Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Bring ARob home and cut ties with Zay.

That Pats publicly announcing they're waiting on a response from Ridley is in part what leads me to that conclusion. Who does that unless you've been left hanging and why would you be left hanging in negotiations like these?

(03-12-2024, 03:57 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 03:53 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/CameronWolfe/status/...gr%5Etweet

---

I have a feeling Ridley is staying. If not he would have signed with NE by now IMO

Probably so. I'm not sure why they need to wait on anything though. A deal isn't official until he signs, I doubt the trade said agreed and not signed. They should be able to announce it, so maybe he is just seeing if someone will up the offer.

There is a thing in contracts/law deemed disingenuous (or bad faith).  In this case, we entered a contract with the Atlanta Falcons and by announcing it but not signing the contract (which would render giving up a 2nd rounder), it could be deemed as an act of bad faith, thus opening up potential for a breach of contract.  With that in mind, better to just not disclose any agreed upon terms and wait until tomorrow to reduce potential controversy regarding the contract, which could be subject to differences in interpretation ....

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=21

bad faith

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.

(03-12-2024, 04:58 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]That Pats publicly announcing they're waiting on a response from Ridley is in part what leads me to that conclusion.  Who does that unless you've been left hanging and why would you be left hanging in negotiations like these?

When all is said and done he'll somehow end up on the Chiefs for a free sandwich.

(03-12-2024, 04:58 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]That Pats publicly announcing they're waiting on a response from Ridley is in part what leads me to that conclusion.  Who does that unless you've been left hanging and why would you be left hanging in negotiations like these?

Exactly. Ridley was the top WR available. Those guys are announced in the first 2 hours of FA. The fact he's still not signed feels good for us.

(03-12-2024, 04:58 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 03:57 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Probably so. I'm not sure why they need to wait on anything though. A deal isn't official until he signs, I doubt the trade said agreed and not signed. They should be able to announce it, so maybe he is just seeing if someone will up the offer.

There is a thing in contracts/law deemed disingenuous (or bad faith).  In this case, we entered a contract with the Atlanta Falcons and by announcing it but not signing the contract (which would render giving up a 2nd rounder), it could be deemed as an act of bad faith, thus opening up potential for a breach of contract.  With that in mind, better to just not disclose any agreed upon terms and wait until tomorrow to reduce potential controversy regarding the contract, which could be subject to differences in interpretation ....

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=21

bad faith

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.

Surely though when signing the contract all this would've been fairly obvious. I think both teams would be aware this exact scenario could play out. The fact that he's been able to negotiate with other teams at all regardless of whether he really had intention to move justifies the deal.

What if he'd decided that he wanted to stay going into free agency but then a bunch of teams came in with mega offers that blew us out the water, at that point maybe he'd have changed his mind. Whereas without going into free agency he couldn't (legally) know what options were out there.

It feels like the whole legal tampering thing is pretty dodgy anyway. The deals happen way too quickly to suggest they'd previously had no contact so not sure this is that different.

(03-12-2024, 05:20 PM)wassy04 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 04:58 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]There is a thing in contracts/law deemed disingenuous (or bad faith).  In this case, we entered a contract with the Atlanta Falcons and by announcing it but not signing the contract (which would render giving up a 2nd rounder), it could be deemed as an act of bad faith, thus opening up potential for a breach of contract.  With that in mind, better to just not disclose any agreed upon terms and wait until tomorrow to reduce potential controversy regarding the contract, which could be subject to differences in interpretation ....

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=21

bad faith

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.

Surely though when signing the contract all this would've been fairly obvious. I think both teams would be aware this exact scenario could play out. The fact that he's been able to negotiate with other teams at all regardless of whether he really had intention to move justifies the deal.

What if he'd decided that he wanted to stay going into free agency but then a bunch of teams came in with mega offers that blew us out the water, at that point maybe he'd have changed his mind. Whereas without going into free agency he couldn't (legally) know what options were out there.

It feels like the whole legal tampering thing is pretty dodgy anyway. The deals happen way too quickly to suggest they'd previously had no contact so not sure this is that different.

