tombonneau
Footballguy
Looks like Niners are Goodell's sacrificial lamb in quest to rid the league of the scourge that is tampering ...Meanwhile, didn't good ol' boy Tuna sign Smilely like 2 hours into FA?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Niners Fined for Tampering with Briggs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tombonneau
- Start date
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Wow!
I think this is a little ridiculous. I think losing a 5 is justified, but swapping 3rd round picks? Why reward the Bears!? This is just going to encourage more teams to try and "tell on" other teams for tampering. This just opens a whole new can of worms... can't wait for the acusations that are to follow regarding other teams... teams see one team benefiting from it, they might as well try it...
I'm all about punishing the team that did it, but rewarding the team they did it to... have fun with that one Commish...
Yes, the Bears were affected by the tampering, but in actuality things worked out for the better for them...
Not that it matters, the Bears are so bad right now moving up 5 selections in the 3rd round won't matter much... but still... imagine how many teams might just start making up allogations at the chance that they might get a higher draft pick... it's worth a try...
I think this is a little ridiculous. I think losing a 5 is justified, but swapping 3rd round picks? Why reward the Bears!? This is just going to encourage more teams to try and "tell on" other teams for tampering. This just opens a whole new can of worms... can't wait for the acusations that are to follow regarding other teams... teams see one team benefiting from it, they might as well try it...
I'm all about punishing the team that did it, but rewarding the team they did it to... have fun with that one Commish...
Yes, the Bears were affected by the tampering, but in actuality things worked out for the better for them...
Not that it matters, the Bears are so bad right now moving up 5 selections in the 3rd round won't matter much... but still... imagine how many teams might just start making up allogations at the chance that they might get a higher draft pick... it's worth a try...
Fullback Fro
yesno
Sunava 
tombonneau
Footballguy
That was my take on it. Why reward the Bears? Now every team is going to fire off tampering allegations in hopes of improving draft position. Horrible precedent to set -- especially considering the Bears didn't even lose Briggs! Imagine when a team loses a star player and wins a tampering case. Based on this ruling, I'd say a minimum would be swapping seconds, and I'm sure they'll make a case for swapping firsts. Just silly.
phillyphan07
Footballguy
i think its a good call... the Niners they were doing something wrong...
I would have liked to see more action taken against Drew Rosenhaus, but I guess the NFL is limited in what they can do. But he is mostly likely the one who leaked the story about the Niners tampering in the first place and now I'm sure teams and any of his other contacts will be a little more reluctant to talk to him now.
I would have liked to see more action taken against Drew Rosenhaus, but I guess the NFL is limited in what they can do. But he is mostly likely the one who leaked the story about the Niners tampering in the first place and now I'm sure teams and any of his other contacts will be a little more reluctant to talk to him now.
gianmarco
Footballguy
For those of you complaining about the swapped picks, what if Briggs would have left as a result of the tampering? What if the Bears had to pony up more money because of the loss of leverage? I don't think it's bad at all for them to be mildly compensated.
On top of that, I hope it DOES encourage teams to report tampering so that it can be stopped. Why would that be a bad thing? Unless it's proven, action won't be taken.
If there were nothing wrong with contacting players before FA is up, then there wouldn't be a rule about it. While I admittedly don't know all the specifics, surely the Bears were negatively impacted in some form or there'd be no reason for the rule to begin with.
On top of that, I hope it DOES encourage teams to report tampering so that it can be stopped. Why would that be a bad thing? Unless it's proven, action won't be taken.
If there were nothing wrong with contacting players before FA is up, then there wouldn't be a rule about it. While I admittedly don't know all the specifics, surely the Bears were negatively impacted in some form or there'd be no reason for the rule to begin with.
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
If you are going to bump them down...put them at the bottom of a round.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I don't understand why people are upset at rewarding the Bears at the expense of the Niners. The Bears were the ones that would be considered the injured party. The claim isn't the NFL against the Niners, it's the Bears against the Niners.
