Why The Colts will Win A SB Within 5 Years

[dw49]

I believe the tag value is based on the average salary of the top five players at the position from the previous league year. So if Flacco is tagged for 2013, that tag is based on the salaries from 2012. And that makes sense, because salaries for the top five could change in 2013, since the tag is applied before free agency.

 

This PFT post is saying the tag value would be based on the top five players salaries in 2013, and I don't think that's accurate.

 

 

Does look they they are full of it. But it appears that this is not just a simple as calculating the average of the top 5 salaries of 2012. I found this kind of explanation on multiple sites ...In any event , I have read that it's around 15 mill and I would certainly that's the "exclusive" number

 

 

In the past, a franchise tag was derived from averaging the top five salaries at a particular position from the previous season. The new formula is much more complicated and is formed by determining the franchise tags at that position over the last five years as a percentage of the overall cap figure in each of those five years.

The yearly cap itself now plays a bigger role -- the 2012 cap projects to be very close to the 2011 cap of roughly $120 million -- thus these tags will not go up much.

Furthermore, with 2010 being an uncapped year, a number of teams threw massive years of spending on particular deals into that contract year, which in turn drove up 2011 franchise tags. Years like that no longer will be the case, and despite all the record contracts given out just after the lockout -- like ones signed by Carolina Panthers defensive end Charles Johnsonand linebacker Jon Beason and San Diego Chargers safetyEric Weddle among others -- figures in most position groups will drop by several million dollars and in some cases upwards of 20 percent, according to the figures we have obtained.

So at a time when Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick averages $16.6 million per season, and Tom Brady andPeyton Manning receive $18 million per season, Brees could receive a franchise tag for just $14.5 million. The NFLPA and NFL Management Council still are going back and forth over the salary numbers used for some of these calculations, sources said, but the QB tag will be between $14.4 million to $14.5 million.

New York Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez is receiving $14.75 million in 2011 alone, while Manning is in line to collect $35 million in total for 2012 if the Indianapolis Colts pick up his options, making Brees an extreme bargain.

The Saints could use franchise tags on Brees in 2012 and 2013 and end up paying him about $32 million total. The goal is a long-term deal, but these tags are more than affordable. The QB tag in 2011 was $16.1 million.

According to league sources, Forte is looking to receive $20 million guaranteed or more, but the running back tag for 2012 will be just $7.7 million, down from $9.6 million in 2011. If Forte receives the franchise tag, expect a lengthy holdout as he refuses to sign the tender.

Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice also is a candidate to be tendered. Given that Wes Welker is 30, the $9.4 million franchise tag for wide receivers might make the most sense for the New England Patriots.

No doubt the new formula will impact several negotiations, and teams could end up using the franchise or transition tag in abundance this offseason.

Follow Jason La Canfora on Twitter @JasonLaCanfora.

 

[Superman]

I remember hearing something like this about the franchise tag, but the CBA makes it seem a lot simpler. Maybe I'm missing something: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf, page 44, Section 2,a,ii

 

 

(ii)  Exclusive Franchise Tender. The Exclusive Franchise Tender shall be 

a one year NFL Player Contract for  (A)  the average of the five largest Salaries in Player 

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at the position (within 

the categories set forth in  Section 7(a)  below)  at which he participated in the most plays 

during the prior League Year,  or (B)  the amount of the Required Tender under  Subsec­

tion (a)(i)  above, whichever is greater.

 

Whether it's the more complicated version or not (and it might well be), it's still not based on the new year salaries. It's based on the previous year (or years) salaries.

[dw49]

I remember hearing something like this about the franchise tag, but the CBA makes it seem a lot simpler. Maybe I'm missing something: http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf, page 44, Section 2,a,ii

 

 

(ii)  Exclusive Franchise Tender. The Exclusive Franchise Tender shall be 

a one year NFL Player Contract for  (A)  the average of the five largest Salaries in Player 

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at the position (within 

the categories set forth in  Section 7(a)  below)  at which he participated in the most plays 

during the prior League Year,  or (B)  the amount of the Required Tender under  Subsec­

tion (a)(i)  above, whichever is greater.

 

Whether it's the more complicated version or not (and it might well be), it's still not based on the new year salaries. It's based on the previous year (or years) salaries.

 

 

 

I read what you have posted to read as the pro football talk link I posted a while ago. 

