Poking more holes in the right of first refusal idea

NFL owners are worried about how crazy free agency will be, so they reportedly are looking to have the “right of first refusal” for up to three free agents.

Florio took down the idea last week as one the players should summarily reject.  Ross Tucker of ESPN.com, who looks a lot less scary than he did as a player, joined PFT Live Tuesday and pointed out it’s the owners fault there are so many free agents in the first place.

“It’s a joke . . . [the owners] wanted to have three or four right of first refusals on the guys with four or five years of service in order so that the market wasn’t quite as flooded. To which I would say, you’re the ones that made it rain!” Tucker said.

Tucker is right. Of all the owners’ ideas of the last few months, this may be the least fair.  Further punishing free agents that were held over last year by the owners opting out of the CBA is illogical.

As Tucker points out, flooding the market with free agents will keep most prices down anyway.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!

6 responses to “Poking more holes in the right of first refusal idea

  1. There will be more free agents than usual, that’s true.

    There will also be more roster positions available because there will be more free agents as usual.

    So yes, the free agent market will be busy but ..

    … same number of players chasing same number of jobs but with a higher team salary caps.

    Free agents will do great!!!

  2. Yeah I’m more on the players side on this one. I don’t think any player should HAVE to stay with a team beyond the length of his first contract. Meaning no RFA tags. And one franchise tag one time per player while he is on that team. No one knew the owners were going to opt out for sure until 08 so it would have been harder for agents to negotiate terms that would allow their guys a little more security or freedom.

    Tucker’s point on the flood of FA is decent but it really is more dependent on team needs and how many decent FA/position what the demand would be. I mean if 10 guards were FA, then yes it would likely lower the price. If there is only 2 good Qb prospects though, the price would still be very good for the players’ side. Yes there’s a cap but it will be higher I assume so that part won’t be as important especially if there’s a cash minimum increase.

  3. “Further punishing free agents that were held over last year by the owners opting out of the CBA is illogical.”

    Punishing? I think it makes sense to debate the merits of the right of first refusal. But this punishing term is illogical. It was the terms of the agreement to allow an opt out and it was the terms of the agreement to have the free agents held over last year if aither side opted out.

    So granted, the right of first refusal could be a bad idea. But take into account real information, like are certain teams going to have advantages or disadvantages by luck (different from poor or good planning) then others? Instead of using biased/meaningless terms like punish.

  4. No need for right of first refusal. Just make free agency effective after 6 years in 2011, 5 years in 2012 and 4 years in 2013.

  5. its amazing how you want the owners to give in on all their issues and the players should summarily reject, walk away from the table on any issue they disagree with….once again, lets apply your standards to the owners to host of this sight? from the very top at the Clinton News Broadcasting Company down….
    somehow I don think you would think the same way.

Leave a Reply

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