Tigris Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 Hopefully Hawkins can play C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zins30 Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 If I were the Browns, I'd cut him, then sign an older player for more money. :ninja: Then I'd say that the new guys fit the system more, plus helps keep medical costs low since they don't need to treat staph infections constantly on the new guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 No, that's only for RFAs. Some fun tweets from Schefter on this: Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 2m As if Alex Mack's deal with Jags weren't lucrative enough, there's also this: no state tax in FLA; Top tax rate in Ohio is 5.925%, Clev 2%. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 24m To recap: Alex Mack highly impressed with Jacksonville, wants to play there, will sign 5-year offer sheet by end of week, per ESPN sources. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 25m Sources close to Alex Mack say he wants to play this contract in Jacksonville, not Cleveland, which opted not to give him long-term deal. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 26m Alex Mack's 5-year deal with Jacksonville will be designed to make it as difficult as possible for the Browns to match, per sources. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter 27m By Friday, Jacksonville will sign Cleveland's transition-tagged C Alex Mack to a 5-year offer sheet the Browns will have five days to match. not surprising to hear he wants to leave Cleveland. At the beginning of free agency his agent said he was confident he could come up with a deal that Cleveland couldn't match. Spoken like an agent trying to get his client out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zins30 Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 I read this article earlier about how the Jags might structure a deal to keep the browns from matching. Pure speculation but interesting... @JasonLaCanfora: Contract experts suggested offer sheets for Mack the Browns might not match. And I think the Jags could pull it off: http://t.co/e4yrEH5WPD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 not surprising to hear he wants to leave Cleveland. At the beginning of free agency his agent said he was confident he could come up with a deal that Cleveland couldn't match. Spoken like an agent trying to get his client out of town. They could throw in a clause forbidding Mack to play where the Rivers catch fire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 They could throw in a clause forbidding Mack to play where the Rivers catch fire... I know that was a Steve Hutchinson thing, but what happened in that contract? What if it says you can't play any games in Ohio? Then what does Cleveland do? Wasn't Hutchinson's something like that? I know that sounds crazy and absurd but I never knew how the Hutchinson thing really went down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup000 Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 I know that was a Steve Hutchinson thing, but what happened in that contract? What if it says you can't play any games in Ohio? Then what does Cleveland do? Wasn't Hutchinson's something like that? I know that sounds crazy and absurd but I never knew how the Hutchinson thing really went down Outlawed in the new CBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted April 9, 2014 Report Share Posted April 9, 2014 I just read what happened and it was nothing like I thought. I'm obviously not ready for public interaction. F'n Chargers... Good bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zins30 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 I'm loving this whole Jags/Browns drama going on. I see it as a win/win for the Bengals. Either the Jags sign him and we no longer have to face him twice a year, or he stays with the Stains and is now the highest paid C in the game. That'd likely put him in the $9M/yr range... what some people pay a DE. Either way it helps the Bengals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 I'm loving this whole Jags/Browns drama going on. I see it as a win/win for the Bengals. Either the Jags sign him and we no longer have to face him twice a year, or he stays with the Stains and is now the highest paid C in the game. That'd likely put him in the $9M/yr range... what some people pay a DE. Either way it helps the Bengals. Yep. My educated guess as to how this deal will be shaped is that it will be something like $20-22M guaranteed for the first 2 years. Then it will contain an opt-out clause after 2 years that allows Mack to be a FA again if he wants to. If he sticks around, there's another $24M or so over the last 3 years. If that's how it is structured and he really wants out of Cleveland, then it's a kick in the nuts for them. They have to pay him a ton of money the next 2 years and then he can hit FA if he wants out. They potentially never get to enjoy the last 3 years where he's "only" making $8M and he walks right when they'd potentially be ready to contend (their new QB would be going into season 3). If he has a secret understanding with Jacksonville that he won't opt out after 2 years and is willing to play out the full 5, then the deal is pretty much illegal. But good luck ever proving that type of understanding exists. It would be impossible unless his agent is an idiot, which Demoff is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 It's not illegal for a team and agent to strike a side agreement. It's just not enforceable. The Chiefs were complaining a few weeks ago about some free agent they agreed to terms with who shopped their offer and ended up with another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 It's not illegal for a team and agent to strike a side agreement. It's just not enforceable. The Chiefs were complaining a few weeks ago about some free agent they agreed to terms with who shopped their offer and ended up with another team. It may be when you are talking about restricted FA offers which is a whole different ball game than negotiations with a normal unrestricted FA. Since the NFL outlawed poison pills, the contract is supposed to be exactly the same for the team who signs the guy to the offer sheet as it would be for the team that would match. If there is some sort of unwritten side agreement, then that is basically a poison pill since the contract wouldn't really be the same for both teams. If the reports are correct, the agent is basically trying to craft a contract that is a 5 year deal at $9M a year for Jacksonville but if Cleveland matches, then its a 2 year $20M+ deal for Cleveland. (Assuming the agent has given Jacksonville secret assurances that under no circumstances would he opt out if he ends up in Jacksonville but would not give the same to the Browns.) Not sure if I am explaining that clearly, but if you could prove a secret agreement like this existed, it should be illegal and the contract should not be approved by the league office. The issue for Cleveland is that as long as the actual contract terms aren't too incredibly blatant and you don't have any actual evidence of the secret side agreement, then you can't prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 It's not illegal for the contract to include a player option, and it's not illegal for Mack to want to play in Jacksonville and not in Cleveland. With the contract set up that way, it certainly makes Cleveland's life harder, but shouldn't be against the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiliMVP Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 Read somewhere (Schefter?) Cleveland was definitely going to match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 