 

 

A)  the average of the five largest Salaries in Player 

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at the posit

 

That sounds to me like it means the number that is set at the end of the present years free agent signing period. If true , Balt really won't know the number until the period is over. That would make sense of the article I posted. They ( PFT) said some of those top 5 guys could restructure inorder to provide cap room for 2013 and thus bring that 20+ mill down. If you google "what is Flacco's exclusive rights  franchise price for 2013 , there are other sources including roto world , KFFL and USA today that are reporting the same figure... around 20 mill. It is possible that they are all getting that figure from the article I posted by PFT but sems unlikely that munltiple sources would be screwed up . If it were just roto world , I would think that was the case. I'll copy a few ..

 

USA Today

 

"The one-year tag for quarterbacks in 2012 was $14.6 million. However the exclusive franchise tag, which wouldn't allow Flacco to even talk to other interested teams, could run in the $20 million range in 2013."

 

 

Yahoo.....

 

 

'The 2013 franchise tag for quarterbacks is projected to be worth around $14.6 million, but regardless of whether or not the Ravens win Super Bowl XLVII, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome could decide to retain sole negotiating rights with Flacco by using the "exclusive" franchise tag on Flacco, notes Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com.

If the Ravens use the "exclusive" tag, Flacco's tender will be worth the average of the Top 5 cap numbers (minus workout bonuses) of quarterbacks in the NFL at the end of the restricted free agent signing period, which ends in mid-April. As Florio correctly calculated, the "exclusive" tag is currently scheduled to be worth $20.464 million, which is the average of the cap numbers of Tom Brady, Matthew Stafford, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger.'

 

 

KFFL.....

 

"Following Baltimore Ravens impending free-agent QB Joe Flacco's performance in Super Bowl XLVII, which included game MVP honors, it will take placing the exclusive franchise tag, at minimum, for the Ravens to retain the quarterback. There is no way at this point the Ravens can use the $14.6 million non-exclusive tag, because plenty of teams would surely give two first-round picks for Flacco. Based on current numbers, the exclusive franchise tag could be in excess of $20 million for 2013."

Read more: http://www.kffl.com/gnews.php?id=837400-ravens-must-at-least-use-exclusive-franchise-tag-on-joe-flacco#ixzz2K08Yp0mB

[NewColtsFan]

I have not gone through and read 4 pages of responses to the proposition that the Colts will win a Super Bowl within 5 years.

 

But I think there's much better than a 50-50 chance that we won't.   I'd be happy if we get to the SB within 5 years.

 

Why don't I think we'll win.   I don't mean for this to be overly simplistic,  but winning a Super Bowl is really, really, really hard.  In addition,  you also need a fair amount of something that you have no control of -- injuries.

 

Look who has won recently.....

 

-- Baltimore,  who a month before the season was over, was playing badly and wound up firing their OC.   

 

-- The NYG won twice when they were 9-7 both years but got hot late.   And they could have lost both SB games to NE.   But in the first it took a miracle helmet catch to propel the Giants to the upset, and in the 2nd, if Welker holds on to the pass, the Pats kick the winning FG.    In other words, the Giants had lots of luck both times.

 

-- Green Bay, who had a great offense, but lots and lots of injuries on defense and they outlasted Pittsburgh.

 

-- Pittsburgh, who needed a great last minute drive to beat upset minded Arizona in the final moments.

 

-- How many years did it take Peyton Manning to win his first?   8 or 9, wasn't it?  

 

There's just so much you can't plan for....    We can make all the right moves and still not win it all.    For example, a year ago, Tampa bought the two most expensive guards in FA.  Spent a boat-load on both.    What happened?   Both, eventually got hurt and ended the year on the IR.    Some things are out of your control.

 

Besides Luck, I'm a huge admirer or both Grigson and Pagano.   I think we make lots of the right moves.   I'm very excited for our off-season with FA and the draft.   But,  you just never know how things shake out.    You just don't know...........

 

As always with these kind of observations,  I hope I'm wrong, but fear I'm right.....

[Superman]

I read what you have posted to read as the pro football talk link I posted a while ago. 

 

 

A)  the average of the five largest Salaries in Player 

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at the posit

 

That sounds to me like it means the number that is set at the end of the present years free agent signing period. If true , Balt really won't know the number until the period is over. That would make sense of the article I posted. They ( PFT) said some of those top 5 guys could restructure inorder to provide cap room for 2013 and thus bring that 20+ mill down. If you google "what is Flacco's exclusive rights  franchise price for 2013 , there are other sources including roto world , KFFL and USA today that are reporting the same figure... around 20 mill. It is possible that they are all getting that figure from the article I posted by PFT but sems unlikely that munltiple sources would be screwed up . If it were just roto world , I would think that was the case. I'll copy a few ..

 

USA Today

 

"The one-year tag for quarterbacks in 2012 was $14.6 million. However the exclusive franchise tag, which wouldn't allow Flacco to even talk to other interested teams, could run in the $20 million range in 2013."

 

 

Yahoo.....

 

 

'The 2013 franchise tag for quarterbacks is projected to be worth around $14.6 million, but regardless of whether or not the Ravens win Super Bowl XLVII, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome could decide to retain sole negotiating rights with Flacco by using the "exclusive" franchise tag on Flacco, notes Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com.

If the Ravens use the "exclusive" tag, Flacco's tender will be worth the average of the Top 5 cap numbers (minus workout bonuses) of quarterbacks in the NFL at the end of the restricted free agent signing period, which ends in mid-April. As Florio correctly calculated, the "exclusive" tag is currently scheduled to be worth $20.464 million, which is the average of the cap numbers of Tom Brady, Matthew Stafford, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger.'

 

 

KFFL.....

 

"Following Baltimore Ravens impending free-agent QB Joe Flacco's performance in Super Bowl XLVII, which included game MVP honors, it will take placing the exclusive franchise tag, at minimum, for the Ravens to retain the quarterback. There is no way at this point the Ravens can use the $14.6 million non-exclusive tag, because plenty of teams would surely give two first-round picks for Flacco. Based on current numbers, the exclusive franchise tag could be in excess of $20 million for 2013."

Read more: http://www.kffl.com/gnews.php?id=837400-ravens-must-at-least-use-exclusive-franchise-tag-on-joe-flacco#ixzz2K08Yp0mB

 

Yahoo is getting their info directly from Florio. So is KFFL. Not sure about USA Today.

 

I keep going back over that section of the CBA, and looking things up to get my mind around this, and there's a discrepancy somewhere. I'm sure there will be more clarity in coming days and weeks, but the CBA is pretty clear that the tag values are based on prior year salaries. And Florio's comment says that the tag is based on the coming year salaries. That's the difference as far as I can tell, and I don't think Florio is right, based on the CBA language.

 

By the way, that information about the average of the five prior years and all that appears to be related to the non-exclusive (transition) tag. See page 44, Article 10, Section 2(a)(i). http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf

[dw49]

Yahoo is getting their info directly from Florio. So is KFFL. Not sure about USA Today.

 

I keep going back over that section of the CBA, and looking things up to get my mind around this, and there's a discrepancy somewhere. I'm sure there will be more clarity in coming days and weeks, but the CBA is pretty clear that the tag values are based on prior year salaries. And Florio's comment says that the tag is based on the coming year salaries. That's the difference as far as I can tell, and I don't think Florio is right, based on the CBA language.

 

By the way, that information about the average of the five prior years and all that appears to be related to the non-exclusive (transition) tag. See page 44, Article 10, Section 2(a)(i). http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf

 

 

 

We are talking about the price for exclusive free agents . I don't see anywhere where the CBA says that figure is related to the prior year's salary. 

 

From what you posted....

 

 

A)  the average of the five largest Salaries in Player 

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at

 

I would think the words "that league year" means the year the player is being franchised and not the previous year. This is why some of the sites mention that the figufre of 20+ mill could change if some of the top 5 QB's restructure their deals. Why you were correct on the safety franchise price of 6.8 mill instead of it being 9 mill or the average of the top 5 salaries for 2013 is that everyone would assume that you would never use the exclusive tag on a safety .  So they use the non exclusive tag which would be the 6,8 mill figure. I mean , most teams would certainly take 2 first round draft picks for a safety.

 

Eveyone is quoting the figure for Flacco at 20 mill. ... including espn as one of the talking heads mentioned that price on sports center.

[Superman]

We are talking about the price for exclusive free agents . I don't see anywhere where the CBA says that figure is related to the prior year's salary. 

 

From what you posted....

 

 

A)  the average of the five largest Salaries in Player 

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period 

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at

 

I would think the words "that league year" means the year the player is being franchised and not the previous year. This is why some of the sites mention that the figufre of 20+ mill could change if some of the top 5 QB's restructure their deals. Why you were correct on the safety franchise price of 6.8 mill instead of it being 9 mill or the average of the top 5 salaries for 2013 is that everyone would assume that you would never use the exclusive tag on a safety .  So they use the non exclusive tag which would be the 6,8 mill figure. I mean , most teams would certainly take 2 first round draft picks for a safety.

