Jump to content
Wolves Daily
  • Placing Teddy Bridgewater on PUP Could Still Create Contract Problems


    Guest Arif Hasan

    By all accounts, the Minnesota Vikings will likely place quarterback Teddy Bridgewater on the Physically Unable to Perform ("PUP") list to start the season. This may give them to option to push the final year of his contract into the next year, through a process outlined in the 2011 Comprehensive Bargaining Agreement, referred to as "tolling."

     

    This would essentially extend him another year, using the terms from this year of his contract. This would also give the Vikings the opportunity to activate Bridgewater’s fifth-year option and retain control of him for an additional year beyond the 2018-19 season.

     

    But placing him on the PUP list may not be enough to toll his contract. If Bridgewater is physically healthy enough to engage in football activities, the Vikings could face a problematic legal battle. There's certainly incentive for the young passer, his agent and his union to start one.

     

    Because Minnesota didn't activate the option last summer before the deadline for 2014 draftees, Bridgewater would be slated to be a free agent at the end of this season without tolling. If his contract tolls and the Vikings activate the option next summer, he would be a free agent at the end of the 2019-20 season -- so instead of seeking an open market this March at the age of 25, he would be hitting FA for the first time in the March of 2020 at the age of 27.

     

    That’s why the NFL Player’s Association is pushing back on the Vikings’ plan to toll Bridgewater’s contract; if Bridgewater can perform, he might not be subject to the rules that allow the Vikings to toll his contract.

     

    Initially, everything seems straightforward. The rule is worded in what looks like plain language:

    Any player placed on a Physically Unable to Perform list (“PUP”) will be paid his full Paragraph 5 Salary while on such list. His contract will not be tolled for the period he is on PUP, except in the last year of his contract, when the player’s contract will be tolled if he is still physically unable to perform his football services as of the sixth regular season game.

    If a player is placed on the PUP list, that player cannot be activated until after the sixth week of the NFL season, which would force Bridgewater’s contract to toll under what is presumably the Vikings’ interpretation of the rule.

     

    But, as former agent and CBS Sports’ contract expert Joel Corry points out, it’s not about whether or not Bridgewater is actually on the PUP list, but whether his body is capable of performing football services.

     

     

    The CBA references the PUP list in a specific way every time the designation is mentioned, which emphasizes its as a status tagged onto a player’s contract; that’s why it’s capitalized each time it’s referenced -- it's a term that carries a specific meaning throughout the document. The phrase “physically unable to perform football services” in some form, without capital letters, also appears multiple times in the 2011 Comprehensive Bargaining Agreement.

     

    That includes the very next section of the CBA when it describes the Nonfootball Injury designation, in a very similarly worded rule:

    A player on N-F/I who is in the final year of his contract (including an option year) will have his contract tolled. However, if the player is physically able to perform his football services on or before the sixth regular season game, the club must pay the player his negotiated Paragraph 5 Salary (pro rata) for the balance of the season in order to toll such player’s contract.

    The CBA also uses the phrase to clearly reference non-PUP statuses, like when discussing midseason injuries for practice squad players, worker’s compensation due to injury, injury arbitration processes for players put on injured reserve or who meet an injury settlement and so on.

     

    The phrase "physically unable to perform football services" is independent of the player status of being on the Physically Unable to Perform list.

     

    So, while it is possible that placing Bridgewater on the PUP list at the beginning of the year could set in motion events that lead to his contract tolling -- and therefore significant team control—but it may not be enough by itself; if Bridgewater can physically play, the contract designation might not impact his ability to hit free agency this year.

     

    That of course leads to an awkward problem; Sam Bradford is also hitting free agency in March in addition to (potentially) Bridgewater. There is no reasonable chance that the Vikings could afford the cap space to retain both. Even with the $39 million in projected cap space they have next year, per Over the Cap, they couldn't hope to retain two quarterbacks in a market where players, who at a minimum are expected to compete for a starting job, earn $15 million a year (or more) and middling quarterbacks with more to prove earn $20 million.

     

    The largest cap liability devoted to quarterbacks this year belongs to the Arizona Cardinals, who have just over $29 million devoted to passers. The Vikings will not want to pay two quarterbacks $20 million just for one of them to back the other one up. Nor will either quarterback want to sign when they might be assured a place to start elsewhere.

     

    Ultimately, the sooner Bridgewater can get healthy, the better. The Vikings will be able to evaluate him in practice and possibly in games, and be put into a better position to determine his value than any other team on the market. They'll know the details about how his injury has affected him and whether or not he'll have cleaned up any parts of his play.

     

    But even good news and fast progress comes with complications, and the Vikings should be prepared to deal with those.

     


     

    Catch Arif every week on The Andy Luke & Arif Football Machine

    subscribe on itunes

    Think you could write a story like this? Hockey Wilderness wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    IMHO the most important part is to keep Bridgewater off the 53 man roster for the first 6 games so Bradford can play without the distraction of Bridgewater nibbling at his heels. After 6 games we should have a good indication of whether Bradford can win hard games or not. Then it becomes a good hard decision of which QB the Vikings want going into next year. The tolling is a benefit to the Wilfs and less to the performance of the team.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is an endless round of speculation just to have something to write about. The reality is that virtually every respectable orthopedist who is not a raving incompetent- and NFLPA orthopods would NOT want to abandon solid medical practice just to make a point for this one person/situation- would say that Teddy should not engage in contact practice till about Thanksgiving. An ACL is, physiologically, an 18 month injury- based on pure biochemistry, not intensity of rehab program.

    The NFLPA problem is that it agreed to the tolling clause based on the 6 game PUP, not that Teddy is a special case.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Won’t be able to exercise his 5th year option. They’ve already declined his option year. Man, you talk about adding insult to injury. First tolling his contract, and then getting a cheap 5th year on top of it?
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It restarts the final year of his contract, starting in March. That reopens the ability to option once again in the summer.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hmm- so, Dale, Teddy has earned over $1m in 2016 (not counting allocated signing bonus), and would earn $1.3m in 2017, in both years for only recovering, because the Vikings want to be sure he is fully recovered (Bradford tried to come back too early and his graft, which was weakened by about 40%, ruptured again). You think that the proper thing to do is pay a lot more than that based not on performance, but on "fairness"?

     

    What people need to do is stop focusing on contract details- over $1m a year is not exactly lousy wages for not playing- but on what is best for the player's health. OI repeat- he should not be subject to even a practice hit till around Thanksgiving, because the graft will not be close to normal strength till then. Just because there is a cash benefit for the Vikings does not mean it is not best for Teddy. My guess is that they will make some kind of deal and moot out the issue.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Is it fact in that "physically unable to perform" is separate from the term Pup? Does the contract have definitions?
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The CBA does not have a definition for the lower-case phrase in its multiple variations throughout the agreement. It is not fact that they are separate but they are used separately throughout the document, where you can find the phrase, in caps, Physically Unable to Perform or initialism PUP used to clearly refer to the list, while the informal phrase "physically unable to perform football services" is used multiple times to refer to being medically incapable of playing football and it never refers to the list itself in the other sections. It is not fact, but it, to me is a strong likelihood.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is a much more complicated issue than most will admit.

     

    1) NFLPA has been railing for years against team pressure to "play hurt" and come back from injury too fast- remember Matt Burk sitting out a year?

    2) Now all of a sudden, in just one very unique case, NFLPA should forget everything it has said for the last 40 years about fully recovering from injuries before risking playing again, just to let Teddy get to free agency a year sooner, and to free agency at a time when he may not have been able to demonstrate value/worth on the field? This is a strategic question, and much bigger than just Teddy.

    3) It seems to hinge on, as Arif said, the contract definition of "physically unable to perform"- under standard legal contracts construction, if that phrase is capitalized ("Physically Unable To Perform"), it refers to a specific definition in the contract for its meaning. If it is not, it goes to the most common construction as understood in regular use. Here it is not capitalized (it was actually probably left a little big vague on purpose so neither side would be limited in the rare case where this was subject to argument)- so it refers to what the experts- medical/scientific personnel- would think.

    4) Almost every real expert- not a team physician- would say that the ACL is not ready for live action stress at 11 months post-injury; generally, an autograft ACL (where the replacement ACL comes from the person's own leg, either central third patellar tendon or a section of the hamstring- and, FYI, Joel Boyd was a hamstring enthusiast in the late 1990's- as opposed to an allograft from a cadaver) is not reallyu full strength till well after a year post-op. This is because the graft is a different kind of collagen from the old ACL, and the body starts to break it down and re-form it into the preferred form of collagen, and the repair curve for that process extends out well past a year. If you come back to play in 8 or 10 months and do not re-tear the new graft, you are lucky (Rod Woodson) or it is miraculous (Adrian). For most, you are playing with fire, as Sam Bradford and Michael Mauti both found out. Further, it takes time to re-learn proprioception after the graft strength is rebuilt. It is better for everyone, including Teddy, if he goes on the PUP. Period.

     

    We will now find out how mature Teddy is. The facts are pretty clear.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hell effing no. Nobody gives a chit about whether or not Sam feels pressure to perform because for all the money he has STOLEN from the NFL he OWES it to everybody to just play. Bridgewater will be back soon and no it's not smart for the Vikings to place him on the PUP list just so that they can hold him hostage.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I guess the question comes down to physically unable to perform football services..Clearly for minor injuries if a player say a guy is good to go, it seems hard for management to say he is physically unable to perform football services....But in a situation like Teddy`s...Who makes the determination. Probably if playing 7 on 7 with no QB contact, Teddy RIGHT NOW might be better than our 2 backups. That said, he still might be 3-6 months away from being able to take contact in a real game...

     

    Arif, Any thoughts on who determines if Teddy is physically unable to perform football services in a situation where player and management disagree?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Typically, the NFL and NFLPA bring in a neutral third party expert in injury arbitration. They have done this for IR rulings and injury settlements. The is some grey area as it isn't defined like it is for IR and injury settlement, but that seems very likely.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks Arif… this is a very informative article in the face of many in the media with conflicting statements sans explanation. I have heard repeatedly that Bridgewater would need to be on the PUP “the entire season” even from Over The Cap’s Jason Fitzgerald. Do you know why so many sources are stuck on believing TB needs to be on the PUP the entire season for his contract to toll? Also..what is your speculation on “able to perform football services” is that clears for game play, full contact practice or non-contact practice?
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...