# NFL rumors: Hey we do not Want Moss! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 22, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119 "2005-01-22T18:35:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/61 "2005-01-25T00:38:35Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > And perhaps I have to make it clear what a completely illogical post this is. > > Me: You can’t trade someone who is a free agent. > > You: Perhaps you weren’t paying attention when someone who wasn’t a free agent was traded. > > In logical terms: > > Me: A, therefor not B. > > You: But in one case, ~A was B! Um, actually, I’m pretty sure it went: him: He’s going to be a free agent you: You can’t trade someone who is a free agent. him: Perhaps you weren’t paying attention when somebody who was going to be a free agent was traded. I forget the exact date when free agents become “free”, but I’m pretty sure it’s after the Superbowl. So the mistake in logic involved you being an ass while confusing tenses. -lv ---
**Author:** ![Osip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4491bb/32.png) [@Osip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Osip)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/62 "2005-01-25T00:40:51Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > He mentions a trade of Michael Bennet and Moss for (def) Bert Berry, Adrian Wilson, Darnell Dockette and (off) Anquan Boldin. Plus a pick. Denny loves offense so I could see him being interested in this. Also, the Vikes have Smith and Moore for the running game, and getting Boldin matched up with Burelson wouldn’t be a bad move. Ah yes I saw this one and it really pissed me off. \*\*That my friend would not be a trade but a unlubed Viking Fuck. \*\* Denny has said Berry and Wilson were two of the reasons we (the cards) made it into the top 15 in defense this year. Dockett is a damn fine addition to the defense and has very friendly cap numbers. Boldin is a great complement for Fitz and I believe a better fit than Moss. Fitz will not be as talented Moss, but will do damn well enough as it is. Bennet is a nice RB. But, this year is not a RB friendly market. Three good ones in the draft, The Bills, Broncos, maybe the Bears, have quality RBs to trade, Then the free agents (not sure which RBs hit free agency this year). Plus Shipp will be back and was doing alright prior to injury. ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/63 "2005-01-25T00:43:46Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > And perhaps I have to make it clear what a completely illogical post this is. > > Me: You can’t trade someone who is a free agent. > > You: Perhaps you weren’t paying attention when someone who wasn’t a free agent was traded. > > In logical terms: > > Me: A, therefor not B. > > You: But in one case, ~A was B! Um, actually, I’m pretty sure it went: him: He’s going to be a free agent you: You can’t trade someone who is a free agent. him: Perhaps you weren’t paying attention when somebody who was going to be a free agent was traded. I forget the exact date when free agents become “free”, but I’m pretty sure it’s after the Superbowl. So the mistake in logic involved you being an ass while confusing tenses. -lv ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/64 "2005-01-25T01:31:44Z")
> [@LordVor](#): > > Um, actually, I’m pretty sure it went: > > him: He’s going to be a free agent > you: You can’t trade someone who is a free agent. > him: Perhaps you weren’t paying attention when somebody who was going to be a free agent was traded. > > I forget the exact date when free agents become “free”, but I’m pretty sure it’s after the Superbowl. So the mistake in logic involved you being an ass while confusing tenses. > > -lv No, the mistake in logic is exactly as I stated it, and the confusion is all yours. “Was going to be…” is a conditional, and the condition never arose. They put a franchise tag on him. The franchise tag means he isn’t, after all, a free agent. Please extract your head from your anus. ---
**Author:** ![mouthbreather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@mouthbreather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mouthbreather)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/65 "2005-01-25T02:40:33Z")
> [@Osip](#): > > But, this year is not a RB friendly market. Three good ones in the draft, The Bills, Broncos, maybe the Bears, have quality RBs to trade, Then the free agents (not sure which RBs hit free agency this year). FA RBs of note this year (some RFA, some UFA): Shaun Alexander Edgerrin James Rudi Johnson Brian Westbrook Anthony Thomas Lamont Jordan Najeh Davenport This list is by no means comprehensive. Many of these guys will ink deals with their current teams (My guesses: Westbrook, Rudi J, Edge all stay put ) but many will be in new cities next year (I’m guessing Shaun Alexander, Anthony Thomas, and Lamont Jordan) ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/66 "2005-01-25T02:57:24Z")
No way Green Bay trades Davenport. With him and Fisher, Green is the likely trade bait. Still a few years left in him and it would free up some cash to bolster the shitstack we called a defense for the last few years. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/67 "2005-01-25T03:09:46Z")
Like **mouthbreather** says, **duffer** , Davenport’s a restricted free agent, so the Packers wouldn’t need to trade him to lose him. I don’t really follow the Packers but I imagine that they’ll give him a qualifying offer, with the hopes that somebody’ll sign him off their hands, then use the compensation to build up the D. Trading Ahman Green just to resign Davenport would be kind of stupid. ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/68 "2005-01-25T04:09:03Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > “Was going to be…” is a conditional, and the condition never arose. As was Moss’s “is going to be” is a conditional (albeit a false one). Therefore, he supplied a cite as to how somebody in Moss’s alleged condition can be traded. ---
**Author:** ![mouthbreather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a698b9/32.png) [@mouthbreather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mouthbreather)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/69 "2005-01-25T06:21:39Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Green is the likely trade bait. I know anything can happen, but were this to happen it could go down as the most idiotic move in Green Bay since Mark Chmura’s hottub party. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/70 "2005-01-25T12:09:30Z")
> [@LordVor](#): > > As was Moss’s “is going to be” is a conditional (albeit a false one). Therefore, he supplied a cite as to how somebody in Moss’s alleged condition can be traded. So, because he was backing up his bad logic with false information, he was correct. :wally ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2005, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/71 "2005-01-25T23:16:26Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > So, because he was backing up his bad logic with false information, he was correct. :wally No, dumbass, what I’ve been trying to explain to you for three messages now is that his logic was fine. His only mistake was in his axiom of “Randy Moss is going to be a free agent this year”. A team can still trade such a player by slapping him with the franchise tag, which pretty much forces the player to either sign a contract or sit out the season, and then trading him. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/72 "2005-01-26T01:56:22Z")