 

Eveyone is quoting the figure for Flacco at 20 mill. ... including espn as one of the talking heads mentioned that price on sports center.

 

To the bolded, I know. They're probably right, but I don't see it...

 

(ii) Exclusive Franchise Tender. The Exclusive Franchise Tender shall be

a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Salaries in Player

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at the position (within

the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which he participated in the most plays

during the prior League Year, or (B) the amount of the Required Tender under Subsection

(a) (i) above, whichever is greater.

 

The tags for 2013 are applied at the end of the 2012 league year, at least 8 days preceding the end of the league year. So "that League Year" applies to 2012. Therefore, the bolded would apply to 2012 salaries, not 2013 salaries. From Section 1:

Section 1. Franchise Player Designations: Except as set forth in Section 9 below,

each Club shall be permitted to designate one of its players who would otherwise be an

Unrestricted Free Agent as a Franchise Player each season during the term of this

Agreement. The player so designated may be one who would otherwise be a Restricted

Free Agent. Except as set forth in Section 2(a) (i) below, any Club that designates a Franchise

Player shall be the only Club with which such Franchise Player may negotiate or

sign a Player Contract during the period the player is so designated, notwithstanding the

number of his Accrued Seasons. The period for Clubs to designate Franchise Players will

begin on the twenty-second day preceding the first day of the new League Year and will

end at 4:00pm New York time on the eighth day preceding the first day of the new

League Year.

 

However, I did find something that seems to support the Florio line of reasoning, from page 46, Section 2(a)(ii)(g):

(g) The calculation of any five largest Salaries for the current League Year as

of the end of the Restricted Free Agent signing period pursuant to Section 2(a) (ii) above

shall include any Player Contract resulting from acceptance of any Tender for the Prior

League Year pursuant to Section 2(a) (i) or (a) (ii) above, provided that the player played

during the Prior League Year pursuant to the Tender, but shall not include (i) any Player

Contract amount resulting from a renegotiation of an existing Player Contract between

the time of the designation and any applicable later date or (ii) the amount of any term of

a Player Contract renegotiated after the Monday of the tenth week of the regular season

of the Prior League Year that provides for an unearned incentive to be treated as signing

bonus.

 

So if the team tags the player on the first day they're allowed to, but the next day one of those top five players renegotiates and significantly reduces his base salary for the coming season, that's too bad for the team, because the value of the tag was already set in that case. You can't renegotiate 2012 salary once the final regular season game in 2012 has been played, so I don't see why that stipulation would be necessary if the coming year's salary wasn't applicable.

 

If that's true, it could potentially mean that Team A tags their quarterback on Tuesday at $15m, but Team B tags their quarterback on Thursday, and it's only $12m, or whatever the number would be. That might explain why teams always wait until the last day to apply the tag.

 

One thing is for sure: the "league year" language isn't as clear as it should be.

[dw49]

To the bolded, I know. They're probably right, but I don't see it...

 

(ii) Exclusive Franchise Tender. The Exclusive Franchise Tender shall be

a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Salaries in Player

Contracts for that League Year as of the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing Period

that League Year, as set forth in Article 9, Section 2( e), for players at the position (within

the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which he participated in the most plays

during the prior League Year, or (B) the amount of the Required Tender under Subsection

(a) (i) above, whichever is greater.

 

The tags for 2013 are applied at the end of the 2012 league year, at least 8 days preceding the end of the league year. So "that League Year" applies to 2012. Therefore, the bolded would apply to 2012 salaries, not 2013 salaries. From Section 1:

Section 1. Franchise Player Designations: Except as set forth in Section 9 below,

each Club shall be permitted to designate one of its players who would otherwise be an

Unrestricted Free Agent as a Franchise Player each season during the term of this

Agreement. The player so designated may be one who would otherwise be a Restricted

Free Agent. Except as set forth in Section 2(a) (i) below, any Club that designates a Franchise

Player shall be the only Club with which such Franchise Player may negotiate or

sign a Player Contract during the period the player is so designated, notwithstanding the

number of his Accrued Seasons. The period for Clubs to designate Franchise Players will

begin on the twenty-second day preceding the first day of the new League Year and will

end at 4:00pm New York time on the eighth day preceding the first day of the new

League Year.

 

However, I did find something that seems to support the Florio line of reasoning, from page 46, Section 2(a)(ii)(g):

(g) The calculation of any five largest Salaries for the current League Year as

of the end of the Restricted Free Agent signing period pursuant to Section 2(a) (ii) above

shall include any Player Contract resulting from acceptance of any Tender for the Prior

League Year pursuant to Section 2(a) (i) or (a) (ii) above, provided that the player played

during the Prior League Year pursuant to the Tender, but shall not include (i) any Player

Contract amount resulting from a renegotiation of an existing Player Contract between

the time of the designation and any applicable later date or (ii) the amount of any term of

a Player Contract renegotiated after the Monday of the tenth week of the regular season

of the Prior League Year that provides for an unearned incentive to be treated as signing

bonus.

 

So if the team tags the player on the first day they're allowed to, but the next day one of those top five players renegotiates and significantly reduces his base salary for the coming season, that's too bad for the team, because the value of the tag was already set in that case. You can't renegotiate 2012 salary once the final regular season game in 2012 has been played, so I don't see why that stipulation would be necessary if the coming year's salary wasn't applicable.

 

If that's true, it could potentially mean that Team A tags their quarterback on Tuesday at $15m, but Team B tags their quarterback on Thursday, and it's only $12m, or whatever the number would be. That might explain why teams always wait until the last day to apply the tag.

 

One thing is for sure: the "league year" language isn't as clear as it should be.

 

 

Yea I sure agree on the clarity issue. I tend to "think" , I'm not sure , the franchise tag (exclusive) factors in the current year. Seems like the "language lends to that and also , we know that the price would have to be higher as the palyer needs to be compensated for not being able to negotiate with the other teams. 

 

As far as what you say below .... I took it to mean that when they tag the player with the franchise tag , the price wouldn't be determined until the period is "closed." So in this case neither team really knows what the "exclusive " franchise price is . I could be totally full of beans on that but that was how I assumed it worked..

 

 

 

"If that's true, it could potentially mean that Team A tags their quarterback on Tuesday at $15m, but Team B tags their quarterback on Thursday, and it's only $12m, or whatever the number would be. That might explain why teams always wait until the last day to apply the tag."

 

[Superman]

Yea I sure agree on the clarity issue. I tend to "think" , I'm not sure , the franchise tag (exclusive) factors in the current year. Seems like the "language lends to that and also , we know that the price would have to be higher as the palyer needs to be compensated for not being able to negotiate with the other teams. 

 

As far as what you say below .... I took it to mean that when they tag the player with the franchise tag , the price wouldn't be determined until the period is "closed." So in this case neither team really knows what the "exclusive " franchise price is . I could be totally full of beans on that but that was how I assumed it worked..

 

 

 

"If that's true, it could potentially mean that Team A tags their quarterback on Tuesday at $15m, but Team B tags their quarterback on Thursday, and it's only $12m, or whatever the number would be. That might explain why teams always wait until the last day to apply the tag."

 

To the bolded, "current" is not a good term. That's the problem. The tags are applied at the end of the 2012 league year. That's the "current" year, until the first day of the 2013 league year. It should make mention of the "upcoming" league year if that's what it means.

 

As for the date the value of the tag is determined, I'm pretty sure that has to be determined by the team the team decides to use the tag. Maybe that section is specific to contracts that are renegotiated after the designated tagging period ends. In any event, teams pretty much always wait until the last day to officially apply the tag. It might be because the language is murky.

 

I'm done for now. Whatever they say the tag is, that's what it is. I'm still pretty certain the Ravens will tag Flacco if they haven't reached terms by that time, whether it's $15m or $20m. I might still consider the transition tag if I were them, as a way of gaining a little more leverage to get Flacco's side to budge.

[Superman]

...

 

Peter King's thoughts on Flacco negotiations, including some thoughts on the non-exclusive tag: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130211/monday-morning-quarterback-peter-king-offseason-week-1/?sct=uk_t12_a4

 

One thing he says is that the non-exclusive tag does return two first rounders if the player signs elsewhere. Not sure if that's accurate.

 

He also says that the major risk in Baltimore's case is that a cap-rich team like the Browns could offer Flacco a big deal and frontload the Year 1 salary, making it virtually impossible for the Ravens to match. I hadn't thought about that angle.  The CBA requires the structure of the contract to stay the same for the matching team. The Ravens could technically match and then restructure the deal, but they have to have the cap room in the first place. There's something in the CBA about teams having seven days to be cap compliant, but I'm not sure if that applies to restricted free agency.

[dw49]

Peter King's thoughts on Flacco negotiations, including some thoughts on the non-exclusive tag: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130211/monday-morning-quarterback-peter-king-offseason-week-1/?sct=uk_t12_a4

 

One thing he says is that the non-exclusive tag does return two first rounders if the player signs elsewhere. Not sure if that's accurate.

 

He also says that the major risk in Baltimore's case is that a cap-rich team like the Browns could offer Flacco a big deal and frontload the Year 1 salary, making it virtually impossible for the Ravens to match. I hadn't thought about that angle.  The CBA requires the structure of the contract to stay the same for the matching team. The Ravens could technically match and then restructure the deal, but they have to have the cap room in the first place. There's something in the CBA about teams having seven days to be cap compliant, but I'm not sure if that applies to restricted free agency.

 

 

I did mention an offer could be made to Flacco that might screw the Ravens to the wall. From an earlier post...

 

However , the offer they might have to match could really cause havok with their cap , while it might not be viewed as a "poison pill. " 

 

 

Not sure why you are questioning the accuracy of Kings statement on the compensation of the two 1st round draft picks. Are you just mixing up the two tags ? The non exclusive one allows other teams to negotiate. If another team makes an offer that the player accepts , that player's team  receives the other teams next 2 first round draft picks. That has been the case for years now. The other tag (exclusive) really has no compensation because no ther team can negotiate with the player.  

 

We discussed a whole lot about the difference in the two tags and it as I said earlier. It's  around 14.5 for the non exclusive . It estimated to be over 20 mill for the exclusive but until all the 2013 salaries are set , that number is "flexible." Going back to the issue of the 2013 salaies coming into play. You once mentioned the top 5 salaries for safties was around 8.5 mill. That indded would be the number for using the exclusive tag on a safty. Why it's considered to be 6.8 is not no team would ever use that tag on a safety. They would almost always just take the 2 first rounders rather than pay the big number , so the non exclusive tag number is the one always quoted.

 

That all said , King is about the only one I see that feels the Ravens might use the cheaper tag. I'll be amazed if this happens. I think the Ravens just sign Flaco to a long term deal before the deadline. IMO , it's the only way for them to go if they are intent on keeping him. Don't teams have to always be under the salary cap ? So wouldn't it make more sense for a salary cap stressed team like the Ravens to get the deal done rather than place the non exclusive tag on him. maybe I'm missing something there ? Could be...

[Superman]

I did mention an offer could be made to Flacco that might screw the Ravens to the wall. From an earlier post...

 

However , the offer they might have to match could really cause havok with their cap , while it might not be viewed as a "poison pill. " 

 

 

Not sure why you are questioning the accuracy of Kings statement on the compensation of the two 1st round draft picks. Are you just mixing up the two tags ? The non exclusive one allows other teams to negotiate. If another team makes an offer that the player accepts , that player's team  receives the other teams next 2 first round draft picks. That has been the case for years now. The other tag (exclusive) really has no compensation because no ther team can negotiate with the player.  

 

We discussed a whole lot about the difference in the two tags and it as I said earlier. It's  around 14.5 for the non exclusive . It estimated to be over 20 mill for the exclusive but until all the 2013 salaries are set , that number is "flexible." Going back to the issue of the 2013 salaies coming into play. You once mentioned the top 5 salaries for safties was around 8.5 mill. That indded would be the number for using the exclusive tag on a safty. Why it's considered to be 6.8 is not no team would ever use that tag on a safety. They would almost always just take the 2 first rounders rather than pay the big number , so the non exclusive tag number is the one always quoted.

 

That all said , King is about the only one I see that feels the Ravens might use the cheaper tag. I'll be amazed if this happens. I think the Ravens just sign Flaco to a long term deal before the deadline. IMO , it's the only way for them to go if they are intent on keeping him. Don't teams have to always be under the salary cap ? So wouldn't it make more sense for a salary cap stressed team like the Ravens to get the deal done rather than place the non exclusive tag on him. maybe I'm missing something there ? Could be...

 

 

Yeah, you mentioned the Year 1 cap hit deal, and I acknowledged it. That's why King's comment stood out to me.

 

Edit: The CBA is pretty vague about what constitutes a poison pill. I think frontloading a contract in the manner described by King might be grounds for a grievance to be filed, and it would probably go to arbitration. I don't know how that would turn out, but it would likely set a precedent. I personally think it's not in line with the spirit of the rule.

 

As for the draft picks, we discussed that as well. I think we came away with the impression that the CBA doesn't provide for any draft pick compensation with a non-exclusive franchise player. The draft pick compensation is for restricted free agents, not franchise tagged players, as far as I can tell.

