Possible issue with Huff

[jchap2k]

If the CBA rules of 2010 go back into play for 2011, wouldn't Huff not be a free agent? Since it requires at least 6 years before becoming unrestricted, wouldn't that exclude Huff, since he is only on his 5th year?

I hope a new CBA agreement is reached. Would hate to not be able to grab Huff due to 2010 CBA rules.

 

[AdamJT13]

Huff would be an RFA, but for the Raiders to retain his rights, they would have to tender him at $6.325 million for one year -- which is only slightly lower than the $6.5 million franchise tender for safeties last year.

If they don't give him that $6.325 million, one-year tender, he'd essentially be a street free agent.

 

[perrykemp]

If the CBA rules of 2010 go back into play for 2011, wouldn't Huff not be a free agent? Since it requires at least 6 years before becoming unrestricted, wouldn't that exclude Huff, since he is only on his 5th year?

I hope a new CBA agreement is reached. Would hate to not be able to grab Huff due to 2010 CBA rules.

Forget the 5-6 year qualifier -- I thought the Raiders could keep him simply by paying him about $7m -- which is the Franchise tender for a Safety.

What it boils down to (I think) is that Huff won't leave the Raiders unless they want him to.

 

[Stash]

Huff would be an RFA, but for the Raiders to retain his rights, they would have to tender him at $6.325 million for one year -- which is only slightly lower than the $6.5 million franchise tender for safeties last year.

If they don't give him that $6.325 million, one-year tender, he'd essentially be a street free agent.

I know it's been said many times before Adam, but I just wanted to reiterate how grateful we are for the information and research you contribute to this forum.

You are the man!

 

[jchap2k]

Very nice. So I guess it all comes down to will the Raiders pay that big salary or not. We can only hope that they wont

 

[Stash]

Very nice. So I guess it all comes down to will the Raiders pay that big salary or not. We can only hope that they wont

One sign that I think goes in our favor is that the Raiders have made moves which indicate that they may be moving on.

They recently signed both cornerback Stanford Routt and free safety Hiram Eugene to multi-year contract extensions, which would seem to indicate that Asomugha and Huff aren't in the future plans.

 

[Hostile]

Huff would be an RFA, but for the Raiders to retain his rights, they would have to tender him at $6.325 million for one year -- which is only slightly lower than the $6.5 million franchise tender for safeties last year.

If they don't give him that $6.325 million, one-year tender, he'd essentially be a street free agent.

One question for clarification Adam. The time for tendering offers has already passed, so technically if this happens they will have to give a new deadline won't they? I assume this because Huff and others wouldn't have qualified for these offers before the original deadline.

 

[TheCount]

I think the Raiders would love to keep him. In the end it boils down to if they want to or not.

I think if they pay him, he'd probably like to stay there as well.

 

[burmafrd]

Unless something is changed it is too late to tender. If we play by 2010 rules the date of tenders is long past.

 

[Doomsday101]

Unless something is changed it is too late to tender. If we play by 2010 rules the date of tenders is long past.

I would expect some modification when business starts back up

 

[Stash]

I would expect some modification when business starts back up

I would agree with you.

Considering the uncertainty regarding future rules, I expect that the league would give teams a grace period to get their affairs in order.

 

[jterrell]

Huff would be an RFA, but for the Raiders to retain his rights, they would have to tender him at $6.325 million for one year -- which is only slightly lower than the $6.5 million franchise tender for safeties last year.

If they don't give him that $6.325 million, one-year tender, he'd essentially be a street free agent.

I will always defer to your contract status knowledge but I am curious how this piece works for Huff versus say Spears. Spears was tendered at an insanely low amount last year yet we retained his rights.

Why MUST the Raiders tender him at 6 million as opposed to tendering him at a lower rate and retain the right to match deals for him? Spears was also a first round pick. Would not a lower tender be possible that merely reduces compensation if he leaves?

 

[AdamJT13]

One question for clarification Adam. The time for tendering offers has already passed, so technically if this happens they will have to give a new deadline won't they? I assume this because Huff and others wouldn't have qualified for these offers before the original deadline.

Depending on which rules are used for 2011, there might be a window of time for teams to tender certain players. If there is not another window for the Raiders to tender Huff, then he's completely free to leave.

 

[AdamJT13]

I will always defer to your contract status knowledge but I am curious how this piece works for Huff versus say Spears. Spears was tendered at an insanely low amount last year yet we retained his rights.

Why MUST the Raiders tender him at 6 million as opposed to tendering him at a lower rate and retain the right to match deals for him? Spears was also a first round pick. Would not a lower tender be possible that merely reduces compensation if he leaves?

It's based on his previous year's salary -- it can't be less than 110 percent of his previous year's salary. Spears' 2009 salary was only $735,000, so we could keep him in 2010 for the regular tender amount.

Huff made $5.75 million last season, so his RFA tender can't be less than $6.325 million.

 

[jterrell]

It's based on his previous year's salary -- it can't be less than 110 percent of his previous year's salary. Spears' 2009 salary was only $735,000, so we could keep him in 2010 for the regular tender amount.

Huff made $5.75 million last season, so his RFA tender can't be less than $6.325 million.

Thanks for that clarification!

I know the Raiders would prefer to keep him but not at 6 mil.

 

[supercowboy8]

Huffs situation is alot liek Nnamdi's. They have to give Huff a big contract, someone on here had the right numbers, about 6.35 per one year. Oakland has already given out alot of money. SO thts what it will come down to. If Oakland doesn't want to pay him that amount of money then he is a free agent, if they do then he is a Raider for another year. But than there are also always trades.

 

[burmafrd]

The teams had time to put out tenders. Pretty sure the Union would scream if they got another chance, so I doubt it will happen.

 

[AdamJT13]

The teams had time to put out tenders. Pretty sure the Union would scream if they got another chance, so I doubt it will happen.

It depends on whether teams were allowed to extend RFA tenders to players who had four or five years of experience (who normally would be UFAs). If not, and if those players would be RFAs under the 2011 rules, then teams should be given that chance. Otherwise, every player with four or five years of experience who was not given a franchise or transition tender would be a street free agent. The teams obviously would "scream" if they weren't given any chance to tender their own RFAs.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It depends on whether teams were allowed to extend RFA tenders to players who had four or five years of experience (who normally would be UFAs). If not, and if those players would be RFAs under the 2011 rules, then teams should be given that chance. Otherwise, every player with four or five years of experience who was not given a franchise or transition tender would be a street free agent. The teams obviously would "scream" if they weren't given any chance to tender their own RFAs.

all teams tendered based on the 2010 rules. we tendered free who has 5 years (same year as Huff I think) and the raiders tendered Michael Bush and Zach Miller, who have 4 years and wouldn't have been restricted if the 2009 rules were in place.

 

[burmafrd]

That could be interesting; more likely the teams will stand pat.