BTB: Did Judge Nelson's Ruling Force the Cowboys Draft Hand?

[CCBoy]

Did Judge Nelson's Ruling Force the Cowboys Draft Hand?

Posted by Rafael at Wednesday, April 27, 2011


http://www.cowboyszone.com/2011/04/did-judge-nelsons-ruling-force-cowboys.html




This evening, Judge Susan Nelson denied the NFL's request for a stay of her Monday ruling lifting the lockout. The league has promised to appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals in the 8th Circuit. That ruling may take some time, and will certainly come after the draft.

The possibility that the league may lose its appeal raises the stakes for skipping on highly-ceiling, early-window offensive tackles. There is increasing speculation that if the courts fail to restate the lockout that the new league year will open under the 2010 rules. Agents like Drew Rosenhaus were tweeting this evening that they are already calling teams about their clients.

The resumption of the 2010 free agency rules, which prevented players with less than six years of service from testing the market as un-restricted free agents, binds them to restricted free agent tenders, meaning a group of veterans who might interest Dallas are likely off limits; if these players' teams tender them at 1st round pick or higher levels of compensation, they will not draw much interest on the market. We could see a replay of last spring, when relatively little free agent movement took place...

 

[JonJon]

Does this include Michael Huff?

 

[basstapp]

michael huff is a free agent he was released by the raiders, I believe.

 

[casmith07]

He has not been released yet per anything I'm seeing online.

 

[Miller]

michael huff is a free agent he was released by the raiders, I believe.

He is an FA. They made it official a few weeks back..along with Aso. He is on the market but it wasn't a release.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6394616

Just as Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha's contract will allow him to test the free-agent market, Oakland safety Michael Huff's contract is expected to allow him to do the same.
A little-known rule prevented the Raiders from re-signing Huff this past season, as much as they would have liked to, according to an NFL source.

http://www.firstregime.com/nfl-draf...ffs-free-agency-have-raiders-thinking-safety/

Oakland’s plans for the upcoming draft are likely to be heavily colored by the prospect of losing key starters in free agency. While Nnamdi Asomugha’s name tops any such list of concerns, he’s not the only defensive back who could be heading out of the Bay Area.
ESPN reports that Raiders safety Michael Huff, another free agent, may be targeted by multiple teams and is unlikely to be back in Oakland next season.

 

[Hostile]

Michael Huff has been in the NFL 5 years. Under the 2010 rules he would not be a UFA, he would be an RFA. That means if the Raiders tender him an offer, we have to match it and they get a pick. Since this won't happen today, I assume this would be 2012 Draft picks, provided the NFLPA* isn't successful in their desire to eliminate the Draft.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Michael Huff has been in the NFL 5 years. Under the 2010 rules he would not be a UFA, he would be an RFA. That means if the Raiders tender him an offer, we have to match it and they get a pick. Since this won't happen today, I assume this would be 2012 Draft picks, provided the NFLPA* isn't successful in their desire to eliminate the Draft.

whoops, i posted this too, but its in draft section,

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Michael Huff has been in the NFL 5 years. Under the 2010 rules he would not be a UFA, he would be an RFA. That means if the Raiders tender him an offer, we have to match it and they get a pick. Since this won't happen today, I assume this would be 2012 Draft picks, provided the NFLPA* isn't successful in their desire to eliminate the Draft.

But the deadline to tender has come and gone. Barring the NFL and CBA agreeing to give teams an extended window (about a snowball's chance in hell) he would be UFA no matter what.

I asked this question about a week ago and found out that he negotiated a seperate clause in his contract

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6394616

"Huff's contract says that if the Raiders tendered him as a restricted free agent, he must be paid 110 percent more than last year's salary, which would put Huff's salary in 2011 at $6.325 million -- plus a $200,000 Pro Bowl incentive."

Oakland chose not to pay him 6.3 Mil, and did not attempt to give him a qualifying offer, so that made him UFA no matter what

 

[Hostile]

But the deadline to tender has come and gone. Barring the NFL and CBA agreeing to give teams an extended window (about a snowball's chance in hell) he would be UFA no matter what.

I asked this question about a week ago and found out that he negotiated a seperate clause in his contract

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6394616

"Huff's contract says that if the Raiders tendered him as a restricted free agent, he must be paid 110 percent more than last year's salary, which would put Huff's salary in 2011 at $6.325 million -- plus a $200,000 Pro Bowl incentive."

Oakland chose not to pay him 6.3 Mil, and did not attempt to give him a qualifying offer, so that made him UFA no matter what

I hope you are right. Until we get a definitive answer we're all taking our best guesses.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I hope you are right. Until we get a definitive answer we're all taking our best guesses.

yeah, I think so, but any agreement the nfl and the players reach could trump this.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

Trade up and get Peterson with the first, and snag an OL with the second. If Peterson cannot be had, then snag OL with the first and DE with hte second or DE with the first and OL with the second. This is not that hard Jerry!

 

[JonJon]

yeah, I think so, but any agreement the nfl and the players reach could trump this.

A key portion of the article:

Now, whenever football resumes, Huff either will become an unrestricted free agent, able to go to the highest bidder, or Oakland must pay him $6.325 million to retain his services for 2011.

If this is indeed true, has that timeline for Oakland to fork over the $6.325 million come and gone since the NFL has technically started the new year already? All indications from what I have read is that this season will be played with the 2010 rules in place.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

A key portion of the article:

If this is indeed true, has that timeline for Oakland to fork over the $6.325 million come and gone since the NFL has technically started the new year already? All indications from what I have read is that this season will be played with the 2010 rules in place.

yeah that part could mess it up for us, but I think it was originally written before the deadline.

 

[Hostile]

A key portion of the article:

If this is indeed true, has that timeline for Oakland to fork over the $6.325 million come and gone since the NFL has technically started the new year already? All indications from what I have read is that this season will be played with the 2010 rules in place.

The League year has not officially started. It is on hold pending appeal. I am sure we'll get a ruling and decision on it soon.

 

[unionjack8]

Michael Huff has been in the NFL 5 years. Under the 2010 rules he would not be a UFA, he would be an RFA. That means if the Raiders tender him an offer, we have to match it and they get a pick. Since this won't happen today, I assume this would be 2012 Draft picks, provided the NFLPA* isn't successful in their desire to eliminate the Draft.

the time to tender players has passed. He did not get tenedered, like we tendered free at a 1 and a 3. they chose not to, he is a free agent