Derek Carr Contract Issues

[fyo]

The downside would be for the Saints.  You cannot have handshake agreements, by rule.
If it were to come out that the Saints had negotiated with Carr in this way, they would be penalized by the league just like Ross was.

Really? I'm struggling to find the specific rule being broken. Obviously, there can be no contract since Carr is still with the Raiders, but the whole point is to discuss terms and it's hard not to get into the compensation that the Saints would be giving up since it directly affects Carr. The Saints would equally obviously have no leverage over Carr, but if Carr wants to join them under the best possible conditions for himself (which includes the team having cheap, high draft picks), why would he try to bluff them? After all, he has final say either way.

And if there is a rule, then it wouldn't be hard to skirt it. Just because our owner is an idiot doesn't mean everyone else has to be.

[CF DolFan]

So, Carr has declined to waive his no-trade clause for any team and is expected to be released tomorrow.

One thing I didn't (and don't) understand about this process is the leverage. What prevents Carr from turning up at the team-arranged meeting with, say, the Saints and agreeing to terms with them on condition that they wait until he's released. He could probably get a better contract if his new team didn't have to fork over draft picks AND he'd be going to a team that still had their picks. Where's the downside for Carr in that? I get that any prospective trade partner wouldn't be guaranteed that Carr would go with them, but since he has a no-trade clause, that's already the case.

Once he's released he will be able to negoatiate with everyone and that will give him much more power than one secret agreement.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Really? I'm struggling to find the specific rule being broken. Obviously, there can be no contract since Carr is still with the Raiders, but the whole point is to discuss terms and it's hard not to get into the compensation that the Saints would be giving up since it directly affects Carr. The Saints would equally obviously have no leverage over Carr, but if Carr wants to join them under the best possible conditions for himself (which includes the team having cheap, high draft picks), why would he try to bluff them? After all, he has final say either way.

And if there is a rule, then it wouldn't be hard to skirt it. Just because our owner is an idiot doesn't mean everyone else has to be.

I think you are allowed to discuss financial terms if your current team says you can negotiate or try to field trade offers. That is very likely what Carr and the Saints did. There was almost a 0% chance of him being traded instead of released, made no sense for a team to give up draft compensation when they could just wait 2 weeks. If it was a June release then that is different as you want to set your roster but not 2 weeks.

Raiders are going to go hard for Rodgers or Jimmy G.

[fyo]

Once he's released he will be able to negoatiate with everyone and that will give him much more power than one secret agreement.

I disagree since this is all known information. The Saints and Carr both know that he has a no-trade and that he will be released. They also both know that there are no guarantees, but if Carr wants to play there (big if), WHY would he hamstring himself by accepted the trade? I just don't see anything in it for him.

As for the Saints, yeah, they can't know if they'll get him, but they have nothing to lose since they couldn't force him anyway.

[Spider-Dan]

Really? I'm struggling to find the specific rule being broken.

Verbally agreeing to a contract with a player that would take effect after that player's current contract with a different team ends is bright-line, black-and-white tampering.  It would be directly interfering with the Raiders' attempts to convince Carr to agree to a trade with a different team that would give LV compensation in return.

In this scenario, NO would be incentivizing Carr not to accept any trade, without the uncertainty that would accompany good-faith negotiation for a trade that isn't successful.  On paper, if Carr doesn't agree to a trade, he is potentially on the free market without a guaranteed landing spot... but if NO agrees to terms with him and tells him to wait it out, he no longer has any reason to even entertain trade offers, which is bad for LV.

[fyo]

Verbally agreeing to a contract with a player that would take effect after that player's current contract with a different team ends is bright-line, black-and-white tampering.  It would be directly interfering with the Raiders' attempts to convince Carr to agree to a trade with a different team that would give LV compensation in return.

In this scenario, NO would be incentivizing Carr not to accept any trade, without the uncertainty that would accompany good-faith negotiation for a trade that isn't successful.  On paper, if Carr doesn't agree to a trade, he is potentially on the free market without a guaranteed landing spot... but if NO agrees to terms with him and tells him to wait it out, he no longer has any reason to even entertain trade offers, which is bad for LV.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm sitting here with a copy of the regulations (well, the 2019 version, there might be changes) and this situation does not seem to be covered in the least. There is no limitation placed on what players can discuss with a potential trade destination once the (potential) destination club is given permission to talk to the player. There is no requirement that the player be loyal to his existing club or that certain subject matters are off limits.

That said, there could perhaps be a signed agreement between the two clubs outlining some parameters for the discussions, but I really cannot see how it could be covered by the league's anti-tampering regs.

The Raiders have no leverage, but that's due to the contract they agreed to with Carr and their unwillingness to honor that contract as of tomorrow. The rules are not overly detailed and don't appear to consider a situation with both a no-trade clause and the public knowledge that the player is about to be cut. Basically, I don't see how the rules bail out the Raiders here.