Also not sure why it's a bad thing for the NFL to encourage teams to report tampering. Teams will be much more reluctant to tamper with players under contract if they believe that they're actually going to get punished. And right now, tampering is absolutely rampant.
The point of the tampering rules is to allow teams the ability to discuss new contracts with their own players up to the date the free agency starts. When teams tamper, that hurts all teams that have guys still under contract because the team loses any potential leverage that they have left. Teams that play by the rules lose out to teams that do not play by the rules and the agents are really the ones that make out.
I think it's a great ruling. Honestly, it's just a shame that the Bears didn't have a lower pick. 5 spots in the third round doesn't mean a whole lot.
Also not sure why it's a bad thing for the NFL to encourage teams to report tampering. Teams will be much more reluctant to tamper with players under contract if they believe that they're actually going to get punished. And right now, tampering is absolutely rampant.
The point of the tampering rules is to allow teams the ability to discuss new contracts with their own players up to the date the free agency starts. When teams tamper, that hurts all teams that have guys still under contract because the team loses any potential leverage that they have left. Teams that play by the rules lose out to teams that do not play by the rules and the agents are really the ones that make out.
I think it's a great ruling. Honestly, it's just a shame that the Bears didn't have a lower pick. 5 spots in the third round doesn't mean a whole lot.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Heh....you were thinking the EXACT same things I was in my post above yours.
tombonneau
Footballguy
I guess I just disagree that tampering is such a bad thing. Teams have pretty much forever to work out a deal with their own players before FA arrives. If a guy is going to test the waters, he'll test the waters. It doesn't matter if he has a prelim offer from another team in January vs. March. If anything, getting an offer or two before FA actually starts helps the current team if they are serious about re-signing a player.The player says here is what I'm getting, match this and I'll stay, all before the team even has to expose the player to the risk of actually FA.Really not sure what's so bad about it.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Well, it's bad enough that the NFL has a rule against doing it. Similar to the arguments about the Pats taping from the sidelines vs. the endzones (as is allowed). It's significant enough to have a rule about it and the rule was broken.You may or may not agree with the rule itself, but you can't complain about a team being penalized when they break a rule that exists with the excuse that "it's not that bad".
Interseptopus
Footballguy
You make some real good points, almost to sway me from my position actually. It is the Bears vs Niners... so if the Bears "win" then they should be awarded something... I just don't think it sets a good example for other teams- sure it will bring out other teams suspecting tampering, but it will also bring out the BS allegations, which will waste the NFLs time. I agree, I don't think tampering is fair and it shouldn't be allowed, but you shouldn't reward the team making the allegations. As it was posted above- they didn't even lose Briggs... imagine a team that actually does lose their player... 3rds? 2nds? And wasn't this from 2006-2007 offseason??? He didn't want to be back with Chicago because of the tampering, but they were still able to franchise him... This offseason no one had much interest in him so he resigned with the Bears... I'm just against rewarding the Bears. Punish the 9ers, yes, they did something wrong, but reward the Bears? I don't know... At first I loved what Goodell did for the league... but more recently I'm starting to really dislike him... first Spygate now this... he's just inconsistant...
