Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Franchise/Transition Tags
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 643
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:24 am    Post subject: Franchise/Transition Tags Reply with quote

Are we going to use it this year?

Hopefully we sign Shields and can transition Raji for 7m, that way the market decides his value and we have a right to match. It saves us 1.5m over a franchise and if we match say a 4/30m, we get him for 4 years for less than we already offered him. If he accepts the 1 year 7m, then he will bust his hump for a new contract after being snubbed this year.

Anyone else a viable target for the franchise/transition tag that you guys can think of?

Maybe the Bills would swap franchise players, Raji for Byrd.

Williams/Dareus/Raji/Williams that would be a sick DL.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheBitzMan


Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Posts: 327
Location: Chicago
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carriveau was already speculating that Shields would be a candidate for the rare transition tag.

I am not extremely familiar with it but my understanding is that it allows us to match any offer he would see but if he signs a contract we cannot use it again until that contract is up.

Is that somewhat accurate or am I wrong?
_________________
In Rodgers We Trust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skypilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 667
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
• An "exclusive" franchise player -- not free to sign with another club -- is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of April 16, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.

• If the player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries of last season at his position, or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, he becomes a “non-exclusive” franchise player and can negotiate with other clubs. His old club can match a new club's offer, or receive two first-round draft choices if it decides not to match. The signing period for non-exclusive franchise players to sign with new clubs is March 3 through November 9 (10th week of the season).

• A transition player has received a minimum offer of the average of the top 10 salaries of last season at the player's position or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.

• A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no compensation. Transition players can be signed from March 3 through July 22."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 788
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Franchise/Transition Tags Reply with quote

fattlipp wrote:
Are we going to use it this year?

Hopefully we sign Shields and can transition Raji for 7m, that way the market decides his value and we have a right to match. It saves us 1.5m over a franchise and if we match say a 4/30m, we get him for 4 years for less than we already offered him. If he accepts the 1 year 7m, then he will bust his hump for a new contract after being snubbed this year.

Anyone else a viable target for the franchise/transition tag that you guys can think of?

Maybe the Bills would swap franchise players, Raji for Byrd.

Williams/Dareus/Raji/Williams that would be a sick DL.


Raji's transitional number will likely be at least $8 per year because that is about 120% of his number this past season.

The three guys I would normally view as viable options, Raji, Shields and Finley, all have significant drawbacks that probably take them out of the franchise tag talk.

Raji- His franchise number likely is going to be $9+ million and we offered him $8 million before the season and his play dropped off some this year. Odds are we do not want to increase that $8 million offer unless the tag leads to a long term extension that can reduce the amount.

Finley- The number for a TE is closer to $6 million, which would be a reasonable price to retain him at for an additional year. However, Finley will get 120% of his previous years salary, meaning his tag number is probably around $10 million.

Shields- I think it is any easy way to ensure we have him next year, but unless we are close to a long-term deal with him and we are using the tag to buy some more negotiating time I do not like the idea of tagging Shields. The franchise tag for him is likely to be above the $11 million mark. If we do not get a deal done that is a steep price to pay for a one year rental on him and any subsequent tag the following year will be 120% of that number. Is Shields worth $11 million? Does that high number mean we have to let some of our other guys go? Does that number affect what we can do next year with guys like Nelson and Cobb? As far as the transitional tag, I think the potential of losing him for nothing is too great. Some other team, like and Oakland or Jacksonville, could easily front load a contract that makes it impossible for us to match and then we get nothing for him. I am not sure you if a transitional guy can earn a compensatory pick or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2740
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raji had what 17 tackles this year and you want to pay him 7 million - that's like 40K per tackle. No team will pay Raji near what he wants and its a good thing Raji turned down the 8 million the Packers offered earlier this year. Raji is maybe - maybe a 3 million NT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PACKRULE


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 1493
Location: saskatoon
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully TT is looking at these for our protection and i'm sure he will. Both will give the club the opportunity to see what the market is at for either player which can be both good and bad. But mostly lets him have a good idea to what anyone else will pay. If the numbers are ugly and we don't want to match let either go and take the comp pick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fattlipp


Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 643
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think you get comp picks for lost transitional players.
So there is a risk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10337
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fattlipp wrote:
I don't think you get comp picks for lost transitional players.
So there is a risk.
\

Yeah the transition tag is worthless. You can put a poison pill in the contract and the player's old team can't match and get's nothing.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 1906
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
fattlipp wrote:
I don't think you get comp picks for lost transitional players.
So there is a risk.
\

Yeah the transition tag is worthless. You can put a poison pill in the contract and the player's old team can't match and get's nothing.


Poison pill contracts are illegal as of the last CBA, however schematically raising and dropping cap numbers to work against one team is obviously still legal. Just things like "must be the number one paid player on team in 2014 otherwise cap number increases to 100M in 2015"- those poison pills like what the Vikings did to the Seahawks with Hutchinson are illegal.
_________________


The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SE500


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 525
Location: WISCONSIN
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="gizmo2012"]Raji had what 17 tackles this year and you want to pay him 7 million - that's like 40K per tackle. No team will pay Raji near what he wants and its a good thing Raji turned down the 8 million the Packers offered earlier this year. Raji is maybe - maybe a 3 million NT.[/quote]

(sigh) ... Raji is not paid to make tackles. He is not paid to pressure. He is paid to stuff gap and occupy blockers. Take a look around at the best of those who play his position in this scheme. Using your attempt at logic, none of them should be paid much more than 3 million.
Granted, Raji did not have his best year, but you must have the big guys to do the dirty work for the LB's and others to make those tackles. The whole defensive scheme is predicated on that fact.

Raji will get a big contract. From us, or someone else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BrettFavre004


Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 20156
Location: Galesville, WI
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SE500 wrote:

(sigh) ... Raji is not paid to make tackles. He is not paid to pressure. He is paid to stuff gap and occupy blockers.

Well let me know when he starts doing that then.
_________________


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
ugLymayNe


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 12447
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Raji just has one blocker on him there is no reason he shouldn't shed that blocker and make the play if he can. Something he didn't do whatsoever(Pickett did in a few instances though).
_________________
@PJHotel_

Sig brought to you by Justo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 6885
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
If Raji just has one blocker on him there is no reason he shouldn't shed that blocker and make the play if he can. Something he didn't do whatsoever(Pickett did in a few instances though).


Maybe give Pickett a one or two year deal then. Can't head into the draft not knowing who are nose tackle is/will be.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmishMafia


Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 274
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam Shields is not going anywhere.




What team is going to sign him with this tattoo?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDN40


Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 3703
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BrettFavre004 wrote:
SE500 wrote:

(sigh) ... Raji is not paid to make tackles. He is not paid to pressure. He is paid to stuff gap and occupy blockers.

Well let me know when he starts doing that then.


We seem to have a lot of guys whose job it is not to make plays. Maybe thats the problems with our defense.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group