PREDICTIONS on What Will Happen with Cousins

[DarthMonk]

I see what the Redskins would be "entitled to" but I see nothing that says that compensation cannot be negotiated and I have seen and heard many people write and say that it is negotiable.

Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are not.

Couldn't the Redskins tell a team "We intend on matching the offer unless you up the ante on compensation?"

The Redskins are not "entitled to" greater compensation but couldn't they ask for it?

This is the question to which I seek a definitive answer.

I don't have one yet.

BTW - The Supreme Court has ruled that the word "shall" means "may."

Therefore "compensation of two first round draft selections shall be made" can easily be read to mean "compensation of two first round draft selections may be made."

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

I see what the Redskins would be "entitled to" but I see nothing that says that compensation cannot be negotiated and I have seen and heard many people write and say that it is negotiable.

Maybe they are wrong. Maybe they are not.

Couldn't the Redskins tell a team "We intend on matching the offer unless you up the ante on compensation?"

The Redskins are not "entitled to" greater compensation but couldn't they ask for it?

This is the question to which I seek a definitive answer.

I don't have one yet.

BTW - The Supreme Court has ruled that the word "shall" means "may."

Therefore "compensation of two first round draft selections shall be made" can easily be read to mean "compensation of two first round draft selections may be made."

Let's approach this from another direction.

Can anyone name one case of a team negotiating different compensation for a player under the non-exclusive franchise tag? I can't think of one case of it having happened.

[DarthMonk]

Let's approach this from another direction.

Can anyone name one case of a team negotiating different compensation for a player under the non-exclusive franchise tag? I can't think of one case of it having happened.

Me neither.

Heck, has anyone even signed someone on the tag and given up the 2 picks?

BTW - I've also posted a scenario where the Redskins might be willing to take less than the 2 picks.

[DEHog]

^^^Lawyers are the ones who write these policies and if the FT was in any way negotiable I believe you would see language such as …at least or at a minimum.

[Deadskins]

Let's approach this from another direction.

Can anyone name one case of a team negotiating different compensation for a player under the non-exclusive franchise tag? I can't think of one case of it having happened.

Me neither.

Heck, has anyone even signed someone on the tag and given up the 2 picks?

The Panthers gave up the two (to the Redskins) for Sean Gilbert. Where were you?

[DEHog]

You can't trade a tagged player.

Yes. Technically correct ... I think. Of course, being compensated with two picks for losing such a guy amounts to trading a player for picks even though it's not a "trade."

I think it is still open to question whether or not the compensation for a non-exclusive FT player is negotiable. Mark Maske seems to claim it is in the Post today.

I'd like to get something definitive on this.

Didn't the Pats trade Matt Casel to the Chiefs after they Tagged him? Also the Chiefs tagged Jared Allen then traded him to Minnesota

The Chiefs designated Allen their franchise player, but Allen made it clear he wanted no part of the team's massive rebuilding plan. He told the team he wanted to play for a contender and was not interested in signing a long-term deal with a team that is embarking on a youth movement under coach Herm Edwards following a 4-12 season.
The bounty of picks obtained in the trade, and the cap space created by Allen's departure, could help expedite that process in Kansas City.
Kansas City gets Minnesota's first-round pick, No. 17 overall, and both of the Vikings' third-round selections. The teams also swapped sixth-rounders in the deal announced Wednesday.

[Deadskins]

You can't trade a tagged player.

Yes. Technically correct ... I think. Of course, being compensated with two picks for losing such a guy amounts to trading a player for picks even though it's not a "trade."

I think it is still open to question whether or not the compensation for a non-exclusive FT player is negotiable. Mark Maske seems to claim it is in the Post today.

I'd like to get something definitive on this.

Didn't the Pats trade Matt Casel to the Chiefs after they Tagged him? Also the Chiefs tagged Jared Allen then traded him to Minnesota

The Chiefs designated Allen their franchise player, but Allen made it clear he wanted no part of the team's massive rebuilding plan. He told the team he wanted to play for a contender and was not interested in signing a long-term deal with a team that is embarking on a youth movement under coach Herm Edwards following a 4-12 season.
The bounty of picks obtained in the trade, and the cap space created by Allen's departure, could help expedite that process in Kansas City.
Kansas City gets Minnesota's first-round pick, No. 17 overall, and both of the Vikings' third-round selections. The teams also swapped sixth-rounders in the deal announced Wednesday.

In both those cases, I think the FT was rescinded as part of the deal, though. So obviously you can continue to deal outside the tag, then rescind the tag and complete the trade. I believe Monk is asking if you can sign the tagged player but have wiggle room, up or down, on the two first round picks.

[DarthMonk]

Let's approach this from another direction.

Can anyone name one case of a team negotiating different compensation for a player under the non-exclusive franchise tag? I can't think of one case of it having happened.

Me neither.

Heck, has anyone even signed someone on the tag and given up the 2 picks?

The Panthers gave up the two (to the Redskins) for Sean Gilbert. Where were you?

Wherever I was I was not paying attention. Thanks for the example.

[DarthMonk]

In both those cases, I think the FT was rescinded as part of the deal, though. So obviously you can continue to deal outside the tag, then rescind the tag and complete the trade. I believe Monk is asking if you can sign the tagged player but have wiggle room, up or down, on the two first round picks.

Yes, that's what I'm asking.

And rescinding a tag is dicey. I think the player instantly becomes an unrestricted FA ala Josh Norman.

[DEHog]

In both those cases, I think the FT was rescinded as part of the deal, though. So obviously you can continue to deal outside the tag, then rescind the tag and complete the trade. I believe Monk is asking if you can sign the tagged player but have wiggle room, up or down, on the two first round picks.

Yes, that's what I'm asking.

Yes that's why I post this example.
As I've said if you negotiate it’s become a trade. To me this makes it pretty clear, any nogiatations different from the FT rules becomes a trade.

[DEHog]

In both those cases, I think the FT was rescinded as part of the deal, though. So obviously you can continue to deal outside the tag, then rescind the tag and complete the trade. I believe Monk is asking if you can sign the tagged player but have wiggle room, up or down, on the two first round picks.

How does that work...as Monk said once you recind the tag they become a FA

[DarthMonk]

In both those cases, I think the FT was rescinded as part of the deal, though. So obviously you can continue to deal outside the tag, then rescind the tag and complete the trade. I believe Monk is asking if you can sign the tagged player but have wiggle room, up or down, on the two first round picks.

Yes, that's what I'm asking.

Yes that's why I post this example.
As I've said if you negotiate it’s become a trade. To me this makes it pretty clear, any nogiatations different from the FT rules becomes a trade.

So now we are back to whether you can trade a guy on the tag or not. i am not asking about negotiations "different" from the FT rules. I am asking what, precisely, those rules are - if they can include a negotiation of compensation for a tagged player who is signed by another team.

My question remains unanswered.

Also have not yet seen that Cassel's tag was rescinded. May have been but I haven't seen the report yet.

[Deadskins]

And rescinding a tag is dicey. I think the player instantly becomes an unrestricted FA ala Josh Norman.

He does, absent a new contract, but the tag is automatically rescinded as part of the new deal with the player. So in the deal and trade scenario, the player never enters FA.

[DEHog]

And rescinding a tag is dicey. I think the player instantly becomes an unrestricted FA ala Josh Norman.

He does, absent a new contract, but the tag is automatically rescinded as part of the new deal with the player. So in the deal and trade scenario, the player never enters FA.

That's not what I'm reading, first how can a team trade a player who they don't have the rights to? Remeber the player would have to sign the FT offer first....which is why they say you don't see it happen very often. What does happen is they are free to negotiate with a team and get an offer just like Gibbs let Bailey do. Here is what Bailey said about signing the FT…

"The only thing I had control over was I didn’t have to sign the contract,” Bailey said. “I had to sign the franchise tag in order to get it done. If I didn’t like the deal, I wouldn’t have done it.”

This makes it sound like he has to sign the FT to be traded??

[Deadskins]

And rescinding a tag is dicey. I think the player instantly becomes an unrestricted FA ala Josh Norman.

He does, absent a new contract, but the tag is automatically rescinded as part of the new deal with the player. So in the deal and trade scenario, the player never enters FA.

That's not what I'm reading, first how can a team trade a player who they don't have the rights to?

That's why it's the current team that signs the player to the new deal. They hold his rights under the tag, sign him to the new deal (ending the tag), then they trade his rights to the new team.

