Potential contract ramifications will have no impact on how Saints use TE Jimmy Graham - MERGED (1 Viewer)

StudioSaint · Mar 19, 2013

scrummy mustard said:
Unfortunately not, PFT was going through this a few weeks ago with the Cook situation and the new CBA states:

“[T]he tender will apply to the position in which the player participated in the most plays,” declares Article 9, Section 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

That's an ambiguous rule. How do you determine the position played in plays. Is it where he lined up? If so, was it were he lined up pre-snap or where he was at the snap? Or is it the role of the player during the play? Or is it the position the coach determined he was playing on a particular play?

If there is a dispute between Graham and the Saints, the NFL will stand behind whatever position the Saints' say Graham played.

bravesoul99 · Mar 19, 2013

StudioSaint said:
That's an ambiguous rule. How do you determine the position played in plays. Is it where he lined up? If so, was it were he lined up pre-snap or where he was at the snap? Or is it the role of the player during the play? Or is it the position the coach determined he was playing on a particular play?

If there is a dispute between Graham and the Saints, the NFL will stand behind whatever position the Saints' say Graham played.

It's a simple rule to understand. It is where the player is lined up. On the LOS and you are a TE. In the slot and you are a WR.

bravesoul99 · Mar 19, 2013

And the NFL won't stand by what the Saints say. Graham would appeal to union, and if he played more than 50% of snaps in the slot he would win the grievance.

gregh · Mar 19, 2013

i dont get it really, he was drafted as a TE, he is listed as a TE.

scrummy mustard · Mar 19, 2013

gregh said:
no i meant did the treat him as a WR with his deal

Well yes and no. They gave him an extension at 9 million per year. It was originally reported as a 6 year 54 mil (not exactly sure, but right around that number) but really it was around an 8 year 56 million deal because he still had 2 years left on his rookie deal, which did not get voided. So in terms of NEW money, he got paid similar to a WR, but when you average the deal out it was more in line with a TE numbers ($6.9 mil average).

However, Jimmy will be looking to make more because he is going to be an UFA. Gronk took less money for the security of a big signing bonus (8 million) 2 years away from his deal expiring. I'd also guess that Gronk is more of a prototypical TE than Jimmy is. I do not have the stats to back it up, but I'd guess that Jimmy gets lined up in the slot more often then Gronk does.

That is why I wish we signed Jimmy last year after Gronk and Hernandez got their money, it is going to cost the saints a boatload more cash than if we got it done earlier.

EDIT: sorry for the long post, I work in finance, and contracts in general interest me.

scrummy mustard · Mar 19, 2013

gregh said:
i dont get it really, he was drafted as a TE, he is listed as a TE.

Logically, it should be that easy, but the NFL agents have disputed this for their clients, solely to make more money for them. WRs get paid much more than TEs.

If Jimmy puts up a monster year similar to 2011, which I could easily see happening if he is all healthy again and with SP back; then he is going to be getting a GIANT contract.

gregh · Mar 19, 2013

scrummy mustard said:
Logically, it should be that easy, but the NFL agents have disputed this for their clients, solely to make more money for them. WRs get paid much more than TEs.

If Jimmy puts up a monster year similar to 2011, which I could easily see happening if he is all healthy again and with SP back; then he is going to be getting a GIANT contract.

hope it works out, they need him

Jackavelli · Mar 19, 2013

gregh said:
i dont get it really, he was drafted as a TE, he is listed as a TE.

I'm just using random jobs as ex. Someone can apply for a janitor job, get hired and listed as a janitor but then the same company uses them 54% of the time doing HR work to help out. That employee would want HR pay. Yes I understand that was a bad ex of jobs but hopefully paints picture of what the player is saying.

Swimmer · Mar 19, 2013

scrummy mustard said:
If only it were that simple.

It really is, but JG's agent is really smart in trying to argue that he's really a WR - really smart. Dummervil should hire JG's agent ASAP.

bravesoul99 · Mar 19, 2013

Swimmer said:
It really is, but JG's agent is really smart in trying to argue that he's really a WR - really smart. Dummervil should hire JG's agent ASAP.

Not like his agent was so smart. This has been brought up several times with other TE's.

StudioSaint · Mar 19, 2013

bravesoul99 said:
It's a simple rule to understand. It is where the player is lined up. On the LOS and you are a TE. In the slot and you are a WR.

