Ennjay Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 A lot of people on this board are telling the Bills to franchise and trade Jennings or Williams. It looks so easy because it worked for Price. Think about it. How often does this happen in real life? The Price deal was great but it took the accident of Atlanta's owner salivating for a local guy (Price) who looked like a "perfect fit" for the other new toy in town, Michael Vick. Under the circumstances Atlanta didn't care about the draft choice or the Price contract. If it's so easy to franchise a guy and then trade him for a first-round pick, how come everybody doesn't do it? Can anyone remember a player other than Price who scored a Number One for his original team this way? And if you can name only two or three more in the last 15 years, what does that say? I'm not saying it's not worth dreaming about this -- just that it's unrealistic to think other teams are lining up to make that kind of deal, based on past history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 A lot of people on this board are telling the Bills to franchise and trade Jennings or Williams. It looks so easy because it worked for Price. Think about it. How often does this happen in real life? The Price deal was great but it took the accident of Atlanta's owner salivating for a local guy (Price) who looked like a "perfect fit" for the other new toy in town, Michael Vick. Under the circumstances Atlanta didn't care about the draft choice or the Price contract. If it's so easy to franchise a guy and then trade him for a first-round pick, how come everybody doesn't do it? Can anyone remember a player other than Price who scored a Number One for his original team this way? And if you can name only two or three more in the last 15 years, what does that say? I'm not saying it's not worth dreaming about this -- just that it's unrealistic to think other teams are lining up to make that kind of deal, based on past history. 200467[/snapback] From what I understand, and I am no expert, Franchising a guy is not an easy process. #1) the value of the the one year contract gets put on your cap from the day you tag him. So for teams up agaisnt the cap, this option is not available unless thay cut other players. No prorating of bonus money, this is all salary. #2) Players hate being tagged. Do not know the exact rule, but you have like one month to get player signed to a long term deal, or else must wait until August I believe. Makes for tough negotiating. #3) There is risk the player may just sign the deal, therby killing your cap for next year. This is the issue San Diego will have with Brees. No way Brees is going to agree to a one year deal, but if the tag is in place, that value is included for cap purposes. So you could have a $9M player sittin out. I do not think there is a chance in hell that TD tags JJ. Hamstrings you to much in pursuing other FAs. Although, the Iggles messed with Trotter a few years back and tagged him, and just as he was about to accept, they cut him in like July if I remeber correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Wing Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 As I seem to recall from a recent post, the Bills currently do not have a tag (franchise or transition) that they can use. Can anyone verify this so that we can put this talk of tagging to bed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 it's not all about getting a 1st round pick out of tagging a guy.......it's about getting ANYTHING..........2nd, 3rd, conditional, whatever, it's still better then getting nothing.......... the bills do have the franchise tag available (i don't believe they have the transation) and they should use it on jennings.......... contrary to popular opinion, there is NO RISK to doing it........he will not sign the tag (why would he when he can make more in signing bonus alone? and who has signed the tag in the first week in the history of free agency?).........the bills don't really need the cap room the first week of free agency anyway.........and if there are no suitors for him that want to spend a pick to get "their guy", no problem, you just lift the tag and let him walk........no harm, no foul......... sorry boys, there is no downside here, only upside........people doubted it could be done with peerless, and those same people are doubting it can be done with jennings.........they were wrong then, and they're wrong now, but it's funny to see them using the exact same arguements......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 if im correct, a franchised player is garenteed the average salary for the top 5 players at that position. thats a lot of money at the OT position.... i dout jenning will get that much. can you really say hes in the same league as Ogden or the other great OTs?????? also, if another team signs a "franchised" player as a FA, then the signing team gives up a first round pick for him. players hate this, cus it usually makes it harder for them to sign with another team, since most dont want to give up a first rounder. usually resulting in the player signing a 1 year deal for top 5 money. IMO: 1) jennings is not a top 5 OT. not a dominant force like the other top OT. he isnt worth that HUGE money a "franchised" OT will make. no team will give up a first rounder AND pay the huge salary he wants. he will get paid, but we wont get a first rounder for him. 2) the price situation was great. price looked like a 95 receptions a year guy. with m. vick needing a target, a first round pick was not alot to ask for. (they just didnt see he was a great #2, not a great #1 WR... o well) 3) Williams is not a franchise DT. IMO, to be a franchise DT, you have to eather get 10+ sacks a year.. and/or get 95+ tackles a year. hes good, damn good. but at 33, hes not in the top 5~10 DTs. he likes buffalo and, most likley take less to stay in buffalo. we will NOT franchise a player this year. if spikes was a FA, they could franchise him. hes the only player on our team which deserves that tag considering there age vs. production. so i guess its good we have him for several years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ennjay Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 Thanks for the responses. I'd still like to know about any franchise-and-trade deals (first round pick or any pick) other than Price, and I notice nobody has come up with one. I'm not sure you can take off the franchise tag the same year you put it on a player. In other words, if you franchise Jennings, I think, you MUST sign him to Top 5 money if he signs (vs. holding out), and I think you have to block his imputed salary against your cap even if he holds out. You can only beat it if you trade him or sign him to a contract with a lesser salary hit. One poster's reference to Spikes implicitly makes two more good points: 1. The Bengals' failure to franchise-and-trade goes back to my original question. They had their reasons, but they let him go for nothing. Again: franchise-and-trade isn't as simple as it looks. 