It may be when you are talking about restricted FA offers which is a whole different ball game than negotiations with a normal unrestricted FA. Since the NFL outlawed poison pills, the contract is supposed to be exactly the same for the team who signs the guy to the offer sheet as it would be for the team that would match. If there is some sort of unwritten side agreement, then that is basically a poison pill since the contract wouldn't really be the same for both teams. If the reports are correct, the agent is basically trying to craft a contract that is a 5 year deal at $9M a year for Jacksonville but if Cleveland matches, then its a 2 year $20M+ deal for Cleveland. (Assuming the agent has given Jacksonville secret assurances that under no circumstances would he opt out if he ends up in Jacksonville but would not give the same to the Browns.) Not sure if I am explaining that clearly, but if you could prove a secret agreement like this existed, it should be illegal and the contract should not be approved by the league office. The issue for Cleveland is that as long as the actual contract terms aren't too incredibly blatant and you don't have any actual evidence of the secret side agreement, then you can't prove it. The contract would be the same for both teams. If it has a clause letting the player void it, that would apply to both teams. Jax may currently have assurances from Mack's agent that he would only void the deal in Cleveland but if the Browns don't match, the Jags will have to take the risk that Mack voids his deal in Jacksonville after 2 years as the assurances aren't enforceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zins30 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 I'm just happy that someone is going to try to pull shenanigans on the Brownies like they did to us. I kind of wish it was us, but don't see the value of a $9M center, even if he is an all-pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 The contract would be the same for both teams. If it has a clause letting the player void it, that would apply to both teams. Jax may currently have assurances from Mack's agent that he would only void the deal in Cleveland but if the Browns don't match, the Jags will have to take the risk that Mack voids his deal in Jacksonville after 2 years as the assurances aren't enforceable. This is where we disagree, though maybe it is a slight gray area. If there is a verbal agreement in place as to one of the main contract terms, then the contract is NOT the same for both teams. It just isn't. As an attorney who specializes in contracts, I could break down the case law for you (verbal agreements are almost always enforceable in employment law), but that's not really the point. In practice, Cleveland can't prove it, so it doesn't matter. If Cleveland had evidence though.... Say an email from the agent saying, "if you give us this offer, we promise we won't opt out after year 2." That would in fact be enough evidence under the current CBA language to make the contract illegal. But the agent isn't an idiot and wouldn't leave a paper trail like that, so it's just speculation and conjecture and Cleveland can't prove it. They are stuck with having to match this contract as is or letting him walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zins30 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 @RapSheet: Here is #Jaguars offer sheet Alex Mack will be signing tomorrow: 5 years, $42M. Its $18M over 2 with player option after 15. Cant tag him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 @RapSheet: Here is #Jaguars offer sheet Alex Mack will be signing tomorrow: 5 years, $42M. Its $18M over 2 with player option after 15. Cant tag him On the one hand, it's Cleveland so fuck'em with a stick. On the other, though, this sets a precedent that will more than likely come back to bite us, eventually, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 @billbarnwell: Best center on market, Alex Mack, getting 5-yr, $42-million offer sheet. Second-best, Brian de la Puente, got 1-yr $800k.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 @billbarnwell: Best center on market, Alex Mack, getting 5-yr, $42-million offer sheet. Second-best, Brian de la Puente, got 1-yr $800k.” Evan Dietrich-Smith got a good contract with Tampa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 @billbarnwell: Best center on market, Alex Mack, getting 5-yr, $42-million offer sheet. Second-best, Brian de la Puente, got 1-yr $800k.” Well to be fair Mack already had a 1 year 9.5 million from the Browns before the offer sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 This is where we disagree, though maybe it is a slight gray area. If there is a verbal agreement in place as to one of the main contract terms, then the contract is NOT the same for both teams. It just isn't. As an attorney who specializes in contracts, I could break down the case law for you (verbal agreements are almost always enforceable in employment law), but that's not really the point. In practice, Cleveland can't prove it, so it doesn't matter. If Cleveland had evidence though.... Say an email from the agent saying, "if you give us this offer, we promise we won't opt out after year 2." That would in fact be enough evidence under the current CBA language to make the contract illegal. But the agent isn't an idiot and wouldn't leave a paper trail like that, so it's just speculation and conjecture and Cleveland can't prove it. They are stuck with having to match this contract as is or letting him walk. No doubt you know more about it than me but I'd think the statute of frauds and the parole evidence rule would favor the written agreement over any verbal side terms. Otherwise the Chiefs would have been able to challenge the other team's deal with the player they verbally agreed to terms with but hadn't received a signed offer sheet from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 ESPN - Panthers sign former Falcons S Thomas DeCoud to a 2-year contract; played for Atlanta from 2008-13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyrid Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 No doubt you know more about it than me but I'd think the statute of frauds and the parole evidence rule would favor the written agreement over any verbal side terms. Otherwise the Chiefs would have been able to challenge the other team's deal with the player they verbally agreed to terms with but hadn't received a signed offer sheet from. Not that anyone really cares, but statute of frauds would maybe make it tough for Jacksonville to force Mack to live up to his verbal agreement (if given), but they would never do that since doing so would obviously be admitting to the rest of the NFL that they had an illegal agreement in place. They kind of have to trust his word. That wouldn't have any impact on whether the verbal agreement would violate the NFL CBA though since presumably he would live up to his end of the bargain and not opt out in Jacksonville. Parol evidence rule just says that if the written language directly contradicts something unwritten, go with the written language. Kind of like "tie goes to the runner" in baseball. Don't see how that would apply here in any way. At the very least, an unspoken agreement in connection with an RFA offer would violate the spirit of the law in terms of the new CBA rule that outlaws poison pills in any form. But again, doesn't matter since Cleveland can't prove anything. And they will probably match and Mack will walk away after 2 years with $19M and Cleveland can't do anything about it, since I believe the offer sheet he signed says he can't be franchised if he opts out after 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.