gianmarco
Footballguy
What if they had to pay more in order not to lose him because of the tampering? Also, you talk about this being "inconsistent", but I think it's exactly the opposite. I think it would be worse if he didn't punish the 49ers and reward the Bears because they didn't lose Briggs but then if another team did lose a player, then what? You would only reward the team if they lost the player? They aren't rewarding a team making "allegations", they are a rewarding a team that was actually found to be tampered with. It's like someone stealing your credit card and trying to use it but being unsuccessful because the store denied the purchase. Sure, you didn't lose anything from it actually happening, but it's a little more than an allegation. The tampering (stealing) actually occurred. You don't just punish the team if they were actually able to successfully purchase something with the stolen card. The crime (tampering) was already committed. Now you have to spend time getting credit reports, checking your other cards, making calls, etc. (changing negotiations with player, maybe having to pay more) because of what happened. It's against the law to steal someone's credit card regardless of what happens afterward, not just if you're successful in buying something with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
If Goodell didn't reward the Bears, he might as well have said tampering is legal. Teams, like people, respond to incentives. Unless tampering goes on with one 10% of the league's teams that's considered your team's rival, a punishment to the opposing team isn't worth much of anything to you. Do the Bears care if the 49ers lose a 5th round pick? Not really. On the other hand, do the Bears care if they improve their 3rd round pick? Absolutely.If Goodell wanted to let it be known that tampering is illegal -- and not just stick it to the 49ers -- this is what he had to do. Now other teams will report tampering in the future. Which is good for the league.
tombonneau
Footballguy
I can sort of see where you are going with this, but I don't buy it. The timing on the SF offer really has little to do with the final cost. It's the actual $$ amount on the contract that matters, not the date.Also, I don't know anything of the history of the tampering rule, but I would imagine it is more geared toward preventing a team from making a crazy offer, then FA hits and the player signs it and no other teams (that didn't tamper) get a chance to match or better the offer.I don't think it has nearly as much to do with the current team. As I've stated, the team has all the time in the world to work out a deal. If they can't, it's clear the player is going to test FA at that point. So whether or not a team tampers or not, it doesn't impact the current team as much as the other teams who might have wanted to make a run at the player.Frankly, I think the value of the tampering rule is you don't want a player talking to another team mid-season. It's unproductive.However, I think once the season is over, teams should be allowed to talk and negotiate from end of the season to the start of FA. I really can't see any advantage/disadvantage to players or teams from allowing players to negotiate in this dead time.
RBM
Footballguy
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
I would imagine that this is incorrect. Thus, Chicago was able to file a grievance against SF and win.
Drew RosenhausFan
Footballguy
Interseptopus
Footballguy
He declined a VERY good offer mid-season to go into FA. CHI then franchised him. The tampering occured in 2007They signed him in 2008 for a really good deal since no one was interested.
And secondly- Okay, if someone tries to steal my credit card, but it's denied, how come I don't get any money from the guy who tried to steal my credit card? I've had my identity stolen, and never once saw a check in the mail from Mr. Thief...
If you are trying to say that it's illegal, clearly you have not read my posts in full. I've said:
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
You may not have been paid by Mr. Thief just because, but if you wanted to sue him in a civil proceedings seeking punitive damages, you absolutely could get paid. You're not just gonna get money without doing any work on your end and filing a suit. Same way if someone assaults you and they go to jail, they don't just write you a check. But, you can absolutely pursue it and get damages awarded. Would involve something similar to "filing a grievance", which the Bears did. I also did read your post and know that you believe it's illegal. I just don't agree with your assertion that the Bears should not have been compensated. The 49ers tampered with THEIR player under contract with THEM and THEY filed a grievance. THEY were wronged and were rightfully compensated a small amount by moving up 5 draft spots.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interseptopus
Footballguy
touche salesman...with full intention to split hairs- he lived in Turkey
I get your point. I guess I'd have a bigger problem if CHI got their draft pick outright. They only moved up 5 spots... not really worth much. Probably get the same player they woudl have 5 spots down
Did I mention I'm a GB fan
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Because the 49ers made the Bears pay more then they should have. They were hurt first hand by the tampering. Thus when the 49ers are penalized, he tried to make it "right" by them getting something back of moderate value at the 49ers expense.
The 49ers get hurt once for illegal move and repay some of the damages they caused upon another team.
Sounds exceptionally fair.
just sayin'
Southside Stosh
Footballguy
Da Bears should have received the 49ers 3rd round pick straight up. The 49ers should have kept their 5th round pick. Horrible decission by the Commish. 
So if the 49ers 5th round pick disappears ala the Patsies 1st round pick, all the other teams benefit, because every one moves up two slots. The draftees lose because now two rookies won't get drafted because the the 2008 draft, is in effect, two picks less than previous years.
So if the 49ers 5th round pick disappears ala the Patsies 1st round pick, all the other teams benefit, because every one moves up two slots. The draftees lose because now two rookies won't get drafted because the the 2008 draft, is in effect, two picks less than previous years.
Southside Stosh
Footballguy
I think Da Bears laid a little smackdown on Rosenhaus because of how he was shopping Briggs during the owners meetings last year. Rosenhaus almost bloody succeeded in getting the Redskins to trade for Briggs. Da Bears have been "aggressively negotiating" with Rosenhaus for years, and now its pay back time.I hope this doesn't backfire on Da Bears when they have to resign Tommie Harris, a Rosenhaus client, next year.
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
I hadn't thought about the rewarding the Bears part and after reading this, I said, yeah, that makes sense, why reward the Bears? Then after thinking more, I came to the conclusion that the Bears SHOULD be rewarded. You are looking at this situation and saying the Bears got their guy so what was the harm to the Bears? But, what if Briggs did leave or what if the Bears had to give more money just to keep Briggs? Just because the team got their guy does not dismiss the actions. The team that is hurt or could be hurt by the actions should get something.Rules can't be broken or compromised. Do you remember when the 49ers cheated the salary cap awhile back? That is wrong and should be punished. That is not different than what NE did with taping.The Commish must do anything he can do stop cheating and to have others turn in cheaters IMO. The league needs to police itself on top of having the "police."
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
LOL, good for the commish. I've never seen so many people complain about a 5th round pick. What are the actual chance of that pick actually making the team? What, 10-15%?
Someone breaks a written rule, gets punished for breaking the rule and people complain that the criminal should not be punished for his crimes. That's insane.
Someone breaks a written rule, gets punished for breaking the rule and people complain that the criminal should not be punished for his crimes. That's insane.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
Exactly, you answered your own question.
3nOut
Footballguy
Only one draftee really loses, IMO. The two at the end of the draft who didn't get drafted actually benefit because they can sign anywhere they want and still have pretty much the same chance of making the team. They can actually look for a team that may need them more as well. The only one draftee that loses is the first player selected in the second round. Normally he would have been a first rounder. I'm not sure how much money he loses though by dropping from 1.32 to 2.1.Da Bears should have received the 49ers 3rd round pick straight up. The 49ers should have kept their 5th round pick. Horrible decission by the Commish.
So if the 49ers 5th round pick disappears ala the Patsies 1st round pick, all the other teams benefit, because every one moves up two slots. The draftees lose because now two rookies won't get drafted because the the 2008 draft, is in effect, two picks less than previous years.
BigJim®
Footballguy
Ro3384 said:
You feel the "you don't rat me out, and I won't rat you out" code of secrecy has been a more successful way of enforcing the rule? I think it is genius. When teams realize the other team has a vested interest in informing the league of wrongdoing, teams will be less likely to commit wrongdoing. Now, if we can only figure out a way to get draft pick compensation to teams who don't own the player's rights but are nonetheless cheated out of competing for for a looming FA because another team has cheated by negotiating a deal in advance while it followed the rules. That would be another step forward.
tombonneau
Footballguy
Seems like Herm Edwards would disagree. This latest just speaks to my contention that it is the 30 other teams in the league -- not the player's current and prospective team -- which are most affected by tampering.Michael J Fox said:
And the fact that the Niners got nailed for phone calls made to Rosenhaus's agency -- an agency that the Niners have plenty of players repped at -- is beyond circumstantial evidence. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that maybe there was more evidence, but as is it sounds like Niners are being made the sacrificial lamb.
a_rackowski
Footballguy
For that cost to get a star like Briggs, Id tamper again and again and again.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm reading this just a little bit differently.
Point #1: It is commonly understood/believed that tampering is very commonplace. The evidance (albeit circumstantial) is almost overwhelming (numerous big money contratcs signed the first day of FA).
Point #2: Tampering is, by the rules, illegal.
Point #3: The NFL is currently under some fairly significant scrutiny, and MUST find a way to enforce it's own rules if it wants to keep it's anti-trust exemptions.
Point #4: The Bears properly filed a grievance. Evidance existed that a tampering violation did, in fact, take place.
Conclusions:
#1: The NFL had no choice but to enforce a penalty.
#2: The penalty had to be relatively minor because the Niners did nothing that every other team in the league hasn't done.
#3: Because successful tampering CAN cause harm to the injured team, any properly substantiated claim must result also in a reward for the plainteff. Like many such civil suits, whether or not actual injury occured is both difficult to establish and immaterial. Actual injury COULD have occured, and that alone sets the stage for compensation.
The penalty is actually fairly minor. The Bears were "awarded" an injury compensation, but one so slight as to almost not matter. The niners were penalized, but swapping close thirds was almost meaningless, and losing a fifth also not a huge penalty.
What the commissioner did here is actually brilliant, IMHO. He did not penalize SANFRAN a ton, nor reward Chicago much. BUT....he set the stage for far more agressive measures later if teams continue to violate this rule.
If I were him, I would be sending a confidential memo to all team presidents warning them against frivolous tampering claims this year, but clearly stating that future instances of tampering would be met with increasingly stiff penalties.
Point #1: It is commonly understood/believed that tampering is very commonplace. The evidance (albeit circumstantial) is almost overwhelming (numerous big money contratcs signed the first day of FA).
Point #2: Tampering is, by the rules, illegal.
Point #3: The NFL is currently under some fairly significant scrutiny, and MUST find a way to enforce it's own rules if it wants to keep it's anti-trust exemptions.
Point #4: The Bears properly filed a grievance. Evidance existed that a tampering violation did, in fact, take place.
Conclusions:
#1: The NFL had no choice but to enforce a penalty.
#2: The penalty had to be relatively minor because the Niners did nothing that every other team in the league hasn't done.
#3: Because successful tampering CAN cause harm to the injured team, any properly substantiated claim must result also in a reward for the plainteff. Like many such civil suits, whether or not actual injury occured is both difficult to establish and immaterial. Actual injury COULD have occured, and that alone sets the stage for compensation.
The penalty is actually fairly minor. The Bears were "awarded" an injury compensation, but one so slight as to almost not matter. The niners were penalized, but swapping close thirds was almost meaningless, and losing a fifth also not a huge penalty.
What the commissioner did here is actually brilliant, IMHO. He did not penalize SANFRAN a ton, nor reward Chicago much. BUT....he set the stage for far more agressive measures later if teams continue to violate this rule.
If I were him, I would be sending a confidential memo to all team presidents warning them against frivolous tampering claims this year, but clearly stating that future instances of tampering would be met with increasingly stiff penalties.
Last edited by a moderator:
tombonneau
Footballguy
This to me is surfacing as the largest issue. Everything I'm reading is that the convicting evidence was phone calls to Rosenhaus's agency, which could have been about anything and any player. Rosenhaus was even asked for a statement, so it's not even like they had a direct witness who rolled over on SF.If all it takes is some phone records to an agency to be convicted of tampering, that is a huge issue.
redman
Footballguy
If tampering is wrong, why is it wrong? In other words, if it doesn't hurt the relationship between the player and the team who had him under contract at the time, then why bother saying it's wrong at all? People think it does hurt those teams, which is why the Bears got some (small) compensation here.tombonneau said:
Fullback Fro
yesno
Solid analysis
massraider
Footballguy
Hey, if they can prove it, why not?Seems like the 49ers got busted by internal emails:
http://www.mercextra.com/blogs/kawakami/20...calls/#more-938
I think teams can file a grievance, but proving it is a different matter.
Similar threads