(And, in any event, only Carr would need to say something and players cannot tamper, only clubs, so he can say whatever he wants.)

[Spider-Dan]

Does the tampering section say anything about one team interfering with another team's negotiations with a player under contract ? Because that's what this would be, more than a trade detail.

It might not be listed in the trade negotiation section, but only for the same reason that "promising a player extra money under the table" isn't listed: it's against completely separate existing rules.

[fyo]

Does the tampering section say anything about one team interfering with another team's negotiations with a player under contract ? Because that's what this would be, more than a trade detail.

It might not be listed in the trade negotiation section, but only for the same reason that "promising a player extra money under the table" isn't listed: it's against completely separate existing rules.

If it's against some other rules, then I don't know. I cannot find anything that would cover it in the rules. What they state is simply that a player under contract with team A cannot be contacted by team B. Then there are a number of exceptions to that:

NFL Players. No club, nor any person employed by or otherwise affiliated with a club,
is permitted to tamper with a player who is under contract to or whose exclusive
negotiating rights are held by another club.

Trade Discussions. Unless a new club has received written permission directly
from a player’s employer club, entering into discussions with a player or his agent
concerning the new club’s interest in acquiring the player via trade or otherwise
would constitute a violation of the Anti-Tampering Policy.
Under no circumstances should a new club rely upon any written or oral
representation by a player or his agent that he has received permission to enter
into discussions for a trade or negotiations for a contract. Nor should a new club
rely upon a letter from the employer club to the agent or player granting such
permission since employer clubs typically reserve the right to withdraw
permission at any time, and may have already done so. Permission must be
received by the new club directly from the employer club and should be in writing
to protect the interests of both clubs.

There are a bunch of other exceptions (which don't apply here and are, anyway, exceptions).

The issue is that if team A gives team B permission, there are no safeguards in place to limit the nature of any discussions. Permission is very much an either/or kind of thing. Either you have it or you don't.

From a logical and practical point of view, I'm not sure that regulating exactly what can be discussed when permission is given makes sense. The problem for a club like the Raiders is that they, in a very real sense, relinquished control of Carr by agreeing to a no-trade and pretty much admitting that they would cut him tomorrow.

Obviously, they could play hardball and pay the $40 million. Carr might be more willing to accept a trade somewhere after that. But, really, that's what it would take. I could imagine the late Al Davis going that route, but not the current ownership. Sure, the Raiders would risk losing some money, but they would almost certainly gain significant compensation (and there's nothing to say a trade partner cannot cover part of or even all of future guaranteed money, and that's what the $40 million would be). The risk is that Carr plays hardball and says he'd be willing to stay. That could get messy quickly.

[Spider-Dan]

The issue is that if team A gives team B permission, there are no safeguards in place to limit the nature of any discussions.

But obviously some limits still exist, since the Saints cannot (for example) promise Carr extra money under-the-table.  Since I'm sure we both agree that is the case, this must mean that there are some other, broader, negotiation rules that apply here but are not listed in the section you are citing.

[fyo]

But obviously some limits still exist, since the Saints cannot (for example) promise Carr extra money under-the-table.  Since I'm sure we both agree that is the case, this must mean that there are some other, broader, negotiation rules that apply here but are not listed in the section you are citing.

Depending on what you mean by "under-the-table", that's either just plain illegal and/or in violation of the rules governing player compensation and reporting (i.e. salary cap rules). There's no obvious general rule that would cover anything in the case with Carr.

Just a note: The expected happened today and Carr has been released by the Raiders.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. I think the Saints are still a very likely landing spot.

[EDGECRUSHER]

The Jets are going hard after Carr. Their pitch meeting was basically telling him they could win the Superbowl this year and he can be a Hall of Famer. I don't think they want to wait for the Rodgers saga to complete.

I know it sounds crazy, but it would really suck if the Jets landed Carr or Rodgers as they would be a playoff team and more with either of them. Horrible QB play held them back last year but that defense is legit and they got some good talent on offense. One more good draft for them and the AFC East is going to be a bloodbath.

[fyo]

I'm not convinced Carr is more than a sightly above average starter at this point in his career.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Even someone barely above average would be a huge boost for the Jets. They were a solid team last year led by Zach Wilson and the Ghost of Joe Flacco. With an actual QB, they would be a 10 win team.

[Spider-Dan]

Carr was throwing to 4 Pro Bowlers on offense last year and the Raiders still weren't particularly scary.

[CF DolFan]

Depending on what you mean by "under-the-table", that's either just plain illegal and/or in violation of the rules governing player compensation and reporting (i.e. salary cap rules). There's no obvious general rule that would cover anything in the case with Carr.

Just a note: The expected happened today and Carr has been released by the Raiders.

It will be interesting to see what happens now. I think the Saints are still a very likely landing spot.

Joe Rose said this morning after saying that NY kind of put him on hold until the Rodgers thing shows it's head.