Skip to content

League disapproves four rookie contracts

New England Patriots Training Camp Getty Images

The rash of business transacted by the league on Sunday included the disapproval of four rookie contracts.

Per a league source, the NFL scuttled contracts signed by Jaguars fourth-round defensive back Chris Prosinksi, Jaguars fourth-round receiver Cecil Shorts, Patriots third-round quarterback Ryan Mallett (pictured), and Patriots third-round running back Stevan Ridley.

The reason for the disapproval of the contracts isn’t known.  Recently, the league scrapped a slew of contracts signed by undrafted rookie free agents in St. Louis because, we’re told, the contracts contained provisions regarding TV and radio appearances.  Under the new labor deal, that’s permitted in veteran contracts, but not in rookie contracts.  The St. Louis contracts have since been fixed.

Chances are the latest contracts that have been disapproved will be quickly rectified.

If these are the biggest mistakes made during the most hectic period in NFL history, it will have been a very good outcome for the 32 franchises.

Permalink 22 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Jacksonville Jaguars, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors
22 Responses to “League disapproves four rookie contracts”
  1. toad8572 says: Jul 31, 2011 10:36 PM

    Since two of the four voided contracts are with the Pats, I’m guessing it’s because they’re not permitted to appear in the Patriots taping of the opposing team’s offensive signals.

  2. o0omorriso0o says: Jul 31, 2011 10:38 PM

    hahaha so much for the pats being so good in the front office not even knowing any rules or whatever. Eagles have a much better front office!!!

  3. whatchutalkinabouthillis says: Jul 31, 2011 10:40 PM

    Does this happen every year? First time I can remember the league nixing a deal. Please have more transactions NFL! My last few workdays have been awesome bc of all the stuff on PFT (especially bc im an Eagles fan) but it’s been a bit slow recently,

  4. jolink653 says: Jul 31, 2011 10:48 PM

    hmm violation in mallett’s contract must have been the clause about how much weed he’s allowed to smoke

  5. whatchutalkinabouthillis says: Jul 31, 2011 10:55 PM

    Lol @ jolink as long as he doesn’t smoke on gamedays I don’t think BB will care too much.

  6. drgreenstreak says: Jul 31, 2011 11:22 PM

    Oh, the Pats know the rules….. Now the Jags, believable.

  7. goatcheez says: Jul 31, 2011 11:24 PM

    If anything this shows how creative these two front offices are. Probably chopping spending by various incentives.

  8. fonetiklee says: Aug 1, 2011 12:29 AM

    o0omorriso0o, you are the reason people think all Eagles fans are morons. Stop making us look bad. We have a very smart FO, but to compare us to a team that won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years is ridiculous. STOP IT.

  9. deadeye says: Aug 1, 2011 12:41 AM

    “hahaha so much for the pats being so good in the front office not even knowing any rules or whatever. Eagles have a much better front office!!!”

    ==============================

    Oh really, the Eagles have a better front office? The measure is rings, not rejected rookie contracts.

    3 SBs > 0 SBs , sorry, Patriots are better by the only definition that matters.

  10. jpmelon says: Aug 1, 2011 12:51 AM

    @goatcheez

    You kidding me?

    The Pats and Jags f**k up and you think it’s because they’re so smart?

  11. tomsd1 says: Aug 1, 2011 1:23 AM

    Thanks for the good info Mike.

  12. patpatriotagain says: Aug 1, 2011 3:08 AM

    toad8572 says:

    Since two of the four voided contracts are with the Pats, I’m guessing it’s because they’re not permitted to appear in the Patriots taping of the opposing team’s offensive signals.
    ————————————————
    oh you are so funny. you’re a regular Jerry Seinfeld. tell me where do you get such fresh material

  13. denverdude7 says: Aug 1, 2011 5:36 AM

    What???
    The Patriots involved in rule breaking?
    No way. Must be some kind of mistake. We all know how squeaky clean they are.

  14. CKL says: Aug 1, 2011 7:56 AM

    toad8572 says:
    Jul 31, 2011 10:36 PM
    Since two of the four voided contracts are with the Pats, I’m guessing it’s because they’re not permitted to appear in the Patriots taping of the opposing team’s offensive signals.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    If you are going to try (and I emphasize TRY) to talk junk about my team, it’s a special brand of failsauce if you can’t even get their violation right.
    For your next “attempt” let me remind you that they were never proven to have taped anyone’s practices either, that was McDaniels in Den.
    You’re welcome.

  15. bowlhounds says: Aug 1, 2011 8:04 AM

    Smell the fear and listen to the jealousy from the wanna know what it feels like to actually win in this league fans, incredible.

  16. cliverush says: Aug 1, 2011 8:21 AM

    Nice to see all the losers out there in loserville are already getting their “hate the Pats” comments in. Don’t worry nitwits, your team is probably going nowhere again so you will have plenty of time to figure out more original lines about cheating. Too bad about your team doing nothing to win but with empty headed fans like you behind them they just say “What, me worry” and you return your cow pie grin.

  17. dexterismyhero says: Aug 1, 2011 8:30 AM

    @bowlhounds says:
    Aug 1, 2011 8:04 AM
    Smell the fear and listen to the jealousy from the wanna know what it feels like to actually win in this league fans, incredible.
    ===================================
    smell the fear? Really?

    You are starting to sound like a Steelers fan.

    Why didn’t just call everyone haters also.

    The only thing I smell is an internet tough guy.

    Go take a shower.

  18. lwdj905 says: Aug 1, 2011 9:04 AM

    The Patriots have that clause about charity appearances in all contracts. That is most likely why they got dinged.

  19. bozosforall says: Aug 1, 2011 9:45 AM

    CKL says:
    Aug 1, 2011 7:56 AM
    toad8572 says:
    Jul 31, 2011 10:36 PM
    Since two of the four voided contracts are with the Pats, I’m guessing it’s because they’re not permitted to appear in the Patriots taping of the opposing team’s offensive signals.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    If you are going to try (and I emphasize TRY) to talk junk about my team, it’s a special brand of failsauce if you can’t even get their violation right.
    For your next “attempt” let me remind you that they were never proven to have taped anyone’s practices either, that was McDaniels in Den.
    You’re welcome.

    __
    Goodell’s record fining of the Pats says otherwise. And those tapes that Goodell destroyed were all the proof that he needed. There’s your “proof”, Pats fan moron.

  20. bozosforall says: Aug 1, 2011 9:48 AM

    jolink653 says:
    Jul 31, 2011 10:48 PM
    hmm violation in mallett’s contract must have been the clause about how much weed he’s allowed to smoke

    __
    Just more proof of what a bust Mallett will be in the NFL.

  21. ih8registering says: Aug 1, 2011 1:17 PM

    RE:

    o0omorriso0o says:
    Jul 31, 2011 10:38 PM
    hahaha so much for the pats being so good in the front office not even knowing any rules or whatever. Eagles have a much better front office!!!

    IMO they got three Lombardi’s and my team has none.

  22. bowlhounds says: Aug 1, 2011 1:51 PM

    Dex terrr I dint call everyone haters and while the Steelers are a great team no I’m not a fan . It just gets old listening to the fans (like you apparentlty) who whine because the Pats have kicked your A@@ all over the field for the past decade or so and who can’t ever appreciate what a winning program is.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!