BStanRamFan Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, vikingsrule said: I thought the intention of the franchise tag was not for a tag and trade but to buy more time. Considering tag and trades rarely acruallly happen, I don’t think it should be a huge issue. Jared Allen was a tag and trade, who else since 2008? Frank Clark last year to Chiefs. jadeveon Clowney last year to Seattle. Feel like I'm missing someone too from last year or something similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said: Frank Clark last year to Chiefs. jadeveon Clowney last year to Seattle. Feel like I'm missing someone too from last year or something similar. Does that count though. They eventually signed their deals and were essentially playing on one year contracts. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the Allen situation where a player was tagged and traded and didn’t have a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 1 hour ago, BStanRamFan said: Frank Clark last year to Chiefs. jadeveon Clowney last year to Seattle. Feel like I'm missing someone too from last year or something similar. Dee Ford, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 43 minutes ago, ET80 said: Dee Ford, too. Yep. Hence why Yan probably is going to end up the same fate if he really wants to get paid 22-23M+/wants a fresh start. Too bad Coughlin and co. burned that bridge so badly. He is a leader on this D. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 3 hours ago, scar988 said: Because maybe the team wants to keep them, but the player wants to leave. In that case, why would they not be able to negotiate anything from another team for him? There was an argument to be made for that position before the 5th year option was a thing. Now that it is though teams, unless they're completely lacking in the self-awareness department, have a good gauge one-year-out from a contract expiring as to what the temperature is regarding a player's willingness to re-sign and they have a window to move that player on and still recoup something for them... beyond what they'd receive in the form of a compensatory pick. In order to facilitate the trade, the player has to be under contract and thus has to sign the franchise tender and, per league rules, can't sign another contract for one calendar year from the execution of an existing contract. So the player has to bear the burden of putting off the security from an extension another year - and even in the event a deal is agreed upon in principle - has to put off the security of the (guaranteed) money because why? Because the team his relationship soured with wanted to squeeze every last drop out of him they could all because they were the lucky one who got to draft him? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTTRDynasty Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 I disagree on the Vikes. They’ve got some big decisions to make with expansive vets like Reiff, Joseph, Rhodes and Griffen. They’ve also got 3 starting DBs hitting free agency in Anthony Harris, Trae Waynes and Mack Alexander. Need to find a way to bring back some of those DBs and they’ll have to create cap space to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 (edited) Wasn’t SB champ Frank Clark a tag and trade? JD Clowney was also a tag and pathetic trade Clearly, I was 1 page behind ( I blame phone web browsers) Edited February 7, 2020 by SkippyX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted February 7, 2020 Author Share Posted February 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 17 hours ago, ET80 said: Dee Ford, too. Jarvis Landry before that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 On 2/7/2020 at 11:26 AM, ET80 said: Dee Ford, too. Wasn't Corey Williams the first one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkippyX Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 6 hours ago, CWood21 said: Wasn't Corey Williams the first one? Sean Gilbert in 1998? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 (edited) On 2/6/2020 at 12:19 PM, Matts4313 said: And that doesnt include any endorsements or the loss of value policy he had. You keep saying this but it makes zero sense. There was no loss of value for Dak this year. His pay was in line with a contract that he signed 4 years ago. You cant take out a 'loss of value' policy for the situation 'i don't get a hefty raise at work'. I mean, do you honestly think some insurance company paid Dak $20 million because the cowboys didn't pay him $30m? EL OH EL More than likely, the insurance policy he took out was for if he sustained an injury that prevented him from receiving future earnings in year 5 or beyond of his career. Jay ajayi did this when he was a pending free agent. It's actually very common. The loss of value insurance is basically out of play as well, and including it in the "50 million" figure is disingenuous. Outside of getting in a car crash or something of the sort, Dak has not lost and value with regards to his earning potential. No insurance company on Earth is going to pay him a penny in the event of a hold out because he refused to sign a contract with 30m aav and wanted 35m. That's not how insurance works. On 2/6/2020 at 12:04 AM, Matts4313 said: You should know by now - everything I say is true. Yeeeeaaaahhhhh..... Edited February 9, 2020 by N4L 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 On 2/7/2020 at 11:09 AM, The LBC said: In order to facilitate the trade, the player has to be under contract and thus has to sign the franchise tender and, per league rules, can't sign another contract for one calendar year from the execution of an existing contract. So the player has to bear the burden of putting off the security from an extension another year - and even in the event a deal is agreed upon in principle - has to put off the security of the (guaranteed) money because why? Because the team his relationship soured with wanted to squeeze every last drop out of him they could all because they were the lucky one who got to draft him? Not true. Both Frank Clark and dee Ford signed their tag, got traded, then signed a new deal. I know players can't sign two contracts in the same league year but maybe there is an exception with the tags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 28 minutes ago, N4L said: You keep saying this but it makes zero sense. There was no loss of value for Dak this year. His pay was in line with a contract that he signed 4 years ago. You cant take out a 'loss of value' policy for the situation 'i don't get a hefty raise at work'. I mean, do you honestly think some insurance company paid Dak $20 million because the cowboys didn't pay him $30m? EL OH EL More than likely, the insurance policy he took out was for if he sustained an injury that prevented him from receiving future earnings in year 5 or beyond of his career. Jay ajayi did this when he was a pending free agent. It's actually very common. The loss of value insurance is basically out of play as well, and including it in the "50 million" figure is disingenuous. Outside of getting in a car crash or something of the sort, Dak has not lost and value with regards to his earning potential. No insurance company on Earth is going to pay him a penny in the event of a hold out because he refused to sign a contract with 30m aav and wanted 35m. That's not how insurance works. Yeeeeaaaahhhhh..... Take it up with ESPN. Im not trying to do anything aside from rationalize the numbers. PS: Athletes can take loss of value against future contracts. Kids do it for the draft every year. Premium is probably ridiculously high and I am sure the clauses are insane. But they are possible. At least variations of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.