 

** Actually, I did find the draft pick compensation clause in the CBA: Article 10, Section 2(a)(i)

the player shall be permitted to negotiate a Player Contract with any Club as if he were a player subject to Section 5

below, except that Draft Choice Compensation of two first round draft selections shall

be made with respect to such player in the event he signs with the New Club, and the

Signing Period for such player shall be determined under Section 1 4 below.

 

So King's comment about picks is right, and I've been tying myself in knots trying to get this clear, only to wind up right back where I started in the first place. :slaphead:

[dw49]

Yeah, you mentioned the Year 1 cap hit deal, and I acknowledged it. That's why King's comment stood out to me.

 

Edit: The CBA is pretty vague about what constitutes a poison pill. I think frontloading a contract in the manner described by King might be grounds for a grievance to be filed, and it would probably go to arbitration. I don't know how that would turn out, but it would likely set a precedent. I personally think it's not in line with the spirit of the rule.

 

As for the draft picks, we discussed that as well. I think we came away with the impression that the CBA doesn't provide for any draft pick compensation with a non-exclusive franchise player. The draft pick compensation is for restricted free agents, not franchise tagged players, as far as I can tell.

 

** Actually, I did find the draft pick compensation clause in the CBA: Article 10, Section 2(a)(i)

the player shall be permitted to negotiate a Player Contract with any Club as if he were a player subject to Section 5

below, except that Draft Choice Compensation of two first round draft selections shall

be made with respect to such player in the event he signs with the New Club, and the

Signing Period for such player shall be determined under Section 1 4 below.

 

So King's comment about picks is right, and I've been tying myself in knots trying to get this clear, only to wind up right back where I started in the first place. :slaphead:

 

 

 

I could have saved you a lot of hair pulling if I understood what you were refering to be "draft compensation." I think you were speaking of picks that the league gives a team for losing a free agent. What I and King were talking about is the 2 first round draft pick the team that losses the franchised receives from the signing team. One is comensatory picks awadred by the league and the other is the 2 first rounders the signing team gives to the team in question. I guess that is why it was such a "back and forth " between you and I. And (shouldn't start a sentence with "and") yes , I would for sure think a team would not get a comensatory pick from the league for a lost non exclusive tagged player that was lost. Simply because that team already was receiving two 1st rounders for compensation. 

 

 

Also I was rethinking what I said about the Ravens having to be always under the cap and thus be better served to get Flacco's deal done rather than use the 20 mill $ tag. Where I think I'm wrong with that is they wouldn't be over the cap as they probably would have enough empty spots on the roster , plus probably can use the draft pick money to have enough room to wait on the deal.

[Superman]

I could have saved you a lot of hair pulling if I understood what you were refering to be "draft compensation." I think you were speaking of picks that the league gives a team for losing a free agent. What I and King were talking about is the 2 first round draft pick the team that losses the franchised receives from the signing team. One is comensatory picks awadred by the league and the other is the 2 first rounders the signing team gives to the team in question. I guess that is why it was such a "back and forth " between you and I. And (shouldn't start a sentence with "and") yes , I would for sure think a team would not get a comensatory pick from the league for a lost non exclusive tagged player that was lost. Simply because that team already was receiving two 1st rounders for compensation. 

 

 

Also I was rethinking what I said about the Ravens having to be always under the cap and thus be better served to get Flacco's deal done rather than use the 20 mill $ tag. Where I think I'm wrong with that is they wouldn't be over the cap as they probably would have enough empty spots on the roster , plus probably can use the draft pick money to have enough room to wait on the deal.

 

I was talking about draft pick compensation from the signing team, not compensatory picks from the league. Like you said, there's no compensatory pick for losing a non-exclusive franchise player, because you have right of first refusal. That's what my initial understanding was.

 

The Ravens currently have about $15m in cap space going into 2013. So if the Browns were to sign Flacco to an offer sheet with a $30m cap hit in 2013, the Ravens would have to clear an additional $15m to match. They have five days to match.

 

I believe Ray Lewis' contract was structured to void this season, and if so, that frees up $7.3m. They could release Boldin and save another $6m. Releasing Leach saves another $3m. They could restructure Suggs, Ngata and Yanda if they needed, and free up another $10m or so. They still have other free agents, plus draft picks, and they have to round out their roster.

 

It's risky business, but it could potentially save them $20m over the life of Flacco's contract. I still doubt it happens.

[FalseStart]

Window for Patriots is closing...

Window for Houston is closing...

