Page 1 of 1
Franchise player - why not Smoot?
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:58 pm
by FanofallthatisGibbs
Why don't we have one listed this year? Smoot seems like he would have been a perfect target to mark "Franchise" in Free Agency this offseason.
I am just looking for the logical explanations of why we don't have a player marked as such.
Would it have crippled our negotiating with new FA's in repsect to salary cap issues?
Would it have brought us anything better in compensation SHOULD Smoot leave for another team's offer?
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:23 pm
by JansenFan
The franchise number for CB this year is a little over 10 million. We were only 9 million under the cap and we still had Coles to deal with.
Wasn't possible. You can take the gamble, but the Raiders did with Woodson, and he signed the tender offer, leaving the Raiders to scramble to find room to absorb the contract.
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:23 am
by The Hogster
Another reason is Gibbs valued Smoot comprable to a Top 10 CB and the offer reflects that. The franchise Tag is an average of the Top 5 players at that position. That would be like Gibbs valuing him at #10 and paying him Top 5 money..which may even be more than a negotiated amount in line with the 8-10 rated CB.
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:43 am
by FanofallthatisGibbs
Thanks for he insight...
I remember those rules now, was fuzzy earlier on little sleep
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:56 am
by BossHog
Franchise number for Cornerbacks is 8.8M not $10M... (Woodson got $10.5M because of the 120% rule)
All the franchise amounts are listed at the bottom of the FA Terms page in the free agency section.