Can someone explain??

[Marcel#52]

We posted on Monday an item regarding the limitations that will apply to the teams inclined to sign Panthers defensive end Julius Peppers to a big-money, 12:01 a.m.-style contract.

And thanks to an astute reader, we need to clarify our point. (That's a fancy word for "we f--ked something up.")

The so-called Final Eight Plan restricts the ability of the teams that made it to the divisional round or higher to sign unrestricted free agents. For the final four teams (Colts, Saints, Jets, Vikings), our explanation regarding Peppers' situation remains accurate. (In other words, we didn't f--k it up.) For the next four teams (Cowboys, Cardinals, Ravens, Chargers), there's one exception that applies as it relates to big-money contracts.

The Final Eight Plan permits the division-round losers to sign one player to a contract having an adjusted salary in the first year of $5.5 million or more. (For some reason, we thought it was "or less." Thus, the f--kup.) The division-round losers also may sign an unlimited number of unrestricted free agents to contracts with first-year adjusted salaries of $3.7 million or less, with limitations on future growth.

In English, this means that the Cowboys, Cardinals, Ravens, and Chargers can sign one guy to a Haynesworth-style contract at 12:01 a.m. ET on the first day of free agency. Thus, the presumably big-spending Cowboys can still pursue Peppers (or some other big-name unrestricted free agent), if they so choose.

The conference finalists, however, can't. And then there's the reality that most teams are expected not to spend huge money on player contracts, as part of the 2011 lockout fund.

So whether it's four or eight teams that can't pursue Peppers, it will be a surprise if he lands a $100-million deal.

And, again, Julius shouldn't be uttering "et tu?" when the Ides of March approach, given that he made more than $18 million in 2009.

I've read this over and over.. But could someone break it down more?

Does this still mean we have to lose someone to sign someone?

[baltimore_hokie]

We can sign one UFA for an unlimited amount of money. This should mean that, if we wanted to, we could trade for a guy like Marshall and give an unlimited contract.

Besides that, we have to stay at a 1-for-1 pace for UFA's.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

I've read this over and over.. But could someone break it down more?

Does this still mean we have to lose someone to sign someone?

Only the final 4 have to lose someone to sign someone. We are not one of the final 4.

The teams that lost in the divisional round (which includes us obviously) can sign one UFA to an extremely large contract. Only one though over $5.5 in the first year. Also we can sign as many UFA's as we want under that $3.75 million stipulation. All without concerning ourselves with having to lose someone first. Additionally, and this hasn't been talked about much, but cut players do not count in any of these scenarios. Anybody can sign any player that was cut to any contract that they sant.

The big restriction for us would be if/when we would want to sign another player to a big contract. In that case, yes we would be restricted by having to lose someone (an UFA signing with another team...not retiring or getting cut by us), and we would not be able to spend more than what the other team spent to acquire our player.

[Marcel#52]

thanks

[shaslers]

We can sign one UFA for an unlimited amount of money. This should mean that, if we wanted to, we could trade for a guy like Marshall and give an unlimited contract.

Just to clarify, Marshall would have nothing to do with the Rule of 8 stuff. The team can trade for as many players as they want. It's just UFA's where the team is limited to one player with a first year deal of more than $5.5M, but unlimited UFAs below $3.75M. (Since Marshall isn't an UFA, he doesn't apply). For the Ravens to signed UFA's to first year salaries between $3.75M and $5.5M, that's where the team would have to lose an UFA of more than that dollar amount.

For all practical purposes, it's hard to imagine the last stipulation mattering. If you look at the Ravens' UFAs not many are likely to command a salary of $4M+. I doubt someone will give Justin Bannan John Henderson / Kris Jenkins money, for instance. Derrick Mason would probably be the most likely to apply. Theoretically he could sigh a Devery Henderson type deal for that amount of money, and the team could to out and sign a comparable receiver. But players like Miles Austin or Vincent Jackson are probably going to exceed Derrick's pay (and aren't likely to escape their current teams), and then the Ravens would be forced to look at a player like T.O.

[jonboy79]

Just to clarify, Marshall would have nothing to do with the Rule of 8 stuff. The team can trade for as many players as they want. It's just UFA's where the team is limited to one player with a first year deal of more than $5.5M, but unlimited UFAs below $3.75M. (Since Marshall isn't an UFA, he doesn't apply). For the Ravens to signed UFA's to first year salaries between $3.75M and $5.5M, that's where the team would have to lose an UFA of more than that dollar amount.

For all practical purposes, it's hard to imagine the last stipulation mattering. If you look at the Ravens' UFAs not many are likely to command a salary of $4M+. I doubt someone will give Justin Bannan John Henderson / Kris Jenkins money, for instance. Derrick Mason would probably be the most likely to apply. Theoretically he could sigh a Devery Henderson type deal for that amount of money, and the team could to out and sign a comparable receiver. But players like Miles Austin or Vincent Jackson are probably going to exceed Derrick's pay (and aren't likely to escape their current teams), and then the Ravens would be forced to look at a player like T.O.

There is a little confusion, but it seems that you are wrong, and right at the same time.

RFA's, are explicitly different from the elite 8 plan. So if we sign him to an unmatched offer sheet, you are right that it wouldn't affect anything else elite 8 plan related.
However, you cannot TRADE for a player that you could not otherwise sign to an UFA contract. That could fall under our first exemption.
I'd be curious to know if Anquan Boldin's current contract would fall under the unlimited signings below $3.7m in adjusted salary, I kind of doubt it.

This means, in the case of Marshall, that if Denver and Baltimore decided on alternate compensation(say a first or a 2nd and a player) when tagged to a higher tender(first and third) that it would eat up the unlimited salary exemption, and that after that the Ravens would be on the lose one get one status above $3.75m.

But then I could be wrong.

[B-more Ravor]

However, you cannot TRADE for a player that you could not otherwise sign to an UFA contract. That could fall under our first exemption.

This means, in the case of Marshall, that if Denver and Baltimore decided on alternate compensation(say a first or a 2nd and a player) when tagged to a higher tender(first and third) that it would eat up the unlimited salary exemption, and that after that the Ravens would be on the lose one get one status above $3.75m.


This is one I'm not entirely clear on because IMO, the trade prohibition in the Final 8 rules is a bit ambiguous. It can either mean that you can't trade (1) for a guy who is a 2010 UFA in a "sign and trade" scenario, whereby he signs with another team and is then traded to a Final 8 team or (2) for any player, if that player's contract would violate the provisions of the Final 8 rules.

If it's the later, then I do think it pretty much ends any thoughts of trading for a RFA for less than the RFA tender especially when some of the Final 8 rules prohibit the team from renegotiating the players contract (which would be the one-year RFA tender) for one year. At that time, though, the player would most likely be a UFA (with a new CBA), so that's a mighty risky move for a possible one-year rental.

OTOH, as you said, signing a RFA to an offer sheet - and giving up the full RFA compensation - is not prohibited.

[srobert96]

The Ravens could trade for or sign any one player whose contract is over 5.5 million. If they make a trade they will not be able to modify the players contract for 1 year.

They can sign as many restricted free agents as they like as draft picks are compensation.

So as far as sign and trade goes, Marshall and guys like Jackson are going to be restricted free agents. They will either be resigned, franchised or tendered at a restricted level. If they are franchised or signed to a contract they fall under the trade rules. If they are restricted the Ravens can sign to an offer sheet and give up the assigned compensation.

The sign and trade scenario has never really come into play in the NFL but may see it happen this year. If Ravens want a player like marshall they may need to have Denver sign him to a contract prior to the trade as the Ravens will not be able to negotiate a new contract for a period of a year. They dont want to trade for a guy under a 1 year franchise tag and not be able to negotiate a long term contract. If it is restricted it is moot point because they can just sign him to an offer sheet.