Bill from NYC Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 First let me say that I do NOT have definitive info on the following. I am asking for facts here as much as making a statement! I heard the announcers on SIRIUS NFL state this morning that as per the new CBA, if a player is designated the "Franchise Player," there will be no change in that particular year from the old CBA. After year 1 under the new CBA, the player (regardless of position) would earn the average of the 5 highest paid QUARTERBACKS regardless of position if he is "franchised" for another season. This would mean that if Clements doesn't sign a long term deal, he could cost the Bills in the neighborhood of 14 million dollars (guaranteed, and it all counts toward the cap) in 07 if he gets the tag once again. In other words, Nate will either sign a long term deal before or during the 06 season, or we will lose him without any compensation. IF, again, IF this is true, it might make sense to trade him before the draft. I never wanted to, and I still don't if what I heard isn't true. If it IS true, I would rather get a 1st for him than simply lose him outright after 1 year. Did anybody else hear this about the CBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I really doubt that is true, cause no one would use it unless they are going to franchise the QB. QB's are almost always the highest paid player on a team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 wow! that sounds like a bad deal anyway you look at it for the owners > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 wow! that sounds like a bad deal anyway you look at it for the owners > 637775[/snapback] This is EXACTLY what the announcers said. Maybe I DID hear it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 its a good thing for a player because he knows he will only have to stay with that team for 1 year . he then can go get a sh-- load of money next year . i do not see how a team could use a tag more than 1 time . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a player to be named later Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I think its if you franchise a player more than two times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 This is what I've heard - and strictly speaking, I think it's the average of the top 5 players at any position, who are just incidentally QBs. (Do we know who they are? Manning-Brady, I'd imagine, then I thought at one point Favre and Culpepper and McNabb were up there) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 First let me say that I do NOT have definitive info on the following. I am asking for facts here as much as making a statement! I heard the announcers on SIRIUS NFL state this morning that as per the new CBA, if a player is designated the "Franchise Player," there will be no change in that particular year from the old CBA. After year 1 under the new CBA, the player (regardless of position) would earn the average of the 5 highest paid QUARTERBACKS regardless of position if he is "franchised" for another season. This would mean that if Clements doesn't sign a long term deal, he could cost the Bills in the neighborhood of 14 million dollars (guaranteed, and it all counts toward the cap) in 07 if he gets the tag once again. In other words, Nate will either sign a long term deal before or during the 06 season, or we will lose him without any compensation. IF, again, IF this is true, it might make sense to trade him before the draft. I never wanted to, and I still don't if what I heard isn't true. If it IS true, I would rather get a 1st for him than simply lose him outright after 1 year. Did anybody else hear this about the CBA? 637768[/snapback] Here is a link that lists the top ten changes. From Clayton, but i am sure as these are facts it should be okay. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...john&id=2361392 Interesting how you can now cut guys before June 1, and still prorate the cap hit over two years, can do that for two players per year. Good deal for the players thre. Also, I see nothing mentioned about the qb thingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 First let me say that I do NOT have definitive info on the following. I am asking for facts here as much as making a statement! I heard the announcers on SIRIUS NFL state this morning that as per the new CBA, if a player is designated the "Franchise Player," there will be no change in that particular year from the old CBA. After year 1 under the new CBA, the player (regardless of position) would earn the average of the 5 highest paid QUARTERBACKS regardless of position if he is "franchised" for another season. This would mean that if Clements doesn't sign a long term deal, he could cost the Bills in the neighborhood of 14 million dollars (guaranteed, and it all counts toward the cap) in 07 if he gets the tag once again. In other words, Nate will either sign a long term deal before or during the 06 season, or we will lose him without any compensation. IF, again, IF this is true, it might make sense to trade him before the draft. I never wanted to, and I still don't if what I heard isn't true. If it IS true, I would rather get a 1st for him than simply lose him outright after 1 year. Did anybody else hear this about the CBA? 637768[/snapback] yes you are correct. The Union wanted to avoid the Walter Jones scenario where a team kept using the tag. The Owners got taken to the cleaners by the Union. Still not sure why the Owners did not trade a rookie wage scale for teh increase in shared revenues. The Union also further restricdted teh Onwers ability to discipline players by prohibiting the TO type suspension and even prohibiting the clause Cinci was using to prevent team bashing and generally bad behavior. It seems the Owner reps did not challenge much of what the Union wanted. Tags threw the owners under the bus to get to retirement without a player lockout. Ralph looks brilliant in refusing to sign without having read the fine print/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 yes you are correct. The Union wanted to avoid the Walter Jones scenario where a team kept using the tag. The Owners got taken to the cleaners by the Union. Still not sure why the Owners did not trade a rookie wage scale for teh increase in shared revenues. The Union also further restricdted teh Onwers ability to discipline players by prohibiting the TO type suspension and even prohibiting the clause Cinci was using to prevent team bashing and generally bad behavior. It seems the Owner reps did not challenge much of what the Union wanted. Tags threw the owners under the bus to get to retirement without a player lockout. Ralph looks brilliant in refusing to sign without having read the fine print/ 637903[/snapback] Geez, everyone thought Ralph was a dropout...maybe he isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Betcha the cheapest seat in an NFL stadium becomes ninety bucks in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 This is what I've heard - and strictly speaking, I think it's the average of the top 5 players at any position, who are just incidentally QBs. (Do we know who they are? Manning-Brady, I'd imagine, then I thought at one point Favre and Culpepper and McNabb were up there) 637813[/snapback] No its the top five in his position. Moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 yes you are correct. The Union wanted to avoid the Walter Jones scenario where a team kept using the tag. The Owners got taken to the cleaners by the Union. Still not sure why the Owners did not trade a rookie wage scale for teh increase in shared revenues. The Union also further restricdted teh Onwers ability to discipline players by prohibiting the TO type suspension and even prohibiting the clause Cinci was using to prevent team bashing and generally bad behavior. It seems the Owner reps did not challenge much of what the Union wanted. Tags threw the owners under the bus to get to retirement without a player lockout. Ralph looks brilliant in refusing to sign without having read the fine print/ 637903[/snapback] Allright, this from USATODAY. There is that clause in the new cba, but only applies to the third year, not the second. here is the article, look in the box at the bottom http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...-reaction_x.htm In regards to disipline, same rules are still in affect, as is the same conduct detrimental to the team standard clauses, however my understanding is that you can no longer MeShawn somebody. You must cut them, not just deactivate for the rest of the season. How this will work, i have not been able to ascertain. But I can see some guy in the second year of a five year deal who feels he is being underpaid being a real pain in the ass to force a release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 First let me say that I do NOT have definitive info on the following. I am asking for facts here as much as making a statement! I heard the announcers on SIRIUS NFL state this morning that as per the new CBA, if a player is designated the "Franchise Player," there will be no change in that particular year from the old CBA. After year 1 under the new CBA, the player (regardless of position) would earn the average of the 5 highest paid QUARTERBACKS regardless of position if he is "franchised" for another season. This would mean that if Clements doesn't sign a long term deal, he could cost the Bills in the neighborhood of 14 million dollars (guaranteed, and it all counts toward the cap) in 07 if he gets the tag once again. In other words, Nate will either sign a long term deal before or during the 06 season, or we will lose him without any compensation. IF, again, IF this is true, it might make sense to trade him before the draft. I never wanted to, and I still don't if what I heard isn't true. If it IS true, I would rather get a 1st for him than simply lose him outright after 1 year. Did anybody else hear this about the CBA? 637768[/snapback] Bill, as someone else posted in here, what i read about the new CBA is that you cannot franchise the same player 3 times. The first time he gets the tender, the second time he gets the top 5 avg or a 120% increase, and the third time he's franchised he gets the top 5 QB's salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 No its the top five in his position. Moron. 637937[/snapback] Buffalotone .............. do you have some anger issues ....... or are you just socially inept??????? lighten up dude, ease up on the name calling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts