Poison Pill article

Post #1 » by **ReasonablySober** » Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:58 pm

Pretty great job by SI.com's Ross Tucker.

For example, if Bill Parcells wants to reunite with former Cowboys undrafted free agent Miles Austin, Miami could craft an offer sheet that says Austin's contract would need to be the highest on the team and 100 percent guaranteed if he plays more than four games in the state of Texas. Surely Jerry Jones would have to let Austin go since he wouldn't want to pay him more than Tony Romo or DeMarcus Ware, let alone guaranteeing the entire contract.

Poison pills are a completely legal and acceptable way to acquire tendered players in the NFL. An arbitrator ruled so in a grievance the Seahawks filed in 2005 after the Minnesota Vikings snuck a fast one past Seattle to secure All-Pro left guard Steve Hutchinson. The Seahawks quickly returned the favor by inserting their own poison pill to steal Nate Burleson from the Vikings. Yet amazingly, even though two players of that caliber were acquired in such a manner, there has not been another poison pill acquisition.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... z0h9ZBnrU6

chuckleslove · Post #2 » by **chuckleslove** » Thu Mar 4, 2010 4:24 am

Since the Seahawks are my #2 team I very vividly remember when Minnesota pulled that crap and then Seattle retaliated. They are legal and it is kind of crazy to me. I don't think you should be able to do it but while it is legal I guess teams will be all sorts of cut throat with it. I would guess the only thing holding teams back from doing this is that the players have to agree to it. It is really just a way for a player who wants out of a certain town to allow another team to give them a ridiculous offer and thus bypassing the entire restricted free agent/offer matching process.

Post #3 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Mar 4, 2010 4:49 am

Football Outsiders think with that with the huge amount of restricted free agents out there we'll see a good number of poison pill deals.

chuckleslove · Post #4 » by **chuckleslove** » Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:00 am

DrugBust wrote:Football Outsiders think with that with the huge amount of restricted free agents out there we'll see a good number of poison pill deals.

Looking at it from a player's viewpoint the only reason to do it would be if you want to go to the new team making you an offer. You aren't going to get money so the only advantage is being able to control your destination.

Like I said it really seems like a way to cheat the entire restricted portion and more or less force yourself into being almost unrestricted by putting crazy clauses in the contract that your current team wouldn't match. Of course I guess they do get compensation picks if they put the appropriate tender on you but still seems like working over the system.

I'm all in favor of it while it is legal I just think they should add something into the rules to prevent this sort of thing.

Post #5 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:20 am

chuckleslove wrote:
DrugBust wrote:Football Outsiders think with that with the huge amount of restricted free agents out there we'll see a good number of poison pill deals.

Looking at it from a player's viewpoint the only reason to do it would be if you want to go to the new team making you an offer. You aren't going to get money so the only advantage is being able to control your destination.

Like I said it really seems like a way to cheat the entire restricted portion and more or less force yourself into being almost unrestricted by putting crazy clauses in the contract that your current team wouldn't match. Of course I guess they do get compensation picks if they put the appropriate tender on you but still seems like working over the system.

I'm all in favor of it while it is legal I just think they should add something into the rules to prevent this sort of thing.

I disagree.

Think about it from a player's perspective. You're Elvis Dumerville. This uncapped season has more or less screwed you of a year's worth of earning potential, which is huge in the NFL. If Green Bay (weather) or Buffalo or Oakland come calling with a poison pill deal and $23 million guaranteed and your choice is the one year tender or the security of being set-up for life, what are you choosing? Some of these players that are playing on tenders are going to suffer serious injuries next year. No doubt about it. Their agents will tell them the same.

Not a lot of teams are going to be willing to part with picks to sign someone. I could easily see the choice being: sign a poison pill deal and be set-up for life, or play a season for $1.7 million and risk long term injury, a decline in play, or a lockout in '11 in which I lose another year of earning.

I don't even think it's a question of if they sign, to be honest.