> [@LordVor](#): > > No, dumbass, what I’ve been trying to explain to you for three messages now is that his logic was fine. His only mistake was in his axiom of “Randy Moss is going to be a free agent this year”. A team can still trade such a player by slapping him with the franchise tag, which pretty much forces the player to either sign a contract or sit out the season, and then trading him. > [@Weirddave](#): > > You do realize that Moss **is a free agent, as opposed to being under contract** , with a huge cap number for the Vikes if he stays, a fact that makes all of this speculation valid, don’t you? He said Randy Moss IS a free agent. Not going to be. Not might be. IS. Which isn’t true, and would be gibberish if it were. Instead of calling names, read the post I’m responding to. I’m not confused about tenses if I take the post to mean what it says. Perhaps you picked up that WeirdDave meant something else, but I took it at face value. Restricted free agents can’t be traded either. If a player can negotiate with other teams, the most the current team do is match any offers. They get nothing from the team if they don’t match the offer. If they do match the offer, then they have a contract, and the player is no longer an RFA. I don’t know exactly what deals teams work out to not exercise their RFA priveleges, but suspect these aren’t completely legal. That’s a guess, though. It just seems to directly contradict what restricted free agency means, essentially robbing the player of the right to negotiate on his own. ---
**Author:** ![beergeek279](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@beergeek279](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beergeek279)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/73 "2005-01-26T02:06:46Z")
> [@mouthbreather](#): > > He was drafted in April of 2002 and laundrybasketpoopgate occured in July of 2002. So techically, he had not played a real NFL game yet, but it wasn’t “pre-NFL”. > And poop is funny. Maybe Davenport’ll sign with the Browns and then he can be the Cleveland Steamer 😃 ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/74 "2005-01-26T14:30:21Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > getting Boldin matched up with Burelson wouldn’t be a bad move. This would be a nice set. Plus, the added benefit of watching Denny Green unload a clip into his foot in the way of a Dallas type trade. I’d say the Arizona option is the one I’m rooting for. (I might even see Fitzgerald instead of Boldin. Fitz being a local product and all) ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/75 "2005-01-29T04:16:28Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > He said Randy Moss IS a free agent. Not going to be. Not might be. IS. Which isn’t true, and would be gibberish if it were. Instead of calling names, read the post I’m responding to. I’m not confused about tenses if I take the post to mean what it says. Perhaps you picked up that WeirdDave meant something else, but I took it at face value. You’re a genius as being an asshole, but not too bright about football. Franchise tags haven’t been assigned yet. Thus, any free agent could technically still be traded. (John Abraham, anyone?) > [@](#): > > Restricted free agents can’t be traded either. If a player can negotiate with other teams, the most the current team do is match any offers. They get nothing from the team if they don’t match the offer. If they do match the offer, then they have a contract, and the player is no longer an RFA. I don’t know exactly what deals teams work out to not exercise their RFA priveleges, but suspect these aren’t completely legal. That’s a guess, though. It just seems to directly contradict what restricted free agency means, essentially robbing the player of the right to negotiate on his own. And this is wrong as well. RFA are allowed to entertain offers from other teams. If those offers exceed the offer made by his current team, he is allowed to take it. Whenever a team signs another team’s RFA, they must give that team compensatory draft picks. The only other possible outcome is that the original team matches the offer, at which point the RFA can’t leave and no compensatory draft picks change hands. Your confusion is unfounded, if unsurprising. This whole setup specifically allows players to negotiate with other teams to get the best financial deal they can. Whatever the best deal the can get is, **they get** , either from the other team or from the matching offer by their own team. The “restricted” in RFA basically just means matching offers are allowed and compensatory picks are required if no matching offer is forthcoming. For example, the Titans did not match the offer the Jets made to Justin McCareins, a RFA. Thus, the Jets acquired him, McCareins’ got the best contract he could negotiate, and the Jets had to give the Titans their 2nd round pick as compensation. If speculation is only admissable once a team insider makes a public statement, then I suppose I am not allowed to ponder the fate of John Abraham? Good to know. A question for the more knowledgeable football fans: Each team only gets one franchise tag, right? My buddy (the Jets fan) would like the Jets to franchise Abraham, trade him away, and then franchise Jordan to keep him. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way, but thought I’d ask the group for shits and giggles. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119/76 "2005-01-29T22:42:01Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > A question for the more knowledgeable football fans: Each team only gets one franchise tag, right? My buddy (the Jets fan) would like the Jets to franchise Abraham, trade him away, and then franchise Jordan to keep him. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work that way, but thought I’d ask the group for shits and giggles. Yup, one franchise tag only. However, I’m not sure if there’s a set time limit on it. Or if, as I suspect, it lasts until the player is no longer playing for that team. Wherein the tag can be again used for another player. I’d have to lean towards it being set until the player retires, or can’t play for whatever other reason and can no longer play again for that team. Hence, the tag being used so rarely. (_Note: I’m not knowledgable of contract terms, etc. so this could be all wrong. But it has to be something close to that._) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-rumors-hey-we-do-not-want-moss/286119.md?page=3)