Okay, so if he lines up at the line of scrimmage and then motions out to the slot, then by your definition he has played two positions in one play. There is ambiguity in the way the rule is worded and I think it was by design.

bravesoul99 said:
And the NFL won't stand by what the Saints say. Graham would appeal to union, and if he played more than 50% of snaps in the slot he would win the grievance.

If he lines up in the slot at the beginning of the play 50% of the time, the Players union might win in arbitration against the NFL. I don't think that ever has or ever will happen. A good percentage of the time that Graham ends up in the slot, he originally lines up on the line of scrimmage and then motions out to the slot. The rule doesn't stipulate whether it's pre-snap or at the snap alignment.

StudioSaint · Mar 19, 2013

Swimmer said:
It really is, but JG's agent is really smart in trying to argue that he's really a WR - really smart. Dummervil should hire JG's agent ASAP.

I haven't read anywhere that Graham's agent is indeed arguing that he's a wide receiver and not a tight end. I think at this point it's just speculation that Graham and his agent are going to try and stick it to the Saints. Personally, I don't think Graham will try to argue that he's a wide receiver.

SoggyBottomBoy · Mar 19, 2013

Does the same thing apply to Sproles? If he shifts to the slot more times than lining up behind Brees, does he get receiver or running back pay? And is the position determined as when the ball is snapped after all the motions and shifts are complete?

As for Graham, I could see a deserved hybrid TE/WR sort of payday.

bravesoul99 · Mar 19, 2013

StudioSaint said:
Okay, so if he lines up at the line of scrimmage and then motions out to the slot, then by your definition he has played two positions in one play. There is ambiguity in the way the rule is worded and I think it was by design.

If he lines up in the slot at the beginning of the play 50% of the time, the Players union might win in arbitration against the NFL. I don't think that ever has or ever will happen. A good percentage of the time that Graham ends up in the slot, he originally lines up on the line of scrimmage and then motions out to the slot. The rule doesn't stipulate whether it's pre-snap or at the snap alignment.

A publication has discussed this. In that instance the snap counts as a WR. He motioned to a WR position

StudioSaint · Mar 19, 2013

bravesoul99 said:
A publication has discussed this. In that instance the snap counts as a WR. He motioned to a WR position

True, but nowhere in the written rule does it give the criteria for determining what position a player played. Your assumption is that you use the position the player is aligned at the snap, but that's not in the rule. The collective bargaining agreement is a contract. Anything not clearly defined is left for interpretation by all parties of the contract. That's one of the reasons there is an arbitration process, to settle disputes over interpretation.

As far as I know, only sports journalists have speculated about this. There hasn't been a challenge under the rule therefore there has not been official interpretation of the rule. Everything that's been written as of now is just opinion and speculation.

According to the CBA, this is how any disputes would be handled:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> [FONT=&quot]Article 10 Section 7 (c) Any dispute concerning the identity and Salaries of players included within each player position category, or any other matter regarding these figures, shall be submitted to and resolved by the Impartial Arbitrator during the period from February 1 to February 15, or within twenty-five days after the last day of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period, respectively. The Impartial Arbitrator shall make an independent determination in writing. In arriving at his determination, the Impartial Arbitrator shall consider any relevant information furnished to him, and shall be provided access to all relevant Player Contracts. The Impartial Arbitrator’s determination shall be final and binding upon all parties."[/FONT]

Personally, I wouldn't bet against the NFL in arbitration versus the Player's Union over the interpretation of any rule that is vague enough to allow the NFL a self-serving interpretation.

I still don't think Graham will force the issue if the Saints do tag him.

Potential contract ramifications will have no impact on how Saints use TE Jimmy Graham - MERGED (1 Viewer)

StudioSaint

bravesoul99

Guest

bravesoul99

Guest

gregh

The Real Deal

scrummy mustard

All-Pro

scrummy mustard

All-Pro

gregh

The Real Deal

Jackavelli

Sarang Upso

Swimmer

Medsamust Saint Fan

bravesoul99

Guest

StudioSaint

StudioSaint

SoggyBottomBoy

I'm with you fellers.

bravesoul99

Guest

StudioSaint

Users who are viewing this thread

Share this page

Twitter

Forum statistics