last year was the first time I remember where a team franchised a player to then trade them. I'd imagine if that keeps up the union will start complaining.
RE: this could become an interesting labor point Â
last year was the first time I remember where a team franchised a player to then trade them. I'd imagine if that keeps up the union will start complaining.
Is that something the union will be 100% against? The guy is still getting paid at a high level for a year. What am I missing? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
RE: RE: this could become an interesting labor point Â
last year was the first time I remember where a team franchised a player to then trade them. I'd imagine if that keeps up the union will start complaining.
Is that something the union will be 100% against? The guy is still getting paid at a high level for a year. What am I missing? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
I suppose its not a problem until a player gets traded to a team they don't want to play for but from a union perspective if a player reaches free agency he should be free to sign with any team or stick with his original team on a one-year deal. Being able to trade impending free agents using the franchise tag to prevent them from becoming free agents kind of defeats the purpose of free agency.
last year was the first time I remember where a team franchised a player to then trade them. I'd imagine if that keeps up the union will start complaining.
Is that something the union will be 100% against? The guy is still getting paid at a high level for a year. What am I missing? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
I suppose its not a problem until a player gets traded to a team they don't want to play for but from a union perspective if a player reaches free agency he should be free to sign with any team or stick with his original team on a one-year deal. Being able to trade impending free agents using the franchise tag to prevent them from becoming free agents kind of defeats the purpose of free agency.
Nobody is trading for a player that was franchised unless they negotiated a deal prior.
RE: RE: RE: RE: this could become an interesting labor point Â
Nobody is trading for a player that was franchised unless they negotiated a deal prior.
you'd think so, and you're probably right. But who trades a high 3rd for an impending free agent? If some team thinks the franchised player is the one that turns them into winners, maybe they make the deal and figure they'll grow on the player. Or they figure if they win the Super Bowl it's worth it even the player only players one season.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: this could become an interesting labor point Â
Nobody is trading for a player that was franchised unless they negotiated a deal prior.
you'd think so, and you're probably right. But who trades a high 3rd for an impending free agent? If some team thinks the franchised player is the one that turns them into winners, maybe they make the deal and figure they'll grow on the player. Or they figure if they win the Super Bowl it's worth it even the player only players one season.
Completely different situation. Once the season is over a team cannot trade a player until the new league year begins which means a player will have to be tagged prior to a trade. Trading a player the season prior gives the new team the ability to tag that player. We aren't reliving the Williams trade again. That topic has been beaten dead. There is no reason to isolate this one situation. If anything needs to be changed it is the franchise tag overall not the tagging and trading part.
but neither dude is looking like a sound investment for what they figure to cost to sign.
Let’s be honest, is anyone? With teams having tons of money and players salaries increasing every year any players we sign fans will say it’s an overpay.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: this could become an interesting labor point Â
Completely different situation. Once the season is over a team cannot trade a player until the new league year begins which means a player will have to be tagged prior to a trade. Trading a player the season prior gives the new team the ability to tag that player. We aren't reliving the Williams trade again. That topic has been beaten dead. There is no reason to isolate this one situation. If anything needs to be changed it is the franchise tag overall not the tagging and trading part.
I'm not comparing this to the LW trade, everything you wrote is true. I'm just pointing out that some teams will make strange deals if they are convinced it will put them over the top.
Look at from a teams perspective - would they trade a first round pick plus other picks for a player on a one year deal if they are convinced he's the one missing piece that win's them a Super Bowl even though they risk losing that player after one year?
Look at it from Judon's perspective - he's played well and can now sell his services to whatever team will pay him the highest price. Using the franchise tag prevents him from seeking the most amount of money and then the trade prevents him from choosing his new team for a year.
but neither dude is looking like a sound investment for what they figure to cost to sign.
Let’s be honest, is anyone? With teams having tons of money and players salaries increasing every year any players we sign fans will say it’s an overpay.
In a capped league you still have to be wise. You don't jump off a bridge because others are doing it.
Judon is my Edge player of choice but again not at top of the market Â
last year was the first time I remember where a team franchised a player to then trade them. I'd imagine if that keeps up the union will start complaining.
Matt Cassel was franchised by Patriots and shipped to the Chiefs. Ravens will keep Judon via Tag. They need pass rushers.
but neither dude is looking like a sound investment for what they figure to cost to sign.
Let’s be honest, is anyone? With teams having tons of money and players salaries increasing every year any players we sign fans will say it’s an overpay.
In a capped league you still have to be wise. You don't jump off a bridge because others are doing it.
While I agree and prefer to build through the draft if it’s market value is it truly overpaying? They have money and lots of holes. “Overpaying” for a offensive lineman and edge rusher is quite fine with me.
to a $10M talent, you have already shorted your resources. So, yes.
But again how do you define talent with a dollar figure today based on the market? Shall we run down all the free agent signings last year and which ones earned their “value”?!
Has been that of maximizing the value of team resources. They don’t overpay whether it be salary or draft capital. Remains to be seen how much of that rubbed of on Judge and how much influence he will have in roster construction, but if I’m a betting man this is the sort of situation we’ll take a pass on.
to a $10M talent, you have already shorted your resources. So, yes.
But again how do you define talent with a dollar figure today based on the market? Shall we run down all the free agent signings last year and which ones earned their “value”?!