Remeber the player would have to sign the FT offer first....which is why they say you don't see it happen very often. What does happen is they are free to negotiate with a team and get an offer just like Gibbs let Bailey do. Here is what Bailey said about signing the FT…

"The only thing I had control over was I didn’t have to sign the contract,” Bailey said. “I had to sign the franchise tag in order to get it done. If I didn’t like the deal, I wouldn’t have done it.”

This makes it sound like he has to sign the FT to be traded??

I agree that it sounds that way, but this is why: If he hadn't signed the FT offer, he would not have been able to enter into any negotiations with anybody, not even the Redskins. From a legal perspective, he was not under contract to anybody, yet because of the tag, the Redskins held his rights.

[DEHog]

I agree that it sounds that way, but this is why: If he hadn't signed the FT offer, he would not have been able to enter into any negotiations with anybody, not even the Redskins. From a legal perspective, he was not under contract to anybody, yet because of the tag, the Redskins held his rights.

According to the article he was free to sign with any team and the Redskins would have either matched it or gotten the 2 first round picks??

[Deadskins]

I agree that it sounds that way, but this is why: If he hadn't signed the FT offer, he would not have been able to enter into any negotiations with anybody, not even the Redskins. From a legal perspective, he was not under contract to anybody, yet because of the tag, the Redskins held his rights.

According to the article he was free to sign with any team and the Redskins would have either matched it or gotten the 2 first round picks??

Then why did we get Clinton Portis, and give up a pick? He had to sign the tag offer to be able to enter into those negations. Then, after he signed it, the Redskins worked out the trade deal, signed Bailey to the new contract (which voided the FT), and traded him to Denver.

[DEHog]

I agree that it sounds that way, but this is why: If he hadn't signed the FT offer, he would not have been able to enter into any negotiations with anybody, not even the Redskins. From a legal perspective, he was not under contract to anybody, yet because of the tag, the Redskins held his rights.

According to the article he was free to sign with any team and the Redskins would have either matched it or gotten the 2 first round picks??

Then why did we get Clinton Portis, and give up a pick? He had to sign the tag offer to be able to enter into those negations. Then, after he signed it, the Redskins worked out the trade deal, signed Bailey to the new contract (which voided the FT), and traded him to Denver.

The deal was worked out before he signed the tag; I'm guessing the Redskins agreed to the trade instead risking the tag because Bailey was set to sit out?? I think the way this (technically) works it that the Redskins sign him and then trade his rights, where the new team is free to enter into long term contract negotiations (which have already been worked out) Hence is why Bailey said what he said??

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

All those deals mentioned above were under a different CBA.

Have there been any since the last CBA?

[DEHog]

All those deals mentioned above were under a different CBA.

Have there been any since the last CBA?

Good question, Mat Casel and Jared Allen were similar cases...but they two were under old CBA. HAs the FT rules changed?
I know Drew Brees won a case that ruled FT from two different teams counted when figuring the number of times a player is FT.

[DarthMonk]

All those deals mentioned above were under a different CBA.

Have there been any since the last CBA?

That's what I thought. Thanks.

[DEHog]

All those deals mentioned above were under a different CBA.

Have there been any since the last CBA?

That's what I thought. Thanks.

Not sure that matters to this conversation...here are the changes made to the current CBA

Why are the franchise-tag numbers lower?
The owners fought hard for this one, arguing that the tag numbers in 2011 had been artificially inflated because clubs had stashed money in the uncapped year. The Redskins, for example, did that with DeAngelo Hall and Albert Haynesworth, which caused seismic jumps in the franchise figures at corner and defensive tackle, respectively, and affected an across-the-board leap of 15-20 percent in price tags.
The five-year average part of the new equation was put in as a compromise, and the union views it as temporarily deflating the numbers, while 2007 and '08 are still part of the calculation. Another reason why the union budged here: It affects a small number of players. The highest ever number of tagged players in a single year was 14, and some of those are the elite, whom the PA knew would wind up being rewarded regardless.

What did the NFLPA get in return?
The new CBA didn't just usher in a new era of labor peace. Albert Breer says it gave the draft new life by reducing risk. More ...
Primarily, the benefit of yielding on the franchise-tag issue for the NFLPA was the elimination of the so-called "super tender" on restricted free agents, which set compensation for a competing team trying to sign away an RFA at first- and third-round picks. Annually, a much larger group falls under the RFA designation than under the franchise tag. This year, the number sits at 79. And since the high tender is simply a first-round pick, new possibilities are opened for third-year studs.
This is where potential problems have arisen for clubs like Houston (Arian Foster) and Pittsburgh (Mike Wallace). The chance of those players being tagged (and making much more than the simple first-round tender) exists, as does the motivation for their teams to sign them long-term before they hit the market, and the potential for other teams to drive up the price when they do get there.
How else did the franchise-tag rules change?
Teams can continuously franchise players, but it'll cost them to do that. As had been the case previously, a player tagged a second straight year would have his number set at 120 percent of the previous figure. A third straight year? That's where things change, and the percentage goes up to 144.

Here's an example: Drew Brees' franchise tag number is estimated to be a relatively affordable $14.4 million this year. If he's tagged a second straight time, it'd cost the Saints, based on the estimates, $17.28 million. In Year 3, because of the change, the number goes all the way to $24.88 million. That means Brees gains some leverage in negotiating a long-term deal, in that the tag numbers add up to about $56.6 million over three years, or nearly $19 million per.

Are transition tags relevant again?
With the 2011 season in the rearview mirror, NFL.com reviews the ups and downs of each team's past season and examines how the offseason is shaping up.
Since the Steve Hutchinson poison-pill deal in 2006, which sent the All-Pro guard from Seattle to Minnesota, just one player has been slapped with the transition designation -- Pittsburgh's Max Starks in 2008 -- and that's largely because the Hutchinson situation made it obsolete. Though the poison pill has been eliminated in the new CBA, don't expect transition tags to make a comeback.
Without any compensation going back to a player's original team, there's no cost for signing teams outside of the contract, and clubs can still structure deals that can make them very difficult for another club to match. Additionally, as part of this CBA, a team can franchise or transition a player, but can't do both, meaning the idea of using the transition tag as a fallback after a more desirable player is franchised doesn't exist.

How will cap space affect the next few years?
Some teams are going into this offseasons with tens of millions in room to spend, with last year's space rolling over to this year. And there's no minimum spending limit in 2012 either, so that could create even more money rolled over into 2013.

But from a cashflow standpoint, some of these clubs could be getting themselves into murky water if they don't open the wallet soon. In 2013, the 89-percent minimum kicks in, with the rolled-over money included. And in 2014, the new TV deals will threaten to send the cap to the moon. So for clubs like Jacksonville, Kansas City and Tampa, holding back now means needing to absolutely splurge later, something they may not be able to afford.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Enough of this. I'm going to ask Joel Corry. He'll know.

My question: "Is there some specific reason there have been no tag & trades under the current CBA?"

His answer:

"No specific reason. Tag & trades were rare under the previous CBA."

If Cousins is tagged I'll ask about the trade scenarios. Joel Corry is a busy man.

[DEHog]

Bottom line is you can trade a tagged player; the reality is teams aren’t going to trade for a player that is tagged to play under the tag for their respective teams. Just like what happened with Bailey, Cassel , and Allen. Teams worked out a long term deal before making the trade; the player then signed the FT and was traded. So the answer to the question…can you negotiate more than the two picks mandated by signing a FT player is technically yes but what team would do that?? I can think of one who might but thank God the player we are talking about is on that team. I think for us to technically call it a trade or FT is splitting hairs the reality is in this case they can let Cousins go and work out a contract with any team and the Skins could match it, sit tight and take the two picks (which hasn’t happened since I think I read 2006 or 2008) or they can work out a trade. Like I said could they technically get more than two first round picks…under the FT no, but with a trade yes…but what team would be that stupid?

[Deadskins]

Why are the franchise-tag numbers lower?
The owners fought hard for this one, arguing that the tag numbers in 2011 had been artificially inflated because clubs had stashed money in the uncapped year. The Redskins, for example, did that with DeAngelo Hall and Albert Haynesworth, which caused seismic jumps in the franchise figures at corner and defensive tackle, respectively, and affected an across-the-board leap of 15-20 percent in price tags.

Well, that explains why they were so pissed off. Still doesn't justify the cap hits.