FEATURED Free Agency 2026 thread

visionary said:
I think something like this with Greenard or Thibodeax is coming
Click to expand...
Would not mind something like this at all. Would put the need to draft a DE in 1st rnd this year as a lower priority. Can turn focus to LB and CB. One of those 2 guys along with Gary and Eze is a solid Edge rotation.
 
Stash said:
You should look into it. Start with the Ravens saying they were giving Crosby a new contract and what Crosby’s agent says.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not finding that anywhere. You have a link? All I'm seeing is the Ravens apparently had concerns about Crosby long term, not the short term recovery from his surgery. That might gel with any new contract offer, wouldn't it? If the long-term prognosis wasn't good and the Ravens were going to offer him a new contract then backing out makes sense, no? I'm just looking at logic here. But still, I want to see that Crosby's team didn't like what he was subjected to when both sides knew what was coming with the physical and what the bar was. Does Crosby's own doctor or surgeon deny the rumored long-term prognosis? Lots of questions to answer before I call the Ravens the Darth Vader of trades.
 
Reality said:
I think they wanted Crosby but then had buyer's remorse over those would-be traded away first round picks and saw an out with Hendrickson.

I think this is going to lead to the NFLPA making some FA demands from NFL teams before next offseason.
Click to expand...
What would they demand? Crosby asked to be traded. He was aware the trade couldn’t be final until Wednesday 3/11 at 4 PM ET. Should they demand their membership to not ask for a trade until after the league year begins?
 
KingCorcoran said:
What would they demand? Crosby asked to be traded. He was aware the trade couldn’t be final until Wednesday 3/11 at 4 PM ET. Should they demand their membership to not ask for a trade until after the league year begins?
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't care because I agree that a deal is not done until it is signed and submitted to the league.

That said, there is more to this than "oh no, they went back on their word".

This impacted several teams and players starting with the Raiders obviously thinking they had more cap room so they made offers to other players believing that.

When the trade fell through days later, those agents/players they had agreed to deals, but not yet signed then had to worry if the that caused the Raiders to back out of their deals now some of those teams that were interested in them may have already moved on to other players which means fewer opportunities and demand which will hurt their contract offers.

Even players like Gary for example who the Cowboys traded for had to worry, what if the Cowboys now make a deal to get Crosby will they still be interested in him or would they still offer the same trade deal.

The one thing the other teams and especially the other players gained from this was that the still-recovering excuse (whether legitimate or not doesn't matter for this discussion) the Ravens provided took away the Raiders leverage in what they were asking for in return, so it made them more willing to keep Crosby.

The removal of Crosby off the market alone could have had a huge impact on the market.

This could have very easily turned into a domino situation of backed-out-of deals which would have created a few cap problems for teams, but could have led to a lot of money being lost by the players.

I fully believe the NFLPA will push for fines from this for the Ravens if they find any sort of angle and the fact the Ravens were negotiation with Hendrickson the whole time makes it sound like Crosby was their plan B and was likely used as leverage in their negotiation with Hendrickson.

When you factor in the other teams and players that could have been impacted, the NFLPA will have a strong argument in the courts for CBA tampering, manipulation, etc. violations they can claim impacted their members (players) financially.

Again, I'm not saying I care, but I'm saying the NFLPA will most definitely use this to their advantage.
 
Reality said:
Personally, I don't care because I agree that a deal is not done until it is signed and submitted to the league.

That said, there is more to this than "oh no, they went back on their word".

This impacted several teams and players starting with the Raiders obviously thinking they had more cap room so they made offers to other players believing that.

When the trade fell through days later, those agents/players they had agreed (but not yet) signed then had to worry if the that caused the Raiders to back out of their deals now some of those teams that were interested in them may have already moved on to other players which means fewer opportunities and demand which will hurt their contract offers.

Even players like Gary for example who the Cowboys traded for had to worry, what if the Cowboys now make a deal to get Crosby will they still be interested in him or would they still offer the same trade deal.

