restricted free agent compensation

[3 left feet]

michael turner was tendered for a 1st and 3rd. so why is there speculation that a trade involving mr. turner would not involve those picks? are they negotiable? dont murder me, just trying to understand.

 

thanks

[JimBob2232]

Its like the franchise tag. If you sign a franchise tag guy and the team chooses not to match, you give up 2 first ronud picks. This doesnt happen and the player just gets traded for whatever. Same here. We can sign turner, SD can not match, and we owe them a first and a 3rd. However, if they will trade him to us for a 2nd round pick...thats perfectly legal.

 

So the MOST we can give up is a first and a 3rd.

[3 left feet]

thanks, good stuff

[Ball'n]

We could give up more than a 1st and 3rd if we are trying to lose.

[ROCCEO]

We could give up more than a 1st and 3rd if we are trying to lose.

In 2000 we wouldve been better of just signing all RFAs instead of drafting.

[2003Contenders]

Here is a wild (and admittedly incredibly unlikely) scenario...

 

Say we trade our #12 pick and our #43 pick to the Bears in exchange for Briggs and the Bears' #31 pick.

Then we forget about working a trade with the Chargers and simply make Turner an offer. Assuming they don't match it, the Chargers would then land our #31 pick and one of our 3rd round picks.

 

Thus, we come away from Day 1 of the draft with Briggs, Turner, and a 3rd round pick. Financially, I understand that this would never happen, of course...