GB free agency 2022

[{Family Ghost}]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

What if you traded for DK. Pumped up his value more playing with a year with Rodgers. Then tag and traded him like Adams instead of paying him?

Sound strategy I'd say .. especially after we've seen it can be done with Adams.  

[Old Guy]

16 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

What if you traded for DK. Pumped up his value more playing with a year with Rodgers. Then tag and traded him like Adams instead of paying him?

Love the idea depending how much, 'the right price' is to get him. I'd guess they are looking for close to what we got for Adams and/or what the Chiefs got for Hill. At anywhere close to that I'm a no. 

Also, BTW, when a team says a guy isn't available (outside of a few franchise QB's) it's crap. Everybody is available for the right price. 

Edited April 3, 2022 by Old Guy

[{Family Ghost}]

Just now, Old Guy said:

Love the idea depending how much, 'the right price' is to get him. I'd guess they are looking for close to what we got for Adams and/or what the Chiefs got for Hill. At anywhere close to that I'm a no. 

Probably a single 1st rounder would do it .. maybe a middle round pick as well.

[HighCalebR]

19 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

What if you traded for DK. Pumped up his value more playing with a year with Rodgers. Then tag and traded him like Adams instead of paying him?

Thats be fine if he didnt already cost you a 1st+. I dont think theres much pumping left for ol DK. Dudes already pumped to the max.  Not like Russ doesnt huck as pretty a deep ball as Rodgers.

Basically youre gambling that you can recoup your compensation on a years rental or you cant and you have to pay him decent, but maybe not groundbreaking, money.

This is IF he doesnt decide he wants to hold out.

Im not against adding DK but theres considerable risk to this reward.

Edited April 3, 2022 by HighCalebR

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Probably a single 1st rounder would do it .. maybe a middle round pick as well.

I'm guessing Seattle would take pick 28 straight up. 

[PossibleCabbage]

So the whole problem with the "trade for a player on a rental type deal, then tag him and trade him" is that the franchise and transition tags are supposed to require a team making a good faith effort to resign the tendered player, not just to leverage their rights for assets.  The NFLPA has made rumblings about this before, but when you make a habit of doing it then that's the sort of thing that's going to cause major trouble in labor relations.

Generally the reason I'm not in favor of acquiring Metcalf is that I do not wish to pay him what he is likely to get paid in his second contract.  I'd rather just draft guys who will at least be cheap for 4 years.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

So the whole problem with the "trade for a player on a rental type deal, then tag him and trade him" is that the franchise and transition tags are supposed to require a team making a good faith effort to resign the tendered player, not just to leverage their rights for assets.  The NFLPA has made rumblings about this before, but when you make a habit of doing it then that's the sort of thing that's going to cause major trouble in labor relations.

Generally the reason I'm not in favor of acquiring Metcalf is that I do not wish to pay him what he is likely to get paid in his second contract.  I'd rather just draft guys who will at least be cheap for 4 years.

At the end of the day, do you think the NFL or NFLPA will realistically prevent a tag 'n trade from happening?  Because I don't.  Davante Adams didn't want to play on the franchise tag, and ended up getting his trade to Las Vegas and his multi-million dollar extension.  With the exception of Kirk Cousins and Brandon Scherff, how many players were franchise tagged multiple years without a long-term deal?

[PossibleCabbage]

If you do it two times in two years, I think there's a good chance the NFL will veto the trade, yes.

Particularly if there's no evidence you made a good faith effort to extend Metcalf.

Edited April 3, 2022 by PossibleCabbage

[CWood21]

16 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

If you do it two times in two years, I think there's a good chance the NFL will veto the trade, yes.

Particularly if there's no evidence you made a good faith effort to extend Metcalf.

Why would the NFL veto it?  The franchise tag is one of the few non-starters for the league.  It was meant to keep a player with their respective team.  The NFLPA is the only one who is going to throw a fuss about it, and as long as their players get traded and sign a new long-term deal, the fussing is only going to last a very short period.  I mean, do you hear the NFLPA complaining about Adams' new deal?

