract he signs with a new team, limits where he can be traded to, by his new team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Maybe. But I am thinking the Packers could make a "no trade to an NFC North team" a condition to whatever trade agreement they made with the Bucs. Of course, even for that, they would likely have to have Favre agree to that, before he was traded. Sort of a non-wavierable no-trade clause. If he doesn't, his options are staying retired, or playing for the Packers. It seems like most agree that this kind of condition would never be allowed, but I wonder if they could set it up a different way. Say they get that 3rd round pick mentioned earlier. I wonder if they can set the deal up so that if the team that picks up Favre turns around and trades him somewhere else, that 3rd round pick becomes a 1st round pick instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 It seems like most agree that this kind of condition would never be allowed, but I wonder if they could set it up a different way. Say they get that 3rd round pick mentioned earlier. I wonder if they can set the deal up so that if the team that picks up Favre turns around and trades him somewhere else, that 3rd round pick becomes a 1st round pick instead. They do it in MLB all the time. The difference would be that in those cases, the player involved sets the stipulations on who he can be traded to. In this case, the Packers would set the stipulation, and Favre, who is still the "property" of the Packers, would have to agree to their (the Packers) terms, to facilitate his wish to go to another team. Kind of like when you have to sign something at your job, agreeing that, should you leave, you cannot get a job with another company in the same business, for x amount of years. It doesn't seem fair, but it happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 It seems like most agree that this kind of condition would never be allowed, but I wonder if they could set it up a different way. Say they get that 3rd round pick mentioned earlier. I wonder if they can set the deal up so that if the team that picks up Favre turns around and trades him somewhere else, that 3rd round pick becomes a 1st round pick instead. If its allowed under the CBA (or whatever the NFL has called it) then they could make it a conditional pick saying that it would become a first if he plays a game for another team besides the one he was traded for, or maybe a condition that says the Packers get to match any offer made to the team that traded for him if they try and deal him away before he plays a game for another team. but i don't know if the league would allow such conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts