Posts: 4,873
Threads: 3,569
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
931
As if the Minnesota Vikings’ quarterback situation wasn’t confusing enough, the issue of Teddy Bridgewater’s contract potentially tolling to 2018 has not yet been clarified. One report suggests that the 25-year-old quarterback’s side thinks he will become an unrestricted free agnent.
ProFootball Talk’s Mike Florio is reporting a source says that Bridgewater’s camp does not believe his deal will toll.
Florio wrote:
Quote:“A chance remains that the final year of his contract will toll for one year, because he was on the Physically Unable to Perform list for the first six games of the regular season.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Bridgewater’s camp doesn’t believe it will be an issue.”
The Collective Bargaining Agreement says that a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to Perform list through Week 6 this year, but he is likely to argue that he was ready to play before his comeback date. Also, there have been some reports that a player must be inactive for the entire season in order for a contract to toll.
GM Rick Spielman recently said that the matter is in the league’s hands.
Florio added:
Quote:“Whatever the league does, the league needs to do it. If a grievance over the issue is going to be pursued, Bridgewater needs to have time to file and prosecute the effort so that it will be resolved before free agency begins. If Bridgewater doesn’t get clarity for a week or two after free agency opens, he may end up with a lesser deal than what he could have gotten.”
The Vikings will need an answer as they decide between bringing back Case Keenum on the franchise tag or chasing Washington free agent Kirk Cousins.
http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2018/0...will-toll/
This is stupid that it wasn't ruled on the day after the Vikings season ended....or sooner, like when he was made active or immediately after getting put on the IR to start the season .
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
This is stupid that it wasn't ruled on the day after the Vikings season ended....or sooner, like when he was made active or immediately after getting put on the IR to start the season .
Yeah, I don't know why we haven't heard anything definitive on this yet... seems kind of important. Not only to Bridgewater, but also the Vikings.
Stupid is SOP for the NFL...
Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't.
If this was Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton...this shit would be settled already. Heck, if this was Johnny Manziel it'd be settled already. I hate how anything critical to do with the Vikings seems to always hang in limbo.
It’s pretty ludicrous that this hasn’t been resolved yet. This impacts Bridgewater, the Vikings, and
any team that could sign him in FA and prefers him over other options. It’s not like they can just make a decision
at the last minute, because there needs to be time for him to make a grievance
and possibly sue the NFL in actual court (probably already too late for this).
Quote: @StickyBun said:
Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't.
Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.
For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:
Quote: a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year
It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.
Quote: @Jor-El said:
@ StickyBun said:
Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't.
Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.
For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:
Quote: a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year
It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.
was he physically unable to perform? his playing status was as such, but was Teddy actually physically not able to play the game for those first 6 weeks? thats going to be the legal sticking point. legal verbiage much less vague than this has led to supreme court rulings. and I doubt that this will end up being only about Teddys situation. this could be a battle that sets the stage for the next CBA which they will likely start working on in about a year, neither side wants to lose these challenges now and go into the battle with a fresh scar on their resume.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Jor-El said:
@ StickyBun said:
Of course they (Bridgewater's camp) don't think it will toll, as they don't want it to toll and they are going to fight it if it does. That doesn't mean it won't.
Exactly - this "report" is likely from Bridgewater's agent, making a story.
For everyone asking why this wasn't already resolved: when I read the CBA, I think this has been - in week 6 of the 2017 season and Bridgewater was on PUP:
Quote: a player on the final year of their rookie deal will have their
contract carry over to the following year if they are physically unable
to perform through Week 6. Bridgewater was on the Physically Unable to
Perform list through Week 6 this year
It's pretty clear - his contract already did toll. What needs to be decided? From the team's perspective, nothing. Default interpretation is that his contract tolls in 2018. What "decision" are we awaiting? The only question is whether Bridgewater challenges the team. This "report" is some passive-aggressive message from Bridgewater's agent that says, "We're waiting for a contract offer for 2018". He has not received an offer from the Vikings because Bridgewater is under contract to the Vikings for 2018 per terms of the CBA.
was he physically unable to perform? his playing status was as such, but was Teddy actually physically not able to play the game for those first 6 weeks? thats going to be the legal sticking point. legal verbiage much less vague than this has led to supreme court rulings. and I doubt that this will end up being only about Teddys situation. this could be a battle that sets the stage for the next CBA which they will likely start working on in about a year, neither side wants to lose these challenges now and go into the battle with a fresh scar on their resume.
Good points - IF Bridgewater challenges. But the Vikings made a determination he was unable to perform by putting him on the physically unable to perform list. They made a decision. Sure, Bridgewater could challenge, and he and his agent will consider all the things you listed. But some swing both ways - your comment about the CBA and how neither side wants to lose challenges. Maybe the NFLPA is discouraging Bridgewater because their leadership fears this case could be a loss. I don't know that - all we know is that Bridgewater has not filed a challenge.
I'm not trying to predict who would win that legal debate. My main point is that the Vikings or the league are not dragging their feet or punishing the Vikings. Their opinion is that his contract tolled as soon as week 6 passed and Bridgewater was still on PUP. Why would they schedule a hearing if they have not been challenged? That would be like me asking for a hearing because I noticed some guy slip on my front sidewalk last week and I think it's possible he might file a lawsuit. The ball is in Bridgewater's hands and if he believes he has a strong case and wants this settled before free agency starts, he should file a grievance, not leak opinions via sources close to his "camp".
|
