Rosenhaus breaking the rules...

[Pariah]

There needs to be a salary cap for agents. Not a percentage, a cap on total dollars an agent can make off of one player.

Why?

 

[moklerman]

...Chad Johnson, Anquan Boldin, Terrel Owens...

 

[earthsci]

I posted this on the Anquan thread but since it really has to do with Rosenhaus, here goes-

Drew Rosenhaus represents three other players that we will have to deal with in the future, Dockett, Rolle & Watson. I'm not counting Smith, because I thnk that he will sign elsewhere. With that in mind I think that the Cardinals should play hardball with Anquan. Barring a stunning trade offer, we keep him on the team. It would cost us 3.75 million against the cap. If he plays, we work and try and negotiate a contract. If he doesn't play, we shut down negotiations.

This isn't to try to stick it to Anquan. Truthfully, for what he has done for the Cardinals I would love to trade him so he can be happy. We need to put the brakes on Rosenhaus. If his other clients see that this won't work with the Cardinals maybe it will prevent it from happening.

In the future I would hope that the Cardinals avoid drafting anyone represented by Drew Rosenhaus, unless that player was heads and tails better than everyone else in the draft.

 

[abomb]

I like Drew Rosenhaus. If I were a player, he'd be the first call I'd make.

 

[abomb]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/02/12/rosenhaus-addresses-burress-e-mail/

Rosenhaus addressed the situation on Thursday morning during a weekly radio visit with our pal Joe Rose of WQAM in Miami.

“Let me just say in general that as an agent I can do whatever I want,” Rosenhaus told Rose.

“Let me clarify the rules. Teams cannot talk to an agent about a player who is under contract, but there’s no limits on what an agent can try and do to help his client,” Rosenhaus explained. “You know, the bottom line is that I get paid by my clients to advance their agenda, not the teams’ agendas. And there’s no rule that prohibits me from talking to teams about any of my clients.”

So, basically, Rosenhaus’s position is that, while it might be a violation of the league’s tampering rules for a team to talk to an agent of a player who is under contract with another team, the agent commits no violation of the rules by engaging in such a conversation.

“The bottom line is they make it seem like it’s impermissible for an agent to talk to teams to communicate with teams about players who are under contract,” Rosenhaus said. “That’s not correct. I’m not violating any rules.

“I’m not required to follow the rules of NFL teams. . . . [A]ccording to NFLPA rules, which I’m governed by, which is the players association, I’m permitted to talk to the teams about any of my clients. As long as they have a representation agreement with me and they’re my client, I can advance whatever agenda I want.”

Rosenhaus also said that the e-mail mentioning Burress was part of a common practice in which the agent engages. “I send e-mails, probably 3, 4 times a week, year-round, which list my free agent clients, my pending free agent clients, my restricted free agent clients, my upcoming rookies in the draft, players that are potentially going to be released, and players who, you know, are interested or who desire a trade. . . . That’s what an agent does. I’m doing my job.”

 

[moklerman]

I think players need agents and that their agent should fight as hard as possible to get them as much as possible. The owners are doing the same thing from the other direction and there's no way a player would survive without a lawyer/agent. However, once a contract is signed then I lose a little sympathy for the player. They don't give money back when they underperform or get injured so I don't usually agree with them wanting to re-do their deal each time they have a good season.

 

[ChandlerCard]

My issue with guys like this is that they don't embody one of the values we place highly in sports: fair play. We hate seeing them use crybaby tactics to advance an agenda in the media, as opposed to keeping that discussion in private with the team. So now we have a situation where the public is speculating about a trade, advancing the players agenda, and putting the team in a no-win situation. Trade, and they're seen as weak cavers; don't trade, and they're seen as unconcerned bullies. Whereas a reasonable person might work out a player's concerns in public and find a better result for all concerned.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

If Rosenhaus's actions were perfectly legal, then why did he issue a mea culpa? IMO, it's a big deal when an agent starts alienating his clients' potential suitors. Even if tampering does "happen every day" that doesn't make it right.

He offered a clarification not a Mea Culpa, which would mean he had done something improper as per his role as a player agent. He makes it clear, and earlier quotes showing what is permissible, indicate he has done nothing wrong.

He aleinates you, and others... but potential suitors?

If that were the case, not many would sign with him, IMO.

DR _ clients:

http://www.rosenhaussports.com/athletes.php

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I disagree. It is improper and unethical, but not forbidden or against the rules.

Your opinion.

If it were it would be proscribed.

 

[ActingWild]

“Let me clarify the rules. Teams cannot talk to an agent about a player who is under contract, but there’s no limits on what an agent can try and do to help his client,” Rosenhaus explained. “You know, the bottom line is that I get paid by my clients to advance their agenda, not the teams’ agendas. And there’s no rule that prohibits me from talking to teams about any of my clients.”

This is where the Giants are correct. Drew is welcome to list whomever he wants on an email saying what players he represents that would like to be moved. However, by his own admission, "Teams cannot talk to an agent about a player who is under contract." So, the second a team calls Drew about a player he listed, or the second they partake in a conversation, even if initiated by Drew, that involves a player under contract, they've broken the rules. The only way around it, which is fine in my book, is that Drew's sending these emails, hoping that the teams will contact the player's team to see if they're willing to deal.

If a team doesn't make that distinction, it's akin to Drew basically walking into a crowded movie theater, holding a sign that says "Somebody shout FIRE!" and stating that he's not doing anything wrong, because he's not actually breaking any rules.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

“Let me clarify the rules. Teams cannot talk to an agent about a player who is under contract, but there’s no limits on what an agent can try and do to help his client,” Rosenhaus explained. “You know, the bottom line is that I get paid by my clients to advance their agenda, not the teams’ agendas. And there’s no rule that prohibits me from talking to teams about any of my clients.”

This is where the Giants are correct. Drew is welcome to list whomever he wants on an email saying what players he represents that would like to be moved. However, by his own admission, "Teams cannot talk to an agent about a player who is under contract." So, the second a team calls Drew about a player he listed, or the second they partake in a conversation, even if initiated by Drew, that involves a player under contract, they've broken the rules. The only way around it, which is fine in my book, is that Drew's sending these emails, hoping that the teams will contact the player's team to see if they're willing to deal.

If a team doesn't make that distinction, it's akin to Drew basically walking into a crowded movie theater, holding a sign that says "Somebody shout FIRE!" and stating that he's not doing anything wrong, because he's not actually breaking any rules.

Good points...

But, at a minimum, Drew would be charged with inciting an illegal act.

His email was an information piece and there is nothing in it that calls on any receipient to take action. GM's around the league know the rules, and ignorance of the laws that govern the relationship between teams and players is not a defence.

We fixate on Drew H... yet, I somehow doubt that other agents aren't also sending emails to all teams informing them of the contract status of their clients, etc.

 

[Pariah]

DR sends out and e-mail saying "Hey everybody, Boldin might be available for trade."

Teams have internal talks about if WR is a need, what kind of fit Boldin is, and what he's potentially worth in a trade.

Then said team contacts THE CARDINALS, not DR, regarding potential trade.

....what's wrong with this scenario? Nothing, IMO. It's an agent drumming up interest in his client because his client says he wants to be traded.