It just boils down to:  Do you want to keep your 2nd rounder or do you want to potentially have to argue with the NFL to keep your 2nd rounder?  I'm going to err on the side of caution every time and just go with the first option.  

To your point about the legal tampering period, yeah, all it did was push the illegal tampering earlier.  The legal tampering period is now effectively the beginning of free agency with the technical beginning of free agency still being the date of the new league year which is what contracts are generally based on including our trade with the falcons for Ridley.

https://twitter.com/e_dilla/status/17676...915L-t18Xg

I typed in “it’s done” in the gif search and that one came up….

Fatukasi signed with Houston on a 1 year deal. Looking forward to some more #becausejaguars moments ugh!

(03-12-2024, 05:20 PM)wassy04 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 04:58 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]There is a thing in contracts/law deemed disingenuous (or bad faith).  In this case, we entered a contract with the Atlanta Falcons and by announcing it but not signing the contract (which would render giving up a 2nd rounder), it could be deemed as an act of bad faith, thus opening up potential for a breach of contract.  With that in mind, better to just not disclose any agreed upon terms and wait until tomorrow to reduce potential controversy regarding the contract, which could be subject to differences in interpretation ....

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=21

bad faith

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.

Surely though when signing the contract all this would've been fairly obvious. I think both teams would be aware this exact scenario could play out. The fact that he's been able to negotiate with other teams at all regardless of whether he really had intention to move justifies the deal.

What if he'd decided that he wanted to stay going into free agency but then a bunch of teams came in with mega offers that blew us out the water, at that point maybe he'd have changed his mind. Whereas without going into free agency he couldn't (legally) know what options were out there.

It feels like the whole legal tampering thing is pretty dodgy anyway. The deals happen way too quickly to suggest they'd previously had no contact so not sure this is that different.

Too much ado about nothing. The other teams have had now almost a day to entice him to sign, I am sure Ridley knows the Jags offer.  He also knows or is beginning to know what others will pay. I believe the Jags will be very careful to not violate the agreement aka the 3rd vs 2nd round pick.

It is NOT dishonest to say to Calvin, we want to keep our 2nd round pick so after the new year begins we will off you this.
It is not dishonest to offer Calvin a contract and say here is our offer. It is not valid until XX/XX/XXXX date.
It is not dishonest for Calvin to know this and choose to wait.

The fact is he is free to discuss, receive and accept any offer he wishes. We are free to offer a contract with any contingencies we want.

Now if there was no legal tampering period and the other teams could not negotiate with Ridley then him signing the minute the new league year began I could see someone having a claim. The intent of the restriction is to allow other teams to get to recruit him. They have that ability.

(03-12-2024, 04:58 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 03:57 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Probably so. I'm not sure why they need to wait on anything though. A deal isn't official until he signs, I doubt the trade said agreed and not signed. They should be able to announce it, so maybe he is just seeing if someone will up the offer.

There is a thing in contracts/law deemed disingenuous (or bad faith).  In this case, we entered a contract with the Atlanta Falcons and by announcing it but not signing the contract (which would render giving up a 2nd rounder), it could be deemed as an act of bad faith, thus opening up potential for a breach of contract.  With that in mind, better to just not disclose any agreed upon terms and wait until tomorrow to reduce potential controversy regarding the contract, which could be subject to differences in interpretation ....

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=21

bad faith

1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.

Agreed but unless you can prove a contract was valid, they wouldn't be able to argue the Jags had entered into a contract with him. The NFL doesn't honor/enforce verbal contracts. They have to have paperwork signed, health checks, etc. Nothing that happens in the legal tampering period is legally binding. It's definitely gaming the system but not illegal.

I would expect there to be terms in the trade deal that set the rules for this. Say that the Jags can't offer anything before a certain date or it counts as a per FA deal. That still won't stop unofficial offers, just like illegal tampering still happens every year.

(03-12-2024, 01:23 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 01:06 PM)jaglou53 Wrote: [ -> ]If Baalke is actually able to sign Ridley, he immediately gets A+ grade. If he drafted as well as he handles free agency this team would be in the playoffs every year.
I still don't feel it's the end of the world if he goes to New England since they can keep Zay Jones, but obviously Ridley is the better player.

A+ without improving the interior of our defensive line and making a moderate improvement to our offensive line, which were the 2 biggest weakness of our team last year?   You're very generous with your grading system.

My A+ grade was based on the fact Baalke addressed most of the team needs without breaking the bank. I expect Morse, Darby, Savage and Davis to be starters next season and Duvernay will replace Agnew as kick/punt returner and occasional receiver. There's no way they could have addressed every need adequately in free agency so I expect them to draft a defensive tackle and Edge rusher during the 1st 3 rounds. Morse is a huge upgrade at center which should help the entire line and there should be guards available in rounds 3-5 who could provide depth next season and eventually become  replacements for Scherff in another year or two. 

I'm typically not an easy grader as evidenced by my D- grade of last year's draft class.

https://twitter.com/JosinaAnderson/statu...0064855314

---

(03-12-2024, 06:20 PM)jaglou53 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 01:23 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]A+ without improving the interior of our defensive line and making a moderate improvement to our offensive line, which were the 2 biggest weakness of our team last year?   You're very generous with your grading system.

My A+ grade was based on the fact Baalke addressed most of the team needs without breaking the bank. I expect Morse, Darby, Savage and Davis to be starters next season and Duvernay will replace Agnew as kick/punt returner and occasional receiver. There's no way they could have addressed every need adequately in free agency so I expect them to draft a defensive tackle and Edge rusher during the 1st 3 rounds. Morse is a huge upgrade at center which should help the entire line and there should be guards available in rounds 3-5 who could provide depth next season and eventually become  replacements for Scherff in another year or two. 

I'm typically not an easy grader as evidenced by my D- grade of last year's draft class.

I agree, if we keep Ridley I give this FA class an A grade as well.  He will just have to finally hit on the draft

(03-12-2024, 05:28 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 05:20 PM)wassy04 Wrote: [ -> ]Surely though when signing the contract all this would've been fairly obvious. I think both teams would be aware this exact scenario could play out. The fact that he's been able to negotiate with other teams at all regardless of whether he really had intention to move justifies the deal.

What if he'd decided that he wanted to stay going into free agency but then a bunch of teams came in with mega offers that blew us out the water, at that point maybe he'd have changed his mind. Whereas without going into free agency he couldn't (legally) know what options were out there.

It feels like the whole legal tampering thing is pretty dodgy anyway. The deals happen way too quickly to suggest they'd previously had no contact so not sure this is that different.

It just boils down to:  Do you want to keep your 2nd rounder or do you want to potentially have to argue with the NFL to keep your 2nd rounder?  I'm going to err on the side of caution every time and just go with the first option.  

To your point about the legal tampering period, yeah, all it did was push the illegal tampering earlier.  The legal tampering period is now effectively the beginning of free agency with the technical beginning of free agency still being the date of the new league year which is what contracts are generally based on including our trade with the falcons for Ridley.

If I was arguing the Jags side though I would point out that Ridley was an available FA and if he had received a huge offer from someone then he would most likely accepted, however the only other offer we know of is from the Patriots who are a bad team with a 1st year HC and no QB. He chose to return to Jacksonville (if he does). Don't get me wrong it would look very much that we found a way around giving up a 2nd rounder but you could easily argue there wasn't collusion and that Ridley chose us.

I bet Mac Jones is telling Ridley he doesnt want to go to NE and it will help us in the end. Im sure Mac knows Ridley being both went to Bama and Mac is from Jax so......

---

I seen a Pats fan post this on their page

"We’ve officially become the bad team with cap space used as leverage "

Man how the tables have turned

(03-12-2024, 06:41 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/...gr%5Etweet

Feel like this hurts Allen's 30 mil a year request.

(03-12-2024, 07:06 PM)Protozoa Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2024, 06:41 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/...gr%5Etweet

Feel like this hurts Allen's 30 mil a year request.

I definitely dont think it will help Allen.  Giants should of went all out to sign Hunter for cheaper and a better player that Burns and dont have to give up picks.  If I was a Giants fan I wouldnt be happy lol

I don’t like Hunter in Houston at all