No tag on Moss [mergedx2] - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

SVN · 02-21-2008, 04:13 PM

i would be very very surprised if moss is not a patriot. Brady took the departure branch lying down, he wont this time.

patsfan47 · 02-21-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NHPatriot43

If thats true how come Indy signed Dallas Clark?

Am I missing something?

hmmm

Alright, there are three types of tags.

A. Exclusive franchise tag= no other team can contact or try to make offers to the tagged player

B. Non-exclusive= teams can negotiate with the player, the original team can either match the offer of the other team or receive two first round picks in compensation

C. transition tag= like non-exclusive version but with no compensation for the original team

Even though those are the rules of franchise tagging, the contract for a franchise tag does not have to be signed right away therefore the exclusive tag can just be used as a place holder so other teams can't negotiate with the player while the organization and said player are in long-term contract talks. Dallas Clark was tagged just in case they couldn't work out a deal in time for free agency in the mean time they managed to come to terms on a 6 year deal thus they removed the franchise tag. I think this is why you were confused, I am confused as to why we didn't just use the tag on moss to keep him in place just so he isn't tempted by someone else's huge offer.

If this is wrong anyone please feel free to correct me because I just have a vague idea of franchise tag parameters and would like to be notified if I am not correct

***DaBruinz*** · 02-21-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoganMankinsPancakeBlocks

It's really not a waste because we aren't going to use it anyways. Samuel was the only other one close to worthy of it, and he had the clause put in his contract that he couldn't be franchised if we won 13 games.

By franchising Moss, we guarantee a team like the Jaguars or any other team can't give his agent a call and let him know "Hey, we'll give Randy more than the Patriots did" and we aren't going to use the franchise tag anyways.

And all Moss has to tell is agent is that he's keeping his agreement with the Patriots.

Again, there is NO NEED to use the franchise tag if he's already agreed to a contract.

Why do people assume that ALL players are ruled by MONEY?

CrazyDave · 02-21-2008, 04:14 PM

I don't think it's neccessary to tag him. If they have an agreement, then why bother? To piss him off?
And if the agreement were to fall through, and we tagged him, then we have a pissed off Moss who does'nt want to be here. No thanks.
That's why I would'nt tag him.
This is not a situation where I want to force him to play here.

***PatsFanJess*** · 02-21-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgssand

Yup...I think it is great news that he is not tagged - had they tagged him, then no deal would be in place and it would be antibody's guess as to what would happen.

I think a nice 3 year deal is signed, sealed and ready to be delivered as soon as it is legal to announce!!

I agree with this.

***AndyJohnson*** · 02-21-2008, 04:44 PM

Arent there other issue that could come into play with the tag?
I know there are time periods where you can or cannot do an extension, and I know there is an issue about if the extension is done a certain way you lose the right to tag in the future.
I'm not sure of the details, but I dont think its just a case of throwing the tag out there and it leaves no risk.
I would assume cap implications come into it as well. If you tag the player, and dont do the extension for a while, your cap holds the entire tag cost. That could affect the ability to manuever.
One of a few things is going on here.
1) There is a deal agreed upon which will be sign on or about 2/29 or
2) The Patriots are not willing to carry Moss at the cap # if he doesnt agree to an extension or
3) The Patriots are not sure they want to commit to Moss' contract demands, or
4) One of the above and Moss expressed he would create waves if tagged.

I lean toward 1, heavily.

aluminum seats · 02-21-2008, 04:57 PM

I don't know, there's a part of me that thinks the Moss thing won't have a long shelf-life. Put me in the camp that whatever BB & SP decide to do here is probably the right call.

PatsFanInVa · 02-21-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

I don't know, there's a part of me that thinks the Moss thing won't have a long shelf-life. Put me in the camp that whatever BB & SP decide to do here is probably the right call.

Yep, I agree... I think this is stuff that none of the principals are nervous about, but we are.

Now, your moment of zen:

If he wants to go, somebody will outbid us. There are 31 teams out there, some of them willing to part with enormous bucks (cough redskins cough.)

If he doesn't want to go, he ain't going anyway, unless he's completely lowballed. This team is smart enough not to do that.

My guess is that there's a deal in place ready to be sprung around the 29th as well. If not, it might be the calculation that a tagged Moss is a worst-case scenario, but I doubt it.

I view the Moss hookup as too much of a win-win for either side to piss away.

PFnV

PatsFan24 · 02-21-2008, 06:16 PM

Moss will be back with a 3 or 4 year deal, and will have another great season in 2008. I hope the Pats can keep Samual and get some youth at LB. That is the real worry.

Snarf · 02-21-2008, 06:39 PM

Not even Moss??