ny92mike Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Tender offer sheet? Are you saying we have to offer Cousins an extension for the tag to apply? How exactly is that going to functionally work in a mock? There is no real person here to decide on whether to accept the extension from Cousins perspective. You seem to be arguing the order of operations but ignoring the fact that there's only one outcome in your scenario, he accepts the extension. No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the NFL has a process for tagging or tendering a player, that the other team needs to submit an offer sheet and compensation. I said nothing about extensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, MKnight82 said: Ok this brings up the other seriously bad rule. There should absolutely not be a rule that the player won't accept a reduced year 1 cap on an extension. Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, squire12 said: Browns have 2 top 5 picks Jets top 6 Broncos top 5 Vikings have options at QB that are equivalent to Cousins for cheaper Both the Bills and Jags have QB's that are cheaper and not much lesser vs Cousins Browns are terrible at drafting QBs and may want a sure thing. Jets just spent a 2nd on a Qb that didn't work out they may want a sure thing too. Broncos are built to compete now. Vikings don't have a single Qb under contract. Bills just made the Playoffs and want to win now. Only thing holding back Jags was Bortles. Besides all of this I've already received trade offers for Cousins so your argument is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Ok this brings up the other seriously bad rule. There should absolutely not be a rule that the player won't accept a reduced year 1 cap on an extension. Players are tagged because a long term deal couldn't be worked out (in most cases). I've ran the numbers last year on past tagged players that got extensions and that apy amount on those tagged players were more than the tagged amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, squire12 said: Can you elaborate on what you mean here? He's saying if you Franchise Tag a player you are stuck paying that player that amount for Year 1 no matter one, EVEN IF YOU EXTEND THE PLAYER. Its a ridiculous rule. If someone tags a LT at say, whatever like $11 mil (I'm not sure what the tag is for them) and then you extend them to a 5-year $80 mil deal or whatever you cannot structure the contract in any way that reduces that cap hit on Year 1. You HAVE to pay them $11 mil in year one. This is not an NFL rule, this is a rule nyjeff has made up. So there's no benefit at all to extending a franchise player in this mock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, MKnight82 said: He's saying if you Franchise Tag a player you are stuck paying that player that amount for Year 1 no matter one, EVEN IF YOU EXTEND THE PLAYER. Its a ridiculous rule. If someone tags a LT at say, whatever like $11 mil (I'm not sure what the tag is for them) and then you extend them to a 5-year $80 mil deal or whatever you cannot structure the contract in any way that reduces that cap hit on Year 1. You HAVE to pay them $11 mil in year one. This is not an NFL rule, this is a rule nyjeff has made up. I am not sure that is the case. CHI tagged Jeffery last year in TCMD and was able to do an extension that reduced his year 1 number so long as the rest of the APY and criteria met the requirements. At least I thought that was the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said: No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the NFL has a process for tagging or tendering a player, that the other team needs to submit an offer sheet and compensation. I said nothing about extensions. Then I don't get what you're saying. There have been multiple players tagged and traded since the franchise tag was created, only one has ever been traded for two first round picks. Teams should be able to negotiate on compensation on the tagged players just like they can IRL. Also I'm not arguing for an exemption from the rule. I'm saying this shouldn't be a rule and everyone should be able to trade franchised players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodatOL Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 42 minutes ago, ny92jefferis said: man I'll be home later today and will take a look into it. It should be unlocked but I'll double check when I'm home. If I don't message you by 6 pm, remind me. As for the workbooks the only one you should have right now is the trade block. Thanks man, not in a rush here ! I can only see the Team Trading Block from the Patriots and not change anything, maybe this can help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, squire12 said: I am not sure that is the case. CHI tagged Jeffery last year in TCMD and was able to do an extension that reduced his year 1 number so long as the rest of the APY and criteria met the requirements. At least I thought that was the case It is the case. Ask him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: He's saying if you Franchise Tag a player you are stuck paying that player that amount for Year 1 no matter one, EVEN IF YOU EXTEND THE PLAYER. Its a ridiculous rule. If someone tags a LT at say, whatever like $11 mil (I'm not sure what the tag is for them) and then you extend them to a 5-year $80 mil deal or whatever you cannot structure the contract in any way that reduces that cap hit on Year 1. You HAVE to pay them $11 mil in year one. This is not an NFL rule, this is a rule nyjeff has made up. this is not what I'm saying at all. You can extend the player long term but the APY value needs to be equal to or greater than the tagged amount. You can structure the contract so that it is back loaded so the cap number for the first year is less than the tagged amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, ny92jefferis said: this is not what I'm saying at all. You can extend the player long term but the APY value needs to be equal to or greater than the tagged amount. You can structure the contract so that it is back loaded so the cap number for the first year is less than the tagged amount. Since when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, MKnight82 said: 2 minutes ago, squire12 said: I am not sure that is the case. CHI tagged Jeffery last year in TCMD and was able to do an extension that reduced his year 1 number so long as the rest of the APY and criteria met the requirements. At least I thought that was the case It is the case. Ask him. As the CHI GM last year, I franchise tagged Jeffery and then did an extension. I am pretty sure the 1st year salary was reduced relative to the tag value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, squire12 said: As the CHI GM last year, I franchise tagged Jeffery and then did an extension. I am pretty sure the 1st year salary was reduced relative to the tag value Ok I must have gotten confused on that then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, MKnight82 said: Then I don't get what you're saying. There have been multiple players tagged and traded since the franchise tag was created, only one has ever been traded for two first round picks. Teams should be able to negotiate on compensation on the tagged players just like they can IRL. Also I'm not arguing for an exemption from the rule. I'm saying this shouldn't be a rule and everyone should be able to trade franchised players. I said I'm willing to work with you and everyone else with this. I don't have a lot of time to discuss this right now because I'm about to be driving home, but I'll explain my problem with what you are wanting to do. If you tag Kirk that tagged amount must hit your cap and the tender offer sheet must be expired before you could technically trade him. Once he is signed to your roster any team willing to trade for him would need to take that one year deal w/ the tagged dollar amount, because its guaranteed and why would any player pass on a massive one year deal. This last part I'm going off memory from the cba. I believe that is why Matt Cassel didn't receive his extension the year he was tagged but got it the following year. Gladly willing to research this when I get home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny92mike Posted January 30, 2018 Author Share Posted January 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: It is the case. Ask him. Yes, as long as the APY for the entire contract is greater than or equal to the tagged amount. You can build back loaded contracts that allow the first year cap number to be less than the APY amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.