Part of each team's offseason is doing exactly that, assigning value to their own UFA, to draft prospects, and so on down the list. They assign value to said player(s) and stick to it. It's arbitrary but backed by pro level knowledge, at least. It's something a big chunk of BBI stinks at tho, thus the endless debates around here.
but I think there is an opportunity to trade for a vet or two who is currently under contract. Instead of going free agency and spending big dollars it seems like a lot of good teams take on an existing salary where you aren't saddled with the cap hit. We've done the opposite on this which was short term pain to get in the position we are in. Now is time for some smart team building.
Is that something the union will be 100% against? The guy is still getting paid at a high level for a year. What am I missing? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
Quote:
last year was the first time I remember where a team franchised a player to then trade them. I'd imagine if that keeps up the union will start complaining.
Is that something the union will be 100% against? The guy is still getting paid at a high level for a year. What am I missing? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
I suppose its not a problem until a player gets traded to a team they don't want to play for but from a union perspective if a player reaches free agency he should be free to sign with any team or stick with his original team on a one-year deal. Being able to trade impending free agents using the franchise tag to prevent them from becoming free agents kind of defeats the purpose of free agency.
Quote:
In comment 14794646 Giantsfan79 said:
Quote:
last year was the first time I remember where a team franchised a player to then trade them. I'd imagine if that keeps up the union will start complaining.
Is that something the union will be 100% against? The guy is still getting paid at a high level for a year. What am I missing? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
I suppose its not a problem until a player gets traded to a team they don't want to play for but from a union perspective if a player reaches free agency he should be free to sign with any team or stick with his original team on a one-year deal. Being able to trade impending free agents using the franchise tag to prevent them from becoming free agents kind of defeats the purpose of free agency.
Nobody is trading for a player that was franchised unless they negotiated a deal prior.
Nobody is trading for a player that was franchised unless they negotiated a deal prior.
you'd think so, and you're probably right. But who trades a high 3rd for an impending free agent? If some team thinks the franchised player is the one that turns them into winners, maybe they make the deal and figure they'll grow on the player. Or they figure if they win the Super Bowl it's worth it even the player only players one season.
Quote:
Nobody is trading for a player that was franchised unless they negotiated a deal prior.
you'd think so, and you're probably right. But who trades a high 3rd for an impending free agent? If some team thinks the franchised player is the one that turns them into winners, maybe they make the deal and figure they'll grow on the player. Or they figure if they win the Super Bowl it's worth it even the player only players one season.
Completely different situation. Once the season is over a team cannot trade a player until the new league year begins which means a player will have to be tagged prior to a trade. Trading a player the season prior gives the new team the ability to tag that player. We aren't reliving the Williams trade again. That topic has been beaten dead. There is no reason to isolate this one situation. If anything needs to be changed it is the franchise tag overall not the tagging and trading part.
Let’s be honest, is anyone? With teams having tons of money and players salaries increasing every year any players we sign fans will say it’s an overpay.
Completely different situation. Once the season is over a team cannot trade a player until the new league year begins which means a player will have to be tagged prior to a trade. Trading a player the season prior gives the new team the ability to tag that player. We aren't reliving the Williams trade again. That topic has been beaten dead. There is no reason to isolate this one situation. If anything needs to be changed it is the franchise tag overall not the tagging and trading part.
I'm not comparing this to the LW trade, everything you wrote is true. I'm just pointing out that some teams will make strange deals if they are convinced it will put them over the top.
Look at from a teams perspective - would they trade a first round pick plus other picks for a player on a one year deal if they are convinced he's the one missing piece that win's them a Super Bowl even though they risk losing that player after one year?
Look at it from Judon's perspective - he's played well and can now sell his services to whatever team will pay him the highest price. Using the franchise tag prevents him from seeking the most amount of money and then the trade prevents him from choosing his new team for a year.
Quote:
but neither dude is looking like a sound investment for what they figure to cost to sign.
Let’s be honest, is anyone? With teams having tons of money and players salaries increasing every year any players we sign fans will say it’s an overpay.
In a capped league you still have to be wise. You don't jump off a bridge because others are doing it.
Quote:
In comment 14794675 JonC said:
Quote:
but neither dude is looking like a sound investment for what they figure to cost to sign.
Let’s be honest, is anyone? With teams having tons of money and players salaries increasing every year any players we sign fans will say it’s an overpay.
In a capped league you still have to be wise. You don't jump off a bridge because others are doing it.
While I agree and prefer to build through the draft if it’s market value is it truly overpaying? They have money and lots of holes. “Overpaying” for a offensive lineman and edge rusher is quite fine with me.
No thanks
But again how do you define talent with a dollar figure today based on the market? Shall we run down all the free agent signings last year and which ones earned their “value”?!
I certainly don’t want to emulate them with Judge at the helm. This D needs a few edge pass rushers.
Quote:
to a $10M talent, you have already shorted your resources. So, yes.
But again how do you define talent with a dollar figure today based on the market? Shall we run down all the free agent signings last year and which ones earned their “value”?!
Part of each team's offseason is doing exactly that, assigning value to their own UFA, to draft prospects, and so on down the list. They assign value to said player(s) and stick to it. It's arbitrary but backed by pro level knowledge, at least. It's something a big chunk of BBI stinks at tho, thus the endless debates around here.