The one thing the other teams and especially the other players gained from this was that the still-recovering excuse (whether legitimate or not doesn't matter for this discussion) the Ravens provided took away the Raiders leverage in what they were asking for in return, so it made them more willing to keep Crosby.

The removal of Crosby off the market alone could have had a huge impact on the market.

This could have very easily turned into a domino situation of backed-out-of deals which would have created a few cap problems for teams, but could have led to a lot of money being lost by the players.

I fully believe the NFLPA will push for fines from this for the Ravens if they find any sort of angle and the fact the Ravens were negotiation with Hendrickson the whole time makes it sound like Crosby was their plan B and was likely used as leverage in their negotiation with Hendrickson.

When you factor in the other teams and players that could have been impacted, the NFLPA will have a strong argument in the courts for CBA tampering, manipulation, etc. violations they can claim impacted their members (players) financially.

Again, I'm not saying I care, but I'm saying the NFLPA will most definitely use this to their advantage.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the other 31 teams will be tentative dealing with the Ravens going forward. The NFLPA is primarily concerned with issues that concern the entire membership. Crosby is a comparatively high paid football player. He’s doing just fine. This won’t be a union issue. They’ll be going for changes in the tag rules in the next CBA, and the number of rounds in the draft.
 
KingCorcoran said:
I wonder if the other 31 teams will be tentative dealing with the Ravens going forward. The NFLPA is primarily concerned with issues that concern the entire membership. Crosby is a comparatively high paid football player. He’s doing just fine. This won’t be a union issue. They’ll be going for changes in the tag rules in the next CBA, and the number of rounds in the draft.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even thinking about Crosby being upset nor did I think he would file a complaint of any kind. I'm guessing he's happy staying with the Raiders.

I was thinking the NFLPA is going to want to use this (and it's a valid argument) as leverage against the NFL because the fallout of the announcement combined with the Ravens backing out days later heavily impacted other players and also the free agent market overall.
 
MarcusRock said:
Yeah, I'm not finding that anywhere. You have a link? All I'm seeing is the Ravens apparently had concerns about Crosby long term, not the short term recovery from his surgery. That might gel with any new contract offer, wouldn't it? If the long-term prognosis wasn't good and the Ravens were going to offer him a new contract then backing out makes sense, no? I'm just looking at logic here. But still, I want to see that Crosby's team didn't like what he was subjected to when both sides knew what was coming with the physical and what the bar was. Does Crosby's own doctor or surgeon deny the rumored long-term prognosis? Lots of questions to answer before I call the Ravens the Darth Vader of trades.
Click to expand...
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profo...ready-to-give-maxx-crosby-a-market-level-deal
 
MarcusRock said:
Yeah, I'm not finding that anywhere. You have a link? All I'm seeing is the Ravens apparently had concerns about Crosby long term, not the short term recovery from his surgery. That might gel with any new contract offer, wouldn't it? If the long-term prognosis wasn't good and the Ravens were going to offer him a new contract then backing out makes sense, no? I'm just looking at logic here. But still, I want to see that Crosby's team didn't like what he was subjected to when both sides knew what was coming with the physical and what the bar was. Does Crosby's own doctor or surgeon deny the rumored long-term prognosis? Lots of questions to answer before I call the Ravens the Darth Vader of trades.
Click to expand...
If you want to choose to be willfully ignorant, I can’t stop you.

But the Ravens backed out of an agreed upon deal for a top pass rusher and signed another top pass rusher the next morning.

If you want to look the other way on that, that’s your prerogative.
 
KingCorcoran said:
I wonder if the other 31 teams will be tentative dealing with the Ravens going forward.
Click to expand...
It may affect them if they attempt any more big trades over the next couple of years, but few teams make big trades each year so it may not end up being a big deal with teams.

Now I could see it being a problem with agents representing Free Agent players who might want more guarantees than a verbal agreement provide during the phase after agreeing to a deal through it becoming official.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 10,141 (members: 72, guests: 10,069)
Robots: 1,993

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
475,026
Messages
14,577,135
Members
24,214
Latest member
whoami2066
Back
Top