2. Since the Bengals didn't franchise him we'll never know if the Bills thought he was worth giving up a number one. It seems ridiculous to me that they would hesitate for a heartbeat to give up anything but, say, one of the first three picks (if even) for Spikes. More likely, would anyone rather have, say the 18th pick in the draft than TKO? Nevertheless a lot of NFL teams are scared to death to give up a first-round pick in advance, even though it seems like there are more first-round busts every year, more later-round gems every year, and maybe more first-round draft-day trades every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 The only reason Spikes wasn't franchised by Cincy is because Marvin Lewis just got the job and needed to significantly change the roster. Spikes franchise number on their cap would have prevented the Bengals from signing anyone of significance, plus Spikes didn't want to be there. Lewis didn't want to start his tenure under those circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCCEO Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 A lot of people on this board are telling the Bills to franchise and trade Jennings or Williams. It looks so easy because it worked for Price. Think about it. How often does this happen in real life? The Price deal was great but it took the accident of Atlanta's owner salivating for a local guy (Price) who looked like a "perfect fit" for the other new toy in town, Michael Vick. Under the circumstances Atlanta didn't care about the draft choice or the Price contract. If it's so easy to franchise a guy and then trade him for a first-round pick, how come everybody doesn't do it? Can anyone remember a player other than Price who scored a Number One for his original team this way? And if you can name only two or three more in the last 15 years, what does that say? I'm not saying it's not worth dreaming about this -- just that it's unrealistic to think other teams are lining up to make that kind of deal, based on past history. 200467[/snapback] WEll, as for getting number ones, i think that only Price and Galloway have done that, and I believe galloway may have even held out for an extended period of time to get it to happen. It does work though, and it doesn't always have to be for a first rounder. Recall a few years ago the Pats franchised underperforming malcontent Tebucky Jones, he was then promptly traded to the saints for a 2nd rounder. So it does happen. There may be other examples but i cannot directly think of any right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 WEll, as for getting number ones, i think that only Price and Galloway have done that, and I believe galloway may have even held out for an extended period of time to get it to happen. It does work though, and it doesn't always have to be for a first rounder. Recall a few years ago the Pats franchised underperforming malcontent Tebucky Jones, he was then promptly traded to the saints for a 2nd rounder. So it does happen. There may be other examples but i cannot directly think of any right now. 200820[/snapback] sean gilbert was tagged and then traded.....as a more recent example, champ bailey was tagged and dealt last season.......... you can revoke the tag before the player signs the offer.......the bills are talking about one week window to work out a deal, and if nothing happens, you lift it.........there isn't a chance in hell that jennings would sign it because he can make more in signing bonus alone.........no one takes the offer the first week of free agency -- name one player..... it's a no risk move, no matter how you try to spin it........bills have nothing to lose and something to gain.......all of these reasons were used to explain why peerless shouldn't be tagged, and they were all wrong.........same with winfield, and he had a defanite market and the bills could have got a pick(s) for him......not franchising jennings would be another opportunity missed....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The difference I see between Price and Winfield and Jennings is that there was a pretty good likelyhood that Price would get an offer higher than the top 5 average, so it was a low chance the Bill's could get stuck with the contract. Jennings and Winfield both had some baggage, Winfield, Great hit no cover, Jennings always nicked up. Therefore, Jennings might not get an offer within the top 5 average. So you then run the risk of Jennings taking the offer. Would he likely take it in a week? Probably not, but also unlikely that anyone would offer a sign and trade within that period either. S owhat purpose does it solve except tying your hands t osome degree as to other moves you can make. I do believe, TD was OK with keeping Price at the offer sheet price, and would have been a decent deal for the Bills. (Not great, but OK) Jennings due to his injury history, not so sure. I believe there also is a limit to how often you can use the tag, so if they use it on Jenning and even if they pull it, they might not be able to use it again? Not certain, but I know there are some rules regarding how often you can use it. They may want to keep it another year for Clements instead?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 The difference I see between Price and Winfield and Jennings is that there was a pretty good likelyhood that Price would get an offer higher than the top 5 average, so it was a low chance the Bill's could get stuck with the contract. Jennings and Winfield both had some baggage, Winfield, Great hit no cover, Jennings always nicked up. Therefore, Jennings might not get an offer within the top 5 average. So you then run the risk of Jennings taking the offer. Would he likely take it in a week? Probably not, but also unlikely that anyone would offer a sign and trade within that period either. S owhat purpose does it solve except tying your hands t osome degree as to other moves you can make. I do believe, TD was OK with keeping Price at the offer sheet price, and would have been a decent deal for the Bills. (Not great, but OK) Jennings due to his injury history, not so sure. I believe there also is a limit to how often you can use the tag, so if they use it on Jenning and even if they pull it, they might not be able to use it again? Not certain, but I know there are some rules regarding how often you can use it. They may want to keep it another year for Clements instead?? 201041[/snapback] winfield got 12 million in first year money from the vikes.......the f-tag would have paid him 7 or 8.......obviously it would have been an easy decision for him as to whether to take the tag or not........TD screwed up by not tagging him, plain and simple........there were multiple teams interested, with the jets and vikes leading the way, and someone would have gave SOMETHING for the right to sign him...... jennings is looking at a 10 million signing bonus minimum, no doubt in my mind.......that is what every good LT gets when they hit free agency, along with most good RT's........so why would he take the f-tag value at 7 million when he can make more then 10? it defies logic........ i disagree and think they're will be a waiting market for jennings, even with the tag on him, especiallly if jones and pace get tagged again.....all of a sudden he would be the top LT in a very thin market......but even if jones and pace don't, all you need is one team who falls in love with him to make a deal..........the downside? we tie up cash, which i don't see as a downside because i don't see the bills being major players in free agency this year, let alone in the first week....... and yes, if the bills did it they would have the f-tag available next year regardless......the only way you lose the tag is if you sign the player between march 15 and july 31........and no one does that........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts