Philadelphia Eagles: Navigating the departure of Nick Foles

Say what, now?

According to a recent report from Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, if the Eagles plans of tagging Foles with an intent to trade are indeed correct, Roseman and company may actually be in violation of the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Per Florio and Article 4, Section 8, subsection (b) of the CBA:

"“A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season.”"

If the Eagles do tag Foles, he and his agent could take issue and file a grievance with the league.

Pederson already made it clear that Wentz is the guy. Following the loss to the Saints, Pederson announced:

"“Yes, Carson Wentz is the quarterback going forward. And in Nick’s case, listen, we’d love to have everybody back throughout the roster, but as I’ve said many, many times, it’s not about one guy, it’s about the team, and we’re going to do what’s best for the team.”"

Is this enough to make Foles’ case if he and his agent take offense?

Probably not.

While the wording of the CBA seems to side with Foles, the case could be made that its terminology is noncommittal. The Eagles could also argue that they do want Foles back – and available to play – being as he’s an integral part of the team based on recent history.

At the same joint press conference with Pederson following the playoff loss to the Saints, Roseman declared:

"“We would love to keep Nick Foles. You talk about a guy who we drafted here and we’ve grown incredibly close with. I don’t know a team that wouldn’t want to have Nick Foles on their roster. Certainly, as we go into the substance of those discussions – we haven’t had them yet – but there is no question we love having Nick Foles as an Eagle in Philadelphia and we would love to keep him.”"

If Foles did file a grievance, a hearing would likely be held to determine whether the Eagles are in violation. If it was ruled they were, Foles would be granted free agency (per the NFLPA).