Window for Denver is closing...

Window for Steelers is half open...

Window for Ravens Defense is closing...

Window for COLTS is opening!

1-2 SB in next 5...How many will we win?

[dw49]

I was talking about draft pick compensation from the signing team, not compensatory picks from the league. Like you said, there's no compensatory pick for losing a non-exclusive franchise player, because you have right of first refusal. That's what my initial understanding was.

 

The Ravens currently have about $15m in cap space going into 2013. So if the Browns were to sign Flacco to an offer sheet with a $30m cap hit in 2013, the Ravens would have to clear an additional $15m to match. They have five days to match.

 

I believe Ray Lewis' contract was structured to void this season, and if so, that frees up $7.3m. They could release Boldin and save another $6m. Releasing Leach saves another $3m. They could restructure Suggs, Ngata and Yanda if they needed, and free up another $10m or so. They still have other free agents, plus draft picks, and they have to round out their roster.

 

It's risky business, but it could potentially save them $20m over the life of Flacco's contract. I still doubt it happens.

 

 

If the Ravens are intent on keeping Flacco , IMO , there is ZERO % chance they use the non exclusive tag on him. They are in no position to play chicken or jockey for leverage. If they dont intend on paying him his 20 million , that's a different story and then they will use the cheaper tag. So I guess what I'm saying is there is not going to be any poison pills or need for Balt to figuture a way to get him 30 mill in year 1. Either they sign him to a huge deal or they let him walk to another team and take the 2 number 1's.

 

When you say " I still doubt it happens" , what do you refer to ? 

[Superman]

If the Ravens are intent on keeping Flacco , IMO , there is ZERO % chance they use the non exclusive tag on him. They are in no position to play chicken or jockey for leverage. If they dont intend on paying him his 20 million , that's a different story and then they will use the cheaper tag. So I guess what I'm saying is there is not going to be any poison pills or need for Balt to figuture a way to get him 30 mill in year 1. Either they sign him to a huge deal or they let him walk to another team and take the 2 number 1's.

 

When you say " I still doubt it happens" , what do you refer to ? 

 

The non-exclusive tag. They'll either reach terms beforehand or slap the full tag on him.

 

I kind of want to see them use the non-exclusive tag, then see the Browns use the structure King outlines, then see the Ravens file a grievance. I'm curious how that would turn out. 

[dw49]

The non-exclusive tag. They'll either reach terms beforehand or slap the full tag on him.

 

I kind of want to see them use the non-exclusive tag, then see the Browns use the structure King outlines, then see the Ravens file a grievance. I'm curious how that would turn out. 

 

 

 

Yes that would be fun.

[GoColts8818]

Window for Patriots is closing...

Window for Houston is closing...

Window for Denver is closing...

Window for Steelers is half open...

Window for Ravens Defense is closing...

Window for COLTS is opening!

1-2 SB in next 5...How many will we win?

yeah but it's also opening for the Bengals, Seahawks, and 49ers and remains wide open for the Falcons, Packers, and Giants ( during the years they have their heads screwed on straight). The good news is that most of those teams are NFC teams.

[GoColts8818]

I was talking about draft pick compensation from the signing team, not compensatory picks from the league. Like you said, there's no compensatory pick for losing a non-exclusive franchise player, because you have right of first refusal. That's what my initial understanding was.

The Ravens currently have about $15m in cap space going into 2013. So if the Browns were to sign Flacco to an offer sheet with a $30m cap hit in 2013, the Ravens would have to clear an additional $15m to match. They have five days to match.

I believe Ray Lewis' contract was structured to void this season, and if so, that frees up $7.3m. They could release Boldin and save another $6m. Releasing Leach saves another $3m. They could restructure Suggs, Ngata and Yanda if they needed, and free up another $10m or so. They still have other free agents, plus draft picks, and they have to round out their roster.

It's risky business, but it could potentially save them $20m over the life of Flacco's contract. I still doubt it happens.

yes Lewis has an out in his contract after this year. People knew this was his last year with the ravens no mater what because of that. So go ahead and his money to the pile they will have.

[FalseStart]

yeah but it's also opening for the Bengals, Seahawks, and 49ers and remains wide open for the Falcons, Packers, and Giants ( during the years they have their heads screwed on straight). The good news is that most of those teams are NFC teams.

As you stated...most of these teams are in the NFC.  Moving forward, in the AFC, the real threat for the next 2-3 years will be; Denver, Pats, Houston, Steelers, Ravens... next 3-6... Colts should be favored.