[PossibleCabbage]

The Packers get a pass for tagging and trading Adams because they worked for like a year and a half to extend him, reached an impasse, tagged him for leverage, and reached another impasse.  No one can say the Packers did not make an effort to retain Davante Adams.

If you won't even make an effort to pay Metcalf the going rate for top WRs (which is IMO too much) I think there's a reasonable chance that you tag him and he sits out, or if you try to trade him the NFL will rescind the tag.  The NFL wants to protect the franchise tag in future labor talks (no other sports leagues have something like this) so will be keen to curtail uses of it that appear abusive.

Now you could certainly attempt to sign Metcalf at like $25m/year but do you really want to run the risk that he says yes?

[{Family Ghost}]

26 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I'm guessing Seattle would take pick 28 straight up. 

I'd do it in a second.  Metcalf is a huge piece to add to this puzzle.  Teams would instantly have to respect him and it would help open things up.  If he takes a jump in production in '22 you'd have the option to keep him with a franchise tag, or bite the bullet and sign him long term.  The Packers apparently wanted to sign Adams long term .. the guy just didn't want to stay in GB.  A 24-25 year old stud wideout would be a nice addition.

[packfanfb]

Just now, {Family Ghost} said:

I'd do it in a second.  Metcalf is a huge piece to add to this puzzle.  Teams would instantly have to respect him and it would help open things up.  If he takes a jump in production in '22 you'd have the option to keep him with a franchise tag, or bite the bullet and sign him long term.  The Packers apparently wanted to sign Adams long term .. the guy just didn't want to stay in GB.  A 24-25 year old stud wideout would be a nice addition.

I go back and forth. Would have been okay with the Parker route, but if Gute wants to make a Snead type move, this is probably the one.

[{Family Ghost}]

1 minute ago, PossibleCabbage said:

The Packers get a pass for tagging and trading Adams because they worked for like a year and a half to extend him, reached an impasse, tagged him for leverage, and reached another impasse.  No one can say the Packers did not make an effort to retain Davante Adams.

If you won't even make an effort to pay Metcalf the going rate for top WRs (which is IMO too much) I think there's a reasonable chance that you tag him and he sits out, or if you try to trade him the NFL will rescind the tag.  The NFL wants to protect the franchise tag in future labor talks (no other sports leagues have something like this) so will be keen to curtail uses of it that appear abusive.

Now you could certainly attempt to sign Metcalf at like $25m/year but do you really want to run the risk that he says yes?

It's a fallacy that the NFL frowns on franchise tag/trade.  It's like fan lore or something.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

The Packers get a pass for tagging and trading Adams because they worked for like a year and a half to extend him, reached an impasse, tagged him for leverage, and reached another impasse.  No one can say the Packers did not make an effort to retain Davante Adams.

If you won't even make an effort to pay Metcalf the going rate for top WRs (which is IMO too much) I think there's a reasonable chance that you tag him and he sits out, or if you try to trade him the NFL will rescind the tag.  The NFL wants to protect the franchise tag in future labor talks (no other sports leagues have something like this) so will be keen to curtail uses of it that appear abusive.

Now you could certainly attempt to sign Metcalf at like $25m/year but do you really want to run the risk that he says yes?

There is zero requirement that a team has to try and resign the player they used the Franchise Tag on. 

[Arthur Penske]

59 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

Probably a single 1st rounder would do it .. maybe a middle round pick as well.

More like a 2nd and mid round is all I’d be willing to part with. 

57 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

Thats be fine if he didnt already cost you a 1st+. I dont think theres much pumping left for ol DK. Dudes already pumped to the max.  Not like Russ doesnt huck as pretty a deep ball as Rodgers.

Basically youre gambling that you can recoup your compensation on a years rental or you cant and you have to pay him decent, but maybe not groundbreaking, money.

This is IF he doesnt decide he wants to hold out.

Im not against adding DK but theres considerable risk to this reward.

I said this proposition half kidding, but Russ is not the QB rodgers is and Seattle’s